Answer this question on this blog by Tuesday November 4th.
Social Security
Should the United States Government use tax revenues to support socially, both legal residents and citizens of the country? Prior to 1933 this was not done, but the "New Deal" of F.D.R.'s administration commenced with programs to offer funding to help those in need. Was this activity constitutional??
Entry due Tuesday November 4th
Entry due Tuesday November 4th
I copied the below from the Oyez, Oyez web page:
STEWARD MACHINE COMPANY v. DAVIS
Term:
- 1901-1939
Location: Steward Machine Co.
Facts of the Case
The Steward Machine Company challenged the validity of a tax imposed by the Social Security Act. The Act established a federal payroll tax on employers; however, if employers paid taxes to a state unemployment compensation fund (created by the states subject to federal standards), they were allowed to credit those payments toward the federal tax.
Question
Did the Act arbitrarily impose taxes in violation of the Fifth Amendment or subvert principles of federalism?
Conclusion
In a 5-to-4 decision, the Court held that the tax under the Social Security Act was a constitutional exercise of congressional power. The Court found that the tax was uniform throughout the states and did not coerce the states in contravention of the Tenth Amendment. The Court took note of recent unemployment statistics from the years 1929 to 1936, maintaining that "[i]t is too late today for the argument to be heard with tolerance that in a crisis so extreme the use of the moneys of the nation to relieve the unemployed and their dependents is a use for any purpose narrower than the promotion of the general welfare. . .The nation responded to the call of the distressed."
There are many ways to look at both of these questions, whether or not the US government should be able to tax to support the less fortunate and if the Social Security Act was constitutional. In the US Constitutions preamble it states that it is the federal governments job to "promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity..." Many may argue that this supports taxing the population to support the general well being of the less fortunate citizens of the US; but what about the effort that each person puts into their job to earn that paycheck and provide for themselves and possibly families? The SSA takes away from the pursuit of happiness for those who are working. Yes, it does in turn cause those who are already unable to support themselves to not have any support if it is taken away, but it is important to realize that most of these people have families that can support them until they are on their feet. The US government should not instill a tax on the citizens who are working to pay for the disabilities of the unemployed, the elderly, and the handicapped. The system is flawed and taken advantage of by many Americans. I think it is impossible to get rid of the tax instantly because of the possible negative impacts. At the time the SSA was created, the act was certainly needed for the horrid economic situation. But over the years, the act has become unconstitutional as that it doesn’t actually promote the overall welfare of the nation. The SSA is a universal system, which is its biggest flaw. It is putting the US into more debt now because people are living longer, there are more unemployed, and the tax cannot support it. This debt is overall hurting the US economy and not promoting the welfare of the state; therefore, it is not constitutionally enforced. Ergo, unconstitutional.
ReplyDelete-Sam Topham
DeleteThe first question that was asked was “should the United States Government use tax revenues to support socially, both legal residents and citizens of the country?” Yes they should. We are a country in which we help others. The United States is a nation in which we stick together to get through hard times. We do not bail on others just because you think they cannot be saved; no, we help them move through rough times. This time period was a rough time for the United States as a whole, due to the Great Depression. This law that was passed helped the US climb out of that whole; however, doing it the way they did was not ideal. This brings in the second question – “was this activity Constitutional”? In 1936, the Supreme Court declared that the Social Security Act and Unemployment Compensation were both Constitutional. In a 5-4 decision, the judges of the Supreme Court found that neither of these acts coerces any state into disobeying the Tenth Amendment. What this means is that neither the Social Security Act nor Unemployment Compensation gave states powers that they did not rightfully have. Therefore, legally and constitutionally, the states were able to tax its citizens. Is it right? No, of course not, however, it is constitutional.
ReplyDelete- Haleigh Sullivan (B-Period)
I believe that the creation of social security to help support the citizens and residents of the United States was very important in developing a stable and economically safe country for everyone. Social security was very key in ending the Great Depression and helping to get citizens back on their feet. Although 4 of the 9 Supreme Court Justices ruled against the Social Security Act in the famous case of Steward Machine Company v Davis in 1936, it is extremely beneficial to helping the citizens of this country. However the Constitutionality of the Social Security Act is very questionable. Only one of two examples in the United States Supreme Court’s history the decision used the preamble of the Constitution to make its decision. Clearly the Social Security Act is an exception due to the need for money to be generated for the unemployed. Nowhere in the Constitution does it state that the Government is allowed to give the unemployed, elderly or the disabled money. However as I stated before, the Social Security Act was ruled Constitutional due to the extreme exception of the situation and the necessity to keep the country and its citizens economically stable. Adding on additional benefits such as Medicare using this case an example for their Constitutionality was also useful and beneficial for the country because in certain situations citizens need the government to help people get back on their feet and stabilize the country.
