Social Security - Letter To Editor - Advise Please?

[iamjoy]

In the debate over whether or not to allow people to privatize a portion of their Social Security in hopes of better investment returns, we seem to have lost sight of the big picture. Social refers to the well being of individuals as part of society. Security is freedom from danger. Social Security was developed as a safety net for people who might otherwise be impoverished. Allowing investment in private accounts (which would carry some degree of risk) is contrary to the purpose for which the program was developed. We should not allow our government to destroy Social Security through privatization. I would have more respect for privatization advocates if they admitted their real goal was to abolish it and let Americans keep their payroll taxes.

*********
Any feedback before I submit? Lines you like, lines you don't. Inaccuracies...

[Warpy]

1. Social security is insurance

and it was never meant to be an investment. People are free to risk any money over and above their FICA premiums in the stock market.

Mr. Bush's scheme to partially defund social security is unconscionable. Stock markets go down as well as up, and there is no guarantee that the stocks any individual picks will be winners. FICA is our safety net for bad investments, a bear market or stolen pensions. The only people to win under Mr. Bush's partial theft of this insurance program will be the brokers.

[gratuitous]

2. Good, short and to the point

I think I'd either leave off the last sentence or recast it:

Advocates for privatization have announced that their true goal is to abolish Social Security, the most successful government program ever that keeps millions of economically vulnerable citizens out of poverty.

* * *

For follow-up letters, I would suggest that considering the Republican record of short-sighted policies and fiscal irresponsibility during the last four years it strains all bounds of credulity to believe that they're truly worried about the solvency of Social Security, which is perfectly sound for at least the next 50 years.

And, in your follow-up after that, you might mention how curious it is that so many of the "reform" advocates are not dependent on Social Security to keep them from poverty, but would benefit handsomely by the enormous cash infusion of other people's money that would ensue from private accounts.

[shraby]

3. Social Security spelled the demise of

the old "poor farms" where the elderly went when they got too old to work any more and didn't have any savings to speak of. A lot of old women were relegated to the poor farms because women traditionally outlive men and when their husband died their support was gone. Many families had their older members live with them, but there were still many who didn't.

If social security becomes private accounts subject to the vagaries of the stock market..(who would want to open a savings account at a bank for the money at about 1% interest), and it takes time to save enough for cd's...we can expect to see multiple generations in the same household once again and a return of poor farms. That doesn't make for a progressive nation, does it?

[iamjoy]

4. Thanks!

Advocates for privatization have announced that their true goal is to abolish Social Security, the most successful government program ever that keeps millions of economically vulnerable citizens out of poverty.

I was looking for help with that last line in particular.