Re: Question on Charity

["Andrew C Lang" <andylang@erols.com>]

Bob:

<Many of those advocating privatization have argued that both charity
and family should play a greater role in a reformed Social Security
system.>

I am strongly opposed to privatization in any form.

<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)?>

Absolutely not.

<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?>

Absolutely.

<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?>

Never. This is a dumb way to do it.

Social Security should be a base upon which we build the other two
things---corporate pensions and private saving and investment.

It should not be a safety net to catch those who fall through. Doing that
would be terrible for many people---making them dependent on
'welfare' ---that dirty word---is both humiliating and wrong----morally so.

It would also be stupid because we know how to do these systems and do them
well---at a fraction of the cost of the current program in the long
run---and with no changes in benefits. It would cost us money upfront---and
every dollar contributed would be invested and return a minimum of 2 dollars
downstream.

For a nation as rich as this one to say they cant afford a  modest national
retirement program is both insane and immoral. For us to say we cant figure
out how to do pensions, when we invented them, is to acquiese to the theater
of the absurd.