ReplyDelete-Luke Amero
I do not believe that the enactment of social security and other taxes put towards those in need is unconstitutional. The government has the full right to create and impose taxes for the betterment of the nation. Social security and welfare taxes are in many cases very necessary and helpful. The United States government should be able to assist those who suffer tragedies or rough obstacles that effect their abilities to afford a basic lifestyle. However, do not believe in people relying too heavily on the government to take care of them. The United States was founded on the principal of leaving the fate of the citizens up to them in terms of financial and social stature. When the government steps in too much it causes a dependency of people, and in turn the government ends up controlling too much of the wealth distribution. This of course is not currently the situation of the United States, and the taxes that are imposed are fair and are an enormous assist to citizens who need the aid for a certain period of time. I believe that the social security acts and the welfare taxes are at a safe and fair magnitude, therefore they are not unconstitutional.
ReplyDelete-Alex DeChellis
During the Great Depression the U.S. was struggling. The country as a whole needed any help it could get, to climb out of this depression. FDR’s “New Deal” was a plan that could and did help the U.S. economy, playing a huge role in getting past the Great Depression. Personally I believe in helping those in need especially if you are well off. FDR saw it this way as well, he was interested in serving the greater welfare of the people, which is what the constitution states. The other side of the argument is also very strong. Can the federal government take away from a personal paycheck? I believe they can because that money is used to serve the country, its not like the government officials are pocketing the cash. Also the tax is even for everyone in the U.S. This tax is meant to help the unemployed, elderly, and the handicapped. Obviously not all American families have the money to help others because they have to survive and keep food on the table for their family. So the system is not perfect and could use some work but it is still constitutional. Both the SSA and unemployment compensation were voted constitutional. The best way I see it working is if the rich are taxed more then the average or poor family. The rich would clearly not be for this idea but it would help the greater welfare more effectively.
ReplyDeleteSpencer Cookson
Eliza Griffin
ReplyDelete11/3/14
The United States Government should be able to use tax revenues, to socially support both legal residents and citizens of the country. In a country, where we focus on being a united and advanced community, the government should be able to use tax revenues to socially support the people, who are unemployed and are in need of the money. If the government does not take care of the people, we will have no chance to advance in society. By giving people money, the government is presenting these people with a second chance, allowing them to start over and earn money for themselves. As a result of this, I believe that the Social Security Act, which gives money to the elderly, unemployed and disabled, is constitutional. The government is socially supporting citizens of the United States with money, by using tax revenues to support men and women who cannot finically support themselves, making the Social Security Act constitutional.
The answers to the questions of “Should the United States government use tax revenues to support socially, legal residents and citizens of the country?” and “Is the Social Security Act constitutional?” can be viewed in several ways. First, the U.S government should be able to be able to tax revenues in order to help those who need the financial support. In the preamble of the Constitution, it states that the government has the responsibility to promote general welfare to the American people. The other way to look at this question is; Should a person get his paycheck taxed to help someone else, even though that it is their hard earned money from their work week? Although the Social Security Act may help those who are unable to support themselves, it could be preventing a hard working employee from earning his full paycheck, limiting his right to his money he earned. Through the Social Security Act, the U.S government infringes on the rights (under the public welfare clause) of the American people by instilling a tax on working citizens to help support the elderly, unemployed, and handicapped and therefore unconstitutional.
ReplyDelete-Brooks Kiley
Cite: Sam Topham
In my opinion, I think that the United States Government should use tax revenues to help the United States Citizens who are in need, but not the ones who make a sufficient amount of money, or are not citizens. The reason I believe that the government should not help non-citizens, is because if we do assist them, people from all over the world would travel and settle in America because of the help we provide. This would lead to over population, so they must become legal citizens to prove who is in desperate need of aid. That being said, it can be difficult to directly define who in society is truly in need. What is the definition of a handicapped person? Or how about the elderly? The US government should use tax revenues to assist those in need financially, and those who are unemployed. Our country does not need uproars and protests from the citizens demanding aid, instead, the government should help them find the support they need, until they are strong enough financially to live on their own. The reason why I say that the government should assist them just long enough for them to have a stable life, is because more and more people will rely on the government, and will not work hard to earn their own money. If we do not support those in need, we are only hurting many lives of United States Citizens. For example, if our government refuses to assist a man who does not make enough money to feed his family of four, we are not only hurting the man, but the rest of his family as well. In addition, I believe that the Social Security Act is constitutional, and it was proven to be in the case of Steward Machine Company V. Davis. In the case, the judges agreed that the Social Security Act did not violate the constitution any way. I also believed that the act supported the “general welfare” as stated in the preamble. Overall, yes, I believe that the Social Security Act was indeed constitutional.
