(2 of 2)
The Controversy Rages. Just what are the merits of Goldwater's notion of voluntary social security? Most authorities, whether liberal or conservative, or whether in or out of government, agree that it is totally impractical. According to at least one expert estimate, if the system were to be made voluntary and only 15% of today's covered workers under 30 elected to drop out, the 1965 loss in contributions would amount to $1.5 billion; by 1968 the loss to the retirement benefit fund would amount to $8.5 billion, and by 1988 the social security program would be bankrupt.
Almost beyond argument, the social security system could be improved. As of now, improvement is all that Goldwater has made clear he wants; and it is plainly galling to him, as to many another American, to see the system misused as a vote catcher, as in the case of the medicare debacle. But Barry is not about to get well on this issue, especially so long as he fails to come up with a specific program of his own —a program that would keep the social security system going in one form or another.
Even though, since New Hampshire, Goldwater has virtually purged the word "voluntary" from his vocabulary, it has not done much good. Still the controversy rages, and the uncertainties over his true position abound. In Fort Dodge, Iowa, recently, a 500-signature petition was sent to the state's two U.S. Senators, asking that social security not be made voluntary. Like it or not, it seems that Barry is going to have a tough time convincing voters that he did not mean what he said before he was sorry he said it.