50 Years of Social Security Experience
MARTHA SHEDDEN
Nancy, your background with Social Security is so extensive, from working as a tax lawyer, working in government, authoring books, all the way through to today, where your roles include being president of “Social Security Works” and serving on the Social Security Advisory Board. Let’s start with how you first became interested in Social Security, and what led you down this path.
NANCY ALTMAN
In some ways I feel that it was meant to be, because I started working in tax law in 1974, when the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 was enacted. That was wide- ranging legislation regulating private pensions. Before then many pension plans were poorly funded or difficult for employees to collect. Every pension plan in the country had to be modified, which meant tax lawyers and other attorneys were immediately put to work on pensions. A little later, I decided I really was interested in the public sector, and went to work for Senator John Danforth of Missouri, who was on the Finance Committee, just as the Social Security Amendments of 1977 were working their way through Congress. So, at the beginning of my career, I got to work on both private pensions and Social Security.
Then I had the good fortune to be Alan Greenspan's assistant on the bipartisan commission that led to the Social Security Amendments of 1983, and was really privileged to work closely with three men who started working on Social Security in the 1930s: Bob Ball, Bob Myers, and Wilbur Cohen. Now, I'm very fortunate to be working with lots of younger people who are committed to carrying on the legacy of Social Security.
MARTHA SHEDDEN
You've definitely had a front row seat for the whole time, especially with that legacy of those who mentored you. Talk a little more about the Greenspan commission. Those 1983 Social Security Amendments were major changes to the Social Security program. What can you share about the work involved and the passage of those amendments?
NANCY ALTMAN
It’s fascinating. In a way, the commission started out as rising out of the ashes of a failure. At the time, the economy had what was called stagflation, which is very high inflation and high unemployment. A few years earlier, Social Security had been automatically indexed so benefits would keep up with inflation. Before that, Congress had to act to raise benefits. But the way they enacted it, this very high inflation led to over indexing, and it was clear that there would be a shortfall. President Ford proposed a plan to fix it, but it was 1976, which was of course an election year, and Congress didn’t act on it. Inflation stayed high, and eventually the Reagan administration came in and they really overplayed their hand. David Stockman, the budget director, was really hostile to the program and he used the need for amendments as an excuse to propose very deep cuts to people who were just about to retire. That’s not the right thing to do. The phones were ringing off the hook, and as a compromise, the commission was established.
MARTHA SHEDDEN
It's fascinating to me because it seems they accomplished so much, relatively quickly.
NANCY ALTMAN
Yes, very quickly. There were 15 members, five appointed by the President, five by the House and five by the Senate. They had such a wide range of views that nobody thought it would succeed, but if it did, no one was going to stop it because it had all the interest groups represented. It was hard to reach agreement, but once they decided they were committed to that and they were willing to compromise, they did it, and it was something that has lasted until now.
MARTHA SHEDDEN
For 50 years. They had that buy-in from all these different representative voices that we're not seeing today.
NANCY ALTMAN
One of the big differences between then and now is that there have been a number of groups claiming to be modeled after the Greenspan Commission -- the Bowles-Simpson Commission and others -- but instead tend to be a much narrower group of people. Not representing people on the outside, no one really knowing what was going on, and with an ideological agenda.
The Greenspan Commission involved real honest debate. There were those who wanted to see the program expanded. There were those who wanted to cut back on it. Bob Ball was really a master. He was the most amazing negotiator I've ever seen. He was always thinking about what the other side wanted and needed, and what he could concede that wouldn’t violate his basic principles. I used to joke that he could make the other side's arguments better than they could.
He really understood it all, and I think his view was that he wanted to make sure that this basic structure, which had stood the test of time, would continue. There were some concessions. They delayed the cost-of-living adjustment. But there was one issue they couldn’t agree on. The progressives wanted an increase in the Social Security contribution rate and the conservatives wanted an increase in the retirement age. The commission’s report left that to Congress, which voted to raise the retirement age. Everyone agreed that something had to be done, and this really was the best they could get.
MARTHA SHEDDEN
It's amazing. It stood the test of all this time. We're just now using up the surplus. Most people don't even understand that, but I'm keeping my fingers crossed for the next decade or so.
NANCY ALTMAN
When I was just starting my career and working on the Social Security Commission, I was told I would not see my benefits, the program was going bankrupt. 50 years later, my children and grandchildren are being told they won’t see it. The reality is that Social Security is current funded, which means that as long as we have a workforce, people will get benefits.
