Social Security Reform It's not hard to see why Social Security is our country's most popular government program. Before its birth 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 lost wages promise an uncertain economic future. I emphasize the word guaranteed, as this is the issue under discussion when considering the reform proposals. Social Security, as we know it, ensures 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 support themselves through work. Its benefits are, as stated by author Joseph White, "guaranteed, adjusted annually for inflation, paid for the recipient's lifetime, and based on collectively established standards of need and contribution, as opposed to returns and investments in the markets" (Bianco 43). The whole concept of privatization distracts us from the reason behind Social Security: ALL Americans would have the means to live with dignity. As such, to play its role in protecting our citizens, social insurance should be “national, compulsory and contributory, and provide benefits as a matter of right” (Brown 10). Politicians argue that there is an urgent need for drastic reform, as the current system is on the verge of collapse, but this is not necessarily the case. It is important that we, as taxpayers, are able to navigate the parties' often prejudicial political jargon and arrive at an informed opinion. This essay is an attempt to dispel some of the myths surrounding the controversy and to offer an argument against the ability of the private market to adequately protect individuals (and therefore society) from 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 adopting a payroll tax increase that allowed the program to absorb more tax revenue than it paid, with the surplus dedicated to supplementing tax revenue as baby boomers began to retire (Hill ). Today, excess revenue is spent on government programs and federal debt relief, and in the trust fund... middle of paper... 2003. Arrowood, Janet. “Managing Money: Social Security Privatized?” Councilor Today. December 2000. June 23, 2003.Baker, Dean. “Undermining Security: A Warning Against Privatizing Social Security” Multinational Monitor. January/February 2002. June 21, 2003.Baker, Dean., and Weisbrot, Mark. Social Security: the bogus crisis. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1999. Brown, J. Douglas. An American philosophy of social security. Princeton, New Jersey: 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. “Privatizing Social Security: The $10,000 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. June 23, 2003. White, Joseph. False Alarm: Why the Biggest Threat to Social Security and Medicare, 2001