Images de page
PDF
ePub

Now, what I would like to suggest-I don't know the mechanism for it, I am not a politician. But it would seem to me that there are so many things that need doing that do not demand a full-time able-bodied person. And it would seem that is how collectors of social security could add to their income here, as indeed they do abroad, by having dignified jobs that society has a real need for. Now, I could list a few of those. Block watchmen for personal security-could be done by an older person, as indeed it is in Spain. You can go through any Spanish city any time of day or night, and there is no lack of security. People on social security or pensioners, they are out to the corners, and if there is any kind of thing brewing, they blow a whistle, and they are recognized; it is a dignified job; they wear a type of uniform, and this sets them apart from the populace at minimal pay and gives the pensioner something to do regularly, and keeps them essentially occupied and alert and cognizant of what is going on.

Another thing might be something like Foster Grandparents— generally child care or guards for children. A small job, such as maintaining this hall here, not a big job-touching up the paint work, fixing those chairs-this could be done on a part-time basis, maybe a few hours a day, by pensioners.

Litter, keeping flowers in the parks-we don't find flowers in parks in the United States. They are all over the place in Europe. We don't just have park guards or people prepared to garden.

This would seem to me-another thing is block health. We are worried about health care. It is absolutely appallingly expensive. But if there was somebody that people could go to with an ache and a pain-they don't have to be very skilled. They could whistle up some more skilled help, if necessary, but just people to go and counsel and talk to when they have problems.

This is the type of thing that I feel could add dignity to social security; it could add a supplement to social security if such were

demanded.

And I would suggest that a feeler towards this type of thrust could be put out profitably in Washington.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Thank you.

You are not talking about this as being a precondition to receiving social security, are you?

Mr. OUTWATER. Not a precondition, but something to be encouraged. It would give dignity, as the lady mentioned here before-her eye was going bad, and she was working at a very older age, and she said this kept her going. I feel this would be an important adjunct to the life and well being of older people and something maybe a society could expect, instead of this all-or-nothing proposition-we pay people for doing nothing.

Mr. JEFFORDS. I get a little confused when you talk about social security in that regard. Supposedly, at least, it was set up actuarily sound; you are receiving back that which was contributed for previous employment, and, therefore, I would certainly not agree that you ought to have a precondition to receiving your social security for continuing public service. But I can see, certainly, merit in the idea that a supplement could be earned by providing public service. Maybe you could clarify that for me, as to what you are saying. Mr. OUTWATER. That is what I mean.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Thank you very much.

This is the end of my list that I have here of witnesses who desire to testify. If there is anyone else here in the audience who desires to testify, may they step forward or forever hold their peace.

Peace.

Thank you very much. I appreciate everyone who came today. We had very fine and excellent testimony.

I must say I also want to express my sincere appreciation to the very kind gentleman who has just provided outstanding service. I will perhaps praise him again when I read the results of this transcript.

Kathleen

Thank you all for participating-particularly McGreevy, Sue Boardman, Elaine Kellogg; also Mr. Myers, who was with us through the entire hearing. And that took some doing, I must say. I certainly say if that is the kind of effort you are going to give, I know the results are going to be so outstanding we can unanimously adopt them.

Thank you.

[Whereupon, at 4:50 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.] [The following was received for the record:]

Hon. JAMES M. JEFFORDS,
South Winooski Avenue,
Burlington, Vt.

APPENDIX

VERMONT STATE COUNCIL OF SENIOR CITIZENS,
St. Albans, Vt., June 7, 1982.

DEAR CONGREssman Jeffords: Thank you very much for your letter of May 17th inviting me to attend a hearing of the Subcommittee on Retirement Income and Employment of the House Select Committee on Aging, and to make comments on the various issues of Social Security, employment, retirement savings and pension plans.

I find that I will be unable to attend this hearing, however I have written several comments on the issues of Social Security of which I am very much concerned and a few remarks on employment which if possible you could enter in your records of the hearing.

Sincerely,

H. R. BACHAND, Board Member.

COMMENTS ON ISSUES OF SOCIAL SECURITY BY H. R. BACHAND

To whom it may concern: My name is Harold Bachand and I am a regional Board member of the National Council of Senior Citizens also a member of the legislative Committee of the Vermont State Council of Senior Citizens. I understand that the hearing to be held at Woodstock Vt. June 11th covers various components of retirement income, Social Security, employment, retirement savings and pension plans. The President's original budget in order to finance supply side economics policy calls for deep cuts in domestic spending, while attempting to reduce federal deficit would have been very hard on the elderly, as it proposed to cut medicare, medicaid, senior community service employment programs etc., no proposals were being made for the Social Security program, this we were told to allow time for the bi-partisan Commission on Social Security reform to make and report its recommendations to the President in Dec. 1982, so quite evident the cuts are still pending.

