Thank you for expressing your opposition to President Bush's proposal to partially privatize Social Security.  This will certainly be a critical issue throughout the 109th Congress and I welcome the opportunity to respond.  I have attached my thoughts on Social Security reform, as they were printed in an Op-Ed on February 4th.

Like you, I recognize the importance of keeping Social Security sound and ensuring its solvency for older Americans.  For this reason, I strongly oppose private accounts, which could cost $1 trillion or more and still fail to improve the financial condition of Social Security.  Unless I see a proposal that protects the fiscal health of Social Security and does not dramatically increase the national debt, I will continue my opposition.

Most policy makers agree that the rate of growth of this program, as well as the oversight of its expenditures, must be addressed to ensure its integrity and preservation. President Bush favors a program of private savings accounts and will pursue such a program in the coming months.  Please know that I am committed to protecting Social Security and I will keep your comments in mind throughout the 109th Congress. I am confident that if Congress works together, it is possible that Social Security can meet its long term commitments.

Once again, thank you for contacting me.  I hope you will keep in touch on issues of importance to you.  Should you have any further questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to call my Washington, D.C. office at (202) 224-3841.

Social Security has provided America's senior citizens with a guaranteed retirement income since President Franklin Delano Roosevelt signed it into law 70 years ago and I believe it would be a dramatic mistake to privatize even part of the system.

Half of all American workers today are not covered by retirement plans.  For them, Social Security is it.

In his State of the Union Speech, the President vowed to "strengthen and save Social Security."  But in proposing to carve out private accounts, he offered no specific proposal on how he would shore up Social Security or pay for the privatization.

Over the long run, changes are needed in Social Security, but we need to do it right.  Unfortunately, the President's plan would cut Social Security's funding, weaken the program and make its financial problems worse, not better.

With all the "crisis" rhetoric coming from the Administration, people throughout our nation are beginning to fear for the future of Social Security.  Wednesday night, after months of declaring that Social Security is in crisis, the President went so
far as to declare that by 2042 Social Security would be "exhausted and bankrupt."  That's simply not true.

We have time to do what we need to do to shore up the program financially.  On our side of the aisle, we want to fix it, and I believe we can.

There is a difference of opinion over the long-term shortfall of revenues facing Social Security.  Using very conservative predictions of U.S. economic growth, the Social Security Board of Trustees - which includes three members of the President's cabinet - has estimated that promised benefits will continue until 2042, even if no changes are made.

After 2042, recipients would continue to get 73 percent of their benefits for at least another three decades  - again, with no dramatic changes to the current system. But to ensure the benefits continue at the current level until 2080, $3.7 trillion is needed, according to the Trustees.

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office says the Trustees are under-estimating economic growth, $2 trillion is necessary to close the gap and recipients would get all their promised benefits until 2052 even without any revisions in the program and they would draw 78 percent of their benefits for three decades until at least 2080.

These are big numbers.  But by making some balanced long-term changes solvency could be ensured much further into the future.  Some have made proposals along the following lines:

[Editor's Note: These "solutions" are the scary part. If Democratis propose either of the first two "solutions" working Americans and Social Security lose and Bush wins.]

•       raising the cap for payroll taxes very gradually from the current $90,000 to $143,000, which could provide up to $1.6 trillion over 75 years;
  
•       ensuring increases of Social Security benefits are more accurately linked to inflation, which could save $680 billion over 75 years.
  
•       repealing President Bush's tax cut for those earning more than $200,000 and transferring the revenues to Social Security, which could save about $2.9 trillion over 75 years.

One other alternative would be to have the Social Security Trustees conduct an independent and comprehensive actuarial evaluation every five years and make recommendations to Congress based on this data.  Congress could approve or reject these proposed changes.

These proposals, and others, deserve careful study so that we fully understand the costs and benefits of each.  And I deeply believe that our nation should take the time to do this analysis instead of rushing headlong into one plan or another.

The President has suggested that fundamental and dramatic change is needed - in the form of private accounts.  But even the President's own advisors acknowledge his proposal would do nothing to address the Social Security shortfall.  In a leaked White House e-mail, Peter Wehner, one of the President's principal advisors, stated "we simply cannot solve the Social Security problem with Personal Retirement Accounts alone."

In fact, the President's plan to let workers begin diverting up to four percent of their income to private accounts starting in 2009 would add more than $4.5 trillion in debt over the next 20 years, according to the Center on Budget Policy Priorities.  But he has not, thus far, said how he would pay for this.

Social Security was never meant to provide more than a secure safety net - the average payment is currently $10,461 for all recipients and $11,458 for retirees.  So in order to ensure additional financial security for our seniors, we also must do much more to promote American's retirement savings.

But instead of the President's risky proposal that would provide little additional revenue for beneficiaries, we can make small changes such as automatic enrollment in 401k accounts and a simple check-off to enable people to put part of their income tax refund in an IRA account.

Some financial experts estimate that just these two small changes could double the national savings rate. Americans must do more to prepare for retirement.  We can do it without a fundamental dismantling of Social Security.

                       Sincerely yours,

                       Dianne Feinstein
                       United States Senator