Election could determine future of Social Security
Last week, we observed the 85th anniversary of Social Security, now the major financial resource for most U.S. seniors and in fact the only source of income for 20% of those over age 65. Despite the vital function Social Security serves, and with at least nominal support of both political parties, the Social Security system is in greater jeopardy this year than perhaps in its history. The president — against the wishes of Republican leadership and unanimous Democratic opposition — announced that he intends to suspend collection of the payroll withholding tax, the sole source of regular funding for the Social Security system, and to forgive those unpaid taxes if he is re-elected.
Unless Congress were to devise a wholly new funding source (what are the odds of that happening?), the system would quickly fall off a financial cliff, which happens to be the stated intention of a rump right-wing portion of the Republican party that for years has argued for privatizing the system. (Good luck to the average inexperienced American investor in self-maintaining a “private” retirement fund, with the fluctuations the stock market has gone through in the last year alone!)
Many of us continue to be impressed that administratively Social Security and Medicare are two of the most financially efficient of help programs, both public and private; fortunately the vast majority of Americans depend at least in part upon Social Security, and over 90% of Americans across the political spectrum — Democrat, Republican and Independent — support the Social Security system. While we observe this four-score and fifth anniversary, let’s be vigilant that even now the outcome of a single election could mean the continuation or destruction of this critical lifeline.
Arne Werchick
Kailua-Kona
Another reason America
took such action in 1945
On Aug. 6 and 9, 1945, two major Japanese cities were attacked by military forces of the United States. This attack caused the death of between 129,000 and 226,000 civilians.
However, beside mourning the fact that civilians were killed, we should also look at the reason for America taking this extreme military action. On Dec. 7, 1941, the forces of Japan attacked, without provocation, the American territory of Hawaii at Pearl Harbor.
Does it seem that somehow the loss of American lives is less important than those of Japan?
Yes, the number of deaths in Japan far exceeds those of Hawaii, but one must remember why the U.S. dropped those horrific bombs. The U.S. did it because we were attacked by an enemy. The attack on Hawaii was conducted prior to a declaration of war. Perhaps the number of casualties would have been reversed if Japan had an equally destructive atomic weapon.
I am truly sorry for the loss of life, both in America and Japan. But we must understand that the actions of American military forces was done by the U.S. as a retaliation strike against a foreign country that was in response to a declaration of war.
Michael L. Last
Naalehu
Letters policy
Letters to the editor should be 300 words or less and will be edited for style and grammar. Longer viewpoint guest columns may not exceed 800 words. Submit online at www.westhawaiitoday.com/?p=118321, via email to letters@westhawaiitoday.com or address them to:
Editor | West Hawaii Today
PO Box 789
Kailua-Kona, HI 96745s
