Social Security System

Voters have indicated in any number of recent polls that they are fed up with the way things are done in Washington, but some members of Congress don't seem to get the message.The decision by a small group of House members to possibly jeopardize the urban-aid bill and the future solvency of the Social Security system over perceived inequity in benefit payments to a small group of retirees clearly illustrates why the American people are so riled up.The issue concerns the so-called "Notch Babies" -- retirees who were born between 1917 and 1921 -- and a perceived disparity in their benefits.

Susan Reimer 's recent column on Social Security Dilemma completely missed the mark ("Don't blame boomers for Social Security dilemma," April 22). Neither Baby Boomers nor the lack of new workers has anything to do with the current Social Security dilemma. The problem lies with Congress and the politicians in Washington. Social Security was originally set up in the 1930s as a "pay as you go" retirement system. Money was collected from workers and supposedly invested and saved for their retirement.

Susan Reimer 's recent column on Social Security Dilemma completely missed the mark ("Don't blame boomers for Social Security dilemma," April 22). Neither Baby Boomers nor the lack of new workers has anything to do with the current Social Security dilemma. The problem lies with Congress and the politicians in Washington. Social Security was originally set up in the 1930s as a "pay as you go" retirement system. Money was collected from workers and supposedly invested and saved for their retirement.

WASHINGTON - For the fourth time in four years, the House voted yesterday to repeal the federal estate tax permanently, a central element of President Bush's economic agenda. The measure, approved 272-162, stands little chance in the Senate because of the threat of a filibuster, which Democrats have used to block similar bills in the past. But Senate Republican leaders are exploring the possibility of a compromise, and Democratic leaders have said that they are willing at least to talk about the matter.

WASHINGTON -- The Senate, forced to choose between the sanctity of Social Security and the seductiveness of a tax cut, decisively beat back an effort to cut the Social Security payroll tax yesterday, effectively erasing the issue from this year's political calendar.On a 60-38 vote, lawmakers rejected a plan that gradually would have rolled back the 6.2 percent Social Security payroll tax to 5.2 percent by 1996. For all intents and purposes, the Senate majority determined that it was better to maintain the tax and brave any resulting criticism than to cut the levy and risk accusations that they had jeopardized the Social Security system.

WASHINGTON - For the fourth time in four years, the House voted yesterday to repeal the federal estate tax permanently, a central element of President Bush's economic agenda. The measure, approved 272-162, stands little chance in the Senate because of the threat of a filibuster, which Democrats have used to block similar bills in the past. But Senate Republican leaders are exploring the possibility of a compromise, and Democratic leaders have said that they are willing at least to talk about the matter.

WASHINGTON -- The bad news is that after the turn of the century, declining federal deficits will reverse course and shoot back up. And by 2010, when the baby boomers start retiring, the Social Security system will come under increasing strain.The good news is, there's time to solve these large problems in ways that won't deal staggering blows to the economy.President Clinton's Bipartisan Commission on Entitlements and Tax Reform held its first public hearing yesterday on just how to perform that politically difficult task.

VICE PRESIDENT Al Gore has hit on a basic flaw in Social Security benefits that keeps many widowed women in poverty. Yet in proposing a solution, the presidential candidate failed to come up with a responsible way to pay for it. This leaves him open to criticism that he's pandering to women voters. Mr. Gore wants to expand women's benefits by $100 billion over 10 years without first reforming the Social Security system that must support this added burden. That's disingenuous. Mr. Gore has been unwilling to acknowledge the looming Social Security crisis and support changes to ward off the program's insolvency.

A panel of experts disagreed sharply yesterday over whether the Social Security system will be able to sustain future generations or if part of it should be invested in the stock market to ensure that funds will be available for 21st-century retirees.The panel discussion was part of the National Conference of Editorial Writers, being held this week at the Hyatt Regency Hotel in downtown Baltimore.Moderated by Sun editorial page editor Joseph R. L. Sterne, the four-member panel debated whether an overhaul of the Social Security system is needed to prevent a depletion of funds by 2030.