ReplyDeleteMolly Coleman
I believe that the United States Government should use tax revenues to support socially, both legal residents and citizens of the country in order to help support those who are in need. When the “New Deal” of F.D.R’s administration was put into place, it offered funding to help those in need, which ultimately helped the country as a whole. In the case Steward Machine Company v Davis (1937), the majority opinion proved that the activity of the “New Deal” was, in fact, constitutional. The majority opinion stated: “The Court found that the tax was uniform throughout the states and did not coerce the states in contravention of the Tenth Amendment”. Therefore, these taxes could continue and the United States Government could then use the tax revenues to support legal residents and citizens of the country. By doing this, the economy will be more balanced out because the people who are not able to support themselves will get aid from the government. It is our nation’s job to support the general welfare and keep the United States citizens out of poverty.
ReplyDelete- Emily Czajkowski
As an independent, strong and democratic country, the United States has, and will always be critical of its government. Our government makes poor decisions at times, but when dealing with the debate over social security, I strongly believe that Congress has the constitutional right to create and restore social security. For example, one of the first words ever written in our U.S. Constitution notes that our government will be used to “promote the general welfare” of our citizens. Social Security has created a give-and-receive partnership with the citizens and our federal government. The average hard-working citizen may argue that they are losing their money to help a person they don’t even know. Well, although this may be true, social security creates the opportunity to receive that money back when you become old an unable to work and thus make a profit. The U.S. government passed the Social Security Act during the worst economic period in our nation’s history: the Great Depression. President Franklin D. Roosevelt did not create this program to give the federal government more power, but to simply “promote the general welfare.” This is a program that rewards elderly that have worked their whole life and who have officially retired. I feel that in the case of Steward Machine Company v. Davis, the Supreme Court yet again was protective of the country at whole, by restoring that Social Security is a constitutional power of the federal government. Social Security is a program that protects elderly and disabled citizens, by providing a livable profit option. I thoroughly believe that the Social Security Act used tax revenues of working citizens in a positive way, and has helped our country grow over the last century.
ReplyDeleteThere is much controversy surrounding the idea if the United States Government should use tax revenues to help support its less fortunate citizens. Tax revenue is the income that is gained by governments through taxation. Personally, I do not believe that the United States should be able to use tax revenues to help support, both legal residents and citizens of the country. The reason being is that the United States is already in debt, which now equals $17.075 trillion, according to figures posted online by the Treasury Department on Friday. The United States Government should not be spending its tax revenues on the less fortunate, it should be going towards our national debt. Our country is spending more than it can afford, so why is it the case that we are using the tax revenue to helping the less fortunate? The tax revenue can be very beneficial towards helping the United States Government climb out of its debt, but instead we are waisting it on the legal residents and citizens of the US.
ReplyDeleteThe second part of the question states whether or not the “New Deal” of F.D.R.”s administration was deem constitutional. In the case Steward Machine Company v Davis (1937), the majority opinion came to the conclusion that the activity of the “New Deal” was, in fact, constitutional. The majority opinion stated that: “The Court found that the tax was uniform throughout the states and did not coerce the states in contravention of the Tenth Amendment”. With all this being said, these taxes would be used and the United States Government could then use the tax revenues to support legal residents and citizens of the country. Although I disagree with the decision on using tax revenues is constitutional, I can definitely see why people believe that using tax revenues can be constitutional.
-James Coyle
I believe that it is not constitutional to use tax payer money to aid those who are unemployed, disabled, sick, etc. Although it is considered necessary and proper that the United States government helps citizens that can not provide for themselves. I believe that there is a gray area in the Social Security Act. For example, an educated, older man who has worked his whole life and is now retired is diagnosed with Alzheimer's should be taken care of by tax payer dollars. I believe that any person would want that if they were in a situation like this. On the other hand, people that cheat the system and rely too heavily on the US government to support them, should not be given tax payer dollars if they are able to provide for themselves.
