PDA

View Full Version : Reply from Senator Coburn



pphilfran
9/20/2011, 10:43 AM
I like this guy!

Mr. Pphilfran
Lawton, Oklahoma 73507

Dear Mr. Pphilfran,

Thank you for contacting me regarding your concerns about Social Security. I appreciate the opportunity to hear from you, and for your kind words of support, and I apologize for the delay in my response. It was not my intention to keep you waiting.

You ask good questions about the nature of the Social Security "trust funds." The unfortunate reality, as you point out, is that the Social Security trust funds are separate funds from the general U.S. treasury in name only. Congress has repeatedly and unacceptably raided any excess funds taxed for Social Security purposes to pay for non-Social Security related spending. By most estimates, approximately $2.6 trillion has been stolen from the Social Security trust funds since 1987. I am appalled by Congress' irresponsible stealing from the retirement savings of America's workers. The Social Security trust fund is not Congress' personal piggy bank. What's more, the government can only raise this "IOU" money in the trust funds at taxpayer expense-by issuing more public debt, raising taxes, or cutting spending elsewhere.

You are correct that beneficiaries would be better off had Congress not spent surplus Social Security tax payments, and had truly invested such funds in the appropriate mixture of investments. However, it may also interest you to know that even if Congress had not behaved so recklessly in spending funds due the Social Security trust funds, that Social Security reform would still be a pressing need. According to the Social Security trustees, those already in Social Security will get back $18.7 trillion (present value) more than they contributed to the program. Meaning, even if the $2.6 trillion Congress spent, wrongfully, on other priorities had been saved, trillions more would be needed to fund the benefits of current retirees.

As a result, I feel strongly that Congress must protect current and future beneficiaries by immediately reforming the system. It may interest you to know that I recently released a Social Security reform proposal that ensure the program continues to serve those who rely on it, and to deter waste, fraud and abuse currently present in the system. If you are interested, you may access a copy of this plan, called "Back in Black," on my website at: <a href="http://www.coburn.senate.gov/">www.coburn.senate.gov</a>.



Thank you again for taking the time to contact me. If you would like to further our conversation, please do not hesitate to write to me again. Best wishes.



Sincerely,



Tom A. Coburn, M.D.

United States Senator

badger
9/20/2011, 10:52 AM
A lot of people on both sides of Congress (I'm talking House and Senate, not Repubs and Dems, sillies) have been hiding from constituents as polls are showing how unpopular elected officials are. Coburn, I'm happy to say, has not shied away from Oklahomans, nor doing what he thinks is right. It's respectable, even if you disagree with him.

If you haven't already, attend a Coburn town hall meeting and compare it to any other one you've attended with another elected official. He can absolutely go toe-to-toe with the (usually outspoken, angry and hostile) crowds that show up to these, and if they try to shout, he will shout back :D

TUSooner
9/20/2011, 03:12 PM
The more I hear about Tom Coburn, or from him, the more I really like the guy.

SicEmBaylor
9/20/2011, 04:19 PM
The best compliment that I can give Coburn is that he's one of the very few worthy of the title he holds.

SoonerMom2
9/20/2011, 04:32 PM
Dr. Tom is the best and why so many of us in 2004 rolled up our sleeves as the grassroots to help get him elected. Establishment types aka Rove/Hastert/an OK Congressman tried everything they could to defeat him by turning off his fundraising in DC but it didn't work. He had the grassroots of Oklahoma behind him and he won a 3-way primary outright when the establishment pick imploded at the State Committee Meeting and one of our Cong had to finally admit Humphreys was not the guy and went on to win the general even though Hastert said three weeks before the general there was no way he could win.

Dr. Tom is what we need in the Senate because he tells it like it is and is not afraid to rock the boat.

SicEmBaylor
9/20/2011, 04:41 PM
Dr. Tom is the best and why so many of us in 2004 rolled up our sleeves as the grassroots to help get him elected. Establishment types aka Rove/Hastert/an OK Congressman tried everything they could to defeat him by turning off his fundraising in DC but it didn't work. He had the grassroots of Oklahoma behind him and he won a 3-way primary outright when the establishment pick imploded at the State Committee Meeting and one of our Cong had to finally admit Humphreys was not the guy and went on to win the general even though Hastert said three weeks before the general there was no way he could win.

