A Critical Look at Social Security Reform

Re “Battle Lines Form on Social Security,” Dec. 19: I don’t get it. Why do upper-income people not pay Social Security taxes on annual earnings above $87,900? Seems to me that Social Security funds would be increased significantly by taxing everyone equally, with no salary cap. Another bit of weirdness: A friend’s aunt collected Social Security up to her death despite the fact that she had several million dollars in assets.

If these fixes are so obvious, what’s the problem? A warning to Congress: There are 77 million baby boomers like me -- a sizable voting bloc.

Laura Morgan

Los Angeles

*

Re “Bush May Be Borrowing Trouble With Social Security Plan” by Ronald Brownstein, column, Dec. 20: My trust was used up when weapons of mass destruction got demoted from “reason for war” to first of a series. I want to know exactly how private accounts are supposed to save Social Security.

It’s clear that no benefits would be owed on the small percent of Social Security money put in the accounts, but that’s not enough to save Social Security. So it must be really true, as hinted by the administration, that the plan anticipates reducing future in-system benefits of people with successful private accounts. Such a deal.

Never mind that Bush wants to pour mountains of our tax dollars into the eager coffers of commercial banks as interest on his ideological skirmish with Franklin Delano Roosevelt. A fraction as much, paid to American seniors instead of banks, could refurbish Social Security in a straightforward, nonpartisan way.

Vicki Livingston

Rancho Palos Verdes

*

Once again the Democratic Leadership Council shows its spinelessness in failing to provide an alternative to Bush’s plan to privatize Social Security. There are many possibilities -- raise the age at which benefits kick in, make payroll deductions progressive by raising the limit above which deductions stop, provide a means test for those with income over, say, $200,000, etc. But once again, afraid that any proposal might draw the ire of somebody, the DLC seems content to simply carp at Bush and let Republicans take the heat.

This is the same failed strategy that cost John Kerry the recent election and lost the midterms in 2002 -- the same appalling lack of leadership. It’s reminiscent of their recent lock-step approval of Bush’s tax cuts after years of complaining -- just be quiet, we might offend someone. Say what you will about Bush (whose presidency will go down as the most disastrous in our history), he is not afraid to stand up for an idea, however unpopular.

So let’s add another L to the DLC -- the DLLC will stand for the Democratic Lack of Leadership Council, providing virtually nothing in the way of new ideas and sounding more Republican-like each day.

Bill McLaughlin

Rancho Palos Verdes

*

Social Security is not in trouble nor is it a bad investment. Stock investments over a 40- to 50-year period are around a 6% return, Social Security around 2%. That’s a 4% difference to buy yourself a 100% guarantee that you will get the money you invested out when you retire and that retirement date is a date you can count on.

Now imagine you are set to retire next year and the stock market drops 20%. Are you retiring next year? No! How long will the market take to regain its loses? The average prediction is about 10 years. Is the risk worth the 4%? I say no.

In the 1980s Congress started to build a reserve in Social Security to make sure the government could pay for the retiring baby boomers. Due to this effort, the Office of Management and Budget suggests that Social Security is secure through 2040. Can you think of another investment that is secure through 2040? I can’t.

Abby Winston

Huntington Beach

*

Re “The GOP’s Sabotage of Social Security,” Commentary, Dec. 20: Robert Scheer is correct, but he did not mention one more salient fact: If so many people are unable to manage their credit card debt, how can they be expected to learn the ins and outs of investing overnight? Where is the economic guru who can predict where the market will be next year, let alone in decades? If this change does goes through, there is one fairly safe haven for your money: Buy brokerage stocks.

Charlene A. Scherer

Rancho Mirage