-*s EDITOR Erin Gibson OPINION EDITOR Cliff Hicks EDITORIAL BOARD Nancy Christensen Brad Davis Sam McKewon Jeff Randall Bret Schulte i Our VIEW Social insecurity Address debt dilemma before it s too late It seems that Congress has learned from its Social Security crisis of the early 1980s. Then, Social Security was a few months away from defaulting on its funds to the American people and being forced to borrow from Medicare’s trust fund. The problems that will be addressed at a two-day Social Security conference, which begins today, aren’t nearly as pressing. Economists estimate that the fund will run out of money in the year 2032, when the Baby Boomer generation will be in its twilight vears. Still, it makes sense to address the problem now, when it will be less expensive and less of a responsibility for the American people to shoulder. The economy is strong now, and because President Clinton is not up for re election, he can concentrate on actual reform rather than posturing for voters. Exactly what the proper solution is for solving the Social Security dilemma is a more complicated question. Clinton himself has neither devised nor supported any particular plan, making it difficult for Democrats and Republicans to mobilize for or against a cause. It is unlikely that most in Congress would risk supporting raising the age at which the elderly are eligible for Social Security bene fits. Such a policy hurts minorities, whose average life expectancy is lower than that of whites. The policy has been considered politi cally damaging. The same could be said for taking more money from Americans than already is taken. The plan that will be given the closest look is that of privatization of the Social Security system. One policy calls for the mandatory set-up of a Social Security fund for each indi vidual family, which, in turn, would jnvest that fund into a choice of market stocks or govern ment bonds. r>-ui: ,— .1_i ; 1UY U1V iXiJ Uig, it Will pay dividends for both the recipients of Social Security and the economy, which would receive the extra investment from millions of households. Another plan is similar, but puts the investment responsibility in a government organization rather than the individual. The plan has drawn criticism from the labor unions and liberal Democrats, who claim that privatizing the Social Security Act would only serve the Wall Street firms that controlled it. Furthermore, the results could be catastrophic for those who invest during a period of recession. Some say the plan leaves too much up to investment know-how, which, if those who needed Social Security had, they probably wouldn’t need Social Security. While the solution is sure to be a compro mise and may include privatization of some sort, it’s good that the government is address ing the problem now. Better that than waiting until our generation is looking at an empty cookie jar that we once helped to fill. Editorial Policy Unsigned editorials are the opinions of the Fall 1998 Daily Nebraskan. They do not necessarily reflect the views of the University of Nebraska-Lincoln, its ' employees, its student body or the University of Nebraska Board of Regents. A column is solely the opinion of its author. The Board of Regents serves as publisher of the Daily Nebraskan; policy is set by the Daily Nebraskan Editorial Board. The UNL Publications Board, established by the regents, supervises the production of the paper. According to policy set by the regents, responsibility for the editorial content of the newspaper lies solely in the hands of its student employees. letter Policy The Daily Nebraskan welcomes brief letters to the editor and guest columns, but does not guarantee their publication. The Daily Nebraskan retains the right to edit or reject any material submitted. Submitted material becomes property of the Daily Nebraskan and cannot be returned. Anonymous submissions will not be published. Those who submit letters must identify themselves by name, year in school, major and/or group affiliation, if any. Submit material to: Daily Nebraskan, 34 Nebraska Union, 1400 R St. Lincoln, NE. 68588-0448. E-mail: letters@unKnfo.unl.edu. Mook’s VIEW |r"“ 1 'y~ *\ i Hint L=/ » ifw v : m id m. m m. I i mm iMKUUfl* : BUSKS W. ' m ®r % m. f Sex stinks In response to Josh Wimmer’s arti cle, “Star city sex industry” (Friday) Let me ask you this, Josh. Let’s say the powers that be legalize prostitution. How would you feel if your daughter wished to join this most “honorable” profession? Or your sister? Or your girlfriend? Brother? Best friend? I won’t bother with the rest of your ridiculous points. Fortunately for Lincoln, people like you are a minority. Brian O’Grady Library Technician I With or without honors I have a confession to make. I am a non-honors student living in Neihardt, the honors dorm. Don’t worry, I’m not the only one. In fact, there are a fair number of us non-honors people living here. However, it seems as if that will be changing within the next year or so. You see, on Friday, I received in my mailbox a letter from Ana Campos, our residence director here, which stated all kinds of new guidelines for living in Neihardt. Apparently it came about rrom me nonors program s promismg all incoming freshmen honors students a room in Neihardt. When they were unable to live up to their promise, they saw the need to change something, and put out this letter. Mostly it just said that there will be fewer single rooms next year, and if people want to move to other dorms, they will be given priority assignment to wherever they want. However, as I went on to read die back of the letter, it began to talk about non-honors resi dents. It had three things to say about us: First, we would get priority assignment to rooms in other dorms for the 1999 2000 school year. Second, we could continue living in Neihardt for the 1999-2000 school year. After that, however, we will have to move out. Lastly, if any nomhonors stu- ro dent is living with an honors stu- V dent, and they want to continue y / living together, they both will X/ have to move out. This seems like '