Something else young people need to be aware of is that while we think of this as a retirement program, which is an extremely important part, it also provides disability insurance. It’s often the only disability insurance workers have. So, if God forbid a young person who is contributing had a terrible accident and could no longer work, they would get disability benefits. That’s something they’re getting right now. It's not just waiting 40 years for retirement benefits.
MARTHA SHEDDEN
Survivor Benefits are also important. People don't realize what impact Social Security can have on families for many years.
NANCY ALTMAN
That's exactly right. It’s a benefit most people don't realize they have until disaster strikes in their own lives. The children of 9/11 victims receive those benefits. If you speak to a large group of people, usually someone has gotten Survivor Benefits. There are members of Congress who received Survivor Benefits as children. So, whether tragedy happens or you live to 100, Social Security is there for you.
MARTHA SHEDDEN
You've written quite a few books, including the one you coauthored with Eric Kingson, Social Security Works: Why Social Security Isn't Going Broke and How Expanding It Will Help Us All. You offer a powerful antidote for the three- decade-long billionaire-funded campaign to make us believe that this vital institution is designed to collapse. Talk about that. Who wants us to believe that Social Security will collapse and why?
NANCY ALTMAN
Thank you so much for asking me about that. We’ve updated that book, by the way. We have a new edition out, Social Security Works for Everyone. Social Security has extremely widespread support. It always has because it fills a basic need. Sometimes people talk about the need to modernize Social Security, but it's thoroughly modern. The concept is that as long as you're dependent on wages for food, shelter, clothing, which virtually everyone is, then you need insurance against the loss of those wages. That's what Social Security is. We don't think of unemployment insurance as Social Security, but it was part of the Social Security Act of 1935. You can become so seriously disabled that you no longer can work. You can die leaving young children who depended on your earnings. You could have the good fortune to live to old age, with the right to retire. That's what Social Security provides, and most people recognize that and support it. They understand what a good deal it is and how efficient it is.
But there have always been those who either believe the government should be, as the activist Robert Norquist said, "Shrunk to the size where it can be drowned in the bathtub," or believe Social Security isn't an appropriate role of government, or simply are extremely wealthy and don’t want to pay their fair share.
From the beginning there have been those who called it Socialism. It was part of the 1936 Presidential Election where Alf Landon, the Republican candidate, called it a hoax on the working man. In the 1950s, there were Goldwater Conservatives who opposed President Eisenhower. He wrote a letter to his brother, which became public, in which he said those who want to do away with Social Security are a few millionaires, their number is negligible and they are stupid, but because of their wealth, they have oversized influence and access.
From the 1930s through the 1960s, they were straightforward in their opposition. They said, "It's Socialism. It's not appropriate. It competes with the private sector,” and so forth. They always lost, but they stood up for what they believed in, which is what our democracy is about.
Starting in the mid-1970s, the conversation shifted. They realized their tactic was not working. So now you had people opposing Social Security like the Koch Brothers, whose father had been a Texas newspaper owner who had railed against the New Deal, and a very wealthy hedge fund manager named Pete Peterson, who had been Secretary of Commerce under Richard Nixon. They started funding organizations, and writing essays themselves saying, "We love Social Security, but it's not going to be there for you. It's not affordable."
I always call it a solution in search of problem. The solution is cut Social Security or privatize it. The problem keeps shifting.
It's unfair to African Americans, because they don't live as long. It’s unfair to young people. The problem keeps shifting, but the solution is always the same. The campaign has not succeeded in actually cutting benefits, but it has succeeded in taking away the intangible benefit of security. Because the younger you are, the less likely you are to believe you're going to get benefits.
MARTHA SHEDDEN
It’s also hard to overcome media coverage that Social Security is going to go broke and it's not going to be there for you. I really love the title of another book you wrote, The Truth About Social Security: The Founders' Words Refute Revisionist History, Zombie Lies, and Common Misunderstandings. So many people think that Social Security is somehow the cause of the federal deficit. What are the most prevalent misunderstandings about Social Security?
