VIEWS EXPRESSED BY CONTRIBUTORS IN COLUMNS/OPINION EDITORIALS ETC.. ARE THOSE OF THE AUTHOR AND DO NOT REPRESENT THE VIEWS OR OPINIONS OF CLAYCONEWS
Why Social Security Should Never Have Been Created
OPINION: By Gerardo Serrano —self described "proud Republican with a Libertarian philosophy"
Social Security, touted as one of the great achievements of modern government, is, in reality, a flawed program that should never have been implemented.
While it was sold to the public as a safety net for the elderly and vulnerable, it has become a coercive, unsustainable, and politically manipulated system that infringes on individual freedom and burdens future generations. And now, with the recent passage of the Social Security Fairness Act, its flaws and inequities have only grown more glaring.
A System Born of Coercion
At its heart, Social Security forces every American worker to participate, regardless of personal preference. Workers are compelled to hand over a portion of their hard-earned money to fund a program that many do not trust and that some may never benefit from. This lack of choice is an affront to the principles of liberty and personal responsibility that define our nation.
Imagine being told you must save for retirement, not through your own decisions or investments, but through a government program with no guarantees. Your contributions don't belong to you, and your benefits are subject to the whims of politicians who prioritize reelection over reform.
The Politicians' Hypocrisy
Adding insult to injury, the lawmakers who created Social Security and forced it upon the American people exempted themselves from the program. They ensured they had access to far more generous retirement benefits funded by taxpayers while telling the rest of us that Social Security is good enough.
Even after reforms in the 1980s required newer members of Congress to pay into Social Security, many older members were grandfathered into better systems. Today, politicians enjoy multiple streams of retirement income—Social Security, pensions, and the Thrift Savings Plan—while millions of Americans rely solely on this faltering program.
If Social Security was indeed the outstanding achievement they claim it to be, why did these lawmakers shield themselves from it?
Financially Unsustainable from the Start
From its inception, Social Security was built on shaky ground. It is not a savings program; it is a pay-as-you-go system where today's workers fund today's retirees. This model only works when there are enough workers to support the growing number of retirees.
In 1935, there were 16 workers for every retiree. Today, there are fewer than 3 workers per retiree, and that number continues to shrink. The system is projected to run out of money by 2034, at which point benefits will be slashed to 77% unless drastic action is taken.
Politicians knew this day would come. They expanded benefits, added new groups of beneficiaries, and failed to address the demographic and financial realities. Instead of fixing the system, they kicked the can down the road, leaving the burden to future generations.
A Culture of Dependency
Social Security was sold as a safety net but has become a crutch. Many Americans now rely on it as their primary source of retirement income, believing the government will take care of them. This dependency discourages personal savings and investment, eroding the values of self-reliance and personal responsibility.
A program meant to protect the vulnerable has instead trapped millions in a system in which their financial future depends on government promises that cannot be kept.
The Broken Promise of Fairness
Social Security is inherently unfair.
- Some people, like those who die young, pay into the system their entire lives but never receive benefits.
- Others, like children and spouses who never worked, receive benefits without contributing a dime.
- High earners pay far more into the system but receive proportionally less benefits, making Social Security a vehicle for wealth redistribution rather than a fair retirement plan.
This forced redistribution is not just unfair—it is un-American.
The Social Security Fairness Act: A Band-Aid on a Broken System
The recent passage of the Social Security Fairness Act is a prime example of how politicians continue to expand the program's flaws under the guise of reform. The act repeals the Windfall Elimination Provision (WEP) and Government Pension Offset (GPO), which means more public-sector retirees will now receive larger Social Security checks, even if they've contributed little to the system.
While this may seem fair, it adds $196 billion in costs over the next decade, accelerating the program's insolvency by at least six months. Rather than addressing Social Security's structural problems, this law compounds them, ensuring that future workers will face higher taxes, reduced benefits, or both.
Politicians passed this bill to win votes from public-sector unions and retirees, knowing full well that it would exacerbate the program's financial woes. Once again, short-term political gain takes precedence over long-term fiscal responsibility.
What Could Have Been
Instead of creating this flawed system, the government could have empowered Americans to take control of their own retirement:
- Encourage Private Savings: Tax incentives for personal retirement accounts would have allowed people to save for their future on their own terms.
- Targeted Assistance: A smaller program focused on helping the truly vulnerable—such as the disabled or impoverished elderly—would have been more sustainable and fair.
- Respect Individual Freedom: Trusting citizens to make financial decisions would have fostered a culture of responsibility and independence.
Conclusion
Social Security should never have been created. It is a system that infringes on personal freedom, fosters dependency and is financially unsustainable. Worse, it has been manipulated by politicians who prioritize their interests over those of the American people. The Social Security Fairness Act is merely the latest chapter in this saga of dishonesty and dysfunction, a Band-Aid on a program that needs a complete overhaul.
If the government had trusted its citizens to save and plan for their futures, we might have avoided the looming crisis threatening Social Security's survival. But as it stands, this program is a testament to the dangers of trading freedom for government promises—and a stark reminder that those promises often come with a price we cannot afford.
____________________________________________________________________________
I am Gerardo Serrano, a proud Republican with a Libertarian philosophy. From its inception, Social Security has been nothing more than a Ponzi scheme disguised as a safety net. It's time we had an honest conversation about its failures and what we must do to ensure the government respects its citizens' freedom and financial independence.