ReplyDeleteThe Social Security Act does not help the United States as whole. Too many people take advantage of how the Act was written. People live 20 years after retirement, the US unemployment rate continues to rise, and there are more people sick with advancements in technology being able to detect any disease. It drains the US economy and requires too much of the tax payers dollars to be successful. Therefore, for the majority of the United States population, it is unconstitutional.
Jack Lambrecht
Period D
The United States Government should undoubtedly use tax revenues to support both legal residents and citizens of the country. The United States government has many jobs but most important thing they must do is what is best for the people of this country under the United States Constitution. I believe that collecting taxes from the working class to support citizens and legal residents of the United States is more than acceptable. You must take into account what the taxes benefit. Not only do they help fund new roads, schools, bridges etc.. Also, we must think about the handicapped and elderly. Helping those who have a hard time helping themselves is very important as a country. For example, if you think about Veterans who have served their country and now are elderly deserve to be taken care of. Before 1993 the New Deal of FDR’s administration was not commenced with programs helping fund those in need. Now, The New Deal includes the Social Security Act, which was intended to benefit the citizens of our country, which is Constitutional. The Social Security Act collects payroll taxes to support America’s unemployed, elderly, and handicapped citizens. For example in the Steward Machine Company vs. Davis case, challenged the validity of a tax imposed by the Social Security Act. The Act established a federal payroll tax on employers; however, if employers paid taxes to a state unemployment compensation fund, they were allowed to credit those payments toward the federal tax. The way social security was being collected was questioned whether or not it was constitutional. The Supreme Court voted that collecting taxes directly to a state unemployment compensation fund was constitutional, which resulted in a vote of 5 to 4. Taking place around the great depression, the country was in the worst economic state it had ever faced. The United States government had to find a way to support everyone. FDR’s “New Deal” was the most constitutional way to do so. It is a difficult issue to handle but the government should always help those people who truly need assistance, such as the handicapped or elderly. I only hope that independent people do not make a controversy by abusing this and become dependent on the government when it is not necessary or for the unemployed to stop trying.
ReplyDelete-Samone DeFreese (D period)
The Preamble of the United States Constitution includes the key roles of the Federal government: one expressed by the phrase, “promote the general welfare”. This quotation is flexible in terms of what qualifies as general welfare, but distinctly defines the job to maintain the general welfare as an obligation of the United States Federal government. Seeing the unemployment problem in 1936, the Federal Government satisfied their responsibility by undertaking a solution to enforce social security that would support both legal residents and citizens of the country. This was executed through assigning the duty to collect unemployment taxes to the state governments. Although this process may have hindered a small percentage, Its constitutional for the Federal Government to promote the general welfare of the people in the United States, therefor, the measures that were required to do so, were also constitutional.
ReplyDeleteMelody Barros
I believe that the US government should use tax revenues to support socially US citizens who either are disabled and cannot support themselves, or are elderly and no longer make an income. When the Social Security Act was passed America was in the worst recession in it’s history, and the people who were unemployed, disabled, and elderly needed the governments help to survive. Congress and President Franklin where right in thinking that the US needs these social programs however they did not have the legal right to pass the SSA. The preamble of the constitution was not written as law, but rather as an introduction to the law. Congress should have created an amendment to the constitution instead of simply passing a law that was unconstitutional. Congress should create a new amendment to the constitution in order to legally use tax revenues in order to support US citizens who cannot support themselves, because though it might be the right thing to do, as it stands now it is unconstitutional.
ReplyDelete-Will MacClarence
I believe that during the Great Depression the creation of Social Security was very much needed to help stabilize the economy for everyone in the U.S. It helped many citizens who had taken a huge blow from the Great Depression recover. With out FDR’s “New Deal” many of the families most impacted by this would not have recovered. However in a time when the Economy is at full strength I do not feel that the Social Security act is not needed. I feel that the Act should be put in place in a need bases, based on the stability of the Economy. In the famous case of the Steward Machine Company v. Davis, the Steward Machine Company challenged the validity of the tax imposed by the Social Security Act. They claimed that the Federal Gov. was overextending its power by forcing the State Gov. to collect unemployment taxes. The votes in the Supreme Court were 5-4 in favor of the constitutionality of the Social Security Act. Because of the massive debate the great number of minority votes, many people wonder whether this is actually constitutional and is currently still a big debate. I believe that this in not right, but the Supreme court did deemed it constitutional.
