RE: What "values" created the existing system?

[RRand98163@aol.com]

I must say that I disagree completely with Michael Jones' comments
on my comments. He says that the real question is not whether the
present system can be sustained with appropriate changes but whether
it can be sustained with no changes at all. This is simply wrong
and stupid.  The design of the system and the law have always
contemplated changes when deemed necessary and wise. The very
purpose of the annual 75 year projections is to determine if the
benefits and taxes are in balance and, if not, what changes are
appropriate. No sensible supporter of Social Security has ever
contended otherwise. The need for changes does not mean that a very
successful system should be foolishly discarded.

Mr. Jones says that a system that combines welfare and retirement
plan objectives cannot succeed. But it has succeeded for 65 years
and can continue to succeed in the future.

He like many other proponents of scrapping the present system does
not mention the real problem in changing to a system of personal
accounts, and that is the transition cost, the unfunded liability
for benefits accrued to date under the present system amounts to
six trillion dollars, larger than the current Federal debt, and
would have to be provided for in some way.  Those who advocate
changing to personal accounts without dealing with the transition
cost problem are dishonest.