I object to calling this Social Security because it is clearly not Social Security. If that is all one has at their retirement, they are in a world of pain and hurt. If we look at those dollars over there, we see that on many pay stubs the FICA tax is the biggest tax that we pay. That worker has every right to believe that since it is called Social Security, because it is the biggest tax item on his pay stub, that it is Social Security. So he is not doing what he ought to be doing, saving providently for his retirement. We need to change the name of that. It is not Social Security. It never was Social Security. It never was intended to be Social Security. But the tax has gotten so large, and it has gotten large because originally there were 42 people working for every 1 on Social Security. Today it is three people working for every one on Social Security. Shortly it will be two people. That is a pretty heavy burden to carry, two people supporting one. That is why the trust fund will be depleted. We will be able to meet only 70 percent of the demands on Social Security.
Roscoe Bartlett: “I object to calling this Social Security because it is clearly not Social Security. If that is all one has at their…”
Editor's note · Context
Addressing concerns about the mislabeling of Social Security and its financial sustainability.
Share
More from Roscoe Bartlett
I question the proposal to scrap aircraft currently providing intelligence support to our warfighters, including those purchased as recently as last year.
I welcome this hearing. I hope that Congress will follow the recommendations of numerous authorities and approve reducing this ratio.
That is testimony to our inability to adequately communicate with our constituents the average constituent believes that if we just didn't have any earmarks-- and now we don't-- that if we cut out foreign aid and if we cut out waste, fraud…
If we could cut the trade deficit in half, we could increase U.S. GDP by a very sizable amount, and create about 5 million jobs.





