Frittering nest eggs

Gloomy predictions for Social Security ignore sunny side

Editor, The Times:

So what are we to believe? Should we be concerned that George Bush's plan will "gut Social Security"? ("Bush offers no good reason to gut Social Security," Times, Bill Iulo guest commentary, Jan. 23.) Will the "Republican czar" dismantle one of our beloved institutions? ("Before it turns to dust," The Reader's View, Jan. 22.) Should we place all of our faith in AARP? ("I'm glad AARP's got my Gen-X back on Social Security," Susan Nielsen guest commentary, Jan. 20.)

The thought that investing in the stock market is reserved for those who can afford it is the ultimate in hypocrisy and ignorance. Placing one's faith in the current incarnation of Social Security or AARP is, at the very least, misguided.

We now have a chance to take more control of our own retirement destinies by means of personal accounts. It is time for people to stand up, become educated about their own fiscal future and realize that there is a wealth of investment tools available.

Contributions to personal accounts should be offset by reductions in the FICA tax, and future reductions in Social Security benefits should be offset by the investment returns of the personal accounts.

— Daniel Strash, Sammamish

Cracks in the facade

"National sales tax, private accounts could save Social Security" (Business & Technology, Jan. 23) advocated private Social Security accounts, while on the same day we learned that Republicans are avoiding the word "privatization" because people don't like the idea (" 'Crisis,' 'private' new fighting words in D.C.," page one, Jan. 23).

Here are questions for privatization advocates that the press needs to pose more vigorously:

• What happens to the income of individuals who retire in a down market?

• Which is more efficient (less costly) and more dependable (honest) in taking care of our money, the private sector or the government?

• Will we provide welfare benefits for those who lose their money through foolish or unlucky investment decisions?

• In the new "ownership society," how will average people accumulate enough money to leave an inheritance when they can't save enough now to adequately fund their retirement?

• If our economy is so healthy, why can't we afford the modest adjustments needed to place Social Security on a sound footing?

• Who will benefit more from privatization: the very wealthy, or the average person?

Social Security is all that will stand between half of our retired citizens and old-age poverty. The press needs to do a better job of asking advocates of privatization tough questions about a dangerous and foolhardy scheme.

— Michael Von Korff, Seattle

Incubating extinction

As usual, The Seattle Times is attempting to discredit George Bush by attacking every single policy initiative of his administration ("Plan for Social Security would shrink benefits," page one, Jan. 5). But this goes far, far beyond the typical left/right debates we all engage in. You are messing with my future!

I remember all too well, while in business school at the University of Washington in the '80s, a professor of mine explaining to me that because of our country's demographics, Social Security will be broke well before I retire. That was 20 years ago. Has any president done anything about it? No.

This is not some abstract theory. This is not "trickle-down" or "voodoo" economics. This is not a debate about global warming. If nothing is done, Social Security will run out of money. In 20 years, at the current rate, there will be two wage-earners for every one retiree. Pure and simple. It's a matter of mathematics and we have seen this crisis coming for decades.

Shame on The Times for politicizing this impending disaster. For all those who criticize the president for trying to do something about it, I hope you remember this 20 years from now when the you-know-what hits the fan. Just remember, you saw it coming.

— Nicholas Tanner, Camano Island

Half poached

I found amusing the Republicans' reluctance to use the word "private" when describing the accounts they're proposing for Social Security. I have another word that we might want to take out of the mix as well.

The president has said that he wants to change a defined-benefits plan into a defined-contributions plan. Social Security is both right now. There is a discrepancy between the money coming in and the money going out, but that doesn't require an overhaul.

If you remove the defined benefits, leaving only the defined contributions, you risk (putting) generations of old people in poverty because of the vagaries of the stock market and unfortunate investment decisions.

The word that I would take out of the mix if the president's plan passes? "Security."

— Jim Peterson, Granite Falls

Which came first

So, Times' editorial columnist Bruce Ramsey says in regard to private accounts and Social Security, "I should have the option of managing my own money" (editorial column, Jan. 26).

Well, guess what, Mr. Ramsey, you already have that option. It's called a 401(k)!

— Talia Goeke, Seattle

Escape hatch

The Bush administration seems to be losing traction in its bid to turn Social Security into a Wall Street cash cow. We all know what comes next...

Tomorrow's news: Terror alert level is raised to orange!

— Tom Ridgeway, Seattle

Gathering storms

A weather aye

There has been a great deal of confusion regarding my bill to remove the regulatory burden on private use of rain barrels and cisterns. I was pleased this issue attracted well-deserved attention, but was dismayed that so many people misinterpreted the intent and effect of this bill. In offering Senate Bill 5113, my goal was to cut the red tape hampering the installation of these barrels and cisterns.

It came to my attention that residential building permits were being delayed or denied because local governments were unclear whether the Department of Ecology needed to issue individual permits for water barrels and cisterns.

Technically, under an old state law, all water in our state belongs to the people and Ecology has the duty to regulate all uses of it. I thought that was an outdated approach and an unnecessary burden to landowners who wanted to use this good conservation practice.

I have reworded my bill to make it more clear to the lay reader that an individual permit is not required for rain barrels and cisterns. I am hopeful that despite the fact people have mistaken the intent and effect of the bill, this positive piece of legislation can move forward.

— Sen. Paull Shin, D-Mukilteo, Edmonds

Burning bridges

Hot-foots down the road

Let's see if I got this right.

A liberal mob blocks liberal traffic on liberal streets during rush hour in a liberal city to make a liberal anti-conservative statement ("Protest fills downtown streets," News, Jan.21).

Then the liberal mayor of that same liberal city demands one billion "viaduct dollars" ("Viaduct is must-have for Seattle delegation," Local News, Jan. 21) from a conservative national government voted into power by a conservative majority, while he verbally admonishes the ongoing war on terrorism.

Sounds like the liberal citizens in the liberal city just shot themselves in their liberal feet... again!

— Bill Barnes, Coupeville