Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

trof

(54,256 posts)
Thu Jan 29, 2015, 08:43 PM Jan 2015

Boilerplate reply from my congressman.

Bradley Byrne was elected from the 1st District in Alabama because his repug primary opponent was a batshit crazy teapartier and all the Dems and independents voted for the (somewhat) saner of the two.

The opposing Dem was a loser from the get go, although I did vote for him in the general election. How bad was he?
At a meeting I attended he said he was in favor of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) but thought there were problems with "Obamacare".
We gently explained that they were one and the same.


I sent Bradley an email asking that he introduce a bill to lift the salary cap on Social Security deductions and make them once again free from federal income tax as they were from inception until the Reagan administration decided to tax them.

This would help his 'senior' constituents a lot.
The high earners wouldn't suffer, and they'd get their S/S benefits back tax free.

His reply:
(Oh, he addresses me as Dr. I have no idea why.)

Dear Dr. trof:

Thank you for contacting me with regard to Social Security.

As must be clear to all Americans, our nation is on a fiscally unsustainable path – we are currently over $18 trillion in debt, and our average annual deficits have exceeded $1 trillion for each of the last six years. We have not arrived at this point because of the actions of one party or one administration; both parties have enacted programs that have increased our debt over decades. Because of this, it cannot and will not be reduced and controlled by one bill or even by one Congress.

If our nation is serious about fiscal reform, and the sustainability of Social Security, we must deal head-on with our ever increasing mandatory spending, which currently accounts for 65 percent of our overall expenditures and is the primary driver of increases in our national debt. These mandatory programs need reforming to ensure their solvency and long term viability. The Republican leadership of the House of Representatives and the Members of our conference remain open to discussing serious legislative solutions with our Senate colleagues and with the administration. Please be assured I will keep your thoughts in mind as we work to address these issues in the 114th Congress.

Again, thank you for contacting me on this matter. It is my great honor to serve as your Member of Congress, and it is my number one priority to represent you and the best interests of the First District of Alabama."

You see where he addressed my original comment, right?
Me neither.


7 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies

TexasTowelie

(112,097 posts)
2. My favorite line:
Thu Jan 29, 2015, 09:08 PM
Jan 2015

"...our average annual deficits have exceeded $1 trillion for each of the last six years."

So now they have to resort to using averages to further their crappy propaganda?

shraby

(21,946 posts)
3. That's just standard fare from republican representatives. I've had them even more meager
Thu Jan 29, 2015, 09:12 PM
Jan 2015

and totally ignore what I was complaining about...if they answered at all.

Thinkingabout

(30,058 posts)
4. Please clarify something for me, how is the higher wage earners going to get SS/benefits back
Thu Jan 29, 2015, 09:14 PM
Jan 2015

Tax free? There is a cap on how much one can get before their SS/Benefits are tax free.

trof

(54,256 posts)
5. I'll try.
Thu Jan 29, 2015, 09:42 PM
Jan 2015

Originally, S/S benefits were not federally taxable.
The bill passed under FDR specified that benefits would not be subject to federal income taxes.

This stood until they were made taxable during the Reagan administration.
The thinking (?) was that high income individuals shouldn't get a 'free ride' and should pay income tax if their net income exceeded a certain amount.

Why not give everyone the ORIGINAL tax free benefit?

Lifting the cap (currently around $180,000?) on Social Security contributions would 'cure' any 'perceived' shortfall in funding forever.

High income individuals wouldn't suffer.
It would just cost them a bit more and they'd still be high income and enjoy the lifestyles that they do.

On retirement, they'd be paid back tax free.
Win-Win, no?

Thinkingabout

(30,058 posts)
6. I guess my question involved if one's income went above a certain level when filing income taxes
Thu Jan 29, 2015, 10:12 PM
Jan 2015

Then the amount of soial security becomes taxable. The amount in earnings, pension, etc does not hve to be very large to have the SS benefits included in the amount one is responsible for paying taxes.

trof

(54,256 posts)
7. I replied to his email.
Fri Jan 30, 2015, 08:21 PM
Jan 2015

Asked him to address the specific comments I made.
I got a reply.

"Dear Dr. trof:

Thank you for contacting me with regard to the federal minimum wage."

I said NOTHING about the minimum wage.
I guess that was just next on his list of canned responses.
This is getting to be fun.



Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Boilerplate reply from my...