Re: Question on Charity

[Prautes@aol.com]

> Many of those advocating privatization have argued that both charity
>  and family should play a greater role in a reformed Social Security
>  system.
>  
>  1. Do you favor a privatized system which eliminates the current
>  system's redistributive benefits formula (which gives relatively
>  higher benefits to lower-income people)?
>  
I do not favor a system which eliminates redistributive benefits formula.  
Privatization of social security's administration may provide some 
efficiencies, but could also result in conflict of interest and fraud.  As a 
former federal auditor who audited defense contractors, I trust government 
personnel to do the right thing more than I trust employees of a corporation 
whose managers are focusing on the bottom line.  I do know the government can 
be more inefficient than private industry, but overall I think I would prefer 
to leave social security in government hands.  Who handles the federal FERS 
system?  Would a similar system be a possibility for social security?

>  2. Under the present system or some of the proposed alternatives,
>  will some people be forced to choose between food, lodging or
>  medicine in their daily budgets?

I have an aunt who already chooses among these things.  Her social security 
check ($400?) pays for the rent on a very small apartment.  If she did not 
have some savings, which provide about $100/month income, she would not be 
able to afford other living expenses.  She has no car, walks to church every 
morning, eats very simple and inexpensive foods, uses very few utilities, and 
has mostly refused to go to doctors because of the expense over and above her 
medicare and Blue Cross/Blue Shield supplemental.  I'm not sure that any of 
the alternatives would provide a better situation for her.

>  3. Will charitable organizations be able to fill the gap between
>  the needs of the poorest sector of the population and the benefits
>  provided by government programs?  Should this be the solution to
>  this problem?

Charitable organizations already rely on a great deal of government funding 
to carry out their mission.  Without some major shift in attitude, I do not 
see them having the resources to supplement a reduction in social security 
benefits.  I do not think this should be the solution.  Ideally, yes, 
families and communities would take care of their own.  We have given some 
assistance to a poorer family member on social security, but we have no 
control over their actions.  If there were a tax deduction for providing 
assistance to individuals as well as organizations, there may be more care by 
family members for their own, but this could also open up all kinds of abuse.

Thanks,

Margaret R. "Peggy" Kruse