Student writes a reaction paper about freaking out under stresses of Trump administration

 Today as I look at news articles I continue to see what appears to be an assault on poor and elderly.

I see continually that social security cuts and changes are on the table. I see that there is a move to dismantle the department of education.  I see that the EPA has been essentially reduced greatly. Funding has been and is being cut to Medicaid and SNAP. To me the common denominator is the average American is going to be affected and at the poor are probably going to be affected even more.

Social Security is there for the most vulnerable citizens: the aged and the disabled. I am not the smartest when it comes to economics, but I know that if the cost of living is going up and I don’t get a raise that offsets or exceeds that increase, essentially I just became poorer. I am concerned about the cuts to Social Security because I have seen the elderly not be okay with social security that it isn’t enough sometimes. The benefits are based on your earnings during your lifetime, going back to your youth, but for many that may have been little.  Many women still raise children, which cuts into their earning potential while their children grow as well as in retirement .

The system may need an overhaul.

This particular social welfare service being cut disturbs me greatly.  I am close to retiring, but I still wonder will there be enough for me, even though I have been paying into it since I was a teenager. I encourage my children to have multiple streams of income, and to invest and gain more knowledge on investing. Social Security benefits may not be around and/or they may not be enough by the time they are ready to retire.

I also understand that the world is changing.   We don’t get a job and work there 30 years and then retire with a pension, having paid off the house and have little to zero debt. Maybe, the entire system needs a reset. Maybe this is it. I don't know, but it is a topic of interest for me. We also have an aging workforce. People are choosing to work longer instead of retiring because they can't afford to retire. Some are raising children and grandchildren or putting them through college. I am concerned with the proposed cuts to the Social Security administration, and will continue to watch that situation unfold.

The dismantling of the Department of Education feels like a giant step back in history. This only makes sense for those that can afford to send their children to a private school of their choice. I have not been able to make any sense out of this. What is the reason for this? What has not been dismantled is the financially lucrative college and university systems. I could spit.

Being a black woman, I also feel like we just went back to the 50’s when there was separate but equal. Why wouldn’t I think that when the country established and built by immigrants is literally waging a war on immigrants. It doesn’t seem to matter if your paperwork is in order or processing, we are going to put you on a plane and deport you while simultaneously slowing or stopping completely the legal process. Oh yeah, and we are enlisting the armed services and local police officers to help. 

Who is actually benefitting from any of this? The only things I keep hearing are saving the country money and getting rid of criminals. Okay. I guess. But a felon and his flunky can be president? Is this really what the American people voted for? There is a side of me that says yes this is America. Then there is another side that says hold up—wait a minute—we are talking about con artists, liars, and cheaters Did he really win? Was it stolen? Was there some code placed in the system when it was compromised that has yet to be discovered? Nevertheless, we have what we have. I would say for the next four years; however, there are plans to extend that……I can only shake my head and pray that better must come.

Medicaid and SNAP benefit cuts will affect everyone—but the poor—it will affect them the most. I can see the administration rolling backwards in regard to SNAP benefits because the biggest recipient of SNAP benefits is Walmart and Kroger, so now you are starting to touch the million and billionaires club's money. Medicaid is not as lucrative financially but it will affect some medical offices, some doctors—but mostly those who cater to the poor. Benefit cuts mean cuts in earnings for them. These facilities are doing social work serving the needs of the poor and yet they will also be under the knife.

I find it interesting that I am not very political or economically astute but what I do know is that service organizations get cut first. I remember for a while during the early and mid 2000’s I would only take a job that increased revenue instead of drawing on it to help protect myself from being laid off. This was super important as a single mother. Today I find myself with the same concerns. Do I look for a job that has better potential to last or do I hold on and enjoy the ride and just stay put and wait for the ride to be over. I understand better why social workers may struggle finding employment that pays very well. Most people do not care about the poor. How do you get people to care? That is the question. How do you get people to care about the poor?

This is exactly what I like about free writing exercises.  Just sitting down for an hour to let your mind go and let the words flow through your fingers into the screen without worrying about crafting an essay is what we want to do with the reaction essays.  This approach to writing helps us see how we are really feeling about issues, and it brings thoughts together so we can consciously observe our thought process. For me, this sort of free writing exercise is important in self-understanding and personal growth, possibly more so than the work in my formal writing assignments (those have more practical applications as tools in policy practice). 

Another nice thing about free writing and these reaction essays is that you can see the emotion and hear the voice of the person who is writing the essays.  

