Progressive, The: Gambling on the future

America made a commitment to its citizens: if you work your whole adult life, you will receive Social Security benefits (Comment, "Save Social Security," January issue). Social Security is a trust fund that workers invest in from the time they start working until retirement. It represents a promise that has been made to the working class of America, something that should not be cut from the federal budget.

If Bush has his way, Social Security would no longer be a social insurance program providing a guarantee of lifelong retirement income. Instead, workers' core retirement income would be put at risk in an investment program where benefits are determined by the luck and wisdom of their investment choices and the ups and downs of financial markets.

Currently, Social Security's benefits continue for as long as a retiree lives (and throughout the lifetime of a surviving spouse, as well). But income from stock investments would not be guaranteed to last that long. Essentially, a system of personal stock accounts would provide lower benefits at a higher cost to workers. We must protect our nation's future and stop the fleecing of the taxpayers by the Bush Administration.

Blake Trimbell

Monona, Wisconsin

I have been troubled by the whole "saving" Social Security, mantra of the Bush Administration. My big peeve about the Social Security system is the cap on income eligible for payroll taxation. If we took the tax all the way to the last dollar, there would be plenty available.

And there is no need to "fix" Social Security in order to continue the level of payouts that recipients have come to expect.

The problem here is not in the program, but in the demographics. Of much more concern should be the lack of a labor force in comparison to retirees, leaving too few people to take up the work that will need to be done and lowering the tax base. As many people are more able to work for longer years, the rationale for raising the retirement age would be to keep more people in the workforce. However, this could also be accomplished by immigration policy to bring in additional young workers. In light of the oversupply of unemployed young adults in much of the world, such a policy could also work to the advantage of the U.S. in its relations with other countries.

I am sure that there are other positive changes that could be made to improve the system and better serve the social function of taking care of our old and infirm in a manner that honors their social contributions and affords them respect.

The Bush doctrine on Social Security is not at all about serving such laudable social goals. It is about pitting the haves against the already burdened. It is about inciting our insecurity, rather than inspiring our creative spirit.

Laurie Corzett

via e-mail