The Battle Over Social Security

Re “Blacks Courted on Social Security,” Feb. 28: As a 41-year-old African American woman physician, I am exactly the kind of person the Republicans are trying to court on Social Security. However, I see a wolf in sheep’s clothing when it comes to private accounts taken out of Social Security as per President Bush’s plan.

It would cost $4.5 trillion in the next 20 years and decrease benefits by 40% without addressing the issue of solvency within the system. All one would “own” at the end of the day is trillions of dollars in debt with interest and the loss of guaranteed benefits, thus putting “insecurity” in Social Security. No, thank you, Mr. President. African Americans are smarter than that once they learn the facts.

Michelle Henry

Torrance

*

It is disingenuous of The Times to imply that both sides play dirty pool when the Democrats respond to Republican smear tactics (Feb. 26). But that is the role the press played during the election. There is a world of difference between a brazen, exploitative smear like accusing the AARP of having a pro-gay agenda and local Democrats questioning the authenticity of Rep. Jim McCrery’s (R-La.) support for his constituents in a local newspaper. Equating the two provides cover for the Republican smear machine.

Charles Berezin

Los Angeles

*

How sad it was to read that both liberal and conservative groups are resorting to “marketing” techniques to bolster their positions regarding Social Security instead of discussing facts, figures and philosophy. It’s much sadder to realize they’ve taken that approach because it works so well.

Darrell Manderscheid

Fountain Valley

*

President Bush deserves a compliment for trying to reform Social Security. With his proposal still unclearly undefined, we seem to be searching for the right reform. It’s clear that a funding deficit looms 40 years out.

The biggest problem has to do with survivor and disability benefits that use up roughly one-third of program outlays. No one wants widows, orphans and the disabled walking the streets and eating from trash cans. But there’s no reason to fund their benefits with a tax capped at $90,000 incomes. Capping the tax on the retirement program makes sense, but survivor and disability programs should be paid by a flat percent on all earned income regardless of how much one makes. Use the new revenue to extend program funding 40 more years.

Abandon ideas about siphoning from paychecks into the stock market. Let workers themselves decide how to invest or consume their income.

Eugene Mullaly

San Diego

*

Why are the Republicans so intent on turning Social Security into a system that will cost us trillions of dollars and ultimately could ruin the public’s chance for security by risking part of their retirement funds in a very insecure stock market?

Kevin Koelbl

Long Beach