To the Editor:
I read with interest the opinion piece in the LTE section on Sept. 2 regarding Social Security by Glenn Duerr.
Mr. Duerr is right that the trust fund isn’t on a permanently secure path under the current rules. Projections do show a shortfall “if nothing changes.” So calling attention to solvency isn’t wrong.
Mr. Duerr is, however, leaning on the familiar “we all need to tighten our belts” narrative, which sounds reasonable on the surface but sidesteps bigger questions about fairness, policy choices and whether high earners or government inefficiency should bear more of the load than retirees living on fixed checks. Framing sacrifice as the only path forward ignores the structural causes I am happy to highlight.
Sacrificing benefits is politically palatable to some commentators but it overlooks the fact that many Americans depend almost entirely on Social Security for retirement. For them, cuts aren’t “shared sacrifice” — they’re devastating.
AARP operates as a business whose primary goal is profit despite its status as a nonprofit 501(c)(4). The CEO earns approximately $2.5 million annually, with the top 15 executives averaging about $750,000 per year each. Even their own statement that “payments may be reduced” serves more as a scare tactic to boost sales than a serious warning.
The author suggests that “both recipients and payers into the system should have to sacrifice something for the fund to remain solvent.” I strongly disagree. We should not have to sacrifice what we’ve earned.
The underfunding of Social Security began when Congress, under the Johnson administration, moved the program into the “unified budget” in 1969, giving lawmakers the ability to (borrow) and spend the funds elsewhere. To make matters worse, the Social Security trust funds are restricted to low interest paying U.S. Treasury securities — these “Fiat” instruments are backed only by the “full faith and credit of the U.S. government” and not by tangible assets. If the true owners of these funds (the American people) or even the government itself were allowed to diversify into stronger investments, the system would likely be thriving instead of struggling.
Contrary to what was written in the opinion piece, the U.S. already has a robust legal immigration framework. Unfortunately, some past administrations have chosen not to enforce it, resulting in hundreds of thousands (or millions) working off the books (cash) and avoiding contributions to the system. Enforcement is essential and with the new administration is now being done.
The “Big Bill” is not another budget-busting giveaway as stated. It is a mechanism to bring more people into the workforce, who in turn will contribute more to Social Security — a straightforward principle of economics.
The real path forward includes cutting unnecessary government spending, modestly adjusting the rate new workers contribute, and removing the $176,100 income cap on taxable earnings. Currently, high earners pay only $10,918.20 annually into the system, which is far below their capacity to contribute.
The federal government employs more than 3 million people. In my opinion, that number could be cut in half with automation. For example, in 2022 the Social Security Administration alone employed 60,570 people. With an average salary of $73,284 in 2023, that equates to an estimated $4.4 billion in payroll — much of which could be reduced with greater use of automation. It is fair to ask what value all of these positions add, and just what are these people doing each day?
I was also around during the Kennedy years and still believe we should focus on what we can do for our country. That starts with demanding a leaner, more efficient government that manages taxpayer money responsibly and allows Social Security funds to be invested more effectively for the future.
Cliff Whitney
Waynesville