
                         Roanoke Times
                 Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.

DATE: THURSDAY, May 20, 1993                   TAG: 9305200527
SECTION: EDITORIAL                    PAGE: A-14   EDITION: METRO 
SOURCE: 
DATELINE:                                 LENGTH: Short

AGREEMENT, AT LEAST, ON RETIREMENT AGE

THE MAY 7 commentary entitled "Myths of Social Security" was just that - a myth created by the young authors, Rob Nelson and Jon Cowan. For example, the commentary contained the following: "The U.S. Social Security administration projects that the Social Security fund could be broke by as early as 2020." Further down, they wrote, "More important, the surpluses really aren't there. Instead of setting aside the extra $50 billion we collect in Social Security taxes every year, Washington is squandering the money to pay for current government expenses."

First, we are told the fund will be broke as early as 2020. Next, we are told that it is running a surplus of $50 billion every year. How can the fund go broke if it receives $50 billion more every year than it spends on Social Security? True, the government does borrow the surplus funds and issues an IOU for what's borrowed. Do the authors believe the government will repay the funds borrowed?

Further on in the article, the authors say, "But our generation is in trouble. We were educated in a collapsing school system. Our incomes and skill levels are lower than any previous generation. By the year 2000, more than one-third of younger Americans will be living in poverty." What has this got to do with Social Security?

The authors did have one good point, and that is they believe the retirement age should be raised. I agree, not because of Social Security, but because the older workers' skills are still needed in the work place. LOUIS GLENN SALEM

by CNB