FREE ESSAY ON SOCIAL SECURITY

SOCIAL SECURITY

Since the Second New Deal and the Social Security Act of 1935 the elderly and disabled of
the United States have relied upon their monthly checks from the government to survive.
However, from its inception the Social Security system has been plagued with numerous
problems. Out of all the problems that have enveloped the system. There are only two that
have seriously threaten the existence of the entire Social Security system. The first
problem that jeopardized the existence of the system was in 1937 when there was a
movement in the courts to declare the actions and creation of the system as being
unconstitutional. This movement to prevent the establishment of the Social Security
system never reached the Supreme Court. The second and most recent problem to face the
system is by far the greatest threat ever to the existence of the system. This new threat
is one that has been perpetuated by the inability of the system to solve the problem.
The problem that is at hand today is that the Social Security system will not be able to
pay its recipients their deserved funds. This problem was created by the fact that
longevity has increased and that in the next 5 to 10 years the baby boomers will become
eligible for Social Security. What is unique about the problem is that the system's funds
will not be completely depleted until the year 2029 . The problem of depleted funds in
the system is created because the system is unable to adjust to the change in life style
and cost of living. Thus the system over time will not take in enough money or give out
enough to support the recipient with the proper funds to survive. 
However as a result of a period of healthy economic growth, reduced unemployment and low
inflation, the long-range solvency predictions about the Social Security system have
improved over the past year, according to the Social Security Board of Trustees . The
robust economy we are currently enjoying and the enactment of the Balanced Budget Act
support this statement. With the past year of economic success the board predicts that
the system will remain solvent until 2032 . Kenneth S. Apfel, commissioner of the Social
Security Administration, calls the system's long-term financial problems manageable, but
warns against relying on the often unpredictable economy to aid in the future of the
ailing system . 
It is clear that action must be taken to stave off a serious Social Security crisis. As a
Senator from Pennsylvania I am in a difficult and unique position. Pennsylvania is a
state with two vastly different spectrums of the Social Security system. The first is the
urban spectrum where most of the recipients are barley living above the poverty line.
There are two causes for this problem. First, the cost of living in the city is
exorbitantly expensive. Second, many of the urban recipients had jobs that were low
paying; thus the amount of return on their Social Security checks was low. 
The second is the rural spectrum where most of the people are having few problems with
the system. This is because the cost of living in the countryside is low. The returns
that the recipients get from the system enable them to live a comfortable life. 
Because of the vastly different spectrums within my state I must be careful when
supporting reforms for the Social Security system. I can not support a reform that will
hurt one spectrum and benefit the other. Also being a Senator I must keep in mind how the
reforms will effect the rest of the nation. I must keep the mentality of a statesman at
all times. 
Being aware of the crisis and the circumstances in my state and the nation there are
several reforms that I feel should never be implemented into the system. One such reform
is the proposal to privatize the system. Supporters of privatizing the Social Security
system argue that privatization provides the individual with control of the Social
Security portion of their retirement plan. Thus allowing investors to achieve higher
rates of return and higher benefits than Social Security provides. I feel this reform is
not acceptable. In order to change the system to a private one it would cost a
significant amount of money. This change could undermine the stable benefits that the
people receive from the Social Security system. This would especially hurt the low-income
recipients. It is my belief that individual accounts to invest funds can be supplemental
but not replace the system. Currently many Americans invest their money for retirement.
This is great but an across the board move should not be done. 
Another reform for the system, which I feel, should not be implement is the raise of the
payroll tax. Workers and individuals pay the payroll tax from their pay checks to the
system. In 1999, workers and their employers each paid 6.2 percent payroll tax on wages,
up to a maximum of $72,600. It is believed that by raising the payroll tax the revenue
would rise, which could mean less severe benefit cuts to save the system. I am against
this because raising the payroll tax could have a negative effect on the economy and will
reduce the take-home pay of most workers, especially low-income workers. And, employers
would have to pay more payroll tax.
These are just two examples of proposed reforms with which I disagree with. There are
however several reforms that I am a strong support of. 
Currently the age at which one is to begin receiving Social Security benefits is planed
to be 67. Seeing that the longevity of people in America has increased it is only a
plausible reform to increase the retirement age. I feel that the retirement age should be
change to 70 years of age. This change can also be supported by the fact that if the
retirement age in 1935 was set at 65; today the it would be above age 70. Opponents to
the increase say that the older works that are forced to continue working due to the
increase in the retirement age may become unemployed and fall below the poverty line.
They also say that elder people are often phased out of work because of their age. My
response to this is that there are numerous laws against age discrimination. Any company
that discriminates against elders will feel the wrath of justice. 
And the final reform is a modification of currently proposed reform. Being from a state
were there are both significant urban and rural populations I know the significant
difference in the cost of living. Understanding this difference I propose that the Social
security system take into account the location of living for the recipient. If a
recipient lives in a significantly urban area they would receive more funds to maintain a
similar life style to those who receive funds in the rural areas. The benefits of the
rural recipients would not be affect they would receive the same amounts as they
currently do. Just the benefits of the urban recipients would be increased to insure a
comfortable style of living. 
The problems facing the nation with the Social Security system are such that it will take
a fully bipartisan action to solve them. While creating reforms for the system we must
keep in mind why the system was created, how the reforms will effect each individual in
the nation, and to maintain a nonbiased system. We must a nation solve these issue before
they reach a point in which we can no longer salvage the system.