Social Security

Social Security has become a quite controversial issue in the USA, drawing the dividing lines between Republicans and Democrats even starker. While its opponents argue that the social security system is essentially broken and should be abolished, its advocates insist on its financial solidity and benefits for millions of people. Throughout this debate, both camps have resorted to misleading language and perpetuated multiple myths that only tend to distort the actual state of the Social Security system in America. This paper aspires to take a look at the current issues surrounding social security, focusing on the problems and obstacles that seem to embattle it and debunking the myths that undermine the faith of Americans in the long-term future and success of this domestic program.Before considering the issues surrounding Social Security, it is important to briefly explain what it actually represents. According to the Social Security Trustees Report 2012, Social Security is a government program of social insurance which is officially entitled “Old-age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance” (OASDI). For its funding, the Social Security system chiefly relies on payroll tax. When it comes to specific numbers, the Social Security Trustees Report 2012 says that 736bn dollars was paid in benefits in 2011. According to estimates, as many as 158 million American taxpayers contributed to the Social Security program. The number of people who benefit from the system is believed to be at 55 million. This means that it takes approximately 2.87 workers for one Social Security beneficiary.With so many people contributing to the functioning of the Social Security system and with an equally impressive number of those Americans who benefit from it, it only seems natural that issues are bound to arise as to the financial sustainability of this program in the long run. In fact, as Nancy Altman explains in her book The Battle for Social Security, opponents of Social Security frequently complain that the program has turned into a victim of the aging baby boom. From their perspective, this is obvious from the proportion of workers and retirees. They contend that this ratio used to stand at 16 to one, that it is three to one at the moment, and, that it is bound to reach two to one in 2030 (Altman 13).Yet, if we take a close look at this argument, its logic seems to be quite tenuous. In fact, Altman (15) contends that the deficit with which America is grappling today has no relation to the size of the baby boom or to the ratios of worker to retiree. The author (Altman 17) points out that the frequently invoked 16 to one ratio is merely a fact from 1950 when the Social Security system was enlarged in order to supply insure millions of new workers. According to Altman (18), the ratio never had any impact on policy. She acknowledges that the two to one ratio does indeed mean higher costs, adding, however, that they were dealt with many years ago (Altman 22).It is also important …