RE: There's every reason to NOT reform

[Michael Jones <powderfinger99@yahoo.com>]

<<<<
"Why reform now?" is indeed a good question. Social Security will
pay full benefits for next 35 years, and with no adjustments would
still be able to cover 65-75 percent of scheduled benefits for the
next 40 years. (These reduced benefits will be greater than full
benefits now in purchasing power due to increases in wages, and
thus, benefit levels). The question "Why reform now?" is begging
the question:  "Why fix Social Security when it's not broken?"
>>>>

Solvency is not the only issue. Keeping the system solvent
does not insure that the future benefits will be able to 
keep anyone above poverty. As time goes on, the system won't
be able to give back workers even their own contributions, much
less interest. What should be done to insure that the benefit
level remains reasonable?

The increase in wages will not be enough to cover inflation.

<<<<
As citizens of a country with one of the most
productive economies in the world,
>>>>

A reformed system will enable everyone to get a real piece
of the "productive economy" through direct ownership in capital.
This is a step forward, not backward.

<<<<
We should have the foresight to recogize both the social and economic
benefits of providing universal retirement, disability and survivor's
insurance with such efficiency and success.
>>>>

The system as it is currently structured will not be successful
in the future because it will not be able to offer the same level
of benefits as previous generations. This lower level of benefit
assumes full solvency! What would you do to insure that the
program is as successful as it was in the past? How would you 
fund the same level of benefit as in the past? 

Michael