News

Take seriously Treasury's obligation to Social Security

Letters to the Editor
Published May 10, 2005

---

Re: The Democrats' Social Security power play, May 6.

Charles Krauthammer says there is no Social Security trust fund because the excess Social Security taxes paid in the past were borrowed by the federal treasury and spent each year. He says when we go to the Social Security vault in West Virginia to collect the surplus, we will find U.S. Treasury bonds, but no money.

I don't see a problem with a vault full of U.S. Treasury bonds. If they are turned in or sold off, we will have the money generated by the excess Social Security taxes.

Of course, the government will have to generate the funds to redeem these bonds by borrowing, raising taxes or cutting other expenditures. But this is always the case whenever we issue a U.S. Treasury bond to borrow money today with a promise to pay back in the future.

--Joseph A. Mahon, St. Petersburg

Stop monkeying with our money

Re: The Democrats' Social Security power play.

What a pleasant surprise to have someone finally tell the truth (there is no Social Security trust fund). Even the AARP has been duped into believing there is $1.6-trillion in the trust fund.

In truth there are IOUs (Treasury certificates) in the supposed trust fund. But, contrary to what Congress would have you believe, treasuries are public debt, not investments. Congress spent your Social Security money and when it comes time to repay it, Congress will ask you for the money. You get to pay twice.

The solution for Social Security is don't let Congress have the money to start with. Require Congress to repay what it has already stolen and put the money into an index fund where it will earn real returns.

On April 4 there was an item about cutting Medicare due to lack of funds. In the same section was an item about the retirement home Congress built for chimpanzees. I for one am tired of the monkeys in Congress ripping off the taxpayers to help their cousin chimps.

--Patrick W. Brown, Tampa

Why would the government default?

Re: The Democrats' Social Security power play.

I usually respect Charles Krauthammer's intelligence, even when I disagree with him. However, this op-ed piece lacked any of his expected logic. The Social Security trust fund was created precisely to avoid the crisis the Bush administration is currently fantasizing. To say that the government has taken that money for other purposes is (sad, but) true. But the government is obligated to restore those funds, when they are needed.

Why would the federal government default on these obligations and not on all its other obligations? Should Japan and China cash in their U.S. bonds now, just in case? I am also wondering why Krauthammer would expect the Democrats to present a solution to a nonexistent "crisis."

Hal Freedman, St. Petersburg

Democrats have offered solutions

Re: Poor retirement planning, May 7.

This Times editorial is correct in pointing out that President Bush has been deceptive. As you say, so long as he is not straight with Americans about what he intends for Social Security, the discussion will not move ahead.

I don't agree with you, however, when you say: "Democrats have shown little courage in facing this problem." Democrats at many levels have stated what must be done to save Social Security. The media just haven't covered their statements.

Even our own local Democratic Executive Committee has a policy statement on it: Six Facts You Should Know About Social Security see http://www.lutzdemocrats.us) We show clearly what can be done to fix Social Security, but at the same time point out that the rising costs of health insurance - including Medicare and Medicaid - are more critical for our nation.

Alvin Wolfe, chair, Platform Committee, HCDEC, Lutz

Here's a sensible approach

It is obvious from polls that President Bush hasn't convinced Americans that there is anything basically wrong with Social Security or that his "plan" (e.g. cutting benefits, private accounts, etc.) is anything more than a giveaway to Wall Street.

Here's a plan for fixing what little is wrong with Social Security. Robert M. Ball was a commissioner of Social Security under Presidents Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon. His plan in his own words is as follows:

1. Gradually raise the cap on earnings covered by Social Security so that once again 90 percent of all such earnings would be taxed and counted for benefits.

2. Beginning in 2010, dedicate the proceeds of a revised estate tax to Social Security.

3. Improve the return on Social Security funds by investing part of them in equities, as just about all other public and private pension plans do ... as specifically authorized by Congress.

4. Adopt the more accurate consumer price index (CPI) recently developed by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (the so-called chained index) to better account for the substitution of one commodity for another as prices go up.

5. Beginning in 2010, cover all new state and local employees under Social Security.

If you want the complete details you can download them at http://www.tcf.org/Publications/RetirementSecurity/ballplan.pdfor you can write the Century Foundation, 41 E. 70th, St., New York NY 10021.

Frank Glenn, Tarpon Springs

Don't undercut retirees

Re: Baby boomers are in a race to become the Greediest Generation, May 3.

While Nicholas D. Kristof of the New York Times is on target in certain aspects of this column, a number of his perceptions appear questionable and curiously naive. He pictures the great majority of retirees as consumed with wealth due to entitlements and all to the huge detriment of children. Nowhere does he suggest that many of these same retirees are not far above the poverty line. Nowhere does he indicate that they must pay tax on Social Security benefits despite having paid Social Security taxes on their income.

Most important, nowhere does he acknowledge their enormous contribution to the maintenance and stability of families. In many cases, they are the primary caregivers and nurturers for the children whose welfare he advocates. Yes, we all want health care for our children, but we must not jerk the rug out from the elderly population. Perhaps if certain corporate tax-avoidance loopholes were closed or those individuals who make obscene salaries paid their fair share, Kristof could stop wringing his hands.

Lou Hunter, Clearwater

Fruit's not what it used to be

Re: Attack of the giant apples, May 4.

Lynn Stratton's article on fruits was very enlightening but we must differ with her on how fruit tastes these days. It is all absolutely tasteless.

The fruit is not on the tree long enough to acquire a good taste. Most of it or all of it is picked before the taste is developed and ripens after the fact. Melons sit around for weeks sometimes before they can be opened and tasted or they rot before they can be cut. Where is the pleasure we once had when we bit into a crunchy, sweet, tasteful piece of fruit? That's a thing of the past.

Judith M. Stevens, Clearwater

[Last modified September 16, 2005, 15:58:00]