Dr. Tom is what we need in the Senate because he tells it like it is and is not afraid to rock the boat.

I agree with every single word you just said.

I would routinely talk to people back then who were biting their nails over the polls that all showed Coburn within 2-4 pts and the moe of Carson. Anyone involved in the ground campaign in that election could see that the samples were under-representing Coburn's grassroots support.

badger
9/20/2011, 05:12 PM
Carson just got an Obama job, so don't look for him to challenge Dr. Tom again.

I was amazed at what transpired in 2004. We had to see Humphries EVERYwhere on the TV ads. He clearly had crazy financial backing and that usually is enough in most statewide elections. I think there was also a corp commish that ran as well. Bob Anthony, I think?

Coburn somehow aces 'em both. Go, doc, go. Someday, hope he writes a book on how he got to Washington and handled sh!t once he got there.

East Coast Bias
9/21/2011, 05:55 PM
I thought you guys might appreciate a liberal spin on some of this while you are patting Mr. Coburn on the back. If you read his plan for Social Security on his web site it basically proposes cutting benefits and making it harder for people to get benefits they have bought and paid for. If he really is interested in making Social Security solvent FOREVER there is a simple one-move way to get the job done. Raise the contribution cap from 106K to 250K. People making more than 106k will simply put more money into the shrinking pot. Doesn't this make more sense than making people wait until they are 70 to draw benefits? Some of his ideas are really good as it pertains to fraud and missmanagement, the rest will be hard to sell to old-folks...... Don't be hating on me, I am a true Sooner.....

okie52
9/22/2011, 09:30 AM
No hating east coast bias...just disagree.

I don't think it would require raising the cap to 250k....seems like I heard around 160k.

I am not too far from being able to obtain SS benefits and I say move the age back to 68-70, whatever it takes to make SS solvent. Life expectancy was much lower when SS started and it really has never been adjusted for that change.

And make it a law that congress and/or the prez can't raid SS. We wouldn't be in this mess if that had been the case.

soonercruiser
9/22/2011, 10:55 AM
The more I hear about Tom Coburn, or from him, the more I really like the guy.

I have gotten good "personal" responses from Coburn on several issues.
Too bad he has no higher aspirations.

soonercruiser
9/22/2011, 10:58 AM
Carson just got an Obama job, so don't look for him to challenge Dr. Tom again.

I was amazed at what transpired in 2004. We had to see Humphries EVERYwhere on the TV ads. He clearly had crazy financial backing and that usually is enough in most statewide elections. I think there was also a corp commish that ran as well. Bob Anthony, I think?

Coburn somehow aces 'em both. Go, doc, go. Someday, hope he writes a book on how he got to Washington and handled sh!t once he got there.

Badger!
He has already written a book! Breech of Trust!
I have a personally autographed copy!

yermom
9/22/2011, 11:03 AM
No hating east coast bias...just disagree.

I don't think it would require raising the cap to 250k....seems like I heard around 160k.

I am not too far from being able to obtain SS benefits and I say move the age back to 68-70, whatever it takes to make SS solvent. Life expectancy was much lower when SS started and it really has never been adjusted for that change.

And make it a law that congress and/or the prez can't raid SS. We wouldn't be in this mess if that had been the case.

did you not read the original post?

badger
9/22/2011, 11:07 AM
Badger!
He has already written a book! Breech of Trust!
I have a personally autographed copy!

I know, but politicians, even ones that are anti-politician politicians, never can stop at just one book :D

okie52
9/23/2011, 09:23 AM
did you not read the original post?

YOu are right...I have some of Boren's egg on my face.

Ton Loc
9/23/2011, 09:29 AM
I am not too far from being able to obtain SS benefits and I say move the age back to 68-70, whatever it takes to make SS solvent. Life expectancy was much lower when SS started and it really has never been adjusted for that change.


I thought this too, but turns out the average is pretty low because of the infant mortality rate and the percentage of people who didn't live long enough to contribute to Social Security back then. You take that into account and it is around 5 years.

Still, I'm fine with them raising the age. A 5 year difference times a few million people should make a significant impact.