Letter: Social Security is not a fund

Wednesday, Sept. 5, 2001 | 9:43 a.m.

In response to Ann Reynolds' Aug. 30 letter:

In her second sentence, she is concerned about the "Social Security fund." Sorry, but there is no "fund." All monies are given to the government and spent as the government sees fit. If you look at the federal budget, "Social insurance taxes and contributions" is a section of net receipts. The government did not set up a separate budget for Social Security, it is just additional revenue to spend.

Like you, I have been putting money into Social Security for a long time. Since the system is to provide for me when I retire, I would like part of it kept out of the hands of government and for me to have some control. There is no fund that "belongs to the American public."

Right now, and for the next few years (by 2020 to 2040, depending on which Congressional Budget Office, Office of Management Budget, Social Security Administration, etc., report is used), we collect more from Social Security contributions of current workers than is paid to retirees. Why not let the difference be put aside for the folks actually paying the money (build a fund)?

Reynolds' comment, "If there is not enough money in the fund, then raise the interest rates on those who have borrowed from it," is inaccurate. There is no fund. There are no borrowers from the fund, except the government, which used excess payments from 1933 though 2001 to pay for a larger government.

The natural tendency is to resist change. Change has to happen, and the sooner it starts, the sooner we can make a workable solution.

KYLE L. TINGLE