Social Security
Mandatory Soc. Sec. Still Looms | Mandatory Soc. Sec. Still Looms |
|
|
|
|
MAY 1999 - Association Talks With Federal And State Officials - Uncertain
is one way to describe the current status of mandatory Social Security
in the Congress. With that in mind, the Association, and the Mass
Coalition to Preserve Retirement Security (to which we belong), have
been working hard to insure that those representatives against
mandatory coverage stand firm while persuading the uncommitted to come
out in opposition.
To that end, the Association has reached out to both sides of the aisle - Republican and Democrat - and at the state and federal levels. “You can’t leave anything to chance on this issue,” states Association President Ralph White. “We don’t want to look back and regret not touching all the bases.” Democrats And Republicans Alike Oppose Mandate Recently, President White and other Association officials met with US Representative Michael Capuano in his Cambridge district office. “Even before he went to Congress, Rep. Capuano has been there for public retirees, and on mandatory coverage, he is still in our corner,” according to White. “We’ve never doubted his commitment but felt the meeting was important to let him know that we’re there for him.” Obviously, since the Congress is controlled by the Republicans, the Association must do what it can to reach out to them. For example, Congressman John Kasich (R-Ohio), who is chairman of the powerful House Budget Committee, was the guest of this state’s Republican House Political Action Committee. This event provided the Association’s Shawn Duhamel with an excellent opportunity to discuss with the influential congressman his position on mandatory Social Security. “These opportunities don’t present themselves often, so we were determined to take advantage,” states Duhamel. When Duhamel raised the issue, Congressman Kasich was most direct in his response. “Well-funded systems, like that in the Commonwealth, should not be disrupted but left alone by the federal government. I am not in favor of mandatory coverage.” Complimenting our work with Republicans at the federal level, we had been assisting Governor Cellucci’s staff on the issue. Before attending a Governors Conference in February, Association representatives provided briefing papers, outlining mandatory Social Security’s impact on the state’s economy. In addition to ourselves, other Coalition members approached Governor Cellucci earlier this year. “Just before he left for the (Governors) Conference, I had a chance to speak with Governor Cellucci personally,” reports Coalition member Fred McCray, president of the Mass Association of Contributory Retirement Systems (MACRS). “I emphasized to the Governor MACRS’s opposition and the urgent need to defeat mandatory Social Security.” Apparently, this work, and the efforts of other Coalition members, paid off. During the Conference, Governor Cellucci and many influential governors, including Texas’ George W. Bush and Michigan’s John Engler, sent a joint letter to President Clinton, opposing mandatory Social Security. Other Coalition Work As for the Coalition, their efforts are ongoing in Washington, D.C., as well as at the State House. Congressional hearings on Social Security are expected to be scheduled shortly, and Coalition representatives will be there to testify. At press, the only representative on the Mass. delegation which remains uncommitted is Representative Edward Markey. In the meantime, Coalition members have been meeting with congressional staff to lay the groundwork. At the State House, the Coalition has been working with House Minority Whip Brad Jones (R-North Reading) to prepare and issue a resolution that would be sent to the Congress, setting forth the Legislature’s opposition to mandatory Social Security. Tom Lussier, a key member of the Coalition, will be giving a major address to members of our 106 retirement boards at the MACRS Spring conference in Hyannis this June. Lussier, director of the Teachers’ Retirement Board has been a leading spokesman against mandatory coverage and for the current public pension system. |
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|