Growth of Entitlements

Re “Limits Now to Keep Economy Sound,” by Eric Hunter, Commentary, Nov. 22:

The “relentless” growth of entitlement programs does not loom as a major obstacle to the long-term health of the U.S. economy. Taking the economy in the aggregate, there is no major obstacle to its long-term health. Our productivity is growing very rapidly. Within a couple of decades we will have a totally automated industrial base, full of robots and empty of people. Industry is well able to supply the needs of the American people.

There is a threat to our country’s goal of social justice. As human workers are replaced by machines, owners of industry no longer provide a livelihood to those workers. Workers become much poorer, while owners become much richer. Inequality is a great threat to the well-being of this country. Properly financed entitlements are beneficial because they alleviate the inequality in our society. We need more entitlements, not fewer.

Please note, however, that I said properly financed entitlements. And the only proper way to finance them is through taxing the rich. If human workers are going to disappear, then Social Security can obviously not be paid for by taxing younger workers. According to your paper (Oct. 7), since 1968 the middle class has lost 9% of its share of income to the wealthiest Americans. Obviously we need lower taxes on the middle class and much higher taxes on the rich.

RON McMULLEN

Mission Hills

* Is Hunter for real? Too many times have I read articles and editorials wanting to implement changes in our government--only to be disappointed by the proposals for change.

Hunter begins by making faulty generalizations, such as: “Over the last 25 years, expenditures for Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare have expanded dramatically.”

The deficit is government’s most menacing problem. Until this problem is dealt with, Hunter cannot fairly use facts such as, “The average person retiring in 1990 will receive back more than 2 1/2 times what he or she contributed in Social Security payments plus interest.”

Granted, people are living longer than expected. But, this is a contributory problem--not a substantial one. The problem with government as a whole, including the three targeted programs in Hunter’s column, is the exponentially growing deficit.

BRIAN J. BRADY

Glendale

* It’s deja vu time again. Every few years Hastings Keith rises up (Commentary, Nov. 28) to bash federal pensions as a big cause of the federal deficit. I note with interest that Keith apparently has made no effort to turn down or return any of the four pensions he receives.

I repeat my comments made in a letter to the editor the last time he wrote: Most federal pensioners do not receive three or four pensions as he does. Some do get a Social Security check in addition to their civil service pension check, usually a relatively small amount since it is frequently based on a part-time job covered by Social Security.

I really have no objection to his basic idea of limiting the cost-of-living adjustments to these few fat-cats receiving such large total pension amounts, but I do object to his general message that retired federal employees are living off the fat of the land.

DON RYERSON

San Pedro