This particular essay is a good example of the trauma and amazement many people are feeling in the first months of the second Trump administration. Even people who are not especially involved in political thinking, and who do not follow the news closely or feel any particular affiliation with political parties are aware that big changes are going on.  Some people who are especially alienated from the political process are feeling optimistic about this.  They hate the system, and they feel strong negative emotions against people who defend the system, so they are glad to see the Constitution being ignored and laws being flaunted.  Let the whole system go to hell, they may be thinking.

However, for these people cheering on the fire, there are about twice as many who may feel somewhat alienated from politics and fairly skeptical about the government and its programs, but they nevertheless feel horror at what they are witnessing. Many of these people may have voted for Trump, or considered voting for him, and did so with a hope that he would shake up the system in a way that would bring health change and improvements.  Their magical thinking has been crushed by the realities of how Trump and Musk and Vance have been behaving.  The malicious destruction and incompetent chaos, combined with signs of contempt for law, the Constitution, and expertise would alarm almost anyone with at least a slight knowledge of history and how the government is supposed to work. 

People are alarmed by talk of cuts to Social Security and Medicaid.  They worry about the destruction of USAID, the Peace Corps, the Voice of America, the Department of Education, the USIP, and many other groups and agencies that were doing many good things (although, like all large human organizations, they had flaws and did some destructive things as well).  There are suggestions for ending many HUD programs, including housing choice vouchers.  There are suggestions for steep cuts to SNAP.  Yes, this sort of thing scares people who know how these policies help people.

How do you get people to care about the poor?  America has invested significant cultural effort in building contempt for the poor, and the poor are widely despised.  So are persons who have been convicted of crimes, or persons who are homeless, or persons who have become addicted to substances, or people with developmental disabilities, or persons with serious mental illnesses.  A significant proportion of the population (between 8% and 20%, depending on how you interpret various studies and surveys) strongly dislikes Black Americans, and smaller (but still non-trivial percentages) dislike Asians, Hispanics, American Indians, and even European-Americans.  

I think one thing to give us confidence is that many Americans are fairly unprejudiced, and do like people of different racial backgrounds and ethnicities. Most Americans have been poor.  Addiction and serious mental illness has touched the lives of most Americans as well (directly or indirectly).  Many Americans do care about the poor. About a third of Americans are willing (or even eager) to vote for candidates who would raise taxes in order to provide universal health care, end homelessness, and try to eliminate poverty.  A large majority of Americans would raise the federal minimum wage.  A significant number of Americans donate to causes that serve persons who are housing insecure, food insecure, or waiting for their refugee status to be determined. 

Early in this semester we read an extract from Bernard-Henri Lévy in which he quoted Jean-Paul Sartre calling people who don’t care about injustice and human misery of others as “scum”.  Of course, name-calling and embracing hateful attitudes toward others will not help you convince them to care more about injustice and human misery.  And yet, there is something useful in feeling angry with a sort of righteous indignation at people who shrug their shoulders and say, “it’s not my problem—don’t pick my pocket with your taxes to help those people—they should work out their problems without involving me or using my money.” Such attitudes violate our sense of loyalty to the group, since we are including the despised groups as part of our in-group, rather than othering them. 

It seems to me that this is the key, and it is contained in all the major religions, and the preamble to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.  We have to encourage a sense that every human has dignity, and equal rights.  This is an inherent aspect of what it means to be human.  Springfield produced a man who pointed out when he was in a debate at Ottawa, Illinois that “[T]here is no reason in the world why the [despite and marginalized people are] not entitled to all the natural rights enumerated in the Declaration of Independence, the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”.  That understanding that we have equal rights to life and the pursuit of happiness must, I think, imply a duty to those with plenty to ensure that those with little can have enough security and dignity to enjoy some freedom in their lives.    It is there in the Book of Matthew (chapter 25, verse 40): whatever you do to the most despised and marginalized people is what you have done to God. The religious faiths generally all speak of a duty to care for the poor.  The secular human rights perspective describes rights as belonging to all people, even if they are poor. Our own American traditions and our intellectual heroes, such as Abraham Lincoln also affirm this importance of all people having access to natural rights (including those recognized in the Constitution's amendments and our Declaration of Independence). 

