Unfettered Letters

Boomers’ retirement would create jobs

We do not have to “create” jobs to produce goods or services we don’t need to rescue the economy. We can instead elect to open up the remaining jobs by making it easier for the baby boomers to retire. This is a huge portion of our population, and inducing 5 million to retire would probably be easier than trying to jump-start the economy.

What would this take? Definitely access to health care would be a requirement. Also, there would be a need to access Social Security. Rules to relax the regulations on 401(k) withdrawals may be necessary. However, these steps would not require us to make up work that may misallocate our capital resources.

Every coin has two sides. Why not think creatively?

Stephen Kunz
Overland Park

Will work for living wage

It’s 5:45 p.m., and the CBS “Evening News” isn’t over yet. The lead story was that the unemployment rate just hit a 14-year high at 6.5 percent and is projected to rise to 8 percent in 2009. Wrong! I’m 61 and have been looking for a full-time job paying a living wage for three years. I’m off the radar for these statistics, as are many others.

During my three-year search I have been told, “unofficially ” of course, that hiring managers and decision-makers are looking only for those under 40. Heaven forbid you have a gray hair. An unemployment counselor told me I would not be able to find a job. Maybe so, but I’m not quitting and don’t intend to use Grecian Formula 44.

To those hip-hop decision-makers, hire me or accept the fact you’ll be paying higher taxes to support me. I have no desire to go on Social Security. I want to work now and beyond 65.

Oh yes, I show up on time Mondays, Fridays and after concerts.

Tony Bradley
Parkville

Happy to be ‘forgotten’

I, for one, am thankful that advertisers are ignoring my age group (7/29, A-1, “Baby boomers become the forgotten consumer; In pursuit of the 18-to-49 demographic, a wealthy segment gets short shrift”).

I don’t pay attention anyway, so they might as well spend their advertising dollars on the youngsters, hoping that they’ll remember the products once they finally get some disposable income.

J.P.Cummings
Kansas City, Kan.

‘Forgotten’ boomer consumers

Thanks, Jennifer Mann, for your timely article “Baby boomers become the forgotten consumer; In pursuit of the 18-to-49 demographic, a wealthy segment gets short shrift” (7/29, A-1). I have said for years that advertisers have no clue who has the money and the desire to spend it, perhaps on necessities and many times on frivolous, spur-of-the-moment purchases.

And while I’m at it, just because we’re “over the hill,” as advertisers like to categorize us, it doesn’t mean we’re all in nursing homes. We still like fashionable clothes that are up to date. That means my 70-year-old belly button is not going to be seen in public, the sleeves of my T-shirt aren’t going to cut into my armpits, and my varicose veins don’t need to be advertised in a skirt up to my hind end.

It appears that you can’t buy good taste, no matter your age.

Tilly Masson
Shawnee

Boomers, date your age

This is an open letter to all my fellow baby boomers. I think it’s time we appreciate the skin we’re in.

I’m so tired of reading articles about older men and women dating younger people for their “hard bodies.” Now it seems women in their late 40s and 50s are choosing to date men in their 20s and 30s. Why?

The media tell me women want younger men for their six-pack abs and bulging biceps. Really? And older men want younger women for their youthful bodies. No news there. Is this why my generation has turned into a bunch of neurotic, youth-seeking, self -absorbed hypocrites?

Here’s a reality check, boomers: We’re not going to live to be 100 and look eternally 30 in the process. When did aging turn into a four-letter word, anyway?

Of course, it’s important to take care of oneself. Eating right and exercise just make good sense. But maybe we should concentrate on being good role models and mentors to our younger generation instead of trying to date them.

Mary Jo Wheeler
Kansas City

Alzheimer’s research

It’s time for our government to confront the growing problem of Alzheimer’s disease with a meaningful investment in research to find a cure. Now is the time to find ways to protect the health and productivity of 78 million baby boomers whose lives will soon be at risk for Alzheimer’s disease. If nothing is done, Medicare and Medicaid will be devastated by the high cost of the disease.

