Resolving family legal issues can be stressful and complicated. Emotions run high, and it can be difficult to see the matter clearly. You need objective legal counsel from an experienced family attorney. Call the Law Office of John Williams in Charlotte, NC. John Williams can assist you if you're filing for divorce. He also handles child custody and guardianship cases.
Arrange for a consultation with a divorce attorney in Charlotte, NC today.
Commentary
The articles contained herein do not necessarily reflect the views of Colorado DOGE Report or its management. They are the opinions of the authors alone.
Social Security:
The Solution to the Massive Issue We Face!
Let me start by saying, this article is likely to be unsettling to many Americans, but it contains the TRUTH.
A THRUTH that we cannot shy away from if we are to fix the issues we have in front of us as a country. So let's dive in!
A Veteran’s Struggle Highlights a Broader Issue
Two years ago, as a veteran, I faced a harsh reality. After a six-month layoff, I secured a modest job that barely covered my financial obligations. Routine blood work revealed potential health concerns, leading me to seek care from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), which I had used sparingly before. To my shock, I was denied care because my income exceeded the VA’s eligibility threshold, a policy rooted in the Veterans Health Care Eligibility Reform Act of 1996, expanded in 2008. Veterans, who serve under contractual obligations, face income-based restrictions for benefits earned through sacrifice. Meanwhile, Social Security, a welfare program, mandates universal benefits for all retirees, regardless of financial need. This disparity demands urgent reform: Social Security must adopt means testing to focus aid on retirees who truly need it, ensuring fairness and fiscal sustainability.
Social Security: A Welfare Program, Not an Entitlement
The Social Security Act of 1935 was designed as a safety net to prevent poverty among the elderly, disabled, and survivors. President Franklin D. Roosevelt envisioned it as a program to protect the destitute, not to supplement every retiree’s income. The Supreme Court’s rulings in Helvering v. Davis (1937) and Flemming v. Nestor (1960) clarified its legal foundation:
• Helvering v. Davis affirmed Social Security as a welfare program under Congress’s power to tax and spend for the general welfare (Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution).
• Flemming v. Nestor emphasized that Social Security benefits are not accrued property rights and can be modified or eliminated by Congress.
Despite its original intent, Social Security has evolved into a universal entitlement, providing benefits to millionaires and low-income retirees alike. This deviation from its purpose strains its financial sustainability and undermines fairness.
The Veterans’ Paradox: Earned Benefits Restricted
Veterans face a stark inequity under the VA’s means-testing policy, formalized in 1996 and expanded in 2008. Unlike Social Security, veterans’ benefits are earned through service contracts, yet access to health care is restricted by income thresholds under 38 U.S.C. § 1722. For non-service-connected care, 2025 income limits exclude veterans earning above:
• $41,000 (single veteran)
• $48,000 (veteran with one dependent)
My own experience reflects this injustice: my modest salary disqualified me from VA care despite my service. This policy undermines the government’s commitment to servicemembers who risk their lives under contractual agreements. In contrast, Social Security recipients receive benefits regardless of wealth, with no contractual basis for such universal access.
Social Security’s Unsustainable Path
Social Security’s universal mandate threatens its long-term viability. In 2024, the Social Security Administration reported:
• 67 million Americans received benefits.
• $1.4 trillion in annual expenditures.
Paying benefits to high-income retirees diverts resources from those in need. For example, a retiree with a multimillion-dollar portfolio receives the same monthly benefit as one struggling to afford necessities, contradicting the program’s original purpose. Social Security and Medicare, funded through FICA taxes, rely on current workers’ contributions to pay current retirees. With no trust fund holding earnings for future retirees and a declining U.S. birthrate over the past 30 years, the worker-to-retiree ratio is increasingly unsustainable. Means testing could redirect funds to low-income retirees, preserve solvency, and encourage personal retirement planning.
The Case for Means Testing Social Security
Congress has the authority to implement means testing, as affirmed by Helvering v. Davis and Flemming v. Nestor. Programs like Supplemental Security Income (SSI) already use means testing, limiting benefits to individuals with:
• Income below $943 per month (as of 2025).
• Assets under $2,000.
A similar framework for Social Security could cap benefits for high-income retirees. For example, a tiered system could provide:
• Full benefits for retirees with low incomes (e.g., $25,000 annually), potentially boosting their income to $50,000 with tax-free cash and food assistance.
• Reduced or no benefits for retirees with higher incomes (e.g., $75,000 annually), as they are not destitute.
Critics argue that means testing could discourage savings or create administrative burdens. However, Social Security already adjusts benefits through taxation, with up to 85% of benefits taxable for individuals earning above $34,000. A tiered system would build on this precedent, balancing fairness and fiscal responsibility.
The FICA Tax Cap: A Middle-Class Burden
Social Security’s funding mechanism further exacerbates inequity. The FICA tax, which funds Social Security and Medicare, is capped at $176,000 of annual income. This means high earners pay no additional FICA taxes beyond this threshold, shifting the burden to middle-class and lower-income workers. Originally designed to tax the wealthiest, this cap now effectively taxes the middle class and poor to support a program that pays benefits to millionaires. Removing the FICA tax cap would ensure that high earners contribute proportionally, aligning the program with its original intent and enhancing fairness.
Restoring Fairness and Commitment
The contrast between Social Security’s universal benefits and the VA’s means testing highlights a profound inequity. Veterans face financial barriers to earned benefits, while Social Security recipients receive payments regardless of wealth. This violates the principle of earned benefits and undermines the moral foundation of government programs. Reforming Social Security with means testing would:
• Restore its original intent as a safety net for the needy.
• Conserve resources for fiscal sustainability.
• Signal fairness across government programs, including for veterans.
Additionally, removing the FICA tax cap would ensure that high earners contribute fairly, addressing the regressive nature of the current system.
Common Sense Reform
Social Security must return to its roots as a safety net for the destitute, not a universal entitlement. Means testing, paired with removing the FICA tax cap, would align the program with its constitutional and moral foundations, prioritizing retirees in need and honoring the sacrifices of veterans. Congress must act to implement these common-sense reforms, ensuring fairness and sustainability for future generations.