Letters to the Editor

Your views in 200 words or less

SOCIAL SECURITY: Now is the time to make changes

Letter by Ora Clark, Federal Way on April 30, 2012 at 12:57 pm with 27 Comments »
April 30, 2012 2:13 pm

The article concerning pressures on Social Security (TNT, 4-30) contains a message that should be sent to the very heart of Congress. The longer it waits to make changes, the worse the pain will be.

I must take issue with the statement by Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., that the “program is fully funded for 20 years.” Who’s he trying to kid? There is no trust fund; it was spent long ago to run the government and the money replaced by IOUs.

Social Security payments exceeded income for the first time in 2010. Since there is no money in the trust fund, the government must borrow to make up the shortfall and replace those IOUs, further increasing the already intolerable national debt.

Corrections can be made now with a modicum of pain; five years from now, the pain will be agonizing for many. Sensible solutions have been presented by many over recent years. Congress must stop obsessing over losing potential votes and summon the intestinal fortitude to do what is best for the nation.

I can see that happening when pigs fly!

Leave a comment Comments → 27
  1. It must be comforting to those 45 and under that SS “is fully funded for 20 years.” They get to pay while those 45 and older get to play. Then the game ends. Just another instance of socking it to the up-and-coming generations for the selfish benefit of the current ones. Those yet unborn can’t do anything about it yet, but those under 45 should have their heads examined if they vote for Obama (again)–not to mention their consciences.

  2. It’s the Congress whose responsibility we are talking about. Obama is a big player, but not the biggest.

  3. philichi says:

    Social security benefits, like state pension benefits are just one vote away from being reduced.

    Future workers will not put up with it. They will simply cut the benefits to the baby boomers.

    I hope that they do. We deserve it. We have done nothing but saddle them with debt.

  4. aislander says:

    It is “fully funded” if one has a touching, if misplaced, faith in the ability of the US government to make good on those NON-TRANSFERABLE T-bills with which it has stuck SS.

    At least Greece has the Parthenon (but I think I prefer Andrea Tantaros)…

  5. Nice letter, Ora. You understand the issue perfectly.

    Nothing will happen until after the election. Why? The Democrats have used social security and medicare to scare illinformed seniors for many years and they will do it again this year. They have told seniors the Republicans are going to cut SS and Medicare. The Republicans have never cut those programs and the never will for existing seniors.

  6. LornaDoone says:

    Ora understands this issue with the same conservative slant that Ora uses in all her letters to the editor.

    She claims the man from Montana is “kidding” and yet submits nothing other than her baseless assertions about the insolvency of the fund. Maybe Ora would be taken seriously if she would cite her sources of information for her claims.

    Meanwhile, the solution to Social Security is to stop the cut off at the $107,000 earnings mark and have people pay for their entire earnings, which will bring the bankers and stock brokers to their knees, but I’m sure they’ll figure out a way to make millions anyway. I haven’t seen one of them go broke by playing with someone else’s money yet.

    As Eddie Murphy said in “Trading Places” – “Well it sounds to me like you guys are a couple of bookies, right?”


    As to the “fear motivation”…Chile must not be old enough to remember Ronald Reagan’s LP album about Medicare.

  7. concernedtacoma7 says:

    So lardnos wants to solve SS with more redistribution of wealth.

    I thought the common lib argument was ‘you pay for those benefits’. Now the argument is the 50.5% that pay most taxes should further fund people’s entitlements.

    Keep the ponzi scheme going instead of actually matching input to outlays. Great solution. Keep shafting the next generation, the producers, and give away someone else’s money because they need to pay “their fair share”.

    You are advocating for a direct payment from one earner to one taker. Very unAmerican.

  8. RLangdon says:

    It’s all BUSH’s FAULT!!!

  9. LD – that’s quite a stretch with the Reagan bit. He criticized social security because it was supplanting private savings (which it has done). People think they can retire on social security and don’t even come close to saving enough for retirement. Around 25% of seniors live on SS alone and around 60-65% live on SS and a small amount of savings. As far as Medicare is concerned, Reagan criticized socialized medicine and so do I. I know about the Canadian system and Americans would never go for it.

  10. LornaDoone says:

    Chile….you accused the Dems of scare tactics and I demonstrated full and well that Reagan and the Republicans did what you accused the Dems of……long ago, I might add.

    After shopping the Canadian system for Rx drugs today, I’m certainly going for it.

  11. LornaDoone says:

    “You are advocating for a direct payment from one earner to one taker. Very unAmerican.”

    First of all, “American” is whatever Americans agree to by majority. If they agree to no limits on Social Security then that isn’t “unAmerican”, it is “American”.

