Circle the Social Security Wagons

Re “The Social Security Crisis Gets Personal,” Commentary, April 12: Aw, c’mon, L.A. Times. Give us a break! Commentary from the ultraconservative, corporate-backed Heritage Foundation on reforming Social Security? What next? Wayne LaPierre on effective gun control? Paul Wolfowitz on achieving world peace? Bill Clinton on the virtues of abstinence?

We live in a culture that encourages, even glorifies excessive consumption and living beyond one’s means. Blaming Social Security for the inability of many Americans to save for retirement is patently ludicrous.

Between the flat wages that don’t even keep pace with inflation, spiraling healthcare and prescription drug costs, runaway real estate prices, $2.50 per gallon gas and skyrocketing corporate profits that The Times reported on its front page only a day before running Stuart Butler’s rant, I’d say the Social Security payroll tax is just about the last thing responsible for all those empty personal retirement accounts.

In fact, the difficult economic circumstances most of us currently face make a pretty good case for why we need to preserve Social Security more than ever.

Tell the truth. You guys only printed that nonsense because you wanted to make the Heritage Foundation look ridiculous, didn’t you?

Wayne Strache

San Marcos

*

Butler writes, “Some say why not just raise payroll taxes, especially on those earning more than $90,000 a year, who have ‘maxed-out’ on their Social Security payroll taxes? But although these more affluent workers typically have savings and will not depend on Social Security for retirement, many are small-business owners. Hitting them now with a new tax of more than 12% on part of their earnings means less money to invest in their businesses.”

Perhaps “many” are small-business owners. But most are extremely wealthy individuals who earn as much in a week as we lesser mortals earn in a year.

Let’s not fall for Butler’s plea. His aim -- and the aim of the so-called Heritage Foundation -- is to twist ordinary folks’ financial fears into support for President Bush’s rich man’s tax plan, which is designed to cripple Social Security.

Sharon Smith

Canaan, Maine

*

What’s new about it (“Trade Groups Join Bush on Social Security,” April 11)? In other words, these trade groups have become Rovians.

What would be new would be if these groups and their highly paid lobbyists came out on the side of the millions of senior citizens who literally depend for their existence on their monthly Social Security checks. They don’t want to jeopardize this lifesaving safety net by having privatized accounts subject to the volatile nature of the stock market. They surely will not be eager to buy products of companies making up these trade groups.

S. Dell Scott

Encino

*

The best editorial in The Times on April 10 was Doonesbury’s quote, in Comics II, of Bush’s “muddled” explanation of why Social Security has to be changed: Obviously it has to be changed because he wants it to be changed -- really no other reason.

Privatization of some of the payments would be ruinous to the Social Security fund, and also to the government’s ability to “raid” the fund for all its programs.

So, how does that fix Social Security? It doesn’t, of course. Bush wants to change it because -- well, because that’s what he wants. Like a small child stamping his foot because of what he wants.

Richard A. Davidson

Woodland Hills