Related Articles
Related Articles
The IBEW Journal received too many letters to include in our May print edition for the Letters to the Editor section. Scroll down to read the full text of these and other letters received.. I disagree with your assessment of the present Social Security system. While it may be possible to pay 80 percent of its bills in 2054, Im sure the retirees would like their full amount. That is why we need to act now. I realize most Democrats hate George W. too much to support his plan. That is to be expected from immature partisan hacks like the Dems in Congress. But to deny there is a problem, and to continue on the same partisan course even after you see the cliff, is just plain stupid. The present system is failing fast and we need to fix it now before there is none for workers like me. Before you go condemning the presidents plan, why dont you do a little math and look at the numbers. After that why dont you ask some of us "under 40" members if we think S.S needs fixing? Your job is to support (and represent) IBEW workers young, old, liberal, and conservative. How about doing whats right for us, not whats on the Democrat, Liberal, or Socialist agenda? If you didnt notice, during the last election more union members voted for Republicans than ever before. Maybe its because of the war, maybe its because they got smart. A little truth and education goes a long way. Maybe you should try a little unbiased truth in the IBEW Journal for a change. David A. Stapleford The January/February editorial "Sense and Security" by O'Connor only scratches the surface. The Bush administration started their campaign on Social Security reform stating it was in crisis but quickly backed off using the term crisis when the left and members of the right disagreed. According to this administration, Social Security at its current state would last until 2042, but under the Bush reform the depletion would accelerate to around 2018, unless billions were borrowed to support the reform. The result would leave the next generation with the burden of repaying the debt. The topic of debt raises another point. The Bush administration has reported that a conservative 1.8 percent yearly increase of the Gross National Product would fuel the national economy that in turn would support the president's plan for reform. However, when the topic of decreasing the national debt is discussed the administration uses a 3 percent increase in the GNP. Which is it? We'll have to keep scratching through four more years of misinformation, half-truths and lies. John McManus President Bush sir, you are traversing the country asking the people for ideas to help Social Security. Try this, raise the cap and cut the crap. T. Francis Hanley President Hill's response to Brothers Harrison and Justice letters in the March 2005 Journal was spot on. We indeed need to move away from the past divisive election and move forward. We are a brotherhood within a union that stands for much more than the current regimes agenda's that attack the core values of our International Union. I challenge each of the aforementioned brothers to stand up and fight for what is right about our union. If not, then resign yourself to the platform that Bush seems to cater to: Divisive issues, meant to divide unions. And while you are at it, don't just check your values at the door, check your ticket at the door. Hang on all of you. Maybe your president will help you. Then again, maybe not. Mark Bonar I applaud the president on his recent decision to fix Social Security, the program that he called "the single most successful government program in history." I have a plan that will kill two birds with one stone. Fix Social Security permanently and quiet the sniveling ULTRA RICH who are forever whining about "tax fairness" because they pay a larger percentage of their earnings than does, say, the old retired widow that has to eat cat food because she cant afford her gas bill and her medications. As you know, all wages over $87,900 are free of the 12.4 percent S.S. tax. My plan would impose that very same 12.4 percent tax on ALL compensation-wages, bonuses value of stock giveaways, etc., NO LID. What could be fairer than that? Just think; Ken Lay of Enron, who made $200 million from 1999-2001, would have paid 24.8 million into the fund. David Wittig of Westar would have paid 3.1 m during his 7 years as CEO. Michael Eisner, CEO of Disney, who made $8.3 million last year, would pay $1,029,200 for 2004 alone. This one small change would make S.S. solvent permanently. It would be so healthy, we could possibly allow creation of the 2 percent personal accounts the president wants, and maybe afford a small raise for those most in need. There you go, Mr. president-tax fairness for the neo-conservative crowd, S.S. saved for the rest of us. I know you'll be so impressed with the simplicity and fairness of this plan, you'll want to hire me to help Karl Rove and Dick Cheney run this fine country. I'll be waiting by the phone. Bob Mathews I have had many heated discussions with fellow IBEW members about politics and policy and it always boils down to the same old arguments. Anyone who simply addresses our nations rising gun violence is labeled as wanting to "take our guns away." Anyone who talks of our misguided foreign policy is labeled "soft on terrorism." Mention the death toll of our soldiers and innocent civilians and the subject of abortion is thrown in our faces. Mention social policy and be labeled a "tax and spend card carrying member of the ACLU." The Republicans have become experts on using scare tactics to avoid any real discussion of the issues and to convince otherwise rational Americans to vote against their own best interests. The facts: Failed states produce more terrorism (Afghanistan, Lebanon, Somalia and now Iraq). Doubling our current national debt to restructure Social Security is not a "fix." Borrowing trillions on the backs of future generations to wage world war while also seeking huge tax cuts for those implementing this policy is a sin. We will have had eight years of Republicans controlling the executive and legislative branches of government and never will they try to overturn Roe v. Wade. Why? The Republicans would be at a loss without the passion that this issue generates. It is the ultimate in hypocrisy. Now they are taking the "moral high ground" on the Terry Schiavo case not for any humanitarian reasons, but because they have the opportunity to exploit a "great political issue," distract us from their failed policy and to make the Democrats look bad. Analyzing Bushs congressional record should be enough to convince any hardworking IBEW member on how to vote. The fact that the scare tactics of the right really do work makes me thankful that we have union members, union leaders and the IBEW Journal to continue to present our case. Regardless of the differences we have politically, we cannot even begin to advance our cause without at least electing those that have not vowed to help defeat the labor movement by any means and to solely advance the agenda of big business. Of course we are all dependent on business being successful, but the pure-profit motive left unchecked behaves as treasonous as any enemy of America. Kevin M. Babcock It's sad to see that any body, let alone a union member, fall for Bush's scare tactics. If Christopher Harrison is worried about his children's future, he better wake up and see what Bush is doing to our country. He is not only sending all our jobs overseas, he's also importing cheap labor to take all our jobs. Maybe in Illinois he doesn't see it so much, but here in Colorado we see thousands of both legal and illegal immigrants taking our jobs. These people work here, but do not pay taxes or spend the money they make here. It's destroying our economy and needs to be stopped. I would think a family man would be more worried about feeding his family than a useless attack on Iraq. Gary M Johnson In response to "Attempting to Diminish" in March 2005 letters to the editor. Is President Bush's plan to change Social Security wrong? Why does the gut response have to be right out of the democratic nation party platform? John, what was wrong years ago was the moving of the money collected for social security into the general fund. What was wrong next, was to then tax this money. Yet never once did we as a union or a group stand up for what was right. The overtime reform this past year... a good bill... if you do not believe me read it. Even tradesmen newspapers came out stating at one time... "this bill is not bad at all" A good man is nominated to be a judge and because he is Hispanic, he is not even allowed to be voted for or against... I still have not figured that one out. The social security issue... we need the facts... talk to financial people who can explain it. Two of them I have heard, both say the 2 percent of what we pay into social security now could be put into securities (that federal employees now are using) will benefit everyone in the long run. Is the plan wrong..? I do not know. But to just spout off and repeat someone who first said it was wrong before they even saw the plan... let us drop the politics, get it done and done right for everyone involved. Thomas N. Tatar Having received the March edition of the IBEW Journal, I want to commend Edwin D. Hill on his article "Feeling The Heat" and Jeremiah J. O'Connor for his article "Seek The Truth." I'm very impressed with their outward approach with the way it REALLY is! I look forward to my Journal as being one of the great contacts I have with my past. Looking forward to many years of strong IBEW leadership. Continue defending the working people. Gordon B. Weiss
|
LETTERS |
