There are few more persistent rumors these days than those about the imminent demise of Social Security - that famous 1935 FDR brainchild that pays a percentage of the loss of income because of death, disability or retirement.

The only welfare system in the world in which the government shirked all responsibility for old-age indigency - insisting the funds be taken out of current earnings of workers - it was still a new landmark in American history.It reversed historic assumptions about the nature of social responsibility, and it established clear-cut social rights for the individual.

According to Gwendolyn King, Commissioner of Social Security in Washington, that system is safe and none of the bad rumors about it are justified.

"The Social Security trust fund has never been in better shape," she says.

"It will grow to $275 billion by the end of the year. Social Security will not run out. Social Security will pay benefits through 2041 without any increase in the Social Security tax."

King claims that the government is only spending Social Security money to help run the program. For those who are still skeptics she recommends asking for a personal earnings statement. She cautions that even though Social Security provides such statements free of charge, there are several scams currently operating.

These people charge a fee to perform the same service.

The main thing that people most often forget, she says, is that Social Security is only a portion of a person's earnings, not a full replacement.

Carolyn Weaver, director of the Social Security and Pension project for the American Enterprise Institute in Washington, concurs. She cautions that "Social Security is not a magic money machine, and most taxpayers pay more for Social Security." But it is in no danger, even though it is confusing to many because "it is built on a complex foundation crossing over generations."

Lawrence Smedley, executive director of the National Council of Senior Citizens, is equally optimistic about the future of the program, which can easily be changed "if the people want to do that. But I don't see the need for any fundamental changes in the immediate future."

John Rother, director of legislation and public policy for the AARP, says "Social Security is a paradox. It is the most successful thing we've done in the United States - along with public education - and yet it is controversial. Why? Because it is complicated."

Rother claims to have closely followed the financial foundation of Social Security for many years, and "It is the last thing we should worry about - of all our problems it needs the least help." Yet "we want it to be a wonderfully efficient, self-correcting machine that never needs adjusting - and that's silly."

According to the smooth-tongued Rother, "It is a political agreement between generations and it works well. The fact that it is adapatable is its greatest strength." He believes that the basic reason that Social Security always breeds controversy is the simple fact that people inherently distrust government.

View Comments

Rother allows for a possible downside. "You cannot insulate Social Security against depression or other economic problems." People do tend to misunderstand it. "It is not a savings account - it is an insurance program. But it is more public and more safe than banking."

He also acknowledges the fact that "private pensions are disappearing and private savings are declining. Before the age of 40 we all have lots of confidence in our ability to succeed financially and to meet the needs of our retirement - then after 40 something funny happens. We realize it isn't going to happen."

As sobering as that sounds, we should be able to take heart in the claims of the experts that Social Security is as sound as a dollar.

Whoops - Wrong analogy.

Join the Conversation
Looking for comments?
Find comments in their new home! Click the buttons at the top or within the article to view them — or use the button below for quick access.