Keeping "Social" in Social Security

The Republicans, in their zeal to reshape our country into the image in which they think it should be, have targeted a number of "Whipping Boy" issues. These include environmental protection, planned parenthood, Medicare, no new taxes (or even keeping some of the existing ones), and Social Security. Each of these needs protecting, particularly Medicare and Social Security.

Every American Citizen with a regular job pays a portion of their wags into funds set aside for Social Security and Medicare. These funds in turn support monthly payments to older and/or disabled citizens in the form of a monthly check. The people receiving these checks have, in turn, paid into the Medicare and Social security funds for decades during their working years. If a person who is receiving a Social Security check also is still working, they pay additional  monthly amounts into these two funds.

I know many of you are saying, "I already know this, so why are you telling it to me?"  I am mentioning it because the Republicans are making a concentrated effort to greatly weaken Social Security or eliminate it all together. Consider what Presidential candidate Rick Perry recently said.  Yes I know, Perry is not anywhere close to being the brightest bulb in the light fixture (didn't we just get rid of a president from Texas with a similar comprehension problem?), but his words do reflect the thinking of a great many Republicans. He said: "Social Security is a Ponzi scheme for these young people. The idea that they're working and paying into Social Security today, that the current program is going to be there for them, is a lie. ... It is a monstrous lie on this generation, and we can't do that to them."

I will hate myself in the morning for saying this, but in spite of his ridiculous words, he is correct about one thing. The current Social Security program will not be there long term unless a few basic changes are made. More about that in a moment.

All retirement age generation have used Social Security to cushion the fact of not having a regular working man or woman's income anymore. For some it is their only income, while for others it is a needed supplement to their pension or investment income. For all but the very wealthy, it fills a vital need in a retired person's quality of life.

History shows us that the Republicans have always hated Social Security, dragging their feet on this issue as far back as when it was first voted into existence. To them it is socialism, and to a degree they are right, in that one generation funds the retirement of an older generation and then, in turn, some future, younger generation funds their retirement, and so on. While this is not socialism in the strictest since, it does contain elements of that philosophy. In spite of the Republican rhetoric to the contrary, partial socialism for the good of great segments of the population is not bad, nor evil.  Remember, it is called "Social" Security

History has many yardsticks by which to judge a particular civilization. One of those yardsticks is how well they provide for their people. Does a government simply discarded the sick and the elderly, or do they offer programs and system that assist the financial burdens of these groups? Social security and Medicare are the right thing for a country to do. No other justification is necessary.

Now, as for the increased funding that Social Security will require....there is a very simple way to boost the reserves of this program, and that is to collect the Social Security tax on all wages of all US citizens. Currently, that tax is only withheld from the first $106,800 of a person's yearly earnings. There are certainly other ways to make the wealthy pay their fair share of the expenses of running our country, but increasing the Social Security withholding to cover all wages is a good start.

Finally, consider what Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders had to stay on the subject In an op-ed piece, that has been published in many U.S. newspapers, Sanders wrote, "As corporations over the last 30 years destroyed the retirement dreams of millions of older workers by eliminating defined-benefit pension plans, Social Security was there paying full benefits. When Wall Street greed and recklessness caused working people to lose billions in retirement savings, Social Security was there paying full benefits.

"Despite its success, Social Security faces an unprecedented attack from Wall Street, the Republican Party and a few Democrats. If the American people are not prepared to fight back, the dismantling of Social Security could begin in the very near future," Sanders writes.

How do we fight back? How do we protect Social Security? What can we do? It's a process of several steps, the first being returning the House of Representatives to the control of the Democratic party, for as long as the Republicans rule in that governing body (with their Tea Party influenced nonsense) the threat of an attack on Social Security, as well as other citizen safety nets will continue.

Please don't misinterpret what I am saying to mean that the Democratic party is perfect, as they are far from being that. However, they clearly represent the best hope for continuing proven programs that benefit the average American citizen. And after all, isn't that what a government is supposed to do?