Senators Missed Point on Social Security--That Benefits Come From Those Working

In their objection (“Social Security Critique Misses the Point, Lacks Realistic Solutions,” Aug. 20) to my article “Kerrey-Simpson Package Would Destroy Social Security Benefits” (July 9), Sens. Bob Kerrey and Alan K. Simpson quite miss the essential point.

That point is that benefits to retirees, whether public or private, must come from the output of those working. It does not matter what amounts are declared to be in Social Security Trust Fund accounts or what amounts are (perilously) invested in the stock market. If enough goods and services are not being produced for the young to share with their elders, the old or the young, or both, must suffer. If enough is being produced, the accounting or fiscal problem of providing adequate credits to those funds is trivial.

It is true that in the decades ahead there will be fewer people working relative to those retired. As I pointed out, though, that will be compensated for, at least partly, by the fact that there will be relatively fewer non-working children. Hence, those working will be able to give more of their output to the elderly.

The only “realistic” solution to ensuring the elderly the benefits they are promised under current law is to see to it that there are enough people working and that they are so productive that there is ample real output for all. That is why I urged combatting unemployment and investing in the best education and training for all of our work force. And that is why I recommended the provision of child care that would permit more women to work and encourage the bearing of children who would eventually support their parents and grandparents. And I also suggested that, contrary to the current political furor, more immigrants would provide more young workers and output to support our elderly.

Sens. Kerrey and Simpson would rather “solve” the problem of providing the elderly the benefits to which we are currently committed primarily by reducing those benefits. They would do so by a combination of arbitrary reductions in cost-of-living adjustments and by further increasing the age for receiving full benefits--already slated to rise to 67--to 70 years. These measures would be most harmful to our poor, who are least able to cope with higher prices and who, sadly, tend not to live long enough to enjoy much, if any, of their retirement benefits.

This is a path that would be unfair to all retirees. And it would be unfair to their children, who would be forced, as far as they are able, to make up in their direct support to their elderly parents for the commitment that the government would have abandoned.

It is a path of mutilating our Social Security system in the name of saving it that the American people should reject.

ROBERT EISNER

Evanston, Ill.