KANSAS CITY, Mo. -- Saying it would be "unconscionable" not to fix looming problems in the Social Security system, President Clinton appealed yesterday to Americans to set aside differences of politics and age and agree on a plan by early next year.He used a town hall meeting that included members of Congress from both parties, retirees, working people and children to kick off what he hopes will be a national debate leading to changes before the system starts to buckle with the retirement of the baby boom generation.

THE LATEST liberal spin on Social Security is that there is no problem. Of course, there is no problem with any obligation if you are willing to welsh when it comes time to pay it. Politically, the bottom line of this approach is that President Bush's plan is "not a magic bullet," in the words of Business Week magazine. When people start talking about how this or that policy "is no panacea" or "not a magic bullet," then you know their argument is not serious. Why don't we all stipulate, once and for all, that no policy on any subject, anywhere or anytime, is a panacea or a magic bullet?

VICE PRESIDENT Dick Cheney launched the latest salvo in the Social Security reform debate last week with a speech calling for an "honest, straightforward and realistic" discussion of the future of the program. Unfortunately, the rest of his speech did not meet these goals. In fact, like so much else that has been said on the subject in the last few months, its purpose seemed to be more to confuse than to clarify the options. Social Security is best understood as a deal among the generations.

Q: May's question asked whether the Enron scandal had left readers uneasy about retirement and what steps the government should take to protect retirement accounts. Let taxpayers put their money in stock market Given the pending insolvency of Social Security, I support President Bush's goal of giving taxpayers the choice of investing a small portion of their own money to build retirement nest eggs. It would shock most Americans to find out that the Social Security trust fund currently earns just over 2 percent return annually, which is below the annual rate of inflation.

CLEARWATER, Fla. ---George W. Bush and his father before him have been guests at On Top of the World, a retirement community of 10,000 that is bigger than some coastal Florida cities. Just two months ago, Bush the younger assured retirees at the complex that their Social Security benefits were safe with him. But Amy and Ray Hernandez weren't going to take any chances. They cast their votes yesterday for Democratic candidate Al Gore. "At our age, 91 1/2 and 82," said the missus, "I don't want anyone messing around with the money I depend on."

WASHINGTON - Vice President Al Gore will propose tomorrow a plan to set aside $200 billion over 10 years from the projected federal budget surplus to entice spendthrift Americans to save more money for retirement, a first home, education or catastrophic health care costs. Gore's Family Savings Accounts - the largest piece of a tax cut package totaling $500 billion - is the Democratic presidential candidate's answer to his Republican rival, Texas Gov. George W. Bush, who has proposed the partial privatization of the Social Security system.

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.

HOUSE SPEAKER Newt Gingrich is pushing a plan that would transfer government surpluses into personal retirement accounts for workers who now pay Social Security taxes.Under his proposal, government surpluses would be used to start tax-free accounts for the nearly 130 million Americans who pay into Social Security. The accounts would not replace any part of the current system but would be added on.Social Security pays benefits to 44 million Americans, including retirees, the disabled and the families of working-age people who die.Without changes, the system is projected to run out of money in 2029.

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.

VICE PRESIDENT Al Gore has hit on a basic flaw in Social Security benefits that keeps many widowed women in poverty. Yet in proposing a solution, the presidential candidate failed to come up with a responsible way to pay for it. This leaves him open to criticism that he's pandering to women voters. Mr. Gore wants to expand women's benefits by $100 billion over 10 years without first reforming the Social Security system that must support this added burden. That's disingenuous. Mr. Gore has been unwilling to acknowledge the looming Social Security crisis and support changes to ward off the program's insolvency.

WASHINGTON -- Beyond the melodrama of President Clinton's address to a Congress considering his removal from office, his State of the Union speech marked yet another example of his favorite tactic of coopting the Republicans on a key issue of importance to voters.This time it is his proposal to spend most of the government budget surplus to bolster Social Security -- an idea the GOP has been pressing, along with its call last year for part of the surplus to go for a tax cut.Mr. Clinton successfully buried the tax-cut notion favored by former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, but the investment of federal funds on Wall Street remained a central Republican initiative.