The legitimate object of government, is to do for a community of people, whatever they need to have done, but can not do, at all, or can not, so well do, for themselves—in their separate, and individual capacities.–A. Lincoln
The focus should be on reforms (cuts) that do not affect those who currently receive or will soon be receiving benefits, but those who are a generation out.–Tom Reed
We need somebody who’s ready to stand up for Social Security and Medicare, the right to retire with dignity.–Martha Robertson
I want to quote Tom Reed on Social Security, but he has been coy, seldom committing his views to writing. At townhall meetings, not so often recently, he has been more forthright, saying that benefits must be cut to save Social Security for future generations. The Evening Tribune article cited below is a good example of Reed’s evasiveness. We read:
“Pretty much the consensus has come clear” on Social Security going bankrupt, Reed said.
This is vague. Tom may mean to say that Social Security benefits will eventually exceed revenue if nothing is done. Tom doesn’t mention a solution in the Evening Tribune article, other than suggesting that those on disability be encouraged to return to work, but has suggested on other occasions that benefits must be cut for future retirees. No wonder seniors, who don’t want reduced benefits for their children are concerned.
In an NewsfromTown article on an April 5 townhall meeting in Baldwin, we read:
Reed talked briefly about Social Security, asking if anyone knew when Social Security was due to go bankrupt. Chris Sherwood spoke up and said, “About the time I’ll be able to retire.” The congressman replied, “Then you will be retiring next year.” and went on to point out that in 12-16 months the Social Security program could go bankrupt yet there is no real plan to deal with the issue. He said the current way of looking at things is the plan to shift money from one account to the other, which is simply “robbing Peter to pay Paul”.
Again an irresponsible reference to bankruptcy without a hint of support for a responsible solution. Reed claims that working with No Labels he seeks to “secure Medicare and Social Security for at least 75 years,” but how, NY-23 asks?
© William Hungerford – September 2014