It's Not about SSA.. It's About SS
By James Hamilton
The Social Security Administration's Commissioner, Michael Astrue, appeared on C-SPAN recently to answer viewer questions. He handled the callers deftly and left no doubt that the agency is doing just fine - thank you. It was actually something of a snooze-fest.
For my part, the problem with the Social Security program has never been about the Social Security Administration. Just last year, the agency distributed $745 billion in benefits - that's larger than the GDPs of each but the top 15 nations in the world. With some hiccups - especially in ajudicating disability cases - the agency has done a great job and deserves kudos for such.
My argument, rather, is with Members of Congress and the special interest groups that claim there's nothing wrong with the Social Security program that a good tax increase won't fix. This blind loyalty to a federal program ignores the programs flaws and the cradle to grave dependency it helps create.
First implemented in the US in 1935 (the same year "Monopoly" was invented, "Ma" Barker and the gang were gunned down, and Elvis was born), Social Security has tried mightily to be all things to all people. Retirees, the disabled, surviving spouses and children, low-wage earners, and - initially - the unemployed have benefited from the program over the years. Way to go, SSA.
At the same time, however, as people live longer and cost of living adjustments increase the program's outlays each year, the amount of money needed to finance the program grows too. Today workers pay one dollar of every eight they earn to support the Social Security program. This hits low-income workers especially hard and deprives them of the ability to set retirement savings aside on their own during their working years.
Is this really what FDR had in mind back in 1935?
Commissioner Astrue noted during his C-SPAN appearance the over 40% of those who receive Social Security benefits depend on those funds to provide 100% of their monthly income. Amazing! The system that keeps folks from saving while they work actually forces four of every ten recipients to depend on it exclusively.
A Ponzi Scheme? You decide.
Astrue did a good job of defending his agency and the programs it administers. Who'll speak up for the needs of future retirees?
Comments