The counter argument, that some people deserve no rights, have no dignity, and ought to be left on the scrap heap is one we have heard from the totalitarian philosophies such as Fascism, Stalinism, Maoism, and to some degree, the animating philosophy that seems to guide our current administration in the United States. Your reaction essay lists some of the areas of policy and projects that demonstrate this sense that we owe nothing to some types of other humans, and they have no rights that deserve any respect from us.  This contempt for marginalized persons and the malicious rhetoric about people poisoning our blood is a darkness that has long emerged from the shadows to challenge the light of that idealism we find in our Declaration of Independence, our Constitution, and the scriptures and practices of our various religions. 

Growing Old in America

 The baby boomers are growing older and starting to enter the Social Security age range. Social Security doesn’t pay enough to cover all living expenses. The costs of housing are rising, as well as the costs of everything else. Unfortunately, the pay is not increasing to meet the costs of living. As you age it becomes harder to do things for yourself and to maintain a household. This requires additional help which costs additional money. Ideally by the time you reach the age of eligibility to draw Social Security, you should have your home paid off. However, that is not the case for most Americans. Many of the boomer population that I know still owe tens of thousands on their mortgages or they rent or have lot rent. Lot rent on a trailer park has gone up, and is now the price of what rent for a one-bedroom apartment used to be. The costs associated with maintaining a mobile home are also high, and typically don’t qualify for any type of repair assistance through local home maintenance programs sometimes available to older adults. For those that own their homes and still owe a mortgage it’s nearly impossible to pay the mortgage on the wage of social security. If you add a job to supplement the income, it can cause you to make too much money, and rules and case managers will subsequently decrease your benefits. 

Medical costs are also obnoxious. As you grow older, more health issues come out, and you typically require more medications, more appointments, and more assistance. These are all costly, so insurance is important. There is a gap in coverage with Medicare, and the costs of Medigap coverage can be out of reach for many people. I know some people who, in lean months, must choose between paying a bill or eating or paying for their medications or paying the mortgage. It’s a tough situation without much room for any change. 

Many people who receive Social Security are considered “over income” for SNAP benefits., and if they do qualify, they don’t receive nearly enough to be able to make ends meet each month. Many of our senior citizens rely on the food pantry for assistance each month. Our food pantries are a great resource, but typically only help a limited number of times per month. There also aren’t usually many choices for someone who has health conditions that require a special diet. This leaves many of the aging population in a tough place. 

The government has a responsibility to provide for its citizens, especially to those who have worked most of their lives to help pay taxes, etc and are no longer physically able to. Our country needs to do something different to help fill these gaps. 

The Baby Boomers are about 60 to 78 years-old. Probably most have retired by now, but no doubt a sizable minority of them still haven’t started collecting their Social Security or Medicare benefits.  My generation is 44 to 59 years-old, but there aren’t very many of us. 

About 37% of the population 65 or older is still paying off a mortgage. 

I wonder why Congress and the White House aren’t trying to raise the payroll tax to 7% (14% including employer contributions) from the 6.2% (12.4%) people currently pay into Social Security. The trust fund is rapidly depleted each year as expenditures for benefits exceed payroll tax collections by hundreds of billions, and in less than ten years, when the Social Security Trust Fund is exhausted, we will suddenly need to choose between a much steeper increase in the withholding tax, a significant (a quarter to a third) drop in benefits paid out, or a sudden increase in the budget deficit to cover the gap that the trust fund has been covering. 

You mention that Social Security benefits are not very generous.  Yeah, I think average monthly benefits are about $1,800 these days.  So, for most retired workers, the Social Security benefits are giving them about 37% of what they had been earning before retirement (see this report). So, consider that for about 40 to 45 years workers (and their employers) are paying about 12.4% of their incomes into Social Security, and then for 15 to 25 years in retirement they are getting about 37% of their former income back. Also, 

Your essay got me thinking about the Baby Boomer generation.  The Census Bureau says they were born between the summers of 1946 and 1964. Curiously, those of us in Generation X (born between 1965 and 1980) do not include those born in late 1964.  So, what about people born in late 1964?  Are they neither Baby Boomers nor Generation X?   Also, what was the best song by Generation X? Was it “Kiss Me Deadly”? Or, more likely, “Your Generation”?  And, since Billy Idol, (the toxic singer frontman of Generation X) was born in 1955, and his song is clearly a response to “My Generation” by The Who, whose members were mostly born before 1946 and are thus members of “The Silent Generation” rather than Baby Boomers, then isn’t the band “Generation X” really a Boomer band and their rebellion against the rock’n’roll of the 1960s an attack on the Silent Generation rather than the Boomers?    Also, which band is better, “The Millennials” or “Generation X” or “Generation Y”? Generation Y seems to play emo metal.  Generation X was a punk band, or new-wave, or something close to those genres. The Millennials do lots of covers of classic rock. I guess the answer depends upon musical genre preferences.

