Future of Social Security The office of Social Security makes the current attitude of the administration clear: "Social Security was never meant to be the sole source of income in retirement. It is often said that a comfortable retirement is based on a three-legged stool of Social Security, pensions and savings. American workers should be saving for their retirement on a personal basis and through employer-sponsored or other retirement plans," and not simply rely on Social Security. The F& Q. section of the website also adds that "more than 30 countries, including Britain, Australia and Sweden, have established versions of personal accounts," in response to these nation's rapidly aging demography (F& Q. Website, 2005)

But Democrats say that the current president's idea of cutting future benefits on a sliding scale -- " with low-income workers seeing no change, middle-income workers seeing some reductions and the wealthiest sustaining the hardest hit" - say this would transform Social Security into a welfare program for only the most indigent of the elderly, unlike the pension program for all that it was designed to be when it was constructed by Franklin Delano Roosevelt as part of his New Deal legislation during the 1930's. (Davis, 2005)

Development and debate of the Social Security issue today

Social Security reform remains one of the most divisive and partisan issues in American politics today largely because of the controversy over privatization. But first of all, is there really a crisis in the system at all? The Social Security Official Government F& Q. website of the current Republican administration assures...

But it tells retirees age 35:"unless changes are made, at age 71 in 2041 your scheduled benefits could be reduced by 26% and could continue to be reduced every year thereafter from presently scheduled levels," and to 26-year-olds it warns: "unless changes are made, when you reach age 62 in 2041, benefits for all retirees could be cut by 26% and could continue to be reduced every year thereafter. If you lived to be 100 years old in 2079 (which will be more common by then), your scheduled benefits could be reduced by 32% from today's scheduled levels." The Website adds "Social Security is not sustainable over the long-term at present benefit and tax rates without large infusions of additional revenue. There will be a massive and growing shortfall over the 75-year period." (F& Q, 2005)
Even many Democrats that the Social Security system is in need of reform, although not necessarily the kind of complete overhaul proposed by the president. But is there another solution to the Social Security crisis besides privatizing? The so called 'lock box' alternative approach, requiring set-asides, would to require that the non-Social Security Federal budget be in balance or surplus for the years in which Social Security makes investments. Though the amount of borrowing from the public might be reduced, such a state of balance cannot be relied upon for every financial year. (F& Q, 2005) And is the notion of partial privatization so radical, anyway? Several proposals recommend that a personal savings account plan for Social Security…