ArcaMax

Less for Others but More for Me

I had originally planned to use this space to write a follow-up column to one I wrote several weeks ago about the misnamed "Social Security Fairness Act." But I've decided it's not worth it.

For decades, government retirees who worked at jobs not covered by Social Security, but who did pay into the program at jobs before or after their government careers, have been led to believe that they had been shortchanged by the Social Security system. They hounded Congress for almost 30 years about this issue to no avail. But late last year, Congress finally caved in and gave them what they wanted.

Then I wrote a column saying that they never really had been cheated by the system. And gosh, did I get lambasted for that! I got many hundreds of emails from readers around the country. Some were polite and presented reasoned arguments explaining their take on the law. Many other responses were ill-advised and perpetuated myths about Social Security that I have spent a lifetime trying to correct. And sadly, many responses were crude, mean-spirited and vindictive. Some were even downright threatening.

Even though I know this subject better than most and have lectured around the country on this topic, it was pretty obvious that most readers affected by the law didn't understand the points I was trying to make. So, I'm done with the topic. Besides, it's a moot point, since the bill was signed into law earlier this month.

Having said all that, I must make another observation about many of the emails I received. Their comments reinforce a point I've made many times: People always say they want smaller government and less government spending. But what I've learned over the almost 30 years I've been writing this column, and what I relearned with this episode, is what people really mean is that they want less government spending for the other guy but more for themselves.

Very many of the responses I received said something like this: "I deserve this extra money and I earned it. But those people don't." (And when I say "those people," you can insert your favorite Social Security villain.) I'll use the rest of this column to give you some examples.

Villain No. 1 -- people on disability:

"You sir, are a jerk! And how dare you say I don't deserve an increase in my Social Security checks. I've been robbed for years. But if you want to save Social Security, stop paying disability benefits. They're all deadbeats anyway."

My response:

Disability benefits have always been a favorite target of those looking for some part of the Social Security program to gripe about. Everyone claims to know a neighbor or uncle or someone who is supposedly cheating the system.

But the fact is the Social Security disability program is universally recognized as one of the most difficult programs to qualify for. You simply don't get benefits if you have a minor problem. To qualify for disability payments, you must have a severe physical or mental impairment that is expected to keep you out of work for at least 12 months -- or a condition that is terminal.

Villain No. 2 -- women:

"You are a complete moron if you think I don't deserve what's rightfully mine -- higher Social Security benefits. But you know who should have their benefits stripped away? Women who never worked and never paid a dime into the system! That's an add-on goody that makes no sense!"

My response:

Benefits to dependent spouses and widows have been part of the Social Security program since 1935 -- the very beginning. It's not an "add-on goody." But I tell you what. If you convince Congress to eliminate these benefits, I hope they put you in charge of calling the approximately 3 million women getting widow's benefits to notify them their Social Security checks will stop. I've got a suggested script for your phone call: "Hello, ma'am. My name is Ebenezer Scrooge, and I'm calling about your Social Security. Even though your deceased husband paid into the program for over 50 years, I'm afraid we are going to have to cut off your checks because you were a slacker who never worked and paid taxes. Have a nice day."

Villain No. 3 -- people on SSI:

"You are an idiot! I worked hard and deserve every nickel I can get out of Social Security. It's those lazy bums who never worked and are getting SSI benefits. Kick them off the system and Social Security will be saved."

My response:

Supplemental Security Income is a federal welfare program that happens to be managed by the Social Security Administration. But SSI payments are not Social Security benefits and are not funded by Social Security taxes. So kicking people off of SSI won't save a dime from the Social Security trust fund.

Besides, many people on SSI have worked and paid taxes. But for a variety of reasons, they ended up with very small Social Security checks, and those benefits are frequently supplemented with SSI payments.

There were many more examples of "those people" from readers saying that "I deserve more money, but those people don't." But I'm out of room. As I've always said: Lots of people want less government spending for others but more for themselves.

If you have a Social Security question, Tom Margenau has two books with all the answers. One is called "Social Security -- Simple and Smart: 10 Easy-to-Understand Fact Sheets That Will Answer All Your Questions About Social Security." The other is "Social Security: 100 Myths and 100 Facts." You can find the books at Amazon.com or other book outlets. Or you can send him an email at thomas.margenau@comcast.net. To find out more about Tom Margenau and to read past columns and see features from other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate website at www.creators.com.

Copyright 2025 Creators Syndicate, Inc.