Wednesday, November 2, 2005

The Oct. 31 editorial "A Deal on Social Security" would have been more credible if it at least had started by accepting Social Security for what it really is: a mandatory, contributory social insurance program to protect against loss of income upon death, disability or, if neither of these occur, income loss upon retirement at age 65.

Acknowledging this valuable program for what it really is would invalidate The Post's concerns about payment of "benefits to better-off retirees."

Thirty-five percent of all the money the Social Security Administration pays out each month goes to the disabled and to the spouses and children (until age 18) of wage earners who died before ever drawing benefits.

Certainly we need to make sensible changes to the manner in which inflation adjustments are calculated, and we need bipartisan solutions on how to restore the long-term solvency of this insurance program.

What we do not need are changes that introduce new risks to solvency, such as investing trust funds in the stock market instead of continuing to rely on federal bonds, which are secure.

KEITH B. McCALL

Lansing, Mich.