On Social Security
[Letter submitted to President Ronald Reagan, 9 August 1981]

Sir:

I would like to express my opinion about the Social Security problems and the proposed cuts, taking also into consideration the political aspects and the opposition.

First I want to use an example: if your dog never had a bone, he will not even dream about it; but if you give him a bone, he will bark or bite when you try to take it away from him....

After this philosophical thought, here is my opinion: Social Security is a good program and its continuation should be secured. I think it is very important that you re-establish the confidence people had in this program. Right now, many people who are paying for their Social Security have lost their trust in the program.

The lack of confidence in the Social Security program was caused by previous Administrations, which added many benefits to the original program and administered it in the most ridiculous manner (like paying benefits to prison inmates). I doubt very much that the cuts proposed by you will find appreciation, and I also believe that they are damaging to your popularity. Therefore, I propose:

1. My advice is not to change the retirement ages (62 and 65). This is a very unpopular and politically unhealthy proposition.
   
   
2. I believe it would be very reasonable to consider Social Security payments as general income. For tax purposes, Social Security payments should be added to other income to avoid persons with a large income from other sources getting the Social Security payments tax-free.
   
   
3. Only the person who pays for Social Security is entitled to receive benefit payments, and that applies to retirement, disability, and Medicare, with just a reasonable death benefit payment (one lump sum) to a designated survivor.
   
   
4. All benefits that were added to the original Social Security program (like widow pensions, payments for children to age 18 (or 22 if in college), etc.) should be taken out of the Social Security fund and transferred to other appropriate departments like Welfare or Education, whee decisions on if and how much to pay are to be made under the strictest scrutiny.
   
   As far as the "minimum benefit" is concerned (I question why people should receive it at all if they never paid in a single penny towards retirement), it should definitely be taken out of the Social Security system and, if at all, be administered and paid by a different department of the goverrnment.
   
   Such ridiculous benefits as paying Social Security to inmates of American prisons and similar are to be discontinued. Also to be discontinued are payments to those "disabled" who are now collecting benefits from Social Security (plus maybe disability payments from their place of work) under the "unable to work" status, but who are unofficially working quite profitably.

I believe that the plans I propose have great advantages. First, they will relieve the Social Security fund of the unnecessary ballast added over the years and will make the Social Security system financially healthy. Secondly, over a period of time you can then cut out those unnecessary benefits — not from Social Security, but from Welfare and/ or other departments. That will be much easier because the majority of the population is disgusted with the entire welfare system anyway.

* * *

Now, just a few days ago, the air controller strike started. As a matter of principle and tactics, I wholeheartedly agree with the government's decisions and punishment for the strikers. The unions, because of their constant strikes, are (after excessive government spending) the second largest cause of inflation in this country. It will be very difficult, almost impossible, to win the war against inflation without first breaking the backbone of the unions.

I wish you good luck on both, the cuts in Social Security and your handling of the air controller strike.

Respectfully yours,
Waclaw Bakierowski

cc: OMB Director David Stockman; Rep. Guy Vander Jagt

Return to Home Page