Upset by Reaction to Social Security Plan

I was disappointed to see that Carl Levin of Los Angeles (“Basic Fact Ignored in Social Security Items,” Letters, Sept. 22) completely missed the point of my article (“The Program Is Good, but It Should be Redesigned to Eliminate Flaws,” Viewpoints, Aug. 18).

I have never advocated turning the Social Security system over to private enterprise; on the contrary, my proposal was that the system be restructured from within. Neither I nor any other actuary would stand to gain anything if my proposal were to be adopted.

I was also stunned by the comments of Barry Goldstein of Long Beach that Social Security “would be financially sound and Social Security taxes could probably be decreased” if the system were to be “returned to what it was at its inception, a retirement program.”

The undeniable fact is that the retirement program portion of Social Security is essentially unfunded, and stripping off all of what Goldstein describes as “ornaments” would make little difference in the lack of funding in the retirement program. It would remain a program for transferring money from active to retired workers.

DANIEL F. McGINN

Anaheim