Social Security program was fine in its time, but has become obsolete

Editor:

On March 29, The News-Times published a letter which apparently countered my comments regarding the growth of Socialism couched as "protection."

I particularly enjoyed the final paragraph where the writer defended the Social Security program by stating that it allow recipients to spend their benefits "right back into the nation's economy." This makes incredible sense to me. Yes, the Mommy Government was going to take my money and then maybe give it back to me at a later time to put into the economy.

I considered what would happen if I removed the government waste, criminally low interest return and occasional fraud out of the system. Oh -- that's right; a personal investment account allows me to keep more of my money (plus I can pass it on to my heirs).

As a supporter of freedom and responsibility, I prefer that people get to keep more of their hard-earned money to spend "right into our nation's economy" as they choose. I guess I just like to think that the average American can better run their lives than some unaccountable bureaucrat in Washington.

Social Security, like many of the programs of the 1930s, was designed to correct problems in the social system (I agree). It worked great in the 1940s. You know, the B-17 Flying Fortress worked great in the 1940s also. The sad fact is that the program, like the B-17, is obsolete.

The theory that productive workers would provide for those less able is an honorable idea. The problem is that the program didn't anticipate the now-radical drop in "productive workers" vs. recipients.

The program's original idea was to provide benefits for only a few years. At its inception, the program retirement date was only a couple of years away from the normal life expectancy. Today with the rising life expectancy, and reduction in productive workers, the program is faced with the reality of more takers than producers.

It was never my suggestion to eliminate the program; rather, I suggest that there are better ways to allow the program to evolve. It takes little effort to look at the successes in Galveston, Texas, or heck, even Chile to see that you can save the program with a little creative planning rather than the theft of more and more of the hardearned money of the "productive" Americans.

The Socialists deplore this solution because it means we get to take more responsibility for our lives and freedom. They, on the other hand, are left with less and less control -- or, as they promote it, "security."

Daniel Gwinn

Martinez