Entitlements and Federal Deficit

There is a popular misconception being promoted these days that entitlement spending is one of the reasons we have such large budget deficits (“Entitlements Haunt Congress’ Budget Cutting,” July 26). Leading the pack is Social Security.

But it is not possible for Social Security to contribute to the national debt. The Social Security Trust Fund is solvent. It cannot be used by the government for anything other than as a source of borrowing. It should not even be included in the federal budget (but was put there in the 1980s to mask the size of the debt).

The real entitlement problem is Medicare, which is not solvent because of rising health costs.

I teach government in a local high school. I see some government propaganda in this article. Cutting Social Security payments would do nothing to reduce the real deficit.

MARY F. ROMIG

Los Angeles

* Suppose we repeal that greatest entitlement, Social Security, outright. Boo! The federal deficit would rise by more than $50 billion a year (the surplus of current Social Security revenue over payouts) plus incalculable new federal and state spending on welfare for millions now living in relative dignity on entitlements averaging less than $700 a month. Scary, huh?

JOHN L. HESS

New York

* The unsuccessful attempts by members of Congress to cut entitlements parallel the failure of their previous attempts to close surplus military bases. Why not use the same solution to solve the entitlement problem? Use a nonpartisan commission to review all entitlements in reference to a balanced budget.

As with the base-closing task, the commission’s recommendations would then be approved in total or rejected.

THOMAS R. STUELPNAGEL

Avila Beach

* There’s an extreme shortage of money in the federal, state and local coffers and novel proposals to increase revenue have been proposed--fees for garbage collection, changes in the way taxes are raised for schools, higher levies on gasoline, alcohol, tobacco, user fees for public hiking trails, etc. I would suggest a different proposal.

Churches ought to be taxed. Why should churches receive preferential treatment over ordinary citizens and corporations when they’re heavily involved in politics and business, which has eroded the justification for their tax exempt status?

Taxing churches would raise billions of dollars and would help make the burden lighter for everyone. I realize that this proposal would be criticized, but why shouldn’t churches pay their fair share along with the rest of us?

VICTOR D. RAPPOPORT

Studio City