Earlier this year, Congress passed a bipartisan appropriation bill (HR 3043) that allocated $30 billion for the National Institutes of Health, reversing years of erosion in the nation’s research investment. Included in that total was a modest $16 million increase for research on Alzheimer’s disease — the first increase in three years. Unfortunately, this legislation was vetoed.

Congress is currently working with the president on a compromise to fund health, education and other programs. Research dollars are at risk. Please urge Congress and the president to appropriate $30 billion for the National Institutes of Health to step up the fight against Alzheimer’s disease. Visit www.alz.org to learn more about how you can make your voice heard in Washington.

Michelle Niedens
Alzheimer’s Association, Heart of America Chapter
Prairie Village

Boomers, entitlement costs

Mary Sanchez's column (10/30, Opinion, "Baby boomers face their biggest challenge") should remind all of us that a financial crisis is on our doorstep.

Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney talk about cutting taxes and returning the GOP to the Reagan years, but it should be clear that federal expenditures will soar for decades to come as baby boomers retire, take Social Security payments and use Medicare.

Reagan's policies of low taxes and high federal expenditures doubled the national debt within eight years. The unspoken assumption of those who talk about cutting taxes is that the Chinese and Japanese will continue to fund our free-spending, low-taxation ways.

China alone holds well over a trillion dollars of our national debt. Whether it is wise for the U.S. to expect foreign countries to continue to finance our fiscal profligacy is a question that many choose to ignore.

James Obertino
Warrensburg

Social Security

When I read The Associated Press report on what the Bush administration’s Social Security commissioner called the “silver tsunami” of people my age applying for Social Security benefits (10/16, A-2, “Baby boomers reverberate as retirees”), I thought: “Oh, no. There they go again.”

The article says Social Security’s caseload will be increasing an estimated 10,000 a day over the next two decades.

My question: Just what will the population as a whole be by 2038?

This country reached 300 million this year. More than 50 years ago, I read in my Weekly Reader that the U.S. population had reached a staggering 165 million. The American population was 140 million the year I was born, 1945.

My point: The Bush administration again takes partisan, one-sided look at an issue. It conveniently chose to ignore the growth of the American economy in the next two decades.

The real concern of every American — every generation — should be the “tsunami” in Iraq. What about the spending in the perpetual war and occupation there?

Ed Gentry
St. Joseph

I was slightly encouraged to read The Star editorial concerning the need to “fix” Social Security and Medicare (10/17, “Social Security needs fixing — and fast”).

That was until I remembered the backlash the White House received after proposing a “self-directed” type of retirement plan, wherein individuals would have the opportunity — not necessarily the obligation — to make their investment choices.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but I thought it was the Democratic Party and its mouthpieces (such as The Star) that proclaimed Republicans were just trying to scare people with that proposal, that Social Security would be fine.

The Star suggests these fixes: “Curb benefits for the wealthy. ... They can pay their own way.”

So would that mean the “wealthy” would receive tax relief as well? If they don’t need the benefits, why should they pay for them?

Next The Star suggests “spending cuts and tax increases.”

Sounds great, except like most of the population, our government has no self-control. I’ll support a tax increase when I have a guarantee that every dollar of tax increase is countered by a dollar cut in spending. I won’t hold my breath.

Paul Howe
Platte City

Type too small

I read that the AT&T white page phone book is shrinking (6/26, A-1, “In age of cell phones and the Internet, the White Pages just keep shrinking”).

Perhaps they could use those extra pages to increase the tiny font size to where it used to be so that we baby boomers with bifocals can read the names and numbers without a magnifying glass!

Jim Beemer
Blue Springs

Boomers and budgets

We keep hearing about baby boomers creating problems with Medicare and Social Security, as if we’re a horde of parasites waiting to swoop down on our nation for freebies. We’re working and paying into these entitlement programs like everyone else.

Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke recently stated that we will have to choose among higher taxes, fewer dollars for other programs, lower spending on entitlement programs and a sharply higher budget deficit or some combination thereof. I can do the math, but I think the federal government is over-looking the obvious.

Clinton/Gore left us with a budget surplus. Bush/Cheney and their follies created a budget deficit last year of $319 billion. Check out www.costofwar.com and see how many billions of dollars are being wasted, then you do the math.

Diane Stewart
Overland Park