Medicare and Social(ism) Security

“Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history.”- President Eisenhower

At a recent Rotary Club of Peachtree City, the speaker was Faye Sykes, President of Wealth Management for Tuttle Wealth. She did an excellent job of explaining Social Security. She mentioned future funding as a challenge, as further explained below. But first, a bit of history.

Both Medicare and Social Security were originally deemed socialist programs by GOP right wingers, although the Republican Party would like the public to forget that ever occurred.

FDR was deemed a socialist when he proposed Social Security as one of his New Deal programs. For example, “The New Deal is now undisguised state socialism”, per then Senator Simeon D. Fess (R-Ohio).

Reagan campaigned against the creation of Medicare in the 1960s, saying “We do not want socialized medicine.” (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_Reagan_Speaks_Out_Against_Socialized_Medicine ). The expansion of Medicare is still criticized by MAGA types as socialism. For example, President Trump railed against Medicare for All as being one of the “radical socialist plans of the Democrats” (s://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2018/10/10/donald-trump-democrats-open-borders-medicare-all-single-payer-column/1560533002/ ). Interesting, how Medicare for someone 65 is patriotic, but for that same person to receive it when they were 64 is some sort of communist conspiracy.

I do not know many seniors who want Medicare or Social Security abolished. On the other hand, there is a tendency on the part of leaders of both parties to ignore the funding challenges that these programs face. But the shortfalls are factual and severe (https://www.ssa.gov/oact/trsum/ ).

Without getting into the weeds, lets look at basic social security for people who are seniors (OASI). In 2032, just six years from now, the fund’s reserves will go belly up. At that point, it will just pay out benefits based on income received. The bottom line is that will mean payouts will be reduced and seniors will only get “78 percent of total scheduled benefits.”

There are responsible people in both the Democratic and Republican parties (although not enough) that want to alleviate this impending crisis. The first step is to eliminate the cap on earnings, currently at $184,500 and thereby have the existing 12.4 percent Social Security payroll tax apply to all wages. Certainly, wealthier Americans can afford to pay more. Moderate Senator Moreno (R-OH) and liberal Senator Warren (D-MA) have proposed doing exactly that but legislation is stalled in a GOP controlled Congress (https://www.nytimes.com/2026/06/23/opinion/moreno-warren-social-security.html ).

Sources point out that other measures will also be required for long term solvency and that is certainly true (https://taxpolicycenter.org/taxvox/morenowarren-social-security-fix-flawed ). But at least we could take this first step and then move on other items like raising the age to receive benefits.

It seems that the only thing that is truly nonpartisan In Washington DC is the failure of the leadership of both political parties to raise taxes to pay for programs that they have enacted. It is a disgrace that can only be corrected through voting for responsible candidates.