NANCY ALTMAN
We've been talking about one, which is that it's going broke. It is not going broke. It has a $2.9 trillion surplus. It is being drawn down and projections are that Congress has to provide more revenue to make sure benefits will keep being paid. But people have the idea that somehow you fall off a cliff, there are no reserves and you get nothing. The projections are that even if Congress were to do nothing whatsoever, which is unimaginable, people would still get 80 cents on the dollar. Now, that's not good enough. They should be getting 100% on the dollar. And in fact, I do have some good news, which is that despite all this, the Democrats have now recognized that the nation is facing not a Social Security crisis, but a retirement income crisis. It's the private employer side where traditional pensions are disappearing and 401(k)s are not being shown to be adequate enough. What the Democrats have been proposing, including President Biden, is to expand benefits and require the wealthiest to pay more to Social Security. It's not getting much reporting, but it is a quiet movement. Legislation has been introduced in the House of Representatives, Congressman John Larson’s Social Security 2100: A Sacred Trust. There have been hearings, which I testified at.
Another misunderstanding is that somehow, we can no longer afford Social Security. We are so much wealthier now as a nation than we were in 1935 in the midst of the Depression, or 1956 when Disability Insurance was enacted, or 1972 when the program was automatically adjusted. But wealth is not spread fairly. We have income and wealth inequality, which is why I think it makes sense to require the wealthiest to contribute more to Social Security. But there's no question we're wealthier now than we've ever been in our history, so there's no question we can afford Social Security. It's really a question of values and priorities, and poll after poll after poll shows the American people, as polarized as we are, are united about Social Security.
MARTHA SHEDDEN
It’s surprising, that support is across gender, political parties, ages. And as you mentioned, it really saves us from ourselfves, because the Defined Benefit Pension Plans are disappearing and we are not doing a good job of contributing to 401(k)s, 403(b)s, and IRAs. Not everyone has the ability to earn enough money needed for those retirement years, which could last 20, 30 years.
NANCY ALTMAN
It's a bit of a subtle difference, but really what you need for retirement, certainly at its base is insurance against loss of wages. Savings are always important. My parents always said the first check you should write from your wages is to your savings account, because if you just try to save what's left over, you'll never have anything left over. It's a hard thing to do, especially with stagnating wages and student debt and all the expenses that people have.
The idea of insurance is that we pool our resources. If it’s savings, if it's 401(k), all the risk is focused on the individual. We might reach retirement age when there's a downturn in the economy. Insurance, especially one that's broad-based like Social Security, pools our risks across the nation. People ask, "How much should I save for retirement?" Well, how long do you plan to live? If you're only going to live to 60, you don't need to save for retirement. If you're going to live to 100, you need to save a whole lot. It's something we don't know for individuals, but actuaries know for us very accurately as a group. The Social Security Administration can look at fertility rates, mortality rates, wage rates, immigration, all kinds of things to determine how to provide adequate benefits for everyone.
MARTHA SHEDDEN
We’ve talked about how there's so much widespread approval of Social Security. So why is it so darn hard right now for lawmakers to pass legislation that would extend the longevity of the program? Wouldn't they want to be the ones that took credit for accomplishing that?
NANCY ALTMAN
It's such a good question. My assessment is that they are listening to the donor classes we talked about. There is a small group of ideologues who either don't like government or they want to make money. They don't want to have to contribute. But poll after poll after poll about Social Security comes out the same way. The younger you are, the less likely you are to think you are going to get benefits. But if you ask the follow- up question, "Do you want it to be there?" everyone says, "Yes," because they know they're going to need it. They do not want to see the benefits cut. Even if they're modest cuts. They're even willing to pay more if it's necessary, although they would rather see wealthier people pay more, which I think is right. And they would like to see it expanded. They know it's more important than ever.
For decades, the elites of Washington have talked about cutting it, and of course they're going to lose, because the American people, even the most conservative constituents, don't want that to happen. So, they've tried to go behind closed doors. But people like my colleagues and I are watching, and getting the word out when they're trying to do that, and saying, "No, we don't want this to pass."
The Democrats have realized that funding Social Security is a means to an end, which is to provide basic economic security. The question is, how much economic security do we want to provide on a collective basis? I think most Americans and the Democratic Party have recognized that we need to increase the benefits and fully fund them. So, that's working its way through, and I think there will be legislation sometime in the next few years.
MARTHA SHEDDEN
I do too, and I am so excited to watch what happens with this particular bill. You mentioned it’s insurance and a lot of people don't even understand that. There's that comic strip I used to read called Zits, featuring kids that were my kids’ age. When the teenager got his first job, he said, "Who is FICA, and why is he taking all this money?"
