When it comes to spending on Social Security, Reagan said it best

To the editor: Once again, contributing writer Veronique de Rugy comes up with that same old and tired “entitlements” canard when referring to Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid programs (“The choice between tax reform and total disorder,” Feb. 19).

Perhaps she’s unaware that at the signing ceremony where President Ronald Reagan enacted into law the landmark bipartisan Social Security Amendments of 1983, he said, in part:

“This bill demonstrates for all time our nation’s ironclad commitment to Social Security. It assures the elderly that America will always keep the promises made in troubled times a half a century ago. It assures those who are still working that they, too, have a pact with the future. From this day forward, they have one pledge that they will get their fair share of benefits when they retire.”

The following year, during a presidential debate with Walter Mondale, President Reagan firmly stated:

“Social Security has nothing to do with the deficit. Social Security is totally funded by the payroll tax levied on employer and employee. If you reduce the outgo of Social Security, the money would not go into the general fund or reduce the deficit. It would go into the Social Security trust fund. So Social Security has nothing to do with balancing a budget or erasing or lowering the deficit.”

I enjoy reading informed opinions from across-the-aisle contributors, but when writers such as De Rugy start tossing out nonsense like this, well, no thank you. President Reagan’s forceful statements on the subject are all I need. After all, he would know. He created the bipartisan commission with Senate Majority Leader Howard Baker and House Speaker Tip O’Neill as co-leaders that resulted in the act he signed into law.

David Birch-Jones, Palm Springs

..

To the editor: I couldn’t help but notice that every complaint about spending in this op-ed was aimed at programs for the people, while no mention was given to all the tax cuts and lower tax rates for the rich. In case we need reminding, President Clinton had to fix Presidents Reagan and H.R. Bush’s fouled economy, President Obama had to clean up President W. Bush’s economic mess and President Biden had to deal with President Trump’s first-term failings. It’s sort of a pattern.

The tax code should not be geared toward breaks for the rich, as that never improves things. Meanwhile, the programs De Rugy criticizes actually help the people of the U.S.

Jay Coffman, San Diego

..

To the editor: After reading De Rugy’s op-ed, I would like to add a thought.

When annual tax statements are filed, any corporation with more than $100 million in net income or any individual with more than $10 million in net income should be charged an extra 1% of their net income.

That 1% would barely affect them and could only be used for one purpose: to pay down our national debt. No politician could get their hands on it. Those being charged would squawk to high heaven, but it would slowly pay the national debt and help keep interest rates lower than they might be otherwise.

Dan Ardell, Laguna Beach