Can You Count on Social Security when you Retire?

        Social Security was enacted while the country was in the depths of the Great Depression.  This was a time when fifty percent of senior citizens lived in poverty and the stock market crash wiped out many Americans’ life savings.  The Act was intended to limit the afflictions of poverty, unemployment, and illness.  It would be hard for someone to argue against the virtue of Social Security.  It is basically the nation’s young taking care of the nation’s elderly.  That’s the way it should be right?  The idea behind Social Security is truly benevolent.  But the entire system is in trouble.  

        It is clear from the very start that the Social Security System is flawed and/or mismanaged.    The first monthly retirement check issued on January 31, 1940 from Social Security went to a woman named Ida May Fuller.  She paid $24.75 into the System and collected $22,888 over the course of her retirement.  Does this sound like a system that works?  

      Over the next few decades the baby boomers entered the work force which meant there were way more workers than retirees.  In 1950 the worker to retiree ratio was 16/1.  Not only was Social Security able to cover benefits for everyone, it created a surplus of money.  The Social Security Administration took this surplus and created a Trust Fund. Everything has been fine and dandy ever since then.   The country was the healthiest and wealthiest it will probably ever be during the second half of the 20^th century. But that is no longer the case.  Social Security is facing a double edged sword.  The nation is in serious decline at the same time that the baby boomer generation is retiring.  The worker to retiree ratio is shrinking very fast.  Today we are at 3.3/1 and we are projected to be at 2/1 by the 2050’s due to low birth and mortality rates.  The Baby Boomer Generation and preceding generations will benefit greatly from Social Security, but the generations after them will be paying for it and get short changed. Declining Social Security  The Social Security payroll tax is the highest it has ever been and it is not going to be nearly enough to stop the decline that is coming.

      Very soon, by 2017, payroll (FICA) taxes will be insufficient to cover full benefits.  At this point, the system will begin drawing from the surplus trust fund created when we had that wonderful 16/1 ratio.  The fund  has over two trillion dollars in it.  It sounds like a lot of money but the fund is projected to last until just 2036.  At this point,  if nothing is done,Social Security will begin its slow decline.  After 2036 retirees will see their benefits cut by 23% up to the year 2085.  After 2085 the benefits will decline another 3% and so on.

      So what can be done to stop the impending extinction of Social Security?  The proposals are to raise taxes of course, raise the retirement age, and cut benefits to retirees right now and for future retirees.  It is hard to say whether Social Security should ever have been implemented in the first place, but at present there is no point dwelling on that. Now that it is here and elderly citizens depend on it,  I would propose that ALL of the above mentioned  proposals be enacted.  Hopefully these measures will ensure that Social Security will survive the Boomer retirement and the system will balance back out after then.  If not, then we need to look at privatizing Social Security wholly or partially.  However, the biggest mandate I would add to this is education.  Financial responsibility and frugality need to become an integral part of the education curriculum from kindergarten through college.  The young generation needs to be made to understand that any system, whether it be government or private, can potentially fail them, and cannot be counted on for a fully secure retirement.  They must know it is up to them first and they must live responsibly. 

Mandatory Contraception

  I just read a liberal blog on a conservative’s  tweet response to the Sandra Fluke testimony on contraception. Response to Patricia Heaton Tweet A mandate has been passed requiring private insurers, with the exception of religious institutions to cover the cost of contraception in their plans.   This is such a hot issue because there are so many volatile factors in this equation.  There is government, religion, women’s rights, and money.  Fluke testified about the detriment of women attending Georgetown University who cannot afford contraception because the University health care plan does not cover it.  Nevermind that she is an activist and clearly has a biased agenda, and not even a Catholic.  Her testimony implies that she wants the government to tell Georgetown, a private Catholic University, what to do.  Am I the only one who sees a line being crossed here?  What is happening to Separation of Church and State?  Sandra Fluke can tell all the sob stories about her alleged "friends"  she wants to Congressional Hearings.  But the fact is that if Georgetown is a private AND NOT PUBLIC  University that does not receive subsidies, then the government cannot have any  say, as long as it doesnt effect national security,  in  any proceedings of the school, including contraception coverage.   The fact that Fluke only wants the quality education from Georgetown while disregarding the University’s values and beliefs, and then implying that the government, through her testimony, also disregard the University is of the highest selfishness. In her testimony she said that she shouldn't have to choose between a quality education and women's health.  What about the University's beliefs and rights?  She failed to mention or talk about that, making her testimony one sided and therefore invalid.   She is upset that an institution's beliefs, an institution that she CHOSE to attend, contradict her own and, instead of recognizing the rights of that institution to hold those beliefs, she is trying to get the government to force Georgetown  University to go against its rightful beliefs.  This is a direct affront to the centuries old struggle to separate Church and State.