Proposed Social Security Changes Punish the Poor

When asked what senator Hubert Humphrey advised any new senator, he simply said that he told them to give four years to the Lord and then the remaining two to get elected again. However, the politics have changed drastically since then; no Washington politician these days has four years to give to the lord. Rather, all their years are for those who contribute to their election campaigns since they are the ones who put them up on those seats. This newly elected government is no different, no matter how much you try to stretch; they will give us a year at maximum.

The issue of social security changes and cuts should have been off the table a long time ago since it has already been proven that it has nothing to do with debt of $16 trillion, $900 billion deficit in the budget or even the total budget of $3.8 trillion. The president is also getting heavily criticized for still keeping this issue on the table; the only people who are winning in this entire scenario are those visitors to White House who are negotiating their terms for tax breaks.

Let’s consider for a moment that social security is still on the table and that there is a need to change its terms for the betterment of our budget deficit. There are still a number of ways other than cutting the social security benefits to improve the situation for everyone. For example, the cap for taxable income on payroll can be increased from $106,100. Similarly, the rate of tax can also be increased by half a percent or an additional tax can be levied on payment of social security by the wealthy. Furthermore, the age of retirement can be extended even further to earn additional revenue and improve the situation for the budget deficit.

Assuming that the inflated index social security savings which were at $12 billion counted, which they don’t, it can only improve the trillion dollar gap between our expenditure and our income by severely damaging the elderly. According to the statistics of social security administration, the annual social security payments are around $14, 808 and almost 46 percent of all unmarried elderly relay on this payment as a source of 90 percent of their income.

When the stocks of Wal-Mart fell by $3 billion, Sam Walton very calmly stated that it was nothing more than a paper back then and it is still a paper now. Similar is the situation with the dollar whose intrinsic value has changed drastically over the years. A house which was of $10,000 in 1953 (the time when the concept of social security was enacted) currently has a price of $168,000. Similarly, a cup of coffee which was of only five cent in the past is now of $2 thus indicating an increase of almost 40 times. All of this is the result of inflation and it is because of this reason that the elders now need to get more than just a fixed amount of income in the name of social security. Their social security payments should also be adjusted based on the inflation index.

The typical CPI mentions the prices of a basket of goods over a period of time but the republicans are trying to introduce a new concept of chained CPI which states that the use of cheaper alternatives can help in controlling for inflation over time. However, we need a more appropriate system for the benefit of the elderly rather than a program which just focuses on cutting benefits from a program that has nothing to do with the prevailing deficit.