Student wants Social Security to refer denied disability applicants to job services

The Honorable U.S. Representative Rodney Davis

Springfield District Office

2833 S Grand Ave. East 

Springfield, IL 62703

Dear Mr. Davis, 

I am writing to you to advocate for the bill Promoting Opportunity for Disability Benefit Applicants Act (H.R. 3310).  It amends titles II of OASDI and XVI of SSI of the Social Security Act to allow the Social Security Administration to provide information on appropriate public or private places that provide employment services, vocational rehabilitation services, or other support services to individuals who are denied OASDI or SSI benefits based on an adverse determination of disability. 

This bill needs to be passed to help those who are living in (or at risk of falling into) poverty after they suffer an injury or illness that causes disability. Perhaps their disability is not so severe that they qualify for disability benefits, or perhaps there are technical reasons why they do not qualify for SSI or Disability Insurance (perhaps they have too many assets to qualify for SSI).  If people who are denied disability benefits can find a job suitable for their abilities, they will be able to support themselves. But, if they are denied Disability Insurance or SSI and they cannot find a job that will match their abilities, what can they do? 

Those who are denied Disability Insurance benefits or SSI will either need help finding a job or else they will need other forms of benefits to prevent their becoming homeless or malnourished. Surely it will be better to help such persons find work, if work can be found. If the Promoting Opportunity for Disability Benefit Applicants Act is passed, the Social Security Administration would direct the many (over 60% of persons who apply for disability benefits) who are are denied  the benefits they seek to services that could help them find appropriate jobs matching their situations. These referrals should lead to many persons finding appropriate employment. For these successful job seekers, they will not need to utilize the as many welfare programs because they will have full time work. They will be able to get insurance through their work instead of being on Medicaid. They will be able to have an income, so they will not need to rely on SNAP for all of their food. By passing this bill, the country will be saving money on welfare programs. There will not be as many homeless people on the streets or in shelters. People will be able to take care of themselves by having resources gained through jobs that they are able to do. They will be able to become more self-sufficient and independent. 

This bill will help people pay taxes because more people will get jobs and that happening will increase the taxes that come out of their checks, which makes the United States have more money. Our country needs money and this will lead to more people in the workforce.  Certainly, most people prefer to be self-reliant and employed if they can be. I hope you agree, and will support bills like H.R. 3310, and generally advocate for more services that help persons with disabilities find employment or opportunities, especially when they have sought services through Disability Insurance or Supplemental Security Income and had their claims denied. 

Between 2001 through 2010 the Americans seeking disability benefits and actually getting them from Social Security were only about 45 percent of people who applied. People that were denied disability benefits were 53 percent.  But, since that time, the rate of denials has increased, and fewer people who apply for benefits because of disabilities are getting anything.

If you look at this chart from the Annual Statistical Report on the Social Security Disability Insurance Program, 2016, you will see that more and more applications for Social Security Disability Insurance are being denied.

Let me quote from page 149 of the 2016 report on Disability Insurance:

Final outcome of disabled-worker applications, 2006–2015The final award rate for disabled-worker applicants has varied over time, averaging 34 percent for claims filed from 2006 through 2015. The percentage of applicants awarded benefits at the initial claims level averaged 23 percent over the same period and ranged from a high of 25 percent to a low of 20 percent. The percentage of applicants awarded at the reconsideration and hearing levels are averaging 2 percent and 9 percent, respectively. Denied disability claims have averaged 62 percent.

Please note that.  The Social Security Administration is denying 62 percent of claims for Disability Insurance. Does it seem to you plausible that 62% of those who apply for DI are actually not worthy of such benefits?  Surely Americans tend to be a hard-working and industrious people, and we have good work ethics, and I cannot believe that 62% of those who reach the desperation of applying for Disability Insurance do not deserve such benefits. Nevertheless, whether they deserve or do not deserve disability benefits, they clearly need help finding work, and H.R. 3310 would do just that.

