http://www.nwsub.com/newsweek/public/conta...
1-800-631-1040

251 W 57th St
New York, 10019-1802
www.newsweek.com
212.445.4000


Please quit publishing irrelevant tripe on "life expectancy at birth." The big improvements in this statistic are due almost entirely to the dramatic reduction of infant mortality, which makes not the slightest bit of difference to the solvency of Social Security. If you die before you reach age 2, you are irrelevant, since you will never contribute to it nor collect from it.

The meaninful numbers here are life expectancies for those who have already attained the age of 65. There have been increases since 1940, but not very scary ones.

http://www.ssa.gov/history/lifeexpect.html
Further life expectancy of 65 year old men in 1940-- 12.7
Further life expectancy of 65 year old men in 1990-- 15.3
Further life expectancy of 65 year old women in 1940-- 14.7
Further life expectancy of 65 year old women in 1940-- 19.6

So men have gained about 2 years and women about 5. That can be readily handled by raising the income level subject to FICA, and that would more than justify the continued receipt of benefits by people with higher incomes.

Samuelson's presumed alternatives for old people are for them to either rely on investing in financial bubbles or drop dead. Lots of luck with that politically.