Social Security

By Robert E. Bidwell

One must always fear oversimplifying an issue - the conclusion is not believable.

It is a fact that practically all employers withhold 7.65% of the first $76,500 from the pay of every employee. Each employer then matches the 7.65% with another 7.65% which comes directly from profits.

Procter & Gamble alone must contribute, conservatively, 35 miiion dollars annually (and it could be twice that amount). If every P&G employee contributed their own 7.65% directly to their aging parents, that amount would probably exceed the amount the parents are receiving from Social Security. In fact, it might double or even triple the size of the Social Security check.

If P&G added half of their contributions to employees' paychecks, they would be increasing their cash flow substantially, and sending the money where it could do some good.

But how about Social Security recipients who do not have working children or any number of a hundred reasons which justify their need.

Since Social Security is voluntary there may be some, who want to continue. Any shortfall can be borrowed from the Treasury - without interest.

It must not be borrowed from the Federal Reserve Bank which charges interest.

As a final step, cut off all future Social Security for anybody born after January 1, 2001.

It is a Ponzi scheme - a massive musical comedy played out on a large stage with lots of lights and, colorful costumes and beautiful music all designed to hypnotize the audience into becoming a part of the illusion that it will go on forever. It must stop. It should stop now, with compassion and intelligence - and without pandering political rhetoric from those whose sole preoccupation is getting elected.