Social Security Mandatory Soc. Sec. Update Main Menu
| Home |
| Search |
| Legislation |
| COLA |
| Healthcare |
| Retirement Benefits |
| Investments |
| Social Security |
| Politics |
| Retirement Systems |
| Member Stories |
| Links for Retirees |
Syndicate
| Mandatory Soc. Sec. Update |
|
|
|
|
JANUARY 2000 - AARP Challenges Our Position - Perhaps
the old refrain, "just when you think it's safe," aptly describes
recent developments on mandatory Social Security for newly hired public
employees. "We know that we can't let down our guard on this issue, as
long as a comprehensive bill on Social Security has not been signed
into law," states Legislative Chairman Bill Hill.
Here's just another example why we must remain vigilant. According to the Coalition to Preserve Retirement Security (CPRS), the American Association of Retired Persons (AARP) is planning to conduct a $60,000 study to investigate the accuracy of claims that mandated Social Security will result in higher state and local taxes. AARP's study will also examine what it calls "non-federal public pension plans" and what has happened to "state government surpluses and their pension plans" during the '90s. According to CPRS, AARP's study is clearly aimed at discrediting a report by The Segal Company. That report demonstrated the enormous cost of mandated Social Security upon affected states, including Massachusetts. "Over a year ago, we had to take AARP to task for its position favoring mandatory Social Security (November 1998 Voice)," recalls the Association's Bill Rehrey. "What makes this stubborn adherence to this unsound position even more perplexing is the fact that AARP's president (Joseph S. Perkins) lives in Peabody. "Another AARP board director (Virginia L. Tierney) is from Quincy. They should realize what a fiscal disaster mandated Social Security would be for their cities and the Commonwealth." |
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|