by Carol Van Strum
Attacks on Social Security promote several huge misconceptions. For one thing, they present Social Security benefits as a drain on government funds for other programs. This is patently untrue. Social Security funds are paid by wage earners into a special trust fund, and all benefits are paid from that trust fund. Money paid in by wage earners is therefore held in trust for their later needs; use of that money to fund any other government endeavor effectively constitutes embezzlement.
Further, attackers portray the Social Security program as solely a retirement benefits program, and therefore solely a “senior” issue. This is a dangerous fallacy. The Social Security program is much more than a retirement fund; it also provides insurance against disability and death. Replacing its functions would cost far more money than people currently invest in such insurance. Also, Social Security does not terminate coverage when you are no longer a “good risk,” whereas if you are self-employed, you can pay into a private disability policy for years without ever making a claim, only to see your “investment” disappear overnight when the insurer suddenly cancels the policy.
Those who would eliminate or privatize Social Security need to answer some crucial questions about the consequences of such proposals. Below are examples of its provisions and questions we need to ask — over and over — of those who would weaken or eliminate Social Security:
SURVIVOR’S BENEFITS
Social Security is a multi-faceted program: it’s not just an investment/trust fund for retirement benefits. What you pay in via your FICA (Federal Insurance Contributions Act) taxes goes into several programs: one of them is a kind of life insurance program.