The Insecurity of Social Security

I must begin this post with a confession: I was among the vein of people who thought (some still think) that Social Security was on its way out the door. I foresaw only a disastrous downfall for the program within the next 20-25 years, with a complete stoppage of all benefits. It came as a great relief to find out that, even assuming the Social Security trust fund is completely depleted by 2036 as predicted by the 2011 trustee's report, the program would not cease its distribution of benefits altogether; it would not be able to pay full benefits at the same rate it is now, but it would still function nonetheless due to the fact that it could still draw from its income-tax revenue. Relief, therefore, was my first reaction to Kathy Ruffing's report.

Having said that, after reviewing the information Ruffing provides, I do still have some doubts about the total security of Social Security. Because the demographic of both workers and beneficiaries is constantly shifting, it is impossible to ground Social Security in income-tax revenue alone. Something much more stable must be in place to ensure its foothold, thus the reason there is a trust fund in existence in the first place. The depletion of that trust fund would mean no cushion to fall back on and with no stabilizing mechanism in place, Social Security's effectiveness from year to year would surely falter. So...will benefits stop? No. Will benefits be surrounded by uncertainty and will their amounts fluctuate greatly? Most likely.

It is the changing demographic that most frustrates me. For the most part it seems to me that Social Security has not adapted quickly or efficiently enough to the rapid increase in the average death age and the influx in the working population. Longer life spans mean more individuals simultaneously receiving benefits, which in turn means more payouts for the program. A greater working population would theoretically counter this issue, but flaws in the program, such as the three-year gap between cost-of-living adjustments, have created what I see as an avoidable deficit. If it is not avoidable, it is at least possible to keep it to a minimum.

I also raise my eyebrows at the great increase in people who "qualify" for disability benefits. Although I understand Ruffing's justification, I just don't think that the number of disability qualifiers should have DOUBLED in the last 16 years. You see this a lot: people who needed benefits at one time, but then become comfortable with the convenience the system provides and continue taking advantage of it even after they no longer need assistance. As a part of Social Security reform, I think the means used to evaluate people's continuing eligibility for disability benefits should be examined and modified.

As usual, I don't pretend to know a lot about what I write about on this blog. But writing is intended to stimulate conversation, just as reading is intended to stimulate thought. Ruffing's report definitely got me thinking. Hopefully, this post will get you talking. I welcome your responses.