Is It a Ponzi Scheme or Unfairly Maligned

Re “The Meathead Proposition,” Commentary, Feb 14: Meathead was not an economist, and Michael Kinsley would do well to avoid his economic arguments.

In a capitalist system, wealth can be created; 2 plus 2 can equal 5 eventually, something that is never true in a Ponzi scheme like Social Security.

Beyond this, Kinsley again misses some major points: (1) If private accounts forced an equal amount of bond buying, that is not the same as leaving the program alone because the bond buyer actually owns something. (2) Social Security discriminates against traditional Democratic constituencies such as low-wage workers and working women. (3) The current Social Security surplus masks the true size of the federal deficit, allowing even more government profligacy.

Not only are Kinsley and Meathead wrong about the economics, but they also ignore many other excellent reasons to reform the system.

Ross Kaminsky

Boulder, Colo.

*

I commend Kinsley on his astute analysis.

It would be wonderful if everyone affected by President Bush’s proposed changes to Social Security -- and who isn’t? -- would read this article.

Unfortunately, this sort of analysis cannot be reduced to a feel-good sound bite like “ownership society” or fear-mongering cries of “Crisis!”

It’s so much easier and comfortable to swallow the pabulum of propaganda than to take five minutes and actually force one’s brain to think.

Chuck Almdale

Santa Monica

*

Remember the dot-com bubble? I doubt that Bush’s plan for Social Security will ensure much financial security in the event we miscalculate the future of the stock market. However, mutual fund managers should make out like bandits.

Cynthia Cooper

Tehachapi, Calif.