Social Security Turns 70 as Debate over its Future Continues
Activists around the country used Social Security's 70th birthday as a platform to urge Congress to protect, preserve and strengthen what has been recognized as the nation's most successful government program. They are resisting attempts to cut guaranteed retirement, disability, and survivors benefits by creating private accounts.
"On the 70th anniversary of Social Security we celebrate its successes and rededicate ourselves to protecting its future," said Wade Henderson, executive director of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights. "We will not stand by and let the administration tinker with the retirement security that so many Americans have spent their whole lives working for or allow cuts to programs that so many Americans count on to make ends meet."
President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed the Social Security Act into law on August 14, 1935, creating a social insurance program designed to pay retired workers age 65 and older a continuous income after retirement.
Social Security has been through numerous changes in its 70-year history, including the addition of dependents benefits in 1939 and disability benefits in 1956. Automatic Cost-of-Living Adjustments (COLAs) were introduced in 1972.
President Bush has proposed creating a voluntary program where beneficiaries could invest part of their payroll taxes in private investment accounts. The funds in these accounts, according to President Bush, would then be invested into a "conservative mix of bond and stock funds that would have the opportunity to earn a higher rate of return than anything the current system could provide."
Supporters of the Bush plan argue that if the government does not act soon to fix the system, the only solution in the future will be to impose tax hikes, massive borrowing, or severe cuts in Social Security benefits and other government programs. The White House also claims that in 2018 the federal government will start to pay more in Social Security benefits than it will be able to collect from payroll taxes.
Opponents of Bush's privatization plan challenge the notion that a crisis is imminent. They say that the current system has enough revenue to provide full benefits until 2042 (or longer) and will continue to offer up to 80 percent of total benefits after that year.
Opponents also note that the administration's proposal only focuses on retirement and not the system's other benefits, which include disability and survivor insurance.
Americans of all ages and backgrounds have weighed in on the proposal. A February 2005 poll conducted by Rock the Vote, AARP, and the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies showed that nearly 60 percent of adults between the ages of 18 and 39 oppose private accounts if it means receiving lower retirement benefits.
Hans Riemer of Rock the Vote said that the response of young Americans is not different from older Americans.
"[The] poll shows that young people do not support changing Social Security if it means dismantling the basic safety net, cutting benefits dramatically, or massively increasing the national debt," he said. "We get all three at once under most private account plans."
Marie Smith, president of AARP, also expressed her support for the present system and disapproval of the proposed changes.
"Social Security is the only guaranteed, inflation-proof, lifelong benefit that millions of workers - present and future - can count on," she said at a Congressional Black Caucus hearing on Capitol Hill.
Smith also stated that AARP views Social Security as an obligation to Americans - a government responsibility to ensure that benefits are available when the public needs them.
Civil rights groups argue that President Bush's plan would unfairly penalize women, minorities, and individuals with disabilities.
Debra Ness of the National Partnership for Women and Families said, "Women are already disadvantaged in retirement because we are paid less, live longer, assume more care giving responsibilities and are less likely than men to have private pensions. Women fear that the privatization President Bush proposes would exacerbate existing inequities and increase women's risk for poverty in old age."
Highlighting the risks that privatization would pose for minorities, Hilary Shelton of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) said, "Americans of color have traditionally been at the low end of the earning scale over our lifetimes. We are historically more apt to have pursued physically demanding jobs in our lifetimes, and as such have a lower life expectancy and a higher rate of disability than the average American."
"While wealth accumulation and sound investment practices are certainly important goals to pursue as a supplement to Social Security's guaranteed benefits, carving money away from Social Security to fund individual retirement accounts would be a disaster of epic proportions for African-American families," said Maya Rockeymoore, vice president of Research and Programs for the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation, at a Congressional Black Caucus hearing on Capitol Hill.
Rockeymoore said that privatization would require deep cuts to the current system and would destabilize funding for the disability and survivors' benefits relied upon by people with disabilities and minority families.
According to Brent Wilkes, executive director of the League of United Latin American Citizens, the Latino community cannot afford to gamble with Social Security.
"Latino families cannot be placed at risk and we cannot support any project that jeopardizes Social Security. Not only is it a retirement insurance that is a pillar of the middle-class way of life, but it accounts for the disadvantaged - the lost, least and forgotten," Wilkes said.
Overlooked in many of the discussions about Social Security is the program's social insurance component. More than 7 million Americans depend on Social Security's disability benefits, including 1.6 million children who have a parent with a disability.
According to John Lancaster, executive director of the National Council on Independent Living, "More than seven million Social Security checks go to people with disabilities and their families to help them live and work independently. NCIL believes that the proposed private accounts could result in major benefit cuts, massive new government borrowing, and could destroy the social insurance system designed to reduce risk from certain life events."
Among the many anniversary celebrations was an August 13 rally on Capitol Hill sponsored by AARP in support of Social Security, "Strengthen It - Don't Destroy It!", which was attended by civil rights, women's, Latino, disability rights, and student groups. AARP also announced at the rally that they had collected more than 1.5 million petitions from members who oppose privatization.
The event coincided with AARP's release of a survey titled, "Social Security 70th Anniversary Survey Report: Trends over Time", which found that Social Security is the top source of income on which retired Americans expect to rely.
Americans United to Protect Social Security (AUPSS), a national coalition of more than 200 organizations, also hosted more than 100 anniversary events in nearly every state.
Congress has been divided for months on President Bush's Social Security proposal.
During a televised address on Aug. 3, 2005, the president stated that he would push for his Social Security privatization proposal. Although legislation to implement the Bush program has been introduced, resistance is strong and no action is expected soon.
The Social Security Administration decided not to celebrate the 70th anniversary of the program, baffling employees and interest groups, many of whom are concerned that the decision reflects the politicization of an independent federal agency.
