The contemporary economic crisis has forced many fiscally-minded individuals to reevaluate America’s long-term financial stability, bringing to the forefront new warnings concerning the state of the nation's social programs. The one that has garnered the most political attention in recent days are the calls to restructure the Social Security system. The reports that Social Security will systematically collapse in approximately thirty years have been run through the media echo chamber and elicited cries, from some, to either increase funding for the program or to privatize the system. Contrary to these reports, the system is not in crisis; in fact, it will continue to function as it had been designed for at least, by some government estimates, for another fifty years or more.
It is apparent that Social Security will face some long-term technical problems. This is to be expected from a system that has never been restructured during its tenure. Nothing can run flawlessly forever; however, the impending doom that is being propagated as fact can be easily overcome with minor policy changes.
For the sake of an argument, let's say the fear-mongers are correct and the system is slowly dying. What do we do to save it? Eliminating the cap on the highly regressive payroll tax, which is set at roughly $90,000, would benefit the system and ensure that it would never collapse. It would make sense if everyone pays into Social Security and not just those making under $90,000 per year, because it would increase the system's funds and create long-term security.
This proposal has been legitimately discussed by some policy-makers over the last decade or two, though the concept has yet to catch on and create the ground swell needed to institute a reform. The primary issue brought up by the individuals peddling the concept that the Social Security system is bankrupt is that the proportion of working to retired people is declining as the Baby Boomer generation moves out of the job market. The fact that there will be fewer workers supporting those that are retired is true, but the concept remains irrelevant when discussing the issue of Social Security. What these supposedly learned people should be focusing on is not the proportion of worker to retired ratio but the dependency ratio, which is a measure of the number of dependents to the total population and not merely retirees.
Because the Baby Boomer generation is the focus of the supposed crisis, it would be fitting to analyze the situations that have defined their lives. The question that arises is 'how are we going to pay for the Baby Boomers retirement', though no one is bothering to delve into how they were cared for when they were younger. As the generation came into being, personified by the 1960s, each individual was taken care of by the federal system. Schools were expanded or being built anew and many social programs were being developed all at a time when the government had far less financial resources than our contemporary situation. In thus, how were the Baby Boomers able to grow up on federal subsidies and the funding of numerous building projects, yet, now that our nation is richer, we cannot afford their retirement?
The problem has not become bigger over the past fifty years; one can easily suspect, and rightly so, that the problem is manufactured. The 'crisis' surrounding the Social Security system is manufactured and the interpretation of data is based upon an individual’s personal ideologies and biases. The system will not collapse in thirty years, nor is it likely to collapse in fifty years, and the minute changes that need to be instituted can easily ensure the system's ability to function with limited hiccups.
So, why are there so many people saying it needs to be drastically reformed before it collapses?
The answer is, in fact, being touted by many individuals in power, both private and public. What used to be open discussion has, smartly, moved to smoke-filled backrooms, and that is the discussion about private investment accounts.
Privatizing Social Security will force the system to move from the highly functioning, low administrative costing public sector to the questionably functioning, high administrative cost private sector. The economic collapse has destroyed any hope of integrating the nation's Social Security system into the stock market, but the concept continues to be propagated as the only measured way to save the system. This concept has been pushed to forefront by many politicians interested in undermining the social movements that strengthened this nation.
All social programs are based upon a universal principle that has been deemed radical or revolutionary; individuals should care about the welfare of their own countrymen/women. It reinforces the idea that we, as a society, can benefit when we work collectively to better the development and progress of all people. Though this is subjective in that not everyone can say that they benefit from particular programs, success can occur when we look beyond ourselves and focus on society, at large.
There has been increased pressure over the past few decades to push individuals into becoming sociopaths. The selfishness that comes about – to become more concerned with personal gain then desiring to establish equality in a system – forces individuals to live independently from their neighbors and fosters animosity and distrust throughout communities. The individuals that push away the collective are the ones that can be easily controlled and manipulated by the country's powerful forces, be they in the public or private sector. The movement to dismantle the contemporary Social Security system, the reason why the fear-mongering and scare tactics about the dissolution of the system are becoming increasingly vocalized, is because they want society to become less unified. This is the defining piece as to why there is an attack on Social Security, and has been for the last twenty, or more, years.
As in the background of all social movements, Social Security has its origins in labor movements that relied upon the need for societal cohesion and universal support. The concept of empathy for our fellow man is not something that has only defined the social movements; Adam Smith, the individual we are to deify but never read ourselves, believed that the concept of 'sympathy' was an important human value.
The Wealth of Nations perpetuated the need for collective support and espoused the concept that once freedom and liberty were achieved that equality, in all things, would be possible. The most noted, and subsequently the most misquoted, concept put forth by Adam Smith is that of the "invisible hand", which was nothing more than an argument against the proliferation of neo-liberalism; the very theory and policies, instituted in the 1980s, that have guided the American market system from success to oblivion. Adam Smith was profoundly against the neo-liberalist concept for he believed that individuals, "as if guided by an invisible hand", would move away from buying and investing in overseas markets and concentrate on domestic market development, which could be utilized to usher forth renewed solidarity between countrymen.
The concepts of the 'collective' and 'solidarity' have long been tarnished as relics of the dying social movements, and, currently, have been touted as a reaffirmation of antiquated propaganda. These concepts remain principled in protecting communities, for a community would not be able to flourish, individuals would never feel safe, and society would have fallen apart long ago if we did not still care about our neighbors. The desire to disrupt these concepts, to force people to believe that they are better-off alone, to pressure individuals to think of themselves over everyone else is the real reason behind the faux controversy surrounding the Social Security.