Everybody has a solution, but none are politically viable. Considering the original start for payouts from Title II of the Social Security Act, (what we currently call Social Security) wasn't slated until 1-1-1942 and was pulled forward 2 years to bolster Roosevelt's re-election chances after the court packing debacle and subsequent diminished approval ratings, it should be no surprise that it is a political tool for each party... even today.
Make it only for those who paid into it, with maybe an adjusted payout for surviving spouses. Social Security should not be used as a welfare program, and those who were not eligible to work in this country certainly shouldn't be collecting Social Security. Over the years, they have extended Social Security benefits to children of retired and deceased workers, disabled people, regardless of whether they have ever paid into the Social Security fund, and to illegal immigrants who claim to have worked within the United States. I am not saying that there shouldn't be something in place for these other people who have dipping into the Social Security fund and if so, something should be set up for them, but Social Security will never be self-sustaining if it's used as a welfare program. That needs to be recognized and accepted. Social Security benefits were extended to these other classifications of people when the baby boomers were paying into the fund. They also borrowed from the Social Security fund for other budgetary items. Rather than investing this money for use now, when the baby boomers are retiring, they short-sightedly viewed this money as being available for whatever they wanted to use it for. Social Security may not ever be wholly self-sustaining. What government program is? There will be periods in which large numbers of people are retired and collecting from the fund, as now, but if we could develop a healthy economy again, there would also be periods in which large numbers of people were paying into it. However, and I think this is important. If nothing is done about Social Security, it will simply be another budgetary item, like all of the money that our government wastes on endless things, most of them having nothing to do with the needs of the country or its people. Ensuring that people have an income in retirement is a better use of money that we don't have than inviting millions of unskilled people who don't even speak the language to come into the country. We contribute money to nearly every country in the world, and I am not saying that our government shouldn't have a role in helping out other people and countries in need, but living up to the promises made to citizens in their senior years should have priority. We have a need for a strong military, but couldn't we at least try to live for one decade without being at war with someone somewhere in the world? Each F-22 Raptor costs $68,000 per hour to operate, according to Business Insider, and I don't know what the cost of the bombs we drop is but I'm guessing that a year's worth of bombs might go a long way toward funding our Social Security program. Billions of federal dollars are given to company start-ups that never start up, or which close down as soon as the start-up money is spent, as well as other corporate giveaways, usually to political donors. When federal dollars are given to someone who contributes heavily to a political campaign, in effect the federal dollars are being funneled into that political campaign. We give money to banks that make bad investments, and then we use the power of government to force them to make more bad investments. I know this goes far afield of the Social Security question, but unless Social Security is structured as a retirement plan for those who contribute to it, then it is not going to be self-sustaining. If the government wants to use this fund as a welfare program, then it will have to be responsible for the overruns, and as long as we're wasting the kind of money that we waste every year, you will not persuade me that we can't afford it. If I am living lavishly, employing a maid, a gardener, a driver, and a couple of bodyguards, all of whom are paid generously, and if I am handing out money to friends and business associates, and socking money away in a bank account, then I shouldn't be able to plead poverty.
However, no one is going to fix it because both sides (Democrats, in particular) want to be able to use it over and over in campaign promises.
@Ken Anderson Our government DID do one thing right, and during the Great Depression, at that. They organized the "Six Companies" and floated a bond issue(s) to pay for the design and construction of Hoover Dam (Then Boulder Dam). The bonds had a maturity of 50 years. Sometime in mid-'80s I think it was, the bond was paid off. During those 50 years the Dam fed electric power to, mostly, California, which paid for the juice, of course. During that time, power could only be diverted elsewhere from the Dam during emergency. The Dam paid for itself (amazing government feat!), and immediately it was announced in Phoenix (AZ), where we lived then, that our power company (Salt River Project) and possibly some others had designed and begun building a high-tension power line from the Dam to Phoenix, about 300 miles distance, and it would consist of a 500,000 volt Direct Current line! I was astounded then that the ability already existed to turn the DC back into AC easily, compared to how I had learned in school how it had to be done. Frank
While seniors face possible cuts in Medicare and Social Security, a bill is introduced that would have the taxpayers subsidize living expenses for members of Congress. -- Free Beacon
As it turns out, more than eighty percent of the federal budget is on auto-pilot and not subject to budgetary approval. Therefore, Congress, whose chief job is to set the budget, is really responsible for quibbling over less than 20% of the budget. This is probably why they have so much time to get involved in so many things that aren't any of their business.
Though there is much to be examined concerning future Social Security payments, I just received the largest jump I have seen in possibly 10 years. 2.7% to be exact.
Yes @Bobby Cole , the increase in COLA in the coming year is very nice. Along with SS, my military retirement and VA disability are also go up @ 2.8 %. As to the answers to funding, hoping calmer heads prevail.