
<p>Social Security is often called “the third rail” of public policy. ; </p>



<p>Any politician who suggests any criticism or change in SS – other than increasing benefits – is on the road to political oblivion. I am not a politician, so I have no need to pretend that Social Security is 1) actually a “trust fund” set aside for future payouts, 2) an efficiently run government program or 3) a good investment.</p>



<p><strong>Trust Fund?</strong></p>



<p>The folks in Washington often refer to the Social Security Trust Fund – implying that there is a set aside of money coming into the “Fund” sufficient to pay future recipients – that the “Fund” is self-perpetuating and sustainable. ; In fact, there is no “Fund” – only an item in the overall federal budget. ; That is why every member of Congress – and the folks in the White House – know that the outgo far exceeds the Social Security income. ; The disparity is so large that Social Security – as a program – is unsustainable. ; If left on its current course, Social Security will crash and eventually bring down the entire national economy.</p>



<p>Social Security is a kind of Ponzi Scheme in which more and more money is required to meet the promised payments to current recipients – and the growing demand for money is outpacing the taxpayer&#8217;s ability to pay. ; In 1940 – three years after Social Security was started – there were 42 workers supporting each recipient. Today, there are only three workers supporting each Social Security recipient. ; Like every Ponzi Scheme, there comes the point where it crashes.</p>



<p>So far, the ability of those in Washington to wring more and more money out of the taxpayers enables them to brag about the Social Security as the greatest government benefit program. ; Of course, that is the same thing folks were led to believe when they invested with Bernie Madoff. (If you are not familiar with Madoff, look him up.)</p>



<p>With Social Security about to belly up in a few years, President Biden proposes to raise taxes to extend the viability of Social Security – essentially kicking the can down the road. ; Eventually, there will be no more roads left. ; No matter to Biden or the members of Congress, they will have been long gone before the disaster hits.</p>



<p>Yep! ; There is no trust fund. ; Social Security has to be paid out of current taxes and borrowing.</p>



<p><strong>Social Security includes waste and corruption</strong></p>



<p>Social Security has become such a “sacred cow” that it is politically perilous to even suggest cost cutting measures involving waste and corruption. ; The word “cut” and “Social Security” can never be uttered in the same sentence. ; </p>



<p>If a senator announced a plan to cut the waste or corruption out of Social Security, an opposition senator would accuse his colleague of taking bread and medicine away from those dear old senior citizens. ; (I kept partisanship out of the previous sentence knowing that you could figure out the political affiliation of those senators.)</p>



<p>According to the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, the payment to undeserving or dead folks runs around $3 billion per year. ; Others set the “corruption AND waste” figure at closer to $15 billion per year. ; Corruption and waste in government programs is enormous because no one in government is effectively supervising expenditures – and that is because it is not their money. ; </p>



<p>Politicians actually benefit by not being prudent in spending. ; And keep in mind that those who cheat and steal are as supportive of government spending ; – and the candidates who spend irresponsibly &#8212; as those who get legitimate payments. ; They are all in on the take.</p>



<p><strong>Social Security is a lousy investment</strong></p>



<p>Two things are true. ; Social Security income is important and often critical to senior citizens – and it is lousy in terms of the Return on Investment (ROI). ; It is a losing investment. ; Basically, the money you receive is worth a lot less than the money you put into Social Security. ; Even worse. ; It was a forced investment. ; It was a bit like a stockbroker forcing you to invest in a stock that was a sure loser – even worse, since the stockbroker did not create the losing investment like the government did with Social Security. ; ;</p>



<p>If you had put that money into safe blue-chip stocks, you would have been FAR better off. ; If Social Security was a privatized investment – with safeguards – your Social Security payments today would be up to eight to ten times greater. ; Imagine getting $18,000 per month instead of $1,800.</p>



<p>To put it simply, the dollar that Uncle Sam took from us was worth a LOT more in purchasing power than the dollar he is giving back decades later.  ; The dollar I gave to Uncle Sam back in 1965 to invest in my retirement was worth $8.55 in purchasing power when compared to the dollar Sam is sending me each month. ; To make my investment in Social Security a breakeven point – no gain – I would have to receive 8.6 times the amount I receive today.</p>



<p>The Urban Institution estimates that the average person will pay $300,000 into Social Security over a lifetime – and will receive approximately $277,0000 in retirement benefits. ; You lost $23,000 right off the top. ; If you had put that money in a mattress – instead of giving it to subsidize Uncle Sam’s spending sprees &#8212; you might have been better off. ; ;</p>



<p>One thing everyone on Social Security knows is that the return on the investment is not nearly enough to cover the costs in retirement. ; It is not a livable income. ; You cannot survive – meet basic needs &#8212; on Social Security alone, even if you cut costs to the bone. ;</p>



<p>Some describe Social Security as a sort-of private investment program. ; It is YOUR money – going in and coming out. ; (Wait while I stop laughing. ; It is not “your” money when you have no choice in spending it.) ; It is not a welfare program. ; That creates a problem. ; As a long-term investment program, everyone who puts in can take out – no matter how rich they may be. ; Social Security payments are not means tested. ; If they were means tested, there would be more money for the seniors who really need the Social Security income – AND an overall reduction in the ever-increasing taxpayer cost of supporting the system.</p>



<p>Even though it is not officially a welfare program, it has the impact of one. ; Seniors are grateful for the pittance they receive – and protective of the pittance by voting against those who would reform Social Security and make it a better investment. ; They have been fearmongered and trapped into Social Security dependency, much like many poor folks have been fearmongered and trapped into generational welfare dependency.</p>



<p>Social Security needs responsible reform, but it will not happen as long as the irresponsible have the upper hand with the voters.</p>



<p>So, there ‘tis.</p>

No matter how popular, Social Security is a terrible investment