NANCY ALTMAN
This is important to know. That's the Federal Insurance Contributions Act, which was enacted in the 1930s. Our insurance contributions are premiums. I’m constantly struggling against the wording because the taxation of Social Security income is a really big topic. People say, "Well, how can they tax our income? We already paid taxes." Those weren't taxes; you were paying contributions.
Taxation of benefits was part of the Social Security Amendments of 1983. Because in 1935, there was some taxation to fund the New Deal, and then World War II started increasing income taxes, and the Treasury Department had to decide what to do with income from Social Security. It was just a regulatory decision to say, "Well, it's money from the government. It’s going out, why bring it back in?" I think that was the wrong judgment back then, but since then, a lot of experts said, "No." I mean, we tax private retirement income as taxable income and Social Security should be taxed the same way. Social Security, as you know, is extremely conservatively financed where employees pay with after-tax dollars, and then employers match it dollar for dollar. The employers get a tax deduction as a business expense. What was done in 1983 was to treat Social Security the same way we treat private pension income, but it is very unpopular. People don't like it, and one thing in the 2100 Act is to increase the thresholds for when people have to pay. So, the Democrats are giving a tax cut for Social Security benefits.
MARTHA SHEDDEN
I understand where the confusion starts from with the 50% that was first taxed in '83, and then it went up to 85%. The number of retirees whose Social Security income is taxed is now over 50%. It was 10% when it started. So, part of the problem is it hasn't kept up with inflation and it's sneaky. It's hidden.
NANCY ALTMAN
There’s another misconception, which is that all these seniors are living in gated communities, playing golf all day. Social Security has reduced poverty, but most seniors are just above the poverty line. Any kind of serious illness could push them into poverty. People who are wealthy enough to pay income tax are actually the wealthier of seniors, but that's still a relatively low-income group. I think part of the problem is that people who are paying taxes are really just barely getting by. That's part of the reason I think it's so controversial.
MARTHA SHEDDEN
The average Social Security income for married couples is now $33,000 a year, which is up into that 50% bracket, and it’s creeping up for singles, so it’s affecting people that I don't think should be affected.
NANCY ALTMAN
As I say, Congressman John Larson, who is the chair for the Social Security Subcommittee, is right there with you. He wants to raise those thresholds. He wants to raise it to $50,000 for married couples.
MARTHA SHEDDEN
Yes, I want to see it be adjusted like all the other figures are for Social Security. What about the $15 minimum wage? You've talked about that. It’s a win for Social Security, but why stop there? What other changes should happen for lower and middle-class paychecks and how does that affect Social Security?
NANCY ALTMAN
There are so many good policies that as a byproduct would benefit Social Security. It's really outrageous that minimum wage workers are not able to survive. The whole idea of a minimum wage is to have a decent standard of living. And as you know, there's been a real fight for $15. If Congress were to enact an increase in the federal minimum wage, of course it would be good up and down the income scale. Minimum wage workers would get more, which means those earning above minimum wage would get more. It would just bump the salaries up. So, it's the right policy for current wages, but it also helps deferred wages, because another way Social security is so responsibly managed is that people pay on their first dollars of earning. If you're earning minimum wage, you're paying Social Security contributions on your first dollar. If you're earning more, you'll pay somewhat higher Social Security contributions, and you'll get a larger Social Security benefit when you retire. So, it's a win.
Also, if we could get away from the pay equity gap between men and women and the gender gap on wages by equalizing up, that would also make a significant improvement in Social Security financing. You don’t want to bring men down, bring women up. Similarly, if we increased immigration, that would help. Immigrants actually are a benefit for Social Security. They're a little bit akin to women having more children. It's younger people in the workforce. Immigrants by culture often have larger families. They tend to be younger. So, they're all contributing to Social Security. I think it's morally sound humane policy, and it also helps all of us.
MARTHA SHEDDEN
Much of what you just said is counterintuitive to what most people think. One of the courses I wrote was “Social Security and Immigrants.” There are so many misconceptions on that. People say, "Oh, these undocumented workers, they're getting my Social Security." No, they cannot get Social Security. In fact, many of them are contributing because they're working on a false Social Security number, so they're paying in, but they're never going to get a penny in benefits.
NANCY ALTMAN
No one talks about it, but undocumented workers improve Social Security's financing by billions of dollars every year. Now, I don't think that's the way it should be. I think if someone, whether documented or undocumented, is working and paying, they've earned the benefit the same way they've earned their salary. I don't think we should reach in their pockets and take their wages. I think they should get Social Security, but that is not the law. The law is they cannot get benefits.
