No, but so what if it were? As long as population increases it is fine. Should it ever decrease, its money will need to come from that designated for the war!
By Jack E. Lohman
It’s a forced savings account that we geezers paid into for forty years before retiring. It beats taking welfare cash.
But the politicians want to privatize it. Two problems with that:
- Privatization automatically adds 20% to its cost, to cover expensive CEOs and administrator’s salaries and benefits and retirement packages (oh yes, they’ll be higher!) And to offset banker’s commissions and bonuses for selling the program. And their political costs (and yes, someone has to pay for their campaign bribes!)
- It will NOT stop politicians from dipping into it to fund some stupid subsidy for a campaign contributor that will likely fail. They’ve been using it as a slush fund for decades because it helps them raise campaign bribes … er, cash. Corruption isn’t pretty, especially when performed by someone on our own payroll and funded by our own wallet. And execution isn’t on the table.
Hey Paul Ryan! Get it???
I don’t want bankers involved with anything moving forward, especially a government program that they bought by paying off our corrupt politicians. I want bankers and politicians having LESS control of my money; not MORE!
How do we fix it?
We should eliminate the $104K cap on wages so the wealthy pay more, and it should apply to all income, not just wages.
We should put the money in a lock-box so our corrupt politicians can’t get their measly hands on it.
Come to think about it, if the politician’s campaigns were funded solely by the taxpayers they’d do the right thing with Social Security. It would be fixed overnight.