ReplyDelete-Ben Lang
I believe the United States Government should use tax revenues to support socially, both legal residents and citizens of the country. The identity of the United States is one of helping. To sit back in a time of crisis, and not do anything to fix it is un-American. The 1930’s was a very tough time in America due to the Great Depression. This law was passed during this crisis to help the citizens of the United State bounce back from this economic unrest. This leads to the second question – “was this activity Constitutional?”. In 1936, the Supreme Court declared that the Social Security Act and Unemployment Compensation were both Constitutional. In a very close decision, the Supreme Court found that neither of these acts “coerces any state into disobeying the Tenth Amendment”. What this means is that the Social Security Act and Unemployment Compensation do not give states powers that they did not rightfully have according to the Constitution. Therefore, the states were able to tax its citizens. Thus I believe that if it constitutional, it is okay.
ReplyDelete- Joel Mayo
The first thing that comes to mind when I think about getting my first real job out of college in the next few years is how accomplished I am going to feel making my own money and supporting myself and eventually a family. Then I am reminded that along with that “real” job come taxes I have to pay out of my paycheck. Although these taxes will (supposedly) benefit me when it comes time for retirement at 62, I still find it hard to accept that my hard earned money I pay towards Social Security is being thrown into a fund that supports other who are retiring before me. There’s something special about earning your own money and knowing you worked hard to earn it giving you the power to spend it how you like, but in this case, Social Security tax obstructs that. That is why I think Social Security is unconstitutional, because it prevents citizens of the United States from fully achieving their pursuit of happiness and wealth. In the preamble of the United States constitution is states that the federal government has the job of promoting “the general welfare, and [securing] the blessings of liberty to ourselves and out posterity…” This does not say anything about the federal government forming an agency that collects taxes from every US citizen to support the less fortunate, handicap and retired. I do believe that the government should assist those who suffer from a handicap and as a result cannot support themselves, but there must be another way to accomplish this. With unemployment at an all time high, and life expectancy rates also increasing the government is faced with major debt and the question: “What do we do now?” If you refer back to the preamble of the constitution, it talks about the general welfare of our nation. I see this in an individual sense and as a whole country; this would deem the taxing of US citizens for Social Security unconstitutional, because US citizen’s pursuits of happiness, wealth and posterity are being obstructed by the government’s attempts at being philanthropic.
ReplyDelete-Grayson Keith
B Period
The Social Security Act has had a significant influence on the future of America’s general welfare; without it, this country would not be as successful as it is today. One has to think of this country’s welfare and what the solution would be today, or would there be one. America is known as the “Land of Opportunity” and so for people who are less fortunate to be born into an infinite amount of wealth, they should be reimbursed to create the best of what they have. For those who are being taxed, they’re probably earning way more than they deserve anyway, so to be taxed a little here and there is nothing; especially if its for a good cause. This is why I think that FDR’s New Deal was constitutional because it was promoting the general wealth and allowing people the opportunity to initiate a living. Coming out of the Great Depression these programs within the New deal were crucial to help the general welfare and a decision that had to be made. On the other hand, there can be incidents where the taxed money isn’t used to it’s full potential, however it should not be ruled out because of this; it would be discriminating if this was not enforced. According to the United States Constitution’s Preamble and a point raised by Sam Topham, is that one of the government’s responsibilities is to “promote the general welfare” and so they have to fulfill any requirements to manage this responsibility. The Social Security Act is a good solution to promote general welfare and to rise and improve as a country, instead of creating certain areas of less wealth and others with extreme measures of wealth.
ReplyDelete- Jack Harrison
I believe that the United States of America is the land of freedom and opportunity. Therefore, I think that it is the citizens and legal residents of the United States duty to find, use and take advantage of the opportunities that are available here. But I do believe that due to the Preamble of the United States Constitution, the United States should “promote the general welfare” and do what is good for the people. The Social Security Act was passed by the government to assist three groups: the unemployed, the elderly and the handicap. I do realize that there are faults in this Act, one being that some people may take advantage of this assistance even though they might not belong to either one of those groups mentioned. And it is really hard to define the term handicapped. However, I feel that it is necessary and proper for the United States government to tax its citizens and legal residents to support the elderly, unemployed and handicap underneath the Social Security Act. Most people who are in dire need of assistance are not at fault for their financial situation, they were either born poor or experienced difficulty getting work. Not all people can afford to go to a school and get a proper education, to then go on and get a job as an adult and maintain a regular income. Yes there are opportunities out there for people to pursue to make a living of themselves, but not everyone is financially able to fulfill these goals on their own, which is why the US should take responsibility in supporting its own citizens.
