Social Security sham.

Your thoughtful Comment, "Save Social Security," in the January issue is a helpful contribution to what should be a national discussion of the future of Social Security. A similar essay could have been published with great validity in 1940, and every decade since then.

Social Security has been structured as a flim-flam mechanism that has worked rather well. The reason it is a flim-flam is that throughout its history, to the extent that it invested in anything, it invested in United States government bonds. As a result, workers paid into the Social Security fund; the fund invested in U.S. government bonds. The U.S. government used the money that came from the sale of these bonds to fight World War II, to build public works, and to fight the Korean War, Vietnam War, and two Gulf Wars. Money flowed from the paychecks of workers through the Treasury to general operating funds of the United States government faster than fans at a World Series game pass through the turn-stiles.

The reason it has worked reasonably well is that for the first fifty years, there were more people entering the work force than leaving. Now, people are living longer, and the median population age is rising. This means fewer younger workers.

Congress probably can lower pensions at will, and it is doubtful the courts will save us from that unpleasant experience.

The United States government gives the Social Security Administration IOUs but, in fact, spends the money as fast as it comes in. We workers continue to contribute to the program with the hope, but no guarantee, that we shall receive the kinds of pension benefits that have been given in the past. We do not even get an IOU for our money, which has been spent as fast or faster than we have contributed it.

I do not know whether it is good policy for younger workers to have the option to put a portion of their Social Security funds in a portfolio of open-market securities.

I do know that floating the idea should stimulate the kind of public discussion that your Comment represents.

Robert E. Manley

Cincinnati, Ohio 

Your Comment, "Save Social Security," was finely crafted with reasonable arguments supported by well-founded facts and forecasts. The Bush strategy, despite its coat of a different color, is to chip away parts of the system until it vanishes or gets pushed down to the states. Bush is using this approach on public education and environmental protection. Soon he will cut Social Security benefits, followed by more privatization and lower payroll taxes, then a lower ceiling on taxable wages, and on and on.

Sadly, we're rendered virtually powerless to stop this motion through democratic means because of our "corporatocracy."

Roger Steed 

Dayton, Ohio