2008 Woodie Awards
Sam Says
Social Security Revisited
Sam Wilson
Issue date: 2/17/05 Section: Opinions
- Page 1 of 1
If you read this column, then you have probably figured out by now that I think the President's designs on Social Security are pretty bogus. I think so, not just because of the logistical matters (there is no need for a massive overhaul, and even if there was, personal accounts would not solve the problem), but for a more fundamental reason.Social Security's raison d'etre is right there in its name: security. While the program is not intended to entirely support people throughout retirement, at times it must. It is the all-else-failed, last defense security that no matter what, as an elderly person in this country you will have some means of supporting yourself. Ideally, people will save for retirement throughout their lives, invest wisely, and have some sort of non-Social Security pension. If that goes well, then Social Security checks are just a supplement to what is there - the program makes life a little easier.
Unfortunately, life is rarely ideal. People do lose everything. If through bad luck, falling victim to corporate malfeasance such as Enron or the investment firm debacles of 2002, poor judgment, or just plain stupidity, you reach retirement age with no assets, Social Security exists to make sure you will have something. For seven million elderly people today Social Security is the entirety of their means. According to a 2000 report by the Social Security Agency 48 percent of elderly beneficiaries would be below the poverty line if not for the program. On a side note, the White House dismissed these findings, and the Social Security Agency no longer analyzes this figure. While the White House claims that it is trying to "save" the program, the personal accounts the President is pushing by definition undermine this security. Investment is a good thing, and should be encouraged. However, people have their entire lives to invest, in whichever way they choose. Social Security is the safety net in case those investments collapse.
In creating Social Security, the government made a promise to all Americans that the elderly will be able to live, not starve, and have some sort of retirement with dignity so that they will, hopefully, not have to work demeaning jobs just to scrape together enough to survive. That promise has been kept these past seventy years because the program is guaranteed through the Trust Fund investing in government bonds. Personal accounts take away the foundation of that promise. Now, I am 22-years-old and not yet very concerned with my retirement. But, when I do reach old age though, and am able to say things like "back in my day," and to sneak my grandchildren sweets without their parents noticing, I hope the government will still be able to keep its promise that I, and all other retirees, will be able to live with some financial security.
Unfortunately, life is rarely ideal. People do lose everything. If through bad luck, falling victim to corporate malfeasance such as Enron or the investment firm debacles of 2002, poor judgment, or just plain stupidity, you reach retirement age with no assets, Social Security exists to make sure you will have something. For seven million elderly people today Social Security is the entirety of their means. According to a 2000 report by the Social Security Agency 48 percent of elderly beneficiaries would be below the poverty line if not for the program. On a side note, the White House dismissed these findings, and the Social Security Agency no longer analyzes this figure. While the White House claims that it is trying to "save" the program, the personal accounts the President is pushing by definition undermine this security. Investment is a good thing, and should be encouraged. However, people have their entire lives to invest, in whichever way they choose. Social Security is the safety net in case those investments collapse.
In creating Social Security, the government made a promise to all Americans that the elderly will be able to live, not starve, and have some sort of retirement with dignity so that they will, hopefully, not have to work demeaning jobs just to scrape together enough to survive. That promise has been kept these past seventy years because the program is guaranteed through the Trust Fund investing in government bonds. Personal accounts take away the foundation of that promise. Now, I am 22-years-old and not yet very concerned with my retirement. But, when I do reach old age though, and am able to say things like "back in my day," and to sneak my grandchildren sweets without their parents noticing, I hope the government will still be able to keep its promise that I, and all other retirees, will be able to live with some financial security.