Probably some damned LEGALITY!!
Posted on 08/23/2012 11:44:38 AM PDT by SmithL
Rep. Pete Stark, 80, has seven children; three are minors, the product of his third marriage. He once told the Los Angeles Times that he calls the three youngest his "second litter." Lucky Stark. Thanks to a dated Social Security system, he enjoys a "second-litter" subsidy.
As Carolyn Lochhead wrote in The Chronicle, Stark has reported a net worth as high as $27 million, and he earns $174,000 as a member of Congress. Nonetheless, Stark's three minor children are collecting benefits from Social Security.
The Social Security Administration estimates that 4.4 million kids, mostly children of deceased or disabled parents, receive $2.5 billion each month; 609,000 minors receive an average monthly benefit of $605 because their parents are retired.
Heritage Foundation senior fellow David John told me that Washington created the children's benefit in 1939, when "most families were one-earner families. When a father retired, there was no more money coming in." The children's benefit, John said, "was really meant as a protection for someone who has essentially little income."
America's demographics have changed a lot since 1939, but the children's benefit has not adapted. A program designed to keep poor families afloat after the retirement of a breadwinner has morphed into a "second-litter" subsidy for older men who start second families.
Dublin City Councilman Eric Swalwell, a Democrat, is challenging Stark in November. Swalwell has no problem with Stark cashing his Social Security check. "He receives his own benefit check, which he's entitled to receive," Swalwell said. (The government makes retirees accept benefits when they turn 70.)
But when it comes to the children's benefit, which was designed to provide the necessities of life so children could complete high school, Swalwell accused Stark of "gaming the system."
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
Don’t be fooled by this article. It’s only intent is to advance the cause of changing the Social Security program from what is, in essense (although underfunded), a mandatory social INSURANCE program to a welfare program by gradually adding in “means testing”. This is one change that frequently gets applauded by Republicans that I would disagree with.
The change would be akin to mandating life insurance and, upon the policyholder’s death, checking out the policy holder’s (or his/her survivors’) net worth and income. If too high, the survivors would be told “sorry, you’re a high income person and therefore you’re not going to be paid these death benefits”.
In other words, it’s just another cleverly disguised liberal tax/transfer of wealth. Another step in the destruction of our liberties and rights.
You talk about the hypocrisy of the left.
They are crazy over Akin’s remarks,but they’ve voted this arrogant,ignorant,piece of crap back into office time and time again.His constituents are just as “stark raving mad” as he is.
Second litter. About what you’d expect from a dog.
My father was 50 when I was born (not a second litter, last of 5 children), so I received Social Security for a few years.
I think I blew it on Model Rockets.
As someone not-quite-second-litter (38yo mom, 33yo dad) I envy you Wir and only wish I could have had such a windfall to blow on my favourite hobby.
Incorrect. Nobody is "forced" to file for benefits. Rep. Stark is also NOT a retiree. Serving members of Congress should not be eligible for SSA retirement benefits.
I have no intention of it, nor by you.
It’s only intent is to advance the cause of changing the Social Security program from what is, in essense (although underfunded), a mandatory social INSURANCE program to a welfare program by gradually adding in “means testing”.
It always was a welfare program DISGUISED as an insurance program. Frankly, what we need is for it to cost less. Means testing is a just means in a transition toward getting rid of it entirely while minimizing the damage to our disastrous fiscal situation.
You are right, of course. But, the guy is not retired, is he? He’s serving as a congressman. So why are his children getting benefits?
I’m not sure ALL means testing should be ruled out, but that’s a long discussion for another day.
Oh?
Did Stark write ANY of the 'law'?
Can he keep them from REWRITING it?
If they (whoever 'they' are) had 'intended' for po' fo'k to use the benefits; 'they' should have written the law that way.
Simple: CHANGE THE LAW.
Probably some damned LEGALITY!!
You are right, of course. But, the guy is not retired, is he? He’s serving as a congressman. So why are his children getting benefits?
****************************************************************
I, of course, don’t know the congressman’s particular circumstances. But I think I can make a pretty good guess.