According to the National Law Center on Homelessness & Poverty, people that are denied disability are likely to become homeless. This is because after denial, they cannot find work, and if the Social Security Administration would help these people find work, vocational rehabilitation services, and support services, many people would not be homeless. Social Security denies so many people for disability because they think there are certain jobs that they can still do, but the person whose application has been denied may think there are no jobs they are capable of doing. Therefore, it is very helpful to give them resources to help them find those jobs that they will be able to do. For example, a person that got denied may be able to do a job that is not as high functioning as what they have tried in the past, and they can get help with this from the Social Security Administration. If you will support H.R. 3310 and help it get a hearing in committee and then eventually get to the House floor, I hope I can proudly tell my friends and neighbors about your support of this excellent legislation and your demonstrated commitment to helping people become self-sufficient.

  Your Obedient Servant and Constituent,

     [ Student in SWK-355 Policy and Services course ]

A reaction to Social Security

This reaction essay by a student is a bit more didactic than other reactions, but it offers a young adult’s understanding of the old age pensions provided by Social Security. 

Social Security is a social policy that was established by Franklin Delano Roosevelt and the Social Security Act of 1935. Social Security is the common name for, “Old Age, Survivors and Disability Insurance”. Social Security is a social insurance program but is not considered “welfare”, as that is known as public assistance. [interesting way to define welfare.  Public Assistance programs listed by the Illinois Department of Human Services include: SNAP, public housing, unemployment benefits, Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF), Medicaid, and Supplemental Social Security (SSI). However, in Illinois I would think General Assistance (cash grants given by townships to poor residents) would also count.]  Social insurance programs and public assistance programs are the two categories of support programs that make up American social welfare. Old Age, Survivors and Disability Insurance is a universal program, and all Americans can participate as their social right [provided they aren’t excluded because they work abroad or work for an employer that has them in another program that substitutes for Social Security, and provided they are “Americans” by the definition of the American government, which doesn’t consider persons who grew up here to be Americans unless they were born here or their parents were citizens when they were born.] Participation in social security isn’t based on your financial need, but rather eligibility. Funding for this program is provided by a payroll tax that both an employee and employer must pay. Benefits of this social insurance are adjusted when the cost of living goes up. Social Security has been an effective way to raise individuals above the poverty line for several years.

In order for a person to receive benefits from Social Security, they must have paid their payroll taxes while they were working for a minimum of 10 years. In terms of Social Security, that is a total of 40 quarters. If an individual has paid their taxes and meets the age requirement at the time of retirement, they will be covered by this insurance permanently. The amounts of benefits that will be received are based on how much money was paid into the program. That makes up the “Old Age” part of the social insurance program. To be eligible for the “Survivor's” benefits of Social Security, an individual must be a child under 18 years of age, a dependent widow/widower, or a dependent parent. If he/she is one of those individuals and the insured worker dies, they will receive Social Security benefits. Along with that, to receive benefits from the “Disability” part of Social Security, an individual must be 18 to 64 years of age and unable to work. He or she will have to prove that they are disabled and unable to participate in “gainful employment”. When a disabled person turns 65, they will continue to receive benefits under the “Old Age” sector of Social Security. 

I believe that Social Security is a great form of insurance for eligible individuals. There are many different benefits it provides to such eligible individuals. As mentioned earlier, it has consistently lifted many people 65 and over above the poverty line [Yeah, it lifts about 22 million elderly Americans out of poverty]. It is a source of income for individuals who are unable to work, and it provides benefits to deceased individual’s families. However, there are certain problems that go hand in hand with the benefits that exist within the program today. Some employees that have paid into Social Security for many years aren’t getting the benefits they deserve. Part of that has to do with the budget issue that has arisen in Illinois within the last couple of years. As with any social welfare program, there are also ways to abuse the program that cause many problems. For example, a person who is insured under Social Security will receive benefits at the age of retirement which is their American right. But if such an individual has a family and is in the process of getting a divorce when he/she dies, their spouse will continue to get the benefits on behalf of the children. Although this is something that can’t exactly be monitored or fixed, it is a problem that happens more often that people think. The children should have the right to those Social Security benefits, but they should be set aside until they are 18 years of age. At 18 years old, the child will then have the option to do choose what to do with the benefits received from their deceased parent, as they are of an age to make responsible decisions. That is just one of the issues that prevails in the Social Security program. 

Any social welfare program will prove to provide a number of benefits to a range of different people. But as with all the other programs, social welfare policies will also have a number of abusers and issues that are existent within that program. Social welfare programs should continue to serve Americans but could stand to change a little for the better.

