Dear Editor:
Henry Aaron uses his article, “The Transition Problem,”
simply as a vehicle to criticize President Bush while ignoring the real problem.
Social Security is organized in the same fashion as a Ponzi scheme and would be
illegal if not run by the government. The real problem is that it was designed
by politicians to make political points, not financial sense, and now it is
projected to face massive shortfalls despite several tax increases and a
reduction in the formula for benefits. Since Mr. Aaron fails to address the
real problem, I am left wondering just what his view is. He states the deficit
is “modest in size,” but if not addressed would require “large, abrupt changes
later.” He leaves it unclear why a modest problem would require large change.
Does he believe there is no real problem? Perhaps he is one of those who
believed earlier official forecasts of federal budget “surpluses for decades.”
Or would he rather just ignore it as long as possible? Congress has shown that
it can spend any amount given to it and additionally create enormous
deficits. In Mr. Aaron’s criticism of tax cuts, what makes him think that if
Congress were given more revenue now, the money would be available many years
from now to fund anyone’s retirement? Without change, there will be a massive
shortfall and reduction in Social Security benefits. Transition is not a
problem; it is an opportunity. We can either choose to correct a flawed system
or wait and deal with the problem when it becomes a crisis. When will Mr. Aaron
wake up and stop defending the status quo? He was wrong concerning welfare
reform in the 1990s and he is wrong about Social Security reform now. Wayne
Grabow
Colorado Springs, Colo. Worth welcomes your comments, critiques and suggestions. Please direct
your letters to letters@worth.com.
|
