Pick up a magazine, newspaper, listen to the radio, or even turn on the television and you can’t help hearing someone talk about our Social Security program. Seeing that we are getting ready for the upcoming presidential election, the subject of what to do with our Social Security is definitely on everyone’s mind. Social Security is a crucial portion in any business compensation package. It is something that we cannot do without, or can we? So what’s wrong with our Social Security program? Talk to several different people and you most likely will not get the same answer. As the following pages unfold, you will have a snapshot on the background history of the program, a view on what is wrong, and some possible solutions. The need for economic security can be traced back to the early Greek civilization, who stockpiled olive oil as a way to secure their future. The groundwork for a public system of economic security could be seen during the late 1700’s, as Thomas Paine, a Revolutionary War figure, published a business proposal depicting the need. The Civil War era saw the creation of pension plans (mainly military). It wasn’t until 1906 that “old age” was added to the means of obtaining a pension. Significant events in our history were a preview for the creation of our
Social Security program, as we know it today. President Roosevelt signed the executive order for the Social Security Act, on 14 August 1935. As Richard Henderson states in his book titled
Compensation Management in a Knowledge-Based Word, the passage of the Social Security
Act in 1935 guaranteed some amount of income to workers reaching retirement age and to workers who become unemployed through no fault of their own (Henderson 84).
President Roosevelt’s administration based it on a social insurance foundation, instead of centering it on welfare. This idea of social insurance began in Europe, during the 19th century. Our Social Security program has been amended several times. In 1939, the program was changed to a family-based economic security program; as a result, moving slightly away from a retirement structure. Disability benefits came on-board around the early 1950s. The
“retirement age” was lowered to 62 years old, in 1961. President Nixon added what is known as Supplemental Security Insurance or SSI, during his time in office. There were several other amendments that added to the foundation of our Social Security program. The concern of financing the funds, for the program, started to become a hot issue during the late 1970s and has been ever since. So what’s wrong with our Social Security program today? Is the program running out of money? Typically, the more liberal individuals will say that Social Security is adding to our budget concerns, or that the program is taking money out of the United States Treasury Department.
This mind set could not be farther from the truth. Our government, in fact, has been dipping into the Social Security funds, by justifying that it has been needed elsewhere. Ted Nugent mentioned, in an article to The Washington Times, that there is an IOU for $2.5 trillion in the
Social Security trust fund. The reason for this is that our elected bandits stole all the Social
Security taxes collected over the years and spent it on who knows what (Nugent 1). There is a tremendous strain on the funds as it is, without Uncle Sam putting his hand in the cookie jar.
Over the last two decades, individuals collecting disability has doubled. If this isn’t disturbing enough, disability trust funds have been in the red for the past seven years. At the current rate, the fund could be completely exhausted by 2018. Funds for other benefit payments might last until 2036. The current presidential administration has constantly watered down the sense of urgency to take some evasive action, to fix the Social Security program’s financial woes. Their excuse has been that there is evidence of increasing balances in the system’s trust funds. Senate
Democrats have been known to put in-place various roadblocks, in the way of bills to inhibit any kind of improvements needed for the system’s finances. The Senate majority leader mentioned a while back ago that the Social Security program could operate the way it has been for another
20 years, without any federal government intervention. Okay if you believe that, we are in serious trouble. Social Security was on the verge of disaster back in 1983. Today, the program faces a much larger disaster if something is not done and soon. If the current path is not altered in any way, then in a twenty year time span, mention earlier by the Senate majority leader, could cause our Social Security to face a disaster twice as bad. Can we really afford to have our Social
Security finances handled this way? Soon the program will no longer exist as we know it; a self- financial entity. There will be no separate trust fund. Social Security will then be placed in the general, funding pool and would have to compete, with all the other expenditures. We must take a stand now, to ensure some security for our younger generation’s future. You always seem to hear about people who get caught with erroneous claims. Just think about the thousands of those who get away with such a thing. I feel if our government really cared about the Social Security program, they would step in with a little more enthusiasm than they currently have. There has been studies conducted, which have uncovered the issue that somewhere in the neighborhood of 25% of people on disability are questionable. This is taking away from individuals who truly deserve it, let along vital funds to run the program the way that it was intended. Wake up Congress! We are need of a drastic reform. One possible solution for fixing the Social Security program is to privatize it. I truly believe that people ought to be in control of their retirement funds. It is clearly obvious that our government is not doing a good job at it. Governor Rick Perry has been a huge supporter for the privatization of retirement funds. Actually, there is some Galveston County employees, in the early 1980’s, who opted out of the Social Security program and placed their money into what is called the Alternate Plan. This plan is managed by First Financial Benefit. The company guarantees a minimum of a 4% return, on the accounts. Phil Kerpen commented, in The
Washington Times, that Democrats are wrong to claim that personal accounts would hand
Social Security over to Wall Street because unlike having Washington centrally manage investments, as former President Bill Clinton favored individuals would make their own decisions along with their choice of financial advisers . The upside is that the accounts would be able to provide much higher returns than the current Social Security system even promises (Kerpen 1). Of course those individuals are able to place their money into riskier investments. Sure sounds like a good thing. Maybe Uncle Sam should take better notice. The Alternate Plan has not been free from scrutiny. It has been stated that this plan tends to be more of a savings plan than a social insurance program, like Social Security was intended for. This excuse sounds rather weak. Government-backed studies say that this financial plan is not beneficial for the lower class, only the middle and upper classes would possibly benefit from it. I feel having personal ownership of your retirement benefits will offer more security.
Now if Congress got on-board with the privatization concept, they have brought up an issue that they would like to see changed. They suggested that it would be needed to remove the provision for lump sum removal. The reason being that people tend to spend the funds at a faster rate, lacking crucial financial planning. If we do not adopt the privatization concept of handling our retirement funds, then keep the Democrats out of the Social Security program. They have consistently been dismantling the system bit by bit. Senate Democrats have put frivolous spending in front of what help Social
Security really needs. Democrats have been so quick to point fingers at Republicans, but who slashed Medicare? Slashing Medicare to pay for Obamacare, now that makes a lot of sense.
Democrats have been holding Social Security hostage to push their own agenda, of higher federal spending and a higher debt ceiling. Unfortunately, protecting Social Security is the last thing Democrats want to do, in the event that our federal government is not allowed to borrow any more money. Bottom line, keep them out of the program. Democrats have done enough damage. Social Security has come a long way since President Roosevelt signed the executive order, in 1935. The program was created with our economic security in mind as we aged in life.
Lately, it has been clearly evident that our Social Security program is not so secure after all. It will not be able to continue to operate as we know it, if the financial status does not change.
Cutting Medicare, or even another benefit program, is not the answer. With this in mind, whoever mentions that our Social Security takes money out of the United States Treasury
Department should think again. The road ahead will definitely not become any smoother if we do not develop a new course, for this crucial program. A direct result if we continue as such, is another potential disaster, like the one barely diverted back in 1983, only this time around could be much worse. So if we do not go ahead with adopting the privatization of retirement funds, then we must put in-place political leaders who will fix this vital program. What will we leave our younger folks for their future?

WORK CITED

Henderson, R.I. (2006). Compensation Management in a Knowledge-Based World. (10th ed., p 84). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson College Div.

Kerpen, Phil. The Washington Times. Byline. Social Security demagoguery won’t save Democrats: Ownership still only route to protect workers’ pensions. 2010. Web. 22 Mar 2012.

Nugent, Ted. The Washington Times. Byline. Social Security: Anti-social and insecure; Sinking it now is best for America in the long run. 2011. Web. 22 Mar 2012.