Once a person reaches “full retirement age” (for me that would be age 66) that person can apply for and begin to collect his/her Social Security “retirement” benefits and NOT HAVE THOSE BENEFITS REDUCED BECAUSE OF EARNED INCOME that may come from work. Retirees younger than 66 who work with have their social security benefits reduced (I think it’s by $1 for each $2 of earnings over a certain level—but don’t hold me to that). Congress made this change to age 66 (it used to be age 70 when this “exemption” from the earned income reduction took affect) to not punish those who wished or needed to work after regular retirement age.
So Stark probably applied for his Social Security retirement benefits when he reached age 70. He earned whatever Social Security retirement benefits he is receiving. When I reach age 70 I plan (easy for me to say NOW—when I’m younger and in great health) continuing to work and applying for Social Security benefits.
Another provision that I know about (because I’ve know folks in this situation; albeit not old folks) is that ANYONE drawing Social Security benefits will, in addition to his/her own SS benefit, also receive a small supplement for minor children (up to age 18?) in his/her care. This provision has existed as long as I can remember.
So Stark is entitled to these Social Security benefits just like all of us (or maybe most of us) are. A lot of the votes he makes in Congress are wrong, but his getting these benefits is not wrong. And God bless his little liberal heart for having these young children. We’re going to need them paying taxes when they are older/working and we are retired. If they haven’t rebelled by then and refused to support retirees any further. Maybe I’ll try harder to save more money for retirement.
“Don’t be fooled by this article. It’s only intent is to advance the cause of changing the Social Security program from what is, in essense (although underfunded), a mandatory social INSURANCE program to a welfare program by gradually adding in “means testing”. This is one change that frequently gets applauded by Republicans that I would disagree with.”
Once the people on Social Security and the future recipients DEMANDED that MY KIDS pay for their retirement luxuries, then it ceased being an insurance program, and simply became another form of WELFARE. And being WELFARE, I feel TOTALLY EMPOWERED to control its waste - such as giving money to people that don’t need it, or whose kids can support them in old age.
Sorry if I hurt your feelings, but MY KIDS should not have to inherit THE MESS that your generation (and mine, for that matter) has left, which is an unfunded ‘retirement’ program.
Thanks for your reply, again let me say, of course you are right. I didn’t think about how old this guy is!
I have to say I am counting on my soc. sec. benefits in my old age but of course some reform must come.
As the plan is currently structured it IS a ponzi scheme and it must be improved upon while somehow maintaining the “safety net” features, so that if your parent is not a rich person like Mr. Stark and they die at age 30 you get some benefits.
PS to my prior reply.
That might be one area ripe for reform: if your parent is still working you DO NOT get benefits regardless of your parent’s age.
Also, while the worker is entitled to his/her benefits perhaps means-testing in general could be applied to dependants (which would include spouses).
I’ve read that social security is not the potential fiscal black-hole that medicare is, I’m not sure if that is accurate or not.
Let’s hope so!
“.....Sorry if I hurt your feelings, but MY KIDS should not have to inherit THE MESS that your generation (and mine, for that matter) has left, which is an unfunded ‘retirement’ program.”
**************************************************************
Not to worry—my feelings weren’t hurt. I was just pointing out what (to the limited extent I understand it) I thought the current Social Security law was.
I’m actually with you; I think that Social Security needs substantial reforming and needs to transition (over time, we didn’t get into the monstrous hole we’re in overnight) to something that is sound financially. I think that moving toward individual accounts and individual responsibility/ownership likely need to be key components.
With the new conservative reinforcements that I think will be elected to Congress this November there may actually be some chance for this and other responsible changes in our nation’s finances.
“Not to worry—my feelings weren’t hurt.”
Thanks much. I’ve been screamed at on this site too many times to recall. I’m with you - LET’S FIX IT!!!
Stark Raving Mad had to APPLY for his kids to get OUR MONEY!! HYPOCRITES, CHEATS and SCOUNDRELS!
If he had ANY integrity, he would not be taking this money. He’s a MULTI MILLIONAIRE who is still WORKING! His wife probably doesn’t want him around the house!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.