Gore’s Lockbox Idea Looks Better Now

Re Ronald Brownstein’s commentary, “Resurfacing Gore Has the Chance to Reenter the Tax Debate,” Aug. 27: I hope Al Gore gives President-select Bush a resounding “I told you so!”

Gore certainly has the right to act a little pompous and angry now that the Congressional Budget Office is forecasting the budget surplus falling. The Bush administration now has to borrow $9 billion in Social Security funds (Aug. 28) for Bush to carry out his agenda--from missile defense to faith-based charities. Gore’s much-maligned “Social Security lockbox” idea does sound so much better today.

As Gore returns to the stage, it’ll be interesting to see how the American taxpayers act when they learn that the so-called tax refund is nothing more than an advance on their 2001 federal income taxes.

Mr. Gore, welcome back!

Larry Itzler

Cypress

*

Candidate Bush promised to protect Social Security funds and to rebuild our military might. Candidate Gore told us, specifically, why Bush’s budget plan didn’t add up. Bush condemned Gore’s rebuttal as “fuzzy” math. Bush won the opportunity to prove his point.

Bush’s maximum effort has achieved his top goal, tax reduction. Hooray, the president is triumphant! Result--now there’s not enough money for all remaining priorities. Now Pentagon reform is fuzzy. Medicare prescription drug benefits--fuzzy. Bush needs $9 billion in surplus Social Security funds--the future of the balance is fuzzy. Now we know which candidate’s math was right and which was fuzzy.

Robert Kittner

Granada Hills

*

Re “Bush Binds Us Into a Fiscal Straitjacket,” by Robert Scheer, Commentary, Aug. 28: Dimwits believe in accounting fictions such as the Social Security trust fund (no real assets; just IOUs from one branch of the government to another) and the lockbox, a rhetorical gimmick invented by Bill Clinton to justify gross surpluses.

Bush has guts. He is taking the heat for actually tackling the Social Security mess, something Clinton never did despite being blessed with a booming economy. And when Daniel Patrick Moynihan--a statesman Democrat appointed [to the Social Security Commission] by Bush--points out the severity of the problem, the Democrats attack him like a pariah (July 20).

Only dimwits fail to see that the Democrats are blowing smoke about Bush “endangering” Social Security in an attempt to dampen the enthusiasm Americans feel when they get some of their earnings back in the mail.

Jim Bass

Thousand Oaks

*

The problem is not whether a small part of the Social Security lockbox will be tapped this year; that actually may be a good idea to stimulate the economy. The problem is the massive future tax cuts built into the law. These will absorb all of the wherewithal for needed social and infrastructure improvements for the foreseeable future, leaving the country a meaner and poorer place to live.

John Sellars

Torrance

*

Reading about the chance that our government will have to use $9 billion of Social Security money to pay for “other operations” for only this year makes me think that we need to fire our present CEO and hire someone more competent. If a sitting president can be impeached for lying about such piddling matters as his private life, I cannot help wondering whether some better legal brains can find a way to stretch the Constitution’s “high misdemeanors” phrase to include sheer boneheadedness verging on criminal neglect.

Horace Gaims

Los Angeles

*

If I had known that my $600 tax rebate check was going to place my Social Security in jeopardy, I would have returned the check. I guess that our current president is going to increase the deficit and try to buy prosperity on borrowed money that will be lent by me.

Arthur Friedman

Newport Beach