ReplyDeleteThe New Deal was a plan that President Franklin D. Roosevelt proposed in 1933 when he came to office, to launch a set federal programs to help the United States economy bounce back from the Great Depression of 1929 which left many Americans out of work. I believe that the New Deal was constitutional because it allowed for the President to create many organizations and programs to help economic recovery, job creation, public works, and civic uplift for everyone. Again using the citizen’s and legal resident’s taxes to help pay for the well-being of the people is as constitutional as you can get and will strengthen an economy in the long run in which it did. FDR did the right thing by getting this deal passed and was the best way to help everyone in America take a step forward from a depression that seemed to be holding everyone back.
By: Justin Donawa
I believe that many answers to the question of whether or not the Social Security act is constitutional question ethical and moral values. Many people look to support the less fortunate or handicapped people of our country; this is a part of a person’s morals. On the other hand, some people believe that the less fortunate do not work hard enough or don’t make wise enough decisions. Either way you look at it, I personally believe that social security is unconstitutional because of the fact that a percentage of the money that people make goes to some who are handicapped, unemployed, or have retired. Why should a person’s money be used for someone else when they fairly earned it? The power is vested in the Congress to promote the general welfare. However, through taking a portion of the money people make to support the needs of another person, a national debt is created. With the process continuing to occur, the debt continues to rise and unemployment rates have also been very high as well. The execution in trying to promote the general welfare has backfired and although some people are benefitting from the act, the nation as a whole is slowly digging its own grave and increasing the debt.
ReplyDelete-Koko
The question being asked is two parts. I will address the second part first: whether or not the Social Security Act is constitutional. I believe that, similarly to the NIRA, although the SSA is intended to promote the "general welfare" of US citizens, the way in which the Act is enforced is unconstitutional. I believe the SSA is a violation of the Tenth Amendment of the United States Government for imposing a tax on its states which they must enforce on their citizens. Furthermore, in the Steward Machine Case (1937), the United States Supreme Court decided based on the importance of the Act considering the current economic state of the nation: "[i]t is too late today for the argument to be heard with tolerance that in a crisis so extreme the use of the moneys of the nation to relieve the unemployed and their dependents is a use for any purpose narrower than the promotion of the general welfare. . .The nation responded to the call of the distressed". The United States is no longer, as it was then, facing the worst economic depression in the nation's history and it should, therefore, no longer be allowed to continue to violate the Tenth Amendment in the name of the "general welfare" of its citizens.
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately, however, I do not believe the United States will reexamine the constitutionality of the Social Security Act any time soon. This brings me to the other part of the question: ethically, should the US use tax revenues to support its citizens? Although I believe that the SSA is unconstitutional, I do still think that it is incredibly important to the nation. The benefits that Social Security brings to those who are unable to support themselves, is incredible; I believe that it is important that the US continue to do this but in a different way. Too many Americans abuse Social Security benefits: last year, 58 million Americans received benefits, that's nearly 20% of the nation, and since 1983, 45 percent of the male enrollment and 36 percent of female enrollment for Social Security Disability has been due to "relaxation of medical eligibility criteria". Furthermore, there are many more people that have been living far past age 62 since 1937, and the retirement benefit enrollment has skyrocketed due to this. This is not to say that there aren't many who don't abuse it, because there are, there is just too many people who do abuse it (even though retirees are not intentionally abusing it, their ability to use it with so much life left is detrimental to the Government and its funding). I believe that the United States must tighten its eligibility requirements if it is to use the Social Security Act to its original intent: helping Americans stabilize themselves so they can get back on their feet, helping those that truly cannot help themselves, and assisting the elderly. Specifically, I think medical eligibility criteria should be tightened and the age for receiving retirement benefits should be raised.
