Readers on Social Security

Editor: I was encouraged when I read David Keene’s piece on the Democrats refusing to face the need for Social Security reform. Then I saw a Wash. Post article "Critics May Force Change In Social Security Plan" (by Mike Allen and Charles Babington, The Washington Post). Bill Frist, the Senate's top Republican, said that a vote on President Bush's bid to restructure Social Security might be pushed off until next year and might not involve the individual accounts for which the White House has been lobbying. I had sensed what he wrote would encourage Republicans to turn up the burner. Instead, Senator Frist seemed to be back off! Then, he backed off that statement and then Speaker Denis Hastert said the bill would be put off until next year. What is going on? Steve Auvil

Editor: Thank you for David Keene’s update on the Social Security issue. However, he has some errors. Specifically when explaining the program he stated, "...Current benefits are not and never have been paid out of money earned by investing a worker's payments during his lifetime but out of the money paid in each year by those still working. There is nothing inherently wrong with that, even if it isn't how the program was explained. ..." Actually there IS something wrong with that system. It is a Ponzie scheme. If a corporation tried to set up their retirement program in the same manner they would be prosecuted vigorously by the government for using such a plan. The law states an employee's contributions into a retirement fund must be in a special protected account and may not be used for other purposes! In my youth I thought (erroneously) of Social Security as the forced participation in what now are called IRAs. At one time there was a "Trust Fund". But now it is a Ponzie Scheme and integrity is challenged when they call the program "voluntary." If it is truly voluntary I should have the choice to NOT participate in the program. Another way for me and my employer to go to jail! It was also set up as a supplement to retirement! And conveniently the age set to receive the Social Security benefits was a few years higher than the life expectancy! Ergo, most people died before they received the benefits! Further, too many other benefits were added which has nothing to do with retirement. (Example: My father retired. My youngest sibling was about 12 years old. He received a Social Security check every month until he turned 18. He had not contributed to the plan. But because he was 12 when his father retired he got a check every month. Too many giveaways also contributed to the crisis. I like the privatization of Social Security that is now used successfully in Chile and selected locations in the US. I realize the Democrat scare tactics prevent us changing to that immediately. However, hopefully we can transform into that system! Sincerely, Kurt Nygaard

Editor: Tax reform is more important than Social Security reform. The quickest way back to prosperity for American Families is HR25 on tax reform, Why not support that ideal and stop making excuses for the big government Republicans whose spending makes Clinton look conservative! Clay Dalton

Editor: The solution to Social Security that has emerged from my study on the subject provides a comprehensive solution to restore the $11 trillion in current Fund shortfalls within ten (10) years. It does not rely upon increases in taxation, additional unsupportable federal borrowings, or near-term benefit cuts. The process and proposal focuses on a structured finance approach to a comprehensive program of federal government entitlement services privatization combined with a workable debt defeasence funding approach that has not been discussed in the public realm. Thank you for your work on behalf of all of us. Sincerely, Clinton E. Lovell, Managing Principal, Rainmaker Bankruptcy Consultants, Houston, Texas

Editor: In the second from last paragraph of David Keene’s article, after he has explained the process by which present-day workers' taxes (and the Supreme Court has also ruled that SS deductions are taxes!) are used to pay the benefits given to retired workers, he states "There is nothing inherently wrong with that, even if it isn't how the program was explained." But is there not something inherently wrong with that system? Basically, it takes money earned by (currently) three people and pays it to someone like me (and I am a retired senior drawing benefits), who didn't actually earn it (even though I earned something else at a different time). Now, if I were to go to your desk and take money from it for my use, you'd prosecute me for theft!! Therefore, having the government use force and duress to take money from workers to pay others who have stopped working is theft as well!! THE ONLY HONEST MEANS TO PROVIDE BENEFITS FOR RETIREMENT IS TO PROVIDE A WAY FOR THE WORKERS THEMSELVES TO PUT ASIDE FUNDS DURING THEIR WORKING YEARS TO REMAIN IN AN ACCOUNT OWNED BY THE INDIVIDUAL WORKER TO WHICH HE/SHE SHALL ALWAYS HAVE THE RIGHT!!

The government, always eager to tell us what's best for us---without walking in our shoes---foisted this monstrosity upon us. If the government, be it Dems, GOP, or some other party, wants to do something honest, it should do the following:
1. Change the system so that monies now deducted go into brand new totally private accounts. CONGRESS IS NEVER TO TOUCH THAT MONEY!
2. Declare in the bill that creates the new system that this money belongs to the worker and not to the government, with rights of inheritance!
3. If the government still doesn't trust the citizens with investing those funds, then invest them in the safest possible investment.
4. If they really want to get people behind this move, declare that withdrawals from the saved funds will be tax free. Then people will get behind it like you can't believe!
5. Reduce spending in other areas. A man named Willis Stone did studies in the 50s and 60s and found that if the government would stop competing with private businesses, there would be such a reduction in government spending that the so-called "income" tax (which is nothing but theft and deception) would not be necessary. The outgrowth of Stone's studies was the Liberty Amendment, which lives on in Congress each session to this day---but is never debated or voted upon. Sincerely, Suzannah Kennedy, Los Angeles