Congress DOES participate in Social Security

[Kim Yonkee]

Just thought I'd point this out, since I'm getting e-bombed with messages like, "If a private investment plan is good enough for Congress, it's good enough for us!"

The sordid truth:

Before 1983, our reps and other civil servants did particpate in a different program. People who were hired or elected before 1983 remain in that program.

But for more than 20 years, Congress has been in the same pot of Social Security Soup as the rest of us.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/taxes/pensions.asp

[OvertheRiver]

Actually, in 1983, we civil servants had the choice to go with the new retirement format or stay with the old one. I opted to stay with the old one, and in 1995, when I left civil service, I had the option to leave the money where it was and not draw it until I reached the age where I would have retired from the government, OR I could pull all the principle out and reinvest it myself. I opted to pull it out on the theory that I would rather be in charge of my money then the government. I did reinvest, and that proved to be a wise decision.....for me......

I know less than nothing about the revised social security proposal other than just a general overview; however, back when the government pension system converted, civil service employees were also given the option to invest some of their retirement savings. They had (I guess still have) several investment choices (funds, plans, etc) available, all government-approved. They could NOT invest any of that money outside of those pre-approved choices.

I do not know whether the current proposal includes some sort of similar safeguard, but I expect that it would. I am no more inclined to pay taxes to support those who did not invest wisely than anyone else is.

[Becky Davis]

What if you had done all of the research and say "chose Enron"? No one could fault these people for not being wise.


[This message has been edited by Becky Davis (edited 02-05-2005).]