It’s a sad birthday for Social Security. For 90 years millions of people have depended on Social Security to make ends meet. I just spent a lot of time on the phone trying to explain my problem to a Social Security robot and kept getting told to check the website but it wasn’t helping. I worry about the future of Social Security.
Right now the problem is massive staffing cuts at a time when staffing is already at a 50-year low. To make things worse, Social Security will stop mailing actual checks next month. That means more than 500,000 people who depend on Social Security as their primary income will have to make a big change at a time when getting help can take hours and hours.
According to a friend who works at Social Security, top leaders have quit, staff is demoralized and many are concerned about DOGE personnel accessing our personal data, violating security protocols and pushing a complete and rapid overhaul of the entire computer systems. Worse yet, it seems as though some leaders want to damage Social Security so badly that people will support privatizing it.
Social Security’s other big challenge is funding. A recent article in the Tribune reported that many older Americans aren’t confident that they will actually get Social Security and I can understand why. The trust fund used to make up the difference between what workers are paying in and what Social Security pays out in benefits is projected to run out of money in nine years. That means people’s Social Security checks will be reduced by a lot. The best option to fix this problem is for wealthy people to pay their share. Right now, people don’t pay Social Security taxes on any income they make over $176,000. But there’s no reason people making more than $176,000 shouldn’t be paying more in Social Security taxes.
So my birthday wish for Social Security is that our political leaders take action and make sure Social Security is around for another 90 years. It can be done but it takes courage.
— Deborah Jo Patton, Chicago
Circus act
Donald Trump said he is “taking back” Washington, D.C., and deployed 800 National Guard troops to “restore order and public safety” because Trump falsely claimed that violent crime has increased recently, that D.C. has become an area of “complete and total lawlessness.” He is also placing Metro Police under direct federal control.
The actual facts say that crime, specifically violent crime, in Washington D.C. is at a 30-year low, based on data from the Metropolitan Police Department and statements from city officials. But the actual facts have never mattered to Trump. He’s putting on another circus act.
It’s so exquisitely ironic that Trump is so quick to declare an extreme emergency to justify these actions. One has to wonder why, on Jan 6, 2021, it took Trump hours to send National Guard troops to the U.S. Capitol while it was being overrun by a violent mob of domestic terrorists who were trying to overturn the results of the 2020 election. This was an actual emergency that we all watched with our own eyes. In fact, it was an act of treason against our country.
It also seems exquisitely ironic that Trump then pardoned over 1,500 of these insurrectionists, calling them “patriots,” when they actually are all traitors to our country. Many of these traitors had physically attacked the police, causing serious injury to 140 of them. Trump himself had incited the riot, which is also an act of treason. Trump himself then pardoned the rioters, the treasonous criminals. He literally set 1,500 criminals free.
And now Trump thinks he can stage yet another of his circus acts, this one where he “talks tough” about stopping crime? After he pardoned 1,500 convicted traitors and set them free?
By the way, does anyone think this might be just another distraction from the Epstein files?
— Bob Chimis, Elmwood Park
Safe society
Trump federalized the police in Washington D.C., signifying an end to leniency for criminals, regardless of age. Across the country, woke prosecutors implemented no-bail policies or avoided jail time for juveniles, but these approaches have proven ineffective. What does work is jail time; deterrence is the key to a safe society and the cornerstone of every law. Liberals often suggest that local governments should focus on engaging youths in activities. However, a parentless child will consistently struggle in society. We need to advocate for the return of two-parent homes.
— Roberto l. Garcia, Chicago
No kings
Who does Donald Trump think he is? It is illegal to call up the National Guard to come into a city for no reason except for Trump’s ego. Remember we got rid of a king in 1776? We certainly don’t need Trump to think he can be one in 2025.
— Marsha Lieberman, Chicago
Tariffs on India
Trump’s additional 25% tariff on India for buying Russian oil brings the total amount to 50%. But the fact is that the United States also did about $3.5 billion worth of trade with Russia in 2024. How is this not helping Russia fund its war in Ukraine?
With Trump’s tariffs, the price of generic medicines, clothes and food from India will increase in America. How will small businesses in both countries survive such high tariffs? Trump is not putting additional tariffs on China for buying Russian oil because he does not want to strain relations with China. Then why is Trump doing it with India?
India and the U.S. have been allies since President George Washington’s time. Trump said that India is friends with the United States. So then why is he being a bully to India?
— Abrar Qureshi, Willowbrook
Heritage Foundation
F.J. Fagan’s commentary on the Heritage Foundation needs elaboration (“The Heritage Foundation founder’s legacy is complicated,” Aug. 8).
First, the Heritage Foundation was never conservative. From its Nixon-era disappointment, its approach was right-wing. Conservatives respect facts, accept debate and engagement, and most importantly, do not attempt to ban everything with which they disagree, regardless of established law. In foundational conservative language, they believe in “limited government,” not overreach. Heritage and its founder Edwin Feulner are the antipathy of conservativism. Glance at its agendas, proposals, and Project 2025.
Second, Heritage was never a “think tank,” as the term is employed accurately to describe research centers. From inception, it has been an ideologically driven — well-funded by right-wing billionaires — lobbying organization.
Third, Heritage was not the first self-described “think-tank.” The Brookings Institution was founded in 1916; Russell Sage in 1907. And many others.
Fourth, Heritage has never “solved problems” even as it defines them. The Environmental Protection Agency, Fagan’s Nixon-era example, even if reduced, remains present.
— Harvey J. Graff, Chicago
Submit a letter, of no more than 400 words, to the editor here or email letters@chicagotribune.com.