This is the first time I ever heard anyone raising this issue of survivor benefits going to a surviving spouse even if the surviving spouse and deceased Social Security Beneficiary were in an uncompleted process of divorce.  I think one reason there are survivor benefits for spouses is that we assume sometimes one adult works in the formal labor market and pays payroll taxes to get Social Security benefits, while the other adult works informally to rear children and keep house for the one who is working.  So, the spouse benefits are a reward for the working spouse who work just wasn't in the formal labor market.  It seems to me that such a spouse would deserve the benefits even if they were about to divorce the person who had paid the payroll taxes into Social Security.  Those payroll taxes were paid by a "household" as much as they were paid by the individual who earned them.  And, the spouse who didn't earn income may have been supporting the partner who did earn income for many years, and all those years of support don't get erased if in the final years the two part from each other. If the surviving spouse is taking care of the children, and paying for their living expenses, then it seems to make sense that the survivor benefits would go to that spouse.  But, yes, a surviving spouse might waste the survivor benefits on an addiction to gambling or substances, instead of using the benefits to care for the children.  That could happen.  Children's individual savings accounts are a good policy idea that could be made part of Social Security.  I think all children ought to get some money at birth, and have money added to it for various achievements in their lives.  The Child Individual Savings Accounts could be used to purchase a home, purchase education, invest in a business, pay for health expenses, and pay for relocation or moving expenses.  As adults people could continue adding money to this account, and then it could be passed on to children or grandchildren.  I'd have such savings accounts run as a supplement to the existing OASDI functions of Social Security.

Could a fast-track to citizenship for undocumented workers help sustain Social Security?

Social Security 

For my second reaction paper, I decided to give more thought to Social Security and ways to replenish the trust fund we are currently pulling funds from. As it is, the social security payroll (FICA) tax is not currently drawing in enough money to cover the payments being made every month to those receiving old-age, survivors’, and disability benefits. Of the items discussed in class to increase funding, we considered a small tax increase immediately, a larger tax increase later, or removing the cap on taxes collected on incomes over $118,500 (SSA.gov, 2016). There was also mention of the increase in revenue possible if current undocumented immigrants were allowed a stream-lined process to citizenship, making their incomes taxable. 

After reading a few articles from various sources, I found many economists and politicians agree that allowing undocumented workers to become legal citizens will only further strengthen our economy and Social Security. An article from The National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare (n.d.), states the Congressional Budget Office believes allowing the 11 billion undocumented workers currently in the United States to become legalized citizens could increase economic growth by 1.3%. The article also cites Social Security trustees as claiming legalizing 100,000 workers would improve the Social Security Trust Fund deficit and quotes Edward Alden, from the Council on Foreign Relations, as saying undocumented workers are currently holding low-wage jobs and giving them a legal status will increase their confidence to look for higher earning employment, thereby contributing more in taxes (NCPSSM.org, n.d). 

But there are people who believe the benefits of higher tax revenues on these workers will be short lived due to the increased number of people who are eligible for benefits later. With this in mind, I searched for a good source on the ages of undocumented workers and found a report from the Department of Homeland Security (2013) showing in the year 2012, 61% of these workers are between the ages of 25-44. This is a high percentage of workers who would have at least 20 years to contribute towards Social Security before receiving benefits if they were legalized. 
I find this information interesting and useful as an additional source to replenish the Social Security Trust Fund. While there are those that support a stream-lined immigration process for both economic and humanistic reasons, there is definite opposition to the idea based on national security concerns. It is an area, I believe, which needs more consideration and scrutinizing to find if it is a valid source of revenue. 

Good essay.  I will point out a couple minor details that do not have bearing on your conclusions. 

 First, I have read that the estimate of 11 million undocumented non-citizen residents in the United States dates back to before the Great Recession (from an estimate made in 2005 or 2006), and that the population may now be much smaller, although the latest Pew Research Center report I could find (from November 3, 2016) suggests 11.1 million is the most accurate current figure. A Census Bureau study discussed in the Atlantic in January of this year reported 10.9 million undocumented residents in 2014. So, my point is that your estimate of 11 million is probably quite accurate, and the higher number that existed here before the Great Recession was about 12-13 million.