MARTHA SHEDDEN
Talk to us about the state-by-state reports that you put out at Social Security Works. What are those?
NANCY ALTMAN
First let me say, I love the name of our organization because it says what we believe, which is Social Security Works. And we are an educational organization. We put out a variety of reports, Social Security Works for Women, Social Security Works for African Americans, Social Security Works for Children and so forth, but we also put out reports for every state. Social Security Works for California. Social Security Works for Texas. The Social Security Administration puts out lots of data going down to both the congressional and county level. So, we put out a report for all 50 states and for the territories. We put a number of the reports out in Spanish, as well as English. We also put out Social Security Works for the United States. Together, the reports show how much money is flowing into each congressional district.
AARP has found that for every dollar of benefits that goes into a district, it creates $2 in economic growth. It's creating jobs. People who get Social Security tend to be low-income. They're not putting their money in a Swiss Bank account; they are spending it in their local communities on necessities. So, it's helping the economy.
Our reports include all kinds of statistics. You can go to our website, socialsecurityworks.org, and all these reports are available under resources. We also try to put in stories about people who receive those benefits, so you have both the personal and the data.
MARTHA SHEDDEN
What do you think FDR would think about the way we care for and think about Social Security as a society today?
NANCY ALTMAN
I'm so glad you asked that. Sometimes, you'll hear commentators saying, "Oh, he wouldn't recognize the program.” I always laugh and say, "He would recognize it, but would ask why we haven’t done more.” When he signed it into law in 1935, he called it “a cornerstone in a structure which is being built, but is by no means complete.” He saw that every generation would add to it. He wanted what essentially is Medicare for all -- guaranteed health insurance -- and almost proposed it in 1935, but thought it was just too much at that point. He wanted long-term disability insurance, which was added in 1956. He wanted short-term disability, which we could think of as paid family leave and other kinds of sick pay and so forth. They were talking about that back in the 1930s.
These were all part of the vision of Social Security. In 1939, we got survivors' benefits and family benefits. Then we had World War II, so things came to a halt, but soon after the war, they started increasing benefits. They added Disability Insurance in 1956. In 1965, they added Medicare and Medicaid. Medicare is also part of FICA, the Federal Insurance Contribution.
In 1972, they automatically indexed the program, but then progress stopped. I don't know quite why they deviated, but they stopped seeing it as an institution that is growing, that they wanted to see increase. But the Democrats are now back there, and I think if the 2100 Act comes for a vote, while it doesn't have any Republican co-sponsors, I'll be surprised if there aren't some Republican votes because it is what their constituents want.
MARTHA SHEDDEN
Yes, and they're going to listen to that. You've mentioned several times about taxing the higher earners. I think that the Taxable Earnings Limit should disappear, but what else would you like? What would you like to see as an expansion of Social Security? And what needs to happen for those changes?
NANCY ALTMAN
Most experts say people need about 70% of pre-retirement pay to maintain your standard of living in retirement. Which is the goal. To be able to stop work and not have to sell your home and move in with your children and so forth, as they used to before Social Security. Just to be able to maintain your standard of living.
But Social Security for an average worker earning about $50,000 is only about 35% of pre-retirement pay, which is not enough. It's progressive so lower income workers earn a higher percentage and higher income workers get a somewhat lower percentage, but none of the rates are enough to be able to retire and maintain your standard of living. There's talk about across- the-board increases, but they're talking about 2% or 3% or 5%, which is good, but I would do more. 10%, even 15%. I would provide a really substantial increase, given how many advantages Social Security has. It's very efficiently administered; less than a penny of every dollar paid in is paid out in administration and more than 99% goes to benefits. It's portable from job-to-job. It's good for short-term workers, as well as long-term steady workers. It’s good for everyone. It’s better than any product you can get in the private sector.
So, I would dramatically expand it in both targeted ways and across the board. To pay for it, Social Security currently has three streams of revenue. Its primary source has been and always will be the FICA contribution, the premiums paid by employees and matched by their employers. Then, because the money that's held in trust is invested, there's investment income. The third, which came in 1983, is what we were talking about before, the taxation of benefits. But the wrinkle is that instead of money going into the General Fund, it's paid back to Social Security. That is the only progressive source. In contrast, FICA is proportionate up to the maximum wage base, which is $147,000 in 2022, and then it's regressive. We pay zero after that, and 6.2% before. The taxation of benefits, the only progressive source, amounts to 3% of Social Security’s income.
