YOUR COMMENTS

Steuerle of the Urban Institute understands government, Congress and Presidents, have promised benefits and saved no money. Here are his comments in today's Wall Street Journal in reference to Edwards' proposed tax cuts. "The dilemma that's going to confront the next president the day he or she walks into office is the huge fiscal gap in terms of the promised expenditures we're going to make," said Eugene Steuerle, senior fellow with the Urban Institute, a nonpartisan think tank. Looming obligations for entitlement programs like Social Security and Medicare are going to leave little room for spending or tax cuts.

"What makes today so unique in all our history is that never before have we promised so much in the future that those promises absorb all future revenues," Mr. Steuerle said.

Only personal accounts will protect young workers from the immoral politicians pandering to seniors at the expense of future generations.
- Ted Abram, RUNNING Y RANCH, OREGON

All proposals and plans to save SS&medicare would not be necessary by implementation of the "Fair Tax"HR25. No further studies necessary.Show me a politician that has the concern with what is best for the people and not what is best for his reelection.
- Joseph Tarinell, St. Augustine, FL

The problem won't get fixed as long as lawmakers are outside the SS system. Place them under SS and watch how fast it gets fixed.
- Mike Osborne, Fayetteville TN

The solution to this problem is found at www.riseupeconomy.com -

The Rise Up Theory of Economics is the fulfillment of the promise of supply-side economics. In its infancy, Jack Kemp reasoned that cutting taxes on the rich would increase investment capital thereby increasing economic activity that would “trickle down” on everyone. In 25 years it has done wonders for the rich but failed to tap the mother’s load of capital that America possesses – 15% of the lifetime income of the American worker now wasted on entitlement promises that government can’t keep. By investing that 15% in the American economy will not only cause our economy to run on all eight cylinders it will “rise up” the 98% of Americans left out of the “trickle down” riches and make them all millionaires.

This economic theory will let capitalism make the poor rich; cut government in half, cut taxes in half, pay off all unfunded entitlement liabilities, economically emancipate women and minorities; infuse enormous funds into growing the economy, reduce crime, poverty and gangs; eliminate the need for government pensions and Medicare; eliminate the need for business to fund retirement needs; increase the net worth of America and Americans and promote "Domestic Tranquility".

See the tables on the site
- Dick McDonald, Chatsworth, CA

Mr. Seabrook needs a lesson in Economics 101. You never increase tax revenues by raising taxes on the highest income earners, all that does is discourage innovation and sucks the life out of the economy.
As for Mr. Burzynski, do you realize that there is no account in Washington titled "Mr. Burzynski's Money." It is nothing more than a government obligation from a government that carries a huge deficit because it spends all its money on entitlement programs. You criticize the stock market like its only a rich person's game, if you did your homework, you would realize that over half of all American's now have their money in the stock market, most in their own personal retirement plans. Do you think that if the stock market ever lost all its value, in other words if companies such as Microsoft, Pepsi, WalMart...etc went bankrupt, that the government would fulfill its Social Security Obligation to you. Guess again, the governemt is funded by taxes from these companies
- Jason Lindholm, Long Beach, MS

Social Security should not be cut as many Republicans are suggesting. The revenue shortfall can be rescued easily by asking people making over $500,000 a year to pay the same payroll tax rate as somebody making $20,000 a year.
- Ron, Seabrook, NH

Mr. Burzynski is either uninformed or playing spin games as it is a gross misrepresentation for people of his ilk to keep deceiving people with the claim that Mr. Armey and those in agreement with him wish to take the retirement system and force invest it in the stock market. The personal accounts that were proposed and should be implemented offer the CHOICE of stock market investments or government bonds, etc. Adults CHOOSING and taking responsiblity for their choices. Mr. Burzynski doesn't help the debate by continuing the misrepresentation (scare tactic) by accusing those who want significant change in the system of wanting to FORCE people to invest their social security future in the stock market. Its called CHOICE and adults should have it. And adults should live with the risks and rewards of that choice.
- Roy Raush, Madison, WI

