Bush wouldn't save Social Security or White House's...

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

May 26, 2000

Bush wouldn't save Social Security or White House's dignity

I was disappointed to read of Texas Gov. George W. Bush's announcement of his plan to divert resources from the Social Security system into individual investment accounts ("Bush plan lets workers invest some payroll tax," May 16).

The future of Social Security is of overwhelming importance to working families, and the real, but manageable, financing challenges faced by this program deserve serious proposals for action.

Unfortunately, Mr. Bush seems to believe it's enough to issue vague pronouncements that promise much, but tell us nothing about the costs and consequences of his dangerous and simplistic ideas.

Mr. Bush needs to be straight with voters: The costs of privatization are unavoidably enormous.

And diverting any of the systems resources to create individual investment accounts will fundamentally undermine the foundation that the Social Security system provides for our retirement and disability insurance.

Creating individual accounts will generate massive shortfalls that will necessitate running up the national debt, raising the retirement age, cutting benefits or raising taxes.

Any attempt to gloss over these costs is just political game-playing.

Ernest R. Grecco

Baltimore

The writer is president of the Baltimore Council of AFL-CIO Unions.

To say Gov. George W. Bush will restore dignity to the White House ("Gov. Bush will restore dignity to the Oval Office," letters, May 19.) is almost as big a laugh as saying he will win the election.

How can one mention dignity in the same breath with a politician whose father left the nation in ruins and whose brother has sought to end affirmative action?

The only way dignity will be restored to the Oval Office is when Democrats gain control of all of Congress and run the nation as it should have been run all along.

Grafton K. Gray

Baltimore

Democrats have shown hypocrisy of their own

In response to the letter regarding supposed Republican hypocrisy for supporting New York mayor Rudolph Giuliani in his now-ended Senate bid("In Senate race, GOP takes the lead -- in hypocrisy," May 18), I would make two points.

First, Mr. Giuliani did not lie under oath, obstruct justice and abuse thepower of his office to keep his infidelities private.

Second, I find it very ironic that many of the same people who shrugged their shoulders over President Clinton's actions used personal issues to destroy John Tower's nomination as secretary of Defense during President Bush's administration, attempted to destroy Clarence Thomas' nomination to the Supreme Court and forced Oregon Sen. Robert Packwood out of the Senate.

Before calling Republicans hypocrites, Democrats and their supporters should take a hard look at their own record.

Ed Doheny

Bel Air

Everyone who questions religion is not an atheist

The recent letter "Atheism isn't a religion" (May 19) identifies atheists as those not choosing to believe a mythology, the basis for all religions.

Actually, this group also includes agnostics such as myself, who feel it is likely that there is an over-reaching intelligence or God in the universe, but that it has not revealed itself to humans in any believable way.

I suspect agnostics are more numerous than true atheists.

Robert M. Graham

Baltimore

Baltimore Sun Articles
|
|
|
Please note the green-lined linked article text has been applied commercially without any involvement from our newsroom editors, reporters or any other editorial staff.