    Why should one wage earner be taxed against his entire wage ($106,999), while someone making $214,000 is only taxed against 50% of his wage? The larger wage earner is getting a ride for half the price.

    As usual, CT7’s math fails.

  12. concernedtacoma7 says:

    He is not “getting a ride”. He or she most likely does not need or desire SS (if they coul opt out of it). You want them to pay more, and receive the same benefits as a lower earner. It does not help the higher wage earner.

    It is another step in the ponzi scheme, a way to buy a little more time, redistribute a little more wealth, before facing the truth.

    SS is not a retirement system. It is a safety net. How much of a safety net does someone making a decent amount of money need? Shouldn’t they have made their own ‘net’? Why do they or I need the govt’s ‘help’?

    Given your progressive posts, you have no clue what American is. You advocate policies and a philosophy that go against our founding principles.

  13. Pacman33 says:

    Social Security system is an intergenerational income redistribution system that has been built upon a stack of lies and contradictions of basic actuarial math. Workers and their employers have funds swindled by a confiscatory tax that is involuntary and Constitutionally questionable. The appropriated, employer-matched income is then redistributed away from you to others on a vague promise to pay it back later. What remains is an IOU and a note to raid your grandchild’s future to pay off the debt for your retirement. Regrettably, we have no property right to the ‘benefits’ derived from our ‘contributions’. Politicians can raise the eligibility age and/or decrease benefit amounts whenever they want, even deny benefits all together.

  14. Frankenchrist says:

    I blame Red China.

  15. concernedtacoma7 says:

    Frank, you should thank Red China for funding SS this year.

  16. Frankenchrist says:

    Red China is thankful to George W. Bush for selling them $12 trillion of U.S. debt to fund his failed adventures in Iraq and Afghanistan. Now the Chicoms have us by the kiwis.

  17. LornaDoone says:

    “Social Security system is an intergenerational income redistribution system that has been built upon a stack of lies and contradictions of basic actuarial math.”

    As would be any other insurance policy.

  18. LornaDoone says:

    “Given your progressive posts, you have no clue what American is.”

    Oh…only conservatives know what “American” is???? LMAO. The Founding Fathers were progressives, otherwise we’d still be under the rule of a monarch in England.

    CT7 – if the Heritage Foundation is paying you to post, they should ask for their money back.

  19. LornaDoone says:

    “SS is not a retirement system. It is a safety net.”

    And to prove that, millions of Americans use social security after they retire as a regular income. ::::famous eyeroll::::::

  20. chile74 says:

    LD – “long ago I might add”. Your rebuttal is ancient history. We are talking about now.

    The scare tactics by the Dems over SS and Medicare will be part of their election strategy as usual in the coming election (remember the NY Congressional race with Grandma going over the cliff?). President Obama even told the Republicans he did not want to make a deal over Medicare because the Dems told him fear mongering was part of their campaign against Republicans. It’s pretty obvious to anybody who is paying attention. Has Obama or the Democratic Senate offered a plan? Has the Dem Senate offered a budget that has a plan? (they haven’t even offered a budget!).

  21. LornaDoone says:

    “LD – “long ago I might add”. Your rebuttal is ancient history. We are talking about now.”

    LMAO…..OK…so how about the “we’ll be attacked if you vote for Kerry” threat in 2004. Is THAT too long ago???? How about “Obama will take all your guns” from 2008. Is THAT too long ago?

    Lord, what a weak excuse.

    “President Obama even told the Republicans he did not want to make a deal over Medicare because the Dems told him fear mongering was part of their campaign against Republicans.”

    And let me guess. He said this live on Rush Limbaugh’s show.

  22. LornaDoone says:

    Put your CT7 suit on.

  23. chile74 says:

    LD – Social Security was never meant to be a person’s entire retirement plan (FDR was against a “pay as you go system”). All Americans are supposed to save for retirement. People who don’t save are being irresponsible and unfortunately they pay the consequences by having to live on $1000 per month for maybe 20 years or more.

  24. chile74 says:

    LD – we are talking about SS and Medicare, right? Scare tactics are used by both parties in every election but the senior vote is the most important because seniors vote big time. The senior fear tactics have been used continuously for as long as I can remember because seniors are gullible. My statements are correct and you have no rebuttal just smoke.

  25. aislander says:

    Er…”any other insurance policy” would be based on “‘basic actuarial math…'”

  26. kluwer says:

    Another thread demonstrating why the right always screws up our economy….they simply do not understand anything that won’t fit on a bumper sticker.

We welcome comments. Please keep them civil, short and to the point. ALL CAPS, spam, obscene, profane, abusive and off topic comments will be deleted. Repeat offenders will be blocked. Thanks for taking part and abiding by these simple rules.

JavaScript is required to post comments.

Follow the comments on this post with RSS 2.0