Dillon Cunningham
The United States Government should use tax revenues to support socially, both legal residents and citizens of the country. The United States government holds many jobs; however, their utmost duty is protecting the people of the United States. During the 1930’s the United States was faced with the most economically devastating event thus far, i.e., the Great Depression. Between 1929 and 1932, national income dropped by 43 percent, per capita income by 19 percent, and unemployment stood at 34 percent. By the mid-1930's, the lifetime savings of millions of people had been drained. This was a problem not only for families, but aged people as well, who were nearing retirement. The loss of their savings deemed them to a poverty stricken life. Essentially, the Great Depression left many people penniless. This not only was a problem for the individuals facing bankruptcy, but it was also detrimental to the national economy. The unemployment rates and income drops caused people to stop spending money; thus, the flow of credit was at a standstill. If President FDR did not take immediate action, the whole country could have been faced with poverty. This is why FDR signed the Social Security Act on August 14, 1935. This Act provides financial aid the unemployed, retirees, families in which spouses have died, and the handicap. When FDR signed this, it provided people with direct relief; therefore, helping the economy. When more people received funds, they began to spend more, which put strength back into the economy. The way Social Security works is that the government taxes those who are not receiving the security, and these funds are used to provide the necessary funds to those in need. This tax has become controversial; however, it is constitutional. Article 1 section 8 of the constitution states, “The Congress shall have Power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States” (Article 1 Section 8). Therefore, this “general welfare” clause is broad enough to encompass federally provided retirement benefits, and aid to those in need. The Social Act even states that it is, “An act to provide for the general welfare” (Social Security Act 1935). Therefore, although the taxes imposed by the federal government were debated as unconstitutional and extended power, they were in fact constitutional because they provided for the general welfare. This constitutionality can be further validated in the case of Steward Machine Company V. Davis. The judges agreed that the Social Security Act did not violate the constitution, and the powers of the federal government were not being extended beyond their enumerated rights; therefore, social security is not only necessary, it is constitutionally just.
ReplyDeleteMolly Crabtree
The Social Security Act (SSA) was enacted into law on August 14, 1935. It was created to help the United States get out of the depression, and it was working for some time. However, Social Security is not constitutional. There isn't a power listed under the "reserve clause" of the Constitution (the 10th Amendment) that specifically grants the federal government to create a social insurance system. Although there is the commerce clause, and the broad power to levy taxes and expend funds to "provide for the general welfare," this is not enough to create a tax that affects the United States in such a large way.
ReplyDeleteThe SSA is a big reason for why the U.S. has accumulated their large debt. It's too easy to get money from social security, and although I believe that the SSA is unconstitutional, I know that it will remain for a long time. In order to improve social security, I believe that they should stop giving out money to the unemployed or to give out less and for a shorter time. There are too many unemployed Americans to support with social security. I also believe that the age for which you can get social security (which is 62 right now) should be extended to at least 72 years. The life expectancy right now is 78.7 years according to the CDC. When the Social Security Act was created, the life expectancy was 61 years old! Beneficiaries in the early years of the program were receiving payment for a much shorter time than they do now. Now more retired citizens are getting paid for a much longer time. A man or woman of 62 is not generally considered a senior citizen today; they are still young. So giving them social security is an unnecessary drain on the Social Security fund. I also believe that upper and upper-middle class citizens should not be given social security for after they retire. There are many rich and well-to-do senior citizens that have the money to support themselves after they retire. To give them money is a waste.
Social Security, in my opinion, is unconstitutional. But, I believe it is a good program in the United States. I like to believe that the national government is going to look after its citizens if they become disabled, unemployed, or too old to work. Social Security can work if the national government makes some adjustments.
Sarah Kinney
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/life-expectancy.htm
http://www.ssa.gov/history/court.html
https://web.stanford.edu/class/e297c/poverty_prejudice/soc_sec/hsocialsec.htm
I believe that though Social Security Act was technically unconstitutional when it was created, it was absolutely necessary for the economic emergency at the time and for the economy today. During the Great Depression, marked by the stock market crash in 1929, the United States economy dropped to an all time low in which president Franklin D. Roosevelt had to react and respond quickly to the 28% unemployment. With recorded high unemployment, the entire country was affected; FDR had to urgently create systems in place to solve this problem. As part of his “New Deal”, agencies were established to promote jobs and stimulate the economy. Under the New Deal, social security was established in the need to assist the unemployed, the elderly, and the handicapped. The SSA protects those who are unable to work. While nowhere in United States Constitution did it state that the federal government could distribute money to those in need, the SSA passed as an act to protect and promote “the general welfare of the people.” By establishing the SSA and other agencies under FDR’s administration, the concept of “general welfare” is expanded in financial terms. The SSA stood as a “self-supporting plan” in which taxes were collected from the employed. Other “New Deal” agencies were also initially unfunded mandates, but were self-supported because of taxes collected by US citizens. In the Steward Machine Company v Davis (1939) case, the question arises if Congress can force states to collect a tax from its citizens. In the ruling of the case, Congress can indeed force the states to collect taxes for it is supported by the public welfare doctrine in the preamble of the Constitution. In conclusion, SSA protects the general welfare of the people, supporting what is written in the Constitution. Social Security stands as a stabilizing force today in our economy in which people in need rely heavily on the benefits of social security.
