Just because we like it doesn’t make it a success

Once again, the point of Rep. Joe Heck’s comparison of Social Security to a pyramid scheme has been either ignored or misunderstood. A wrench can be used to tighten a loose nut, or a wrench can be used to beat a man to death. Either way, it is still a wrench.

Review-Journal columnist John L. Smith (June 12) and numerous letter writers have discussed the good intentions of the Social Security program. Unfortunately, good intentions do not always make things work.

While it is true that many Americans have come to depend on the support provided by the program, this does not make it a success. Social Security is by definition a pyramid scheme, where initial investors are repaid by the initial investment of subsequent investors. No real product or service is marketed, and no profit is made. The second there comes a set of investors followed by a smaller subsequent set, unable to match the expected returns of the previous group, the system fails.

We already see the baby boomer generation is too large for younger generations to support through retirement. This means that generations will have paid into a program that was expected to fail. Is that more reasonable or appropriate than changing the system in an attempt to evade an onslaught of broke retirees in the job market?

Regardless of what a nice thought it is, or how good-hearted the idea may be, Social Security remains an unsustainable program — and just because it wasn’t meant to go broke does not mean the coffers will maintain a magical, unwavering balance.

And just because people have come to rely on it does not mean it will continue to serve its purpose effectively.

Joshua King

Las Vegas