Is Bush Saving or Killing Social Security?

Re “Bush 2.0,” editorial, May 1: If progressive indexing is indeed the solution to the solvency of Social Security, then President Bush deserves some credit for it. But let’s not forget that privatization, his original idea, was the latest in a series of huge attempted giveaways to the private sector.

Bush spent the last three months trying to ram private accounts down the throats of the American public. When he realized that it wasn’t working, he vacillated bizarrely between chastising members of Congress for not coming up with their own ideas and claiming that he proposed private accounts knowing that the first idea is always “DOA” when it gets to Congress.

Ironically, by proposing a clearly bogus solution, Bush has been backed into actually solving the problem, perhaps the first major accomplishment of his administration. But the true test of whether this really is “Bush 2.0” is whether he tackles the solvency of Medicare and Medicaid, a much more pressing problem.

John Wolfenden

Sherman Oaks

*

In his commentary, “Bush Gets B+ for Honesty, Even Courage, on Social Security” (May 1), Michael Kinsley wonders, “Why Bush has taken this on remains a mystery. There is no short-term political advantage.... “ Maybe Bush really believes it’s the right thing to do. I suppose many would be shocked that a politician would actually act in this manner.

John Greenwood

Long Beach

*

I agreed with much of what Kinsley said. But when he talked about Bush’s new proposals on Social Security, we parted ways. The most amazing statement he made was: “But if privatization is truly voluntary, it can’t do much harm.” Can’t do much harm? Is this the man who wrote such a brilliant critique of the president’s privatization plan a couple of months ago?

Social Security does not work unless it’s mandatory. If anyone can “opt out,” there is no way to guarantee benefits to those currently in need of Social Security payments. Social Security is an insurance plan, with everyone paying the premiums. The premiums are used to pay those who are currently in need.

Perhaps if only a few people chose the “personal accounts” option, it wouldn’t do “much harm.” But what if a large percentage chose that option? Where would the funds to pay current retirees come from?

Cynthia Du Bose

Yorba Linda

*

In his proposal for Social Security, Bush has introduced the idea of distinguishing between those with “lower incomes” and those who are “better off.” I agree with Bush that we should look to those who are better off in formulating any long-term plans for shortfalls in the account, but disagree with Bush that anyone making over $20,000 fits that definition. I would focus on those who are truly better off by eliminating the wealthy wage exemption, which only applies to earnings over $90,000.

Lisa Finerty

Claremont

*

Critics of Bush’s plan for Social Security complain that it will only benefit the poor, not the middle and upper classes. Well, that’s OK because by the time Bush gets through there will be no more middle class. The former members will become the new poor and so will need all the help they can get.

Barbara Rowland

Winnetka