I recently read a letter to the editor in our local paper about why we should vote Democratic and get rid of Republicans because the Republicans were going to do away with Social Security. This was the first that I had heard of this but do remember that Democratic candidates have for many years claimed that they were the saviors of Social Security and their opponents would destroy it. I got on a few websites and did some research.
The act that we now refer to as Social Security was started as the Economic Security Act in 1935, and the name changed to Social Security during the congressional debate. It was signed by President Roosevelt and enacted into law. The first taxes to support it were taken in 1937, and were 1% on both employee and employer on the first $3,000 earned and soon after the first lump sum payment was made. It was 17 cents. In 1939, benefits for survivors, spouses and children were added along with the first federal unemployment benefit. Disability benefits were added in 1956, and the next big change was the addition of Medicare in 1965. In 1950, the taxes were raised to 1.5% on both the employee and employer, and the amount of earnings taxable was raised to $3,600, in 1951. The tax was raised again in 1954, to 2% for both employee and employer, and in 1955, the taxable ceiling was raised to $4,200. In 1957, the rate was raised again to 2.25% for both employee and employer and again to 2.5% in 1959, with an increase in the ceiling to $4,800. Both the ceiling and rate kept increasing and in 1970, they were 4.2% and $7,800. This year also brought the beginning of retirement at 62 instead of 65 if wanted.
In 1983, the last major action was taken in the form of amendments headed by Greenspan to ensure the fund was capitalized and would not run out of money in the future with the baby boom. The rates continued to increase to the present 6.2% and the ceiling of $137,700. The Medicare tax is added to Social Security as a separate item. I could not find any particular action by either political party to enhance or deface the act, and it became quite apparent that most of the actions taken on or about Social Security have been bipartisan and positive for its continued availability. I could not find any nefarious activity by either party to reduce or destroy the act but only concern that there continued to be enough money to guarantee its future. The writer of the letter to the editor must have made up his or her worries about the future of the act or heard a Democratic contender trying to use scare tactics to win votes. There has been concern that the trust would run out of money, and many ideas have surfaced to prevent this but I could not find any attempts to reduce or change the system since the suggestion a few years ago that would allow wage earners to divert some of their SSI taxes to a private fund. That was shouted down immediately and has not been heard of since. I have been collecting my SSI for a while now and use the Medicare provision for my health insurance. It works. The only reduction in benefits was when President Johnson prompted Congress to asses income tax on 50% of benefits and then again when President Clinton raised the income taxable level to 85%.
The Social Security Act has been one of the best government programs enacted and is the reason why I am a liberal at times. Many today call it an entitlement or welfare program, which it is not. Most of those who receive benefits have paid into the Trust Fund for many years, and until recently many of them died before receiving any benefits or an amount equal to what they had been taxed for. With the life span increasing, now we see people receiving benefits that exceed what they put into the system; but, if you could add the amount of interest they might have earned, it is still a great program that has allowed many to retire who would not have been able to. It is a liberal program that works and benefits many.
(30)