Thanks for the three letters regarding Social Security on Aug. 15. Their timing and similarity give me great confidence that the liberal talking-points network is alive and well.
All three writers defended the program, insisting it needed to be protected from changes by politicians. The irony is that their proposals would be a huge change in Social Security. Note that the Federal Insurance Contribution Act tax which funds Social Security contains the word “insurance.” We pay insurance based on the benefits we receive, not our income. If my neighbor and I have similar cars and driving records, we pay similar insurance rates, even if he makes twice what I earn. All three writers want to raise the cap on what the “super rich” pay, even though those individuals would never receive benefits commensurate with what they paid. This changes Social Security from being an old-age insurance program to a wealth-redistribution program (always a favorite of liberals). This change may be something the nation eventually does, but please don’t say it’s “protecting” the program.
Finally, maybe future letter writers could actually define the terms “rich” and “fair share” when they use them. That just seems reasonable.
Randy James, Boise