Writer's criticism of Social Security may inadvertently boost socialism

Editor:

Re Daniel Gwinn's April 13 letter, "Social Security was fine in its time, but has become obsolete":

When I read Gwinn's first letter on socialism being couched as protection, I disagreed with him wholeheartedly. But I agreed with his right to be a staunch capitalist with a thinly veiled disdain for those folks who disagreed with him. His response to another letter writer's criticism further illuminates his unyielding capitalist ideology. His attitude is exactly what the late Pope John Paul II was referring to in his many speeches decrying the "excesses" of capitalism.

Gwinn derides our "mommy" government. But I'll bet he never would complain if he was provided with health insurance by an employer corporation that was then paying less taxes for the specific reason that the corporation was, in essence, acting as an agent of the federal government in providing him with health insurance. We all ride on beautiful roads, have fire protection, police protection and laws that protect us from those who would harm us. Could each of us afford or achieve that level of protection individually? Of course not! Our wonderful standards are the product of a social conscience.

Gwinn says he likes "to think that the average American can better run their lives than some unaccountable bureaucrat in Washington." First of all, no unaccountable bureaucrat runs our lives. The laws we're talking about were enacted by men and women elected by the American voters.

Secondly, Gwinn's emphasis on the "average" American is faulty. Our concern, as Americans, should be for all Americans. The poorest misbehaving street person is just as human (and American) as the wealthiest celebrity or chief executive officer.

Lastly, I take issue with Gwinn's characterization of Social Security recipients as "takers," even though these folks paid into the program for years and years. His letters may have the ironic effect of promoting socialism.

Frank Lariscey

Evans