Dick Army is a leader. Always has been. We need to listen to his ideas. But he tends toward being too much of a Libertarian. The gulf between his Libertarian ideas and the Republic do not always mesh. But we should welcome his ideas and try to improve on them. Regarding his ideas about IRA's, he's right.
- howard lohmuller, seabrook/tx

To respond to Leon in Pewaukee, WI: You are correct that Medicare has a bigger unfunded liability but you are simply wrong in stating social security is fully funded the next 35 years. The difference is that their is reasonable fixes for social security whereas the problems with Medicare are much more difficult. The number of workers to retiree has continued to fall and with a huge wave of baby boomer retirements pending, this system will simply run out of money. You highlighted the loss in the stock market but you failed to mention long term investing over 30 years usually vields around 8% return annually. Compare this to less than 1% return when determining social security benefits- I'll take my chances in the stock market. Furthermore, do you trust the stock market in which you can control where you invest your money into or the federal government who has already dipped it's hand into the social security lock box (thanks LBJ)? I think it's disgusting how greedy the AARP looks at refusing to consider any type of reform other than raising taxes. Do they feel any guilt asking their grandchildren to pay more for their retirement? I'm 38 years old and really do not expect to recieve anything from this ponzi scheme.
- Darin Haugland, Inver Grove Heights, MN

Mr. Burzynski is free to divert his retirement savings to a standard savings account if he so wishes. There is no obligaiton in Rep. Armey's proposal to invest in the stock market.
If anything will kill SS reform it will be the retiring Baby Boomers, unprepared for retirement that vote to increase taxes on the rest of us to fund their retirements.
SS is nothing but a Ponzi scheme diverting money from current taxpayers to current retirees. I want control over my own money and could get a much better return than I will ever get from SS.
- Eric Dalton, Little Rock, AR

To correct Mr. Burzynski:

1) The fiscal imbalance of SS is 8.5 trillion, much less than Medicare, but certainly in need of attention.

2) Mr. Burzynski should read the front of his SS statement: without action, individual SS payments will < 27% in 2040 automatically without govt. action. That would decimate people living on SS at that time.

MC
- Michael Craney, Houston, TX

Dear Editor,
While I do not live in NH, I beleive it is important to defuse the false premises contained in the Armey piece. He fails to state clearly that Medicare, not Social Security is the program that needs attention. According to the SS trustee report, the SS system payouts are actuarily sound for the next 35 years. Armey and his ilk would like to see retirees income based on the whims of his pals on Wall Street, which, as I recall, saw the market drop 48% in 2001--2002. Those 401(k) accounts would be much of a retirement nest egg after dropping half their value. Having "control" of your money sounds great to young folks who are never going to get sick, never going to get old, and never going to retire. Those of us who have been around for a while have a different view.
- Leon Burzynski, Pewaukee, WI

I fully agree with Mr. Armey's statements. However, when President Bush brought forth SS reform for discussion and action, AARP campaigned strongly against privatization efforts (which is when I asked to be removed as a member) and cowed the Reps, and the Dems REFUSED even to discuss the issue of SS reform so long as privatization remained part of the discussion.

I kinda liken it to the Israeli-Palestinian peace talk impasse: what do you do when one side won't even join the discussion to bargain in good faith?

Except for a few (i.e., those few brave souls fighting against earmarks) our politicians are too weak-kneed and concerned with re-election to address the hard issues and make the tough choices. How do you propose to convince them to do so now?
- Dorothy Olson, Fort Collins, Colorado

Dear Editor:

I am not a voter in New Hampshire but I do appreciate the interest and efforts of the people of New Hampshire and their role in hosting the first primary in the nation every four years.

I urge the voters of New Hampshire to hold the candidates feet to the fire on the issue of the Social Security and Medicare problems. It is unconsicionable of the candidates to completely ignore this pressing issue. If the problem is not addressed, young workers will indeed pay more and get less from the programs.

Dick Armey is right. It is time to give American workers the chance to create and fund personal retirement accounts funded with Social Security tax.

Thank you, Theresa Brennan
- Theresa A. Brennan, Crystal Lake Park, Missouri

Younger workers deserve accounts that they own and can pass on to their children. The current system is going broke and the candidates for president should take a bold stance on this issue.
- Brendan Steinhauser, Alexandria, VA