Secondly, among the objections to legalizing persons who are here without proper permission and documentation there are many plausible reasons.  Some I'm sympathetic to, and others I reject, although I have not made up my mind and remain neutral on some of these immigration policy disputes.  On one extreme are people who worry that the character of the United States will be changed if too many “non-European” immigrants are allowed in.  Of course, the Hispanics of Latin America (including Mexico) are a mix of indigenous native Americans and Europeans, so not only is this sort of objection stupid (for suggesting that culture exists in blood, or that national character is inherited with genes), it is also ill-informed (since most immigrants are coming from persons with Native-American and European genetic stock, making it ridiculous to call them alien or non-European, since they are neither). On the extreme that I am sympathetic to are the arguments that our population in the USA is too large, given our carbon footprint, and bringing more immigrants here to help us continue to maintain a growing population will harm the planet, and therefore we ought to diminish immigration (but not necessarily eliminate it—I personally would cut it by 40% or so), and we could start by having undocumented American residents return to their nations of origin and apply to return here, giving them favorable consideration if a certain number of American citizens support their immigration applications with testimonials about how these persons have contributed to American society while living here as undocumented residents, but denying them readmission as immigrants if they could not establish that they had contributed to community life and integrated into American society.  Another argument is that even if legalization made sense economically, there are issues of justice here, since many foreign persons would love to come to America, and they are following the rules and applying for permission through the official channels.  Giving amnesty or creating policies to help undocumented residents become citizens quickly allows some people to get away with essentially jumping to the front of the line without waiting their turn.  That makes sense to me, but of course there is a counter-argument based on humanitarian grounds that many of these persons have lived her a long time and established themselves in their communities.  I personally know several undocumented American residents (mostly from Mexico and China) who stand as significant persons in their communities, having lived here for more than a decade (or for a few decades in one case) and naturally I would want these friends to be well-treated by any new immigration policy.

All in all, the idea that allowing a mass immigration of young working-aged immigrants to join our society as Americans and then collect from them sufficient payroll taxes to keep Social Security and Medicare going without increasing FICA taxes does have its appeals.  In fact, I can remember in 1993 making exactly this same argument to Martha Ozawa in a policy course... suggesting that America could always increase payroll taxes by allowing more young immigrants to come here so we did not end up with an inverted population pyramid of many elderly citizens and few working-aged citizens to support them.  Dr. Ozawa thought it was a very intriguing idea, but suggested it was unlikely because Americans would be too anti-immigrant.  And, here we are about 23 years later, and you are making the same point I suggested, and my thought is sympathetic, but I retain some of the same skepticism that Dr. Ozawa showed me.  

Benefits for surviving children

This student's paper examines very briefly the survivor's benefits a child might receive through Social Security if a parent died or became disabled and unable to work.

Social Security

A Look Into Benefits for Surviving Children

No one ever thought the glorious United States of America would ever hit rock bottom, but those people were unaware of the events that were soon to transpire. A little over a decade earlier the U.S. began their recovery from the Great War. Men returning home from the war and acclimating themselves back into society and to their families and loved ones. In 1929, however, those men and women of a proud and economically strong country were struck with serious blows of economic turmoil. What started as a crash in the stock market eventually turned into a significant rise in unemployment and social and economic poverty. There were many programs and bills drafted during the 1930's to pull the economically weak United States back up from the mat after receiving, what was thought to be, a knockout blow.

In response to this economic downfall, the government put into motion a resolution designed to facilitate relief for the unemployed and poor, recovery of the economy to normal levels, and reform of the financial system to prevent a repeat depression. Authors of Making America: A history of the United States, affirmed such programs as being “aimed at relief, recovery, and reform” (Berkin, et al. Pg 629). The Social Security Act of 1935 and the current amended version, proposed by President Franklin Roosevelt, was designed to offer social justice and to limit what was seen as dangers in the modern American life, including old age, poverty, unemployment, and the burdens on widows and fatherless children.

 Social Security Survivor’s Benefits are just one sub-section of the act, and the following points will be addressed in reference to surviving children of the deceased or disabled insured worker:

·      Who is eligible for Social Security Survivor's benefits for Children?

·      What are the current benefits awarded to children of the insured workers?

·      How is the program funded?

·      Are there any issues with the program?

Eligibility

As with all policies, the government must ensure fairness and deter wrongful or unlawful abuse of its benefit-providing programs; therefore, whenever Congress provides benefits in the form of compensation or government assistance there must be specific requirements to restrict who has access. Designed within the Social Security Act is a list of how a person can be eligible or become eligible. In order to qualify for Social Security Survivor's benefits for children, the first requirement is that the person must be an unmarried child of an individual entitled to old-age or disability insurance benefits, or have a parent who died after having worked long enough to pay sufficently with Social Security taxes to become qualified for survivor’s benefits. Next, the child must be under the age of 18 or a full-time student of an elementary or secondary school not past grade 12 and has not yet reached 19 years of age. There are no exceptions with the age limit unless that child is 18 or older and disabled, but the disability has to occur before they are 22 years old. The child must also be a dependent of said parent. Once these requirements have been met then the child will be eligible to receive benefits after the application is approved and filed (42 U.S.C. § 402).