It is my understanding that the new budget calls for cuts of 127 billions in domestic spending in three years, one half of these cuts would be made in two programs alone, Social Security and Medicare. For Senior Citizens these cuts are without question devastating. The Reagan administration and the Senate budget committee are seeking a 40 billion cut in Social Security spending over the next three years and to disguise these cuts they are calling them solvency proposals, to absolve themselves of the responsibility for cutting Social Security.

We Seniors oppose any cuts or changes in our benefits from Social Security, as we do not feel that cuts are being sought when solvency can be assured, not through benefit cuts but through interfund borrowing and loans or contributions from Federal revenues.

We don't need to raise retirement age, nor reduce benefits for early retirement, nor changes in computation formula to reduce future retirees, nor reductions in cost-of-living, all of these features will eventually do away with Social Security and with the economy in such a deplorable condition many recipients who now depend on this for subsistence will be reduced to the ranks of the very poor.

When we stop and consider pension plans, we now have as good as we will ever have, so I can see no reason to destroy it but try to improve it.

On the issue of employment on which this country is in serious trouble, due I feel to the great amount of foreign imports, we have only to look at the great amount of people who are now unemployed in the steel, auto, textile and other industries due primarily to the foreign imports, we must find ways to solve this problem.

(149)

WEST SEMINARY STREET,
Brandon, Vt., May 19, 1982.

Congressman JAMES M. JEFFORDS,
Longworth Office Building,

Washington, D.C.

DEAR SIR: While I would perhaps like to tell the committee my thoughts on Social Security and pension plans I would not be able to do so on June 11, 1982.

If you believe that my comments in letters to you are of value I would suggest that you reproduce those letters and let the members of the Committee read and discuss them whenever it is possible. You have my permission to use them in any way you see fit.

A good rule for all meetings of this sort. The mind can only absorb, what the seat can endure.

Sincerely,

JOSEPH BADGER. WEST SIMINARY STREET, Brandon, Vt., February 14, 1982.

Congressman JAMES M. JEFFORDS,

South Winooski Avenue,

Burlington, Vt.

DEAR SIR: Here are some things you might consider in your efforts to revise the present Social Security system.

First it was considered to be by most people an attempt by the government to help them manage to keep a roof over their heads, food on the table and clothes on their backs in their over 65 years. Later it was changed so that you could retire at 62 with slightly reduced benefits. All this was in addition to any savings that the person had managed to collect over the years. It was considered a contract between the government and the worker.

Now with all these talks of changes no person not yet retired and in fact some that are retired but not yet on Social Security know or can find out just where they stand at this point. Many have sort of lost faith in government because of this and also because of the tendency of Congress to feather their own nests by passing laws that help them either get raises or save on taxes.

As to private pension plans, some are good, some are not so good, and others are bad. Most of them have one thing in common, they tend to limit the company with them from hiring anyone over 35 because of the cost of putting that worker in the pension fund. Most of them also are not what they are cracked up to be when you get down to the fine print or leave the company.

Just to show you what I mean. I worked for about 171⁄2 years for the Ralston Purina company as a salesman. I left them in 72 with vested rights in their pension program and at the age of 46. I bought and ran a dairy farm until I sold it in 79 due to failing health.

Through the years my wife and I had managed to save a little money and with the sale of the farm we decided to retire and with the help of part time work live fairly well. Which we have done.

checked into my pension fund or plan and discovered that if I should die before I was 65 my wife would get only what I had payed in plus low interest and that was all. Social Security of course at this time is worth nothing as we have no children. Anything that the company had put in they kept. If I started to collect at 55 I would draw half what I would get at 65 for the rest of my life and that amount was good for 5 years even if I did die before the first 5 years were up.

Now Social Security is not really what it is or was cracked up to be either, for one thing if you do want to do something after you retire you can only earn so much or you lose benefits. Even so and even if you are drawing Social Security you still have to pay into it and so does your employer, which may be great for the system but does not make the retired worker very happy.

For the future I would rather see Social Security and all private pension plans put together with retirees drawing after they reach 62 about 75 percent, at 65 about 90 percent and at 68 the full 100 percent. I believe in this manner people would draw based on their earning. No company would refuse to hire because of their own pension plan and also if anyone wanted to work after starting to draw his pension there would be no more withholding from that worker and what he had earned he would collect on no matter what with no reduction in benefits.

I also believe that for anyone retired medicare should give full coverage health care. No one on a limited income today can afford the jumps that seem to come so

« PrécédentContinuer »