Social Security Is a Right: Not a Government Handout
Social Security, the United States’ largest entitlement program, provides critical benefits to more than 70 million retirees and people with disabilities every month. Social Security is the largest source of retirement income, and for 6 out of 10 seniors, it provides the majority of their income. For 1 out of every 3 seniors, Social Security provides 90 percent of more of their income. As a program built on the premise of providing a secure retirement for American workers, Social Security has been a lifeline for millions, ensuring they don’t have to worry about financial instability in their later years. Yet, as we approach a new government administration, there is growing concern that these benefits could be on the chopping block.
In political circles, Social Security and Medicare are often referred to as “entitlements” — a negative label that has been used to justify cuts and reforms. As in, “we think we are entitled to this handout.” As if it is welfare. But Social Security is not a handout. It’s not “government spending.” It’s money that you’ve paid into your whole working life through payroll taxes. This is money you’ve earned, and you have a right to access it when the time comes. You are, in fact, entitled to it.
President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed the Social Security Bill into law on August 14, 1935, just 14 months after sending a special message to Congress on June 8, 1934, outlining a plan for social insurance as a safeguard “against the hazards and vicissitudes of life.” The goal was simple: to provide financial security for Americans in their retirement years, and during times like the Great Depression. Workers contributed to the program through payroll taxes, which were then used to fund benefits for retirees, widows, orphans, and the disabled. For decades, Social Security worked as designed — a program that pooled the contributions of many to ensure the basic financial needs of a few. And for those workers, it was a plan they could count on, having paid into the system over their careers.
Food stamps are also considered part of that same program. This means anyone eligible will receive benefits. You will not be taking away benefits from someone else if you apply. By comparison, housing vouchers are a government program that is not an entitlement. This doesn’t have anything to do with whether or not it’s a “welfare” program but simply because Congress allocates a certain amount of money for the program, and it will not be enough for everyone who needs it. Those hoping to receive benefits end up on waiting lists until it is their turn, and the funds are available.
Why, then, do some politicians claim, “We need to consider entitlement reform to reduce the federal deficit?” The answer is simple: it’s where the money is. Just as thieves target ATMs for cash, politicians eye Social Security as a funding source for their pet projects and lucrative contracts. Convincing the public to support this idea, however, requires a carefully crafted, long-term strategy of misdirection.
As the American economy grew, the stock market became an increasingly influential force, and private investment opportunities began to proliferate. From electricity companies to health care providers, more and more aspects of life were tied to the idea of investing — both for the government and for individuals. These are things that most people do not think should be for profit, yet are. In this environment, government entities and financial institutions began to promote private retirement plans, many of which were connected to the stock market. The hope was to encourage workers to invest their money in these private plans for a higher return on investment. This would also make it harder for the working class to fight corporate profiteering when their 401(k) plans benefited from these investments, even if only a small amount compared to those who own large amounts of stocks. This, of course, created a fundamental shift in how retirement and health care were viewed.
While Social Security had been designed as a safety net for the elderly, the idea of depending on it alone began to be falsely painted as outdated. Financial experts, politicians, and even certain segments of the media began pushing the narrative that Social Security was no longer enough to sustain retirees, and workers should instead focus on investing in private plans that promised higher returns. Much like minimum wage, something that was put in place that could guarantee basic stability and a roof over your head, Social Security began to be portrayed as a system that couldn’t possibly provide for you on its own.
As this investment trend started to build, so did the losses. Private investments, while potentially offering higher returns, come with significant risks — risks that many retirees simply aren’t prepared for. A stark example of this is the infamous Enron scandal of the early 2000s. Enron, once a darling of the stock market, collapsed in a spectacular and devastating fashion. The scandal cost 59,000 stockholders, including many pension funds, nearly their entire investments. Enron’s stock price plummeted from $90 per share on August 17, 2000, to $0.26 per share on November 30, 2001, wiping out billions of dollars in savings. This is just one of many examples of how private investments, tied to the volatility of the stock market, can lead to catastrophic financial losses for those who rely on them for retirement security, and why many do not want to. In comparison, Social Security has been a model of stability, and it is supposed to be backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S. government.
Instead of viewing Social Security as a hard-earned right, Americans have been told they’re too reliant on the government, and that Social Security is part of a larger “dependency” problem. This lie has been sold for decades, with the government and private corporations simultaneously benefiting from the system while shifting the burden of responsibility away from the public sector and onto the individual. The message was clear: You can’t depend on Social Security. You need to take care of yourself.
Fast forward to today, and that lie has taken hold. Last week, a thread on X (formerly Twitter) authored by Utah Senator Mike Lee and reposted by Elon Musk claimed that Social Security is a “Ponzi scheme” that’s “running out of new investors” and is an example of “government dependency at its worst.” Social Security is not a Ponzi scheme. More lawmakers are feeling the pressure from non-elected officials, such as Elon Musk, who makes over 400 Billion dollars a year and doesn’t need a program like Social Security. A Ponzi scheme relies on fraudulent activity and a lack of actual investment to pay out benefits. Social Security is a legitimate program funded by the contributions of American workers over their careers. To suggest that it’s anything less than that is misleading at best — and at worst, it’s an attempt to justify cutting a program that millions of Americans depend on.
If some members of the government truly want to stop Social Security, then they should stop collecting Social Security taxes from Americans. If it’s no longer a benefit workers can rely on, then there should be no deductions from paychecks. But to continue deducting that money while simultaneously undermining the program is both unethical and irresponsible.
Or perhaps Congress could begin by addressing its own wasteful spending. A special task force tracking federal COVID payments discovered that in 2023, $38 million was distributed to individuals who were already deceased. Shockingly, $1.3 million of that went to 30 people who had been dead for more than a year. Stories like these, coupled with countless accounts of embezzled funds, leave you shaking your head. But since it’s not their own money on the line, I won’t be holding my breath.
Social Security was created to be a retirement plan. It wasn’t meant to be a temporary solution, nor should it be subject to political whims. If policymakers make cuts to Social Security, they are taking away the financial security of millions of Americans who have paid into the system for decades. We need to hold our government accountable for the promises it made and for the program that millions of citizens rely on.
The fight for Social Security defines our values as a society. It’s about the recognition that those who work and contribute should be entitled to the benefits they’ve earned through years of hard work and contributions. It’s time to stop the misinformation and the dangerous rhetoric. Social Security isn’t running out of new investors, and it isn’t a Ponzi scheme. It’s a system that has worked for decades to protect those who need it the most, and it should remain untouchable. It is the insurance every working American has paid for .We have an obligation to not only to keep that promise, but to strengthen and expand Social Security for our seniors and for future generations.
