Clarifying the Need for Entitlements

As a result of your article appearing in the Valley section on Feb. 8, under the headline “Slash Entitlements, Finance Adviser Says,” I have received several threatening phone calls. The story misrepresented what I said and believe.

We in the Concord Coalition are not in favor of “slashing” entitlements. We believe that Social Security and other entitlements are in grave danger if we do not balance the budget. While Social Security is currently running a surplus, by the year 2012 it will not. Balancing the budget by the year 2002 will avoid Draconian Social Security cuts, rampant inflation or outrageous tax increases later.

We believe that nothing should be left off the table when it comes to balancing the budget, including Social Security. Our suggestion is that a comprehensive entitlement’s means test be used to determine the amount of entitlements people would get. This test would only affect people with income over $40,000 and entitlements would gradually be reduced based on the amount of income somebody receives. This system would avoid having social security pay for “green fees” and other luxury’s the system was not set up to support.

ALAN B. UNGAR

Calabasas

* I was dismayed at the way in which you managed to trivialize one of the most important issues of the day: our debt crisis (“Slash Entitlements, Financial Adviser Says,” Feb. 8).

If your reporters don’t know anything about a problem, why do they have to write as if they do?

If the writer had just read your information graphic describing the Social Security crisis on page A5 of the same issue, he might have treated Alan Ungar’s presentation with a little more respect.

ALASTAIR A. STUNDEN

Studio City