ReplyDeleteAlyssa Cass
Yes, I think it is completely constitutional to use tax revenues to support legal residents and citizens, socially. However, these taxes should be reasonable, and the majority not taken from people who are borderline dependent on this financial support. Like the majority opinion, in the Steward Machine Company vs. Davis case, decided, the Social Security Act is constitutional. Using the Public Welfare Doctrine in the Preamble of the Constitution, these taxes are necessary. There are people in this country with more money than they know what to do with, and there’s no way to make sure every single citizen has a sufficient roof over there head, but I believe these revenues are a step in the right direction. Also, it doesn’t make sense to increase the taxes on people with lower incomes for this service, because if anything that would contribute to the number of people in need of aid from the Social Security Act. Legal residents shouldn’t be excluded from these rights, either, because honestly they probably need it the most. America claims to be a “melting pot” and prides itself on freedom, liberty, and even equality, but if an individual wants to become a part of this beautiful image we have painted it’s hospitable for us to lend a helping hand, if they seem to be struggling.
ReplyDeleteLivi Robinson
The United States Government should use tax revenues to support socially, both legal residents and citizens of the country because one of the main goals of the United States is to “promote the general welfare of the people.” Not every person is fortunate enough to be financially stable, for numerous reasons, and they deserve support in times of need. The Social Security Act collects taxes from the working class in order to support the elderly, unemployed, and disabled. Although there are people who try to take advantage of the system, I believe that the steps taken to determine whether or not social security is absolutely necessary when reviewing different applications/cases are effective. Another controversial point is that people are being taxed and there money is going to someone they don’t even know. However, what is this not almost the same thing as donating to charity? You donate money to help support people or families in need that you do not necessarily know. People must also take into account that one day they may actually need financial support from the government.
ReplyDeleteI believe the original creation of this program during FDR’s “New Deal,” and the majority opinion of the Stewart Machine Company vs. Davis was completely constitutional. It would serve as very beneficial first step that the country would take to move past the failing economy. The Great Depression of 1929 left the country in rough shape and FDR was doing what was necessary to get the country back on track. He improved the economy by creating more jobs, helping people in need and also helped with several public works.
I think that some changes could be made to improve the SSA because it is too heavily relied on by the people.
Kristalyn Baisden
According to the 5-4 decision in the Steward Machine Company V. Davis (1936) case, after F.D.R’s "New Deal" program was enacted in 1933, the United States Government can constitutionally use tax revenues in order to socially support both legal residents and citizens of the United States. I believe that Social Security should not only exist, though I know it does now, but also I believe that the amount of money in costs originally to pay into Social Security should be raised. This is a beneficial idea because by raising the amount of money, we will delay the amount of time that social security will need to be paid into again. However, many disagree because this would be raising the taxes on the rich, which would cause problems. Before this class, I never had any discussions about Social Security; I only came across the term in commercials while I was younger. I had a vague idea of Social Security, but did not understand the basis of it.
ReplyDeleteSocial Security is both “necessary” and “proper” because it promotes the general welfare of the people, and because of this, Social Security is not only a necessary enactment, but one that would provide long term benefits for the people of the United States. However, though it is both a necessity and proper that people receive Social Security, i believe that people depend too heavily on it, or misuse the money that they receive. This wastes the money of people that pay to get Social Security.
Though I have an opinion, and a case to back my thought that Social Security is constitutional, I feel that I still don't know enough about Social Security and the way it works to make an extremely educated and accurate statement as to how the system can be fixed however, as i stated earlier, in class we discussed how raising taxes on the rich to a certain amount would make Social Security paid off until the year 3000. I feel though it may not be necessary, raising the taxes on the rich for this purpose would benefit and promote the general welfare, which is a strong reason to consider this method of solution.
-Kay Humes