MOAA: Your Views

It’s great that Hugh Thompson is receiving the recognition he deserves [“My Lai Hero Honored,” Pages of History, July 2004]. … Several items in the article caused me to request additional information.

How was the number “504 people were killed” determined? … The Department of the Army’s Review of the Preliminary Investigations into the My Lai Incident, dated March 14, 1970, states “The precise number of Vietnamese killed cannot be determined but was at least 175 and may exceed 400.” What happened between 1970 and now to fix the number killed at 504?

How do we know the 11 Vietnamese civilians evacuated by Thompson are the only survivors of the attack? This seems so unlikely.

As the story of the My Lai incident unfolded and Hugh Thompson’s attempt to stop the killing of civilians became known, I knew of no one who held him in contempt. I cannot believe the majority of our nation could have been this sick.

Editor’s note: Our recent research shows 504 as the number that is used most often. Most current reports say “more than 500.” This higher number was used in recent news reports (CBS News and U.S. News and World Reports) about the incident and Thompson’s induction into the Hall of Fame. Of course there could have been more survivors, but according to an interview with Thompson, 11 is “all that were left.” In a March 23, 2004, interview with CBS News, Thompson says he was hauled before Congress and treated like a traitor and continued to receive death threats after the lieutenant who ordered the massacre had been court-martialed.

Insurance or Socialism?

The arguments on both sides of the [Social Security] issue [“Pro/Con,” July 2004] are logical and well supported, but neither is compelling. Given the constituency base, and without forceful rationale or an immediate pending disaster, we have little incentive to do anything other than prop up the original pyramid scheme as our government has done in the past. … The most valuable aspect of your article is that it lays out some arguments that might be used to whittle away at the beast while preserving the most important features.

For instance, the Diamond/Orszag argument about lower income recipients is correct—they need a floor. So, let’s “means test” Social Security. Let’s give Social Security benefits, as we understand them now, to everyone with retirement income below a certain annual level. …

But Ferrara is also correct when he observes that market returns of private investments are higher than those of Social Security and would therefore yield increased, and portable, funds for retirees. So, in return for means testing (thereby eliminating high-income, successful investors from the Social Security recipient pool), let’s enlarge the playing field for tax-deferred/exempt high-income investments (e.g., raise the IRA/Roth caps and eliminate the Roth earning ceilings). …

This combination reduces the demands for Social Security payout (Ferrara’s complaint) and protects the lesser-income recipients that concern Diamond/Orszag—and even those higher-income wage earners who invest poorly in their IRAs and Roths will be protected if they fall below the means-testing floor upon retirement. Means-testing reduces outlays, so we can make corresponding reductions in Social Security taxes! The additional monies in private retirement accounts provide much-needed patient investment capital. So, in addition to paring Social Security back a bit through means-testing, we get a double-barrel economic stimulus that will last through the ages.

Your synopsis sentence “Reform opponents contend that ... workers would bear more financial risk” puts a finger on the basic tenet of those who refuse to reform social security—the repudiation of freedom, the acceptance of socialism. We are either a free people, each and every one responsible for his own life, challenging and coping with the risks of living, or we are wards of the state, to be cared for at every turn, in every situation, our very lives subject to the dictates of The Guardians.

The recognition of the danger in having a paternalistic state was recognized by the founders and by statesmen of our time. … Social Security must be reformed. Responsibility for their lives must be returned to individual citizens. We must get off the slide into socialism.

No decent, honest, fair-minded person would argue for privatizing [Social Security]. Anyone who would change it wants to convert it into a cash cow for stock brokerage firms, insurance companies, gambling casinos, and any entrepreneur with an idea for separating the worker and his money.

Social Security was not created as a savings plan or an investment plan. Its official title is Old Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance. … The purpose of Social Security is to insure … that no person who has worked all his or her life will retire penniless and with no income at all. It is particularly helpful to those workers without a pension plan. It also has provisions for disabled workers and workers’ widows and orphans.

It is a fact of life that there are and always will be some workers who cannot manage money. To put any part of Social Security funds in their hands would be insane.

There is one serious oversight on the part of the creators of the program: They failed to foresee the effect of large increases in longevity and productivity on the ratio of retirees to workers. We now have more retirees in proportion to workers than we had in the early days of the program. Belatedly this is being corrected by raising the retirement age. There is no reason why people who are living longer cannot work a few more years comfortably. It is possible to make sensible adjustments to sustain Social Security as long as the country lasts. It is a concept that cannot be equaled or replaced.

Years ago, my mother—a true and intelligent business lady—was told by the head of E.F. Hutton Co., “Fay, 90 percent of the average people who invest in the market lose money.”

Enough! Leave Social Security payments as they are.

— Lt. Col. Don Taylor, USAF-Ret.
Las Cruces, N.M.

Fairness for Chapter 61

Maj. Arthur Dorie, USA-Ret., highlighted the injustice of Chapter 61 medical retirees (less than 20 years’ service) being left standing on the curb while the Combat-Related Special Compensation and concurrent receipt bandwagon parades by (“Your Views,” July 2004).

Vice Adm. Norbert R. Ryan Jr., USN-Ret., recognizes the problem and is working to fix this gross injustice. However, there is a large job ahead educating Congress and the American public. We have an even larger job of educating many of our “normally” retired brothers and sisters. I have encountered many who do not consider medical retirees “real” retirees. Many do not realize we get our retired checks from the Defense Finance and Accounting Service, carry retired id cards, and are in line with them at the commissary and PX/BX.

The member is medically retired because he or she “cannot perform the duties of his/her current military occupational specialty.” VA compensation is awarded for diminished future earnings. Both have the same trigger, but the payments are for different statutory reasons.

The issue is one of fairness. The Chapter 61 retiree is continuing to fund his or her va compensation with the loss of military retirement. It is appalling that those who truly cannot work second careers still are being severely penalized.