stevenso (01/21/83)
A recent editorial in the Chicago Tribune discussed the problems of the nation's Social Security system, with what I found to be an unusual perspective. The thesis of the article (submitted to the net as Part 2) is that the major source of the funding problem for the SSS is that benefits are awarded on the basis of age and not need. The author (Phillip Longman) maintains that a major portion of the recipients of SS benefits do not need them because they have other income sources (pensions, savings, investments, etc.) that are sufficient to sustain them. As you will recall one of the features of the compromise reached by the recent committee on Social Security was based on such logic. This and the proposal to delay cost of living adjustments have already come under sharp attack from representatives of the affected groups. William Armstrong (senate, R., Colo.) is the only political figure that I know of who has made statements in support of young wage earners interests. One of the tasks before the 98th congressional session is to decide how to solve the SSS funding problems that we've all been reading about, and in the process it will determine the future course of what has a growing hole in our paychecks. Given the propensity of congress to make decisions based on what is politic rather than what is best, I have concluded that I had better write to my bean counting representatives. Dan Stevenson Bell Labs ihnss!stevenso