Benefits

The sole benefit of this program is designed to provide the child with support, in the form of compensation per month, to alleviate some of the financial burden caused by the loss of the insured parent. The loss of parent can either be defined as no longer being capable to support the child due to disability or due to death. According to the Social Security Administration, the "child may receive up to one-half of the parent’s full retirement or disability benefit, or 75 percent of the deceased parent’s basic Social Security benefit” (SSA 2012). If compensation is given, there must also be a limit to the amount of money the child is awarded. The child's award is added to the family's total amount of allowed Social Security and cannot exceed 180 percent of the parent's full entitlement. The payment is unique in amount and specific to what a person has earned by working and paying into Social Security. The Social Security Administration has calculated for 2015 that the average benefits awarded to retired or disabled workers are between $1,165 - $1,328 paid monthly (SSA 2015).

Funding the Program

No program or social reform can function properly without some form of aid. Whether that aid is paid through taxes or gained through charitable contributions it doesn't come free. Social Security is paid for by employee and employer taxation. In 2015, the Social Security Administration collected 6.2 percent from payments made by the employee and employer, who each paid 6.2 percent of their income into Social Security. Essentially, this is a 12.4% tax on most American workers to support Social Security, including old age pensions, disability insurance, and survivor’s insurance.  If a person is self-employed they are required to pay 12.4 percent of their income, rather than 6.2 percent. There is also a limit to the amount that can be taxed for Social Security and it can not be on any “earnings greater than $118,500” (SSA 2015).  This means that in actual practice a person earning, say, $237,000 per year would only 3.1% of their income in Social Security payroll taxes (or 6.2% if they were self-employed).

Issues with the program

There are negative implications involved with the current eligibility requirements and the current amount of individuals using Social Security benefits. If an insured worker dies while receiving benefits and has a child under the age of 18, then that child will receive a portion of their benefits without having to work. Social Security is designed to provide a form of retirement for workers who paid into the program and was not designed to compensate individuals who didn't pay into the said program. According to John G. Kilgour, a business professor retired from the California State University system, the Social Security program won't go broke until 2033 under the current rate of funding.  In reference to the current system Kilgour notes, “One obvious answer is that the division of the FICA tax revenue is imbalanced relative to the respective programmatic needs of the two funds” (Kilgour pg. 243). Under Kilgour's findings the current age of retirement will eventually reach 67 years of age to begin receiving benefits, which is a result of the baby boomer generation "draining" the current fund (Kilgour pg. 243). Another problem with this program is the cap for earnings taxed. If a person makes more than $118,500 per year then any additional earnings above that cap aren’t taxed for Social Security. The program also only taxes employment earnings and not all income earnings are employment related. For example, some people might inherit hundreds of thousands of dollars and live on dividends and interest from their investments, but those types of incomes won’t be taxed for Social Security. Unemployment also affects Social Security funding, since the tax relies on employment earnings.

Conclusion

Social Security remains a crucial element in providing social justice for the people of the United States. Social Security Survivor benefits for children are designed to provide support for children of deceased or disabled insured workers. There are certain eligibility requirements that must be met in order for a child to receive benefits. The child may then receive a portion or all of their parent's benefits if they qualify. The Social Security program is self-funded and under the current guidelines may not be able to sustain payments forever. Without this program these children, who have lost a parent, may end up in poverty and lose the quality of life they may have had with a supporting parent.   

References

Berkin, Carol, Christopher L. Miller, Robert W. Cherny, James L. Gormly, Douglas R. Egerton, and Kelly A. Woestman. (2010). Making America: A History of the United States. 6th ed. Vol. 2. Wadsworth Cengage Learning. 243. Print.

Kilgour, John G. (2014). The Social Security Disability Insurance Program. Compensation & Benefits Review. Vol 46(4) 239-246.      

Social Security Act of 1935, 42 U.S.C. § 402.

Social Security Administration. Social Security: Benefits for Children. SSA Publication No. 05-10085. August 2012.  

Social Security Administration. Social Security: Understanding The Benefits. SSA Publication No. 05-10024. June 2015.