Betty Arenson | Eisenberg Misses Point on Social Security

Letters to the Editor
Letters to the Editor
Share on facebook
Share on twitter
Share on email

Re: Lois Eisenberg, letters, Feb. 13: “Long live Social Security.”

Lois Eisenberg declares that, to the GOP, Social Security is a “thorn, burden and driver of debt.” Further, the GOP have “fought to dismantle (it) for years.” As usual, no supporting facts were given.

Franklin Delano Roosevelt signed the Social Security Act in 1935 and its revenue began in January 1937. The Social Security Administration has reaped $13.8 trillion (that’s a “T”) from 1937 to 2009 (only). Irrespective of the multi-trillions of dollars, there are constant threats of the fund being insolvent.

Democrats have dominated the lower congress, with “usually large majorities,” from 1934 to 1994, with the exception of four years; that’s the purse strings. In 1968, with a Democrat majority in the Senate and the House, President Lyndon Johnson put the Social Security fund into the budget, meaning the monies could be spent, period.

Therein lies the huge problem.   

In 2000 President George W. Bush floated privatizing up to 2 percent of Social Security but the idea went nowhere. Congress is not about to let the workers have any say-so over their hard-earned dollars. 

The assertion that Republicans want to destroy Social Security is farcical.    

Since 1984 new Congress members are mandated to Social Security. At that time the serving members had a choice to opt into it. Further, many of the members have working spouses and working children who are paying into the system. It’s nonsensical to think members would work at destroying the program.

For the false statement that the rich don’t pay their “fair share,” CNN Money cites the top 10 percent of earners pay 70 percent of the federal income taxes, and the remaining 90 percent pay under 30 percent with 47 percent paying nearly nothing. cites a slight variance, in quoting the Congressional Budget Office, saying the top 10 percent pay 68 percent of federal income tax.

Eisenberg’s erroneous and factually absent declarations are reckless and provide two things: They feed the drive-by readers who will remain uninformed and they nurture unnecessary loathing, with the latter breeding class warfare.

Betty Arenson, Valencia

Related To This Story

Latest NEWS