Social Security ReformIt's not difficult to see why Social Security is our country's most popular government program. Before its creation in the 1930s, more than half of the country's elderly lived in poverty. The program was designed as a social (old age) insurance plan that provides guaranteed income to retired and disabled workers whose loss of wages portends an uncertain economic future. I emphasize the word guaranteed, because that is the issue in dispute when considering reform proposals. Social security, as we know it, guarantees an acceptable standard of living for all citizens and provides a safety net for those who, due to age or disability. , are no longer able to meet their needs through work. Its benefits are, as author Joseph White stated, "guaranteed, adjusted annually for inflation, paid as long as the recipient lives, and based on standards of need and contribution set collectively, by opposition to returns and investments in the markets. (White 43). The very concept of privatization distracts us from the purpose of Social Security: ALL Americans would have the means to live with dignity. As such, to play its rightful role in protecting our citizens, social insurance should be “national, compulsory and contributory, and provide benefits as a matter of right” (Brown 10). Politicians claim that there is an urgent need for drastic reform because the current system is on the verge of collapse, but this is not necessarily the case. It is important that we, as taxpayers, can wade through the often biased political jargon and arrive at an informed opinion. This essay attempts to dispel some of the myths surrounding the controversy and offers an argument against the ability of the private market to adequately protect individuals (and therefore society) against risk and uncertainty. Social security is a pay-as-you-go system. , meaning that current payroll taxes are used to pay benefits to current retirees. In 1983, Congress introduced an element of prefunding by passing a payroll tax increase that allowed the program to collect more tax revenue than it paid out, with the excess going to supplement tax revenue when babies -boomers began to retire (Hill ). Today, this excess revenue is devoted to government programs and federal debt reduction, as well as the trust fund...... middle of paper...... 2003.Arrowood, Janet. “Managing money: privatized social security? Advisor today. December 2000. June 23, 2003. Baker, Dean. “Undermining security: a warning against the privatization of social security” Multinational Observer. January/February 2002. June 21, 2003. Baker, Dean., and Weisbrot, Mark. Social security: the false crisis. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1999. Brown, J. Douglas. An American Philosophy of Social Security. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1972. Budetti, Peter., et al. Ensuring health and income security for an aging workforce. Kalamazoo, MI: WE Upjohn Institute, 2001. Feldstein, Martin. “Social Security Privatization: The $10-Trillion Opportunity,” January 31, 1998. June 21, 2003. Ferrara, Peter J. Social Security: The Inherent Contradiction. San Francisco, CA: Cato Institute, 1980. Hill, Catherine. “Why Privatizing Social Security Would Hurt Women: A Response to the Cato Institute's Individual Accounts Proposal,” February 2002. 23, 2001