Founded some 80 years ago on the “insurance principle,” Social Security was designed to protect an aging population against inevitable risk. But even President Roosevelt didn’t understand his policy to be a panacea. And as he signed the Social Security Act into law, Roosevelt admitted the truth of the matter:
“We can never insure one hundred percent of the population against one hundred percent of the hazards and vicissitudes of life…”
As much as things have changed since then, the truth in Roosevelt’s words has only been reinforced. As in so many programs designed to benefit a majority, much good is done in the scope of “broader social objectives, rather than being shaped solely by…self-interest.” That goal in mind, it’s easy to understand why changes have come over the years: as the population changes, as society shifts, so must the programs designed to support the individuals and families that comprise our nation.
And yet, while a program like Social Security is founded on positive ideals and meant to support the populace as a whole, it’s simply too immense of an undertaking to not have at least a few snags. Today’s threats of depletion of funds and reduction in benefits pull at the program’s fabric, stretching it in new ways. With these risks in mind, the Social Security Administration (SSA) gave the reason for recent policy changes included in the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015: to “eliminate aggressive claiming loopholes.” By that description, things sound awful dangerous in the Social Security world. But what does this jargon-y explanation even mean, and how are we personally affected? We’re so glad you asked. Check out our article, Social Security and the Bipartisan Budget Ace of 2015 Unfolded.