Over the last 20 years, we have been witnessing a dramatic increase in income and wealth inequality. That's very destabilizing, and as a byproduct it has really taken money away from Social Security, because more people at the top are earning more than that maximum while everyone else's wages have stagnated. Given all of that, I think we should be thinking about a progressive source of revenue, whether it's a wealth tax, a surtax on the federal income tax with respect to those with incomes in excess of a million dollars, a financial transactions tax. There are a number of taxes which are good policy, but are very hard to enact. I think they would be easier to enact if the money was paid to Social Security. I think that's the only way we might be able to get that. We're still only talking about 4% or 5% of Social Security's income, but it's enough to really expand the program.
MARTHA SHEDDEN
I’ve heard a lot about changing the way those trust funds are invested. Do you have an opinion on that?
NANCY ALTMAN
Congress has said that Social Security's surplus has to be invested in the safest investment on earth, which are treasury bonds backed by the full faith and credit of the United States. The idea is that these are the people's pensions, workers' money and they want to be very safe with it.
But every financial advisor will advise their clients that you should diversify your portfolio, that it's good to have a mix of bonds and stocks. From the beginning, there has been talk about investing some of those assets in stocks. Now you don't want to invest in an individual stock, because that makes people a little bit nervous about government ownership and so forth. But you can invest in broad-based index funds where there's no voting, where it's very insulated. That would increase the investment income. Interestingly, Chairman Larson in his first iteration back in 2013 did propose that. But what he found was that people confused that with privatization. It's quite different because when you invest in individual accounts, you are subject to the rise and fall of the market yourself. If it's invested for all of us, then your benefit is still guaranteed. You're going to get that benefit no matter what happens.
I think it's great policy, but the politics are hard. It would take a lot of explaining. If I were in charge, I would say, "Yes, let's do it." But if I had to run for office, I might say, "Well, maybe not." It's a little hard to explain.
MARTHA SHEDDEN
Perception is a big part of it.
NANCY ALTMAN
Exactly, and again, the idea is to have people feel secure. You don't want them to think, "Oh, the stock market's falling, that's going to hurt my Social Security."
MARTHA SHEDDEN
There are many other things that can be tweaked, that can increase the longevity of the program.
NANCY ALTMAN
Absolutely. As I say, it's a matter of values. It's not a matter of affordability. I don't think it would be hard to reach consensus about it.
MARTHA SHEDDEN
It’s so encouraging to hear you say that. Let’s talk about inflation. The current high inflation is definitely affecting those who are collecting Social Security since COLA really doesn't keep up with that. But does inflation have an impact on Social Security itself, whether positive or negative?
NANCY ALTMAN
One of the real strengths of Social Security that makes it better than private sector vehicles is that no matter what the inflation rate is, there is an adjustment that is made every January based on inflation. It's technically the change in the third quarter inflation over the previous third quarter inflation. We have argued that the measure is not accurate for seniors and people with disabilities, because it under-measures healthcare costs for that group, and healthcare costs have been going up very, very fast. In fact, in the Larson Bill, the Democrats have rallied behind a more accurate Cost of Living Adjustment, but to have any kind of automatic adjustment is unusual and extremely valuable, certainly at a time like now when we're experiencing such high inflation.
But at the same time, when there's high inflation, there tends to be higher wages. That means people are contributing more. Generally, wages tend to go up faster than prices. Not every year, but over time. So, it shouldn't be a problem for Social Security. It's really a benefit of the program.
MARTHA SHEDDEN
You’ve answered a lot of important questions. Is there anything you'd like to add that I haven't asked you?
NANCY ALTMAN
I think this is important: I sometimes get questions like, "I hear it's going bankrupt. Should I grab my benefits as soon as I turn 62?" Really, you have to look at your own individual situation. If you can wait until age 70, your benefits will be higher. You get increased benefits every month, for the rest of your life. Given that people are living longer, you should look ahead to when you’re 90, and how long your spouse might live beyond you, and what you and your spouse will be getting. The program will be there. Don't worry that you have to grab those benefits because they won't be there. What I'd like to leave people with is the security that Social Security is supposed to provide. Don’t believe the scare of headlines. And make sure you don’t just vote for people who say they love Social Security, because everyone will say that. Ask them if they’ll expand it or cut it, and vote accordingly.
MARTHA SHEDDEN
Thank you so much, Nancy. I wish this interview could just keep going, because you’ve shared so much beneficial information.