Letters: More Security than some believe

I believe that columnist Jill Schlesinger's article "Under 35? Don't count on full Social Security" [Act II, Feb. 25], which purports to be an objective look at the future of Social Security, is undercut by its reliance on certain cliches about the program. Some facts are either overlooked or suppressed in discussions of the "problems" of Social Security.

First, to simply say current benefits are "paid by" the contributions of those now working is not a good description of the way it works. Social Security, an entity separate from the everyday workings and budget of our government, has amassed through paycheck withholding a positive balance of $2.6 trillion.

The fund produces income from interest, which at current projections is sufficient to cover its obligations for the next 25 years. With some relatively moderate tweaking (like tying the cap on Social Security withholding to inflation), it would be able to continue indefinitely, and even without changes it would still be able to cover 77 percent of its benefits after that time. It is better managed than any of our businesses or corporations, with a total administrative cost of 0.09 percent.

I urge working Americans to take a cold look at their futures and realize that security after their working years will only come from strengthening, rather than weakening, Social Security and from receiving defined-benefit pensions from their employment.

Remember those administrative costs of 0.09 percent the next time you look at your 401(k) statement. And always bear in mind that $2.6 trillion is red meat to our financial industries and their political associates.

Fred Kolo, East Hampton
 

By all standards, Social Security has been a smashing success in eliminating the widespread poverty that elderly Americans faced before the program's implementation. Social Security has run tremendous surpluses over its lifetime, and Congress has routinely used that money to offset budget deficits. Despite what many politicians would like us to believe, Social Security is self-funded and has never contributed to a budget deficit.

It is only now, as Social Security begins to pay out more than it draws in, and the U.S. Treasury has to begin paying back the money it has borrowed for many years, that the politicians seek to change how Social Security works. Essentially, the politicians are acting like spoiled children, all too ready to take Social Security money, but stingy in returning it.

One serious disappointment in the column: When Jill Schlesinger warns younger readers to no longer count on Social Security as an integral part of their future, she undermines support for it.

Stephen Martin, Wading River