Baby boomers mixed on Social Security cuts

PORTLAND – Joe Gelband agrees with Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan that the government has promised more in Social Security benefits to baby boomers than it can afford to pay.

But Gelband, 42, who pays part of every USA Telephone Marketing paycheck into the Social Security system, doubts whether lawmakers will follow Greenspan’s advice, especially in an election year.

“He’s said this for years, but nobody likes to hear the truth,” he said.

Gelband is exactly the kind of worker that Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan referred to last week when warning Congress that Social Security benefits must be trimmed.

Greenspan has told the House Budget Committee that unless Congress acts, soaring budget deficits from out-of-control entitlement programs could lead to a “very debilitating” rise in interest rates in coming years.

Greenspan’s suggestions to resolve the problem included delaying Social Security eligibility beyond age 67, or recalculating cost-of-living adjustments to give smaller increases.

Baby boomers on their lunch hour in Portland had mixed reactions to Greenspan’s proposal.

“That’s about as ill-conceived as privatizing Medicare, turning around and giving the money to the same scalawags who are before the courts, like Enron,” said Jerry Melville, 50.

Rachel Rowell, 43, said she had paid into the system for years, and it would be unfair to change the formula she had counted on to determine her future retirement benefit.

“Reduce my benefits? I don’t think so,” she said.

Social Security was set up to assure a continuing income to workers or their families if the worker retires, becomes disabled, or dies. Employers and employees each pay 6.2 percent of wages up to a taxable maximum amount, and the self-employed pay 12.4 percent.

Carl Gercke, 49, a Portland investment manager, said Greenspan’s role as head of the central bank will give his testimony credibility.

“At last somebody is finally telling the truth,” he said. “Politicians can’t say it, because they’re too jealous of their reputations. It’s a breath of fresh air.”

Accountant Jack Hennessey, 51, said Greenspan’s message could disturb people planning to rely heavily on their Social Security benefits after retiring.

“It was set up as a supplement to income, and now people are looking at it as income,” he said.

With life spans increasing and a bubble of baby boomers approaching retirement, benefits will have to change, Hennessey said.

“If I sound really pessimistic, it’s only because I’m a realist,” he said.

Both Greenspan and President Bush have said that any Social Security changes should be phased in over several years, and that benefits should not change for people at or near retirement.

That’s not much comfort to Carol Scheffler, 62, who wonders if the nation’s defense spending gets a higher priority than benefits to the retired and disabled.

“I think a lot of us depend on Social Security benefits and pensions being there,” she said. “To have it suddenly be in jeopardy is worrying.”