Social Security Benefits

In the midst of the Social Security debates, here's the first thing you have to know. Social Security is not in some form of terminal crisis. It's a serious challenge but not a sinking ship. Young people won't be left empty-handed unless they vote to let that happen. The problems are fixable, with incremental change in benefits, taxes and, eventually, borrowing. Many reformers have Social Security's basic premise in their cross hairs. They're challenging the idea of a guaranteed payment plus a cost-of-living adjustment.

WASHINGTON - Early last year, when President Clinton proposed using $250 billion of the budget surplus to create millions of individual retirement accounts, Vice President Al Gore balked, fearing the plan would cost too much and do too little for poorer workers struggling to save their money. On Tuesday, with great fanfare, Gore will unveil a new Family Savings Account proposal that will look remarkably like the Clinton plan he once viewed skeptically. The conversion was fueled by politics, swelling surplus projections, and a change of heart by some of his key economic advisers.

WASHINGTON -- Vice President Al Gore proposed yesterday the most substantial increase in Social Security benefits in 25 years, suggesting that widows and working mothers be granted more money to combat high poverty levels among elderly single women. The $100 billion proposal, outlined at a Philadelphia community center, drew praise from senior citizens and women's groups. But it drew fire from liberal and conservative experts on Social Security, who questioned the wisdom of increasing benefits when the system's long-term solvency is in doubt.

Last week, Congress passed legislation that stops the reduction of Social Security benefits for people who continue to work through their late 60s. The bill, which President Clinton has said he will sign, would be made retroactive to Dec. 31, 1999, effectively boosting the income of 800,000 workers 65 through 69 by thousands of dollars before Election Day in November. Under current law, elderly workers 65 through 69 lose $1 in Social Security benefits for every $3 in wages they make above $17,000.

IT NO longer makes sense to penalize senior citizens for continuing to work beyond the time they can collect full Social Security benefits. Our thriving economy is short on manpower and needs their enormous pool of expertise and strong work ethic. Under Social Security laws, anyone age 65 to 69 who continues to work and earns over $17,000 this year will lose $1 of Social Security benefits for each $3 earned above that limit. This punitive provision was enacted in the Depression, when America had far more workers than jobs and sought to encourage seniors to retire.

BOSTON -- We may be about to rid ourselves of the Social Security earnings penalty -- and it's about time. Congress is supposed to consider eliminating it this year, and President Clinton has said he favors eliminating it. Opposition to the proposal has yet to surface. And the budgetary arguments against it, always based on suspicious economics, have been weakened by a surging economy. The earnings penalty applies only to wage income. In other words, if you're over 65 years old and not yet 70, you can earn thousands or millions of dollars from your investments and still draw full Social Security benefits.

WASHINGTON -- A bipartisan election year consensus seems to be building to finally repeal a Depression-era penalty on Social Security recipients who keep working after age 65. President Clinton has already agreed to sign a bill scheduled to begin moving through the House today that would remove the penalty affecting about 700,000 older Americans who still want, and perhaps need, to work. If enacted, the measure would take effect as of Jan. 1 this year, saving workers ages 65 to 69 hundreds, perhaps thousands of dollars this year.

Gay couples do not get marital benefits In his Opinion Commentary article, Bruce Mirken of San Francisco castigates ExxonMobil for denying spousal benefits to gay couples ("ExxonMobil falters on gay partner benefits," Dec. 28). It is perhaps useful to explore the reason for spousal benefits in the first place. Mr. Mirken is most likely referring to health insurance benefits but it is useful to look at an earlier benefit type, old-age pensions under Social Security, for an explanation.

WITH Social Security reform drawing ever nearer, you need to give some thought to how it might change your life.Nothing certain can be said until a program has actually passed. But a few general principles permeate all the plans for change. Here's the state of play:Social Security won't be allowed to die or be turned into a purely private program. It's the most popular government benefit ever, and will be retained.But it will change. The current system of taxes and benefits cannot support all the boomer retirees, and everyone knows it.The time for fantasy and denial has just about run out. Under current law, the first of the boomers will start drawing early retirement benefits just 10 years from now, when they turn 62. Soon after that, the trickle will turn into a flood.

Traffic lines are needed for light rail safetyIs it going to take a fatality before the proper authorities take action and paint bright yellow diagonal lines (signifying "do not encroach") across the light rail right of way at the intersection of Howard and Pratt? Many cars each day stop for red lights on the tracks. Confrontations between light rail trains and these cars are common. The simple, cheap solution: the painted lines, and a prominent warning sign along or above eastbound Pratt.