Resistance to Social Security Change

Re “Real Bonds, and Worries, Draw Interest,” March 6: I’m certainly relieved to see someone finally willing to discuss the real reason behind the current desire to change the Social Security system. The truth is that when these Treasury bonds (read IOUs) become due, the government will have to make good on its promise to pay. And guess what? The U.S. doesn’t have the money! Isn’t that the reason it is borrowing from the “very real” Social Security trust fund in the first place?

Given that the government cannot uphold its financial responsibilities without borrowing, it makes no sense to allow it to take more revenue from the “very real” Social Security trust fund and pass it on to Wall Street. After all, those folks presumably will not be as dependent on their monthly Social Security check to survive as most other Americans.

Anthony Balderrama

Tujunga

If the Social Security surplus had been invested in the bonds of any other country, we would truly have a trust fund. When those bonds matured, that country would hand back the principal and interest, with no further taxes on U.S. citizens required to pay those sums. As is, the surplus was consumed and Americans will have to be taxed again to repay it. There is no trust fund.

Don Smith

Costa Mesa

Re “Bush Team Is Going on the Offensive,” March 3.

We all want to fix Social Security. To do so, why not simply allow Social Security to partially invest into private stock and bond accounts, instead of solely relying on special-issue Treasury bonds? This is a much simpler solution than those being discussed by the president, and it would still allow Americans to benefit from a larger return on their investments.

This can help combat the future shortfall of Social Security and reduce the urgency to change benefits or increase taxes. We would also not have to increase our deficit and pony up a trillion dollars to fund private account initiatives. If Treasury Secretary John W. Snow has said that all options are on the table for Social Security reform, hopefully this can be one of them.

Josh Epstein

Los Angeles

Re Social Security reform: Why the rush? Makes me suspicious, again. Why not appoint a two-year commission to carefully weigh options and recommend a revision? Bush’s rush just adds to my suspicions that something is not right. As he and his corporate friends have no credibility with me, after Iraq and Enron et al, the “trust me” approach is going nowhere.

Chris Williamson

Oxnard