You probably have never heard of a fellow named Ernest Ackerman, but he was the first person in the U.S. to receive Social Security benefits. That was in January 1937—and he received 17 cents! But that was a good return: he had been a member for just one day and had contributed only five cents.
Creation of Social Security
The Social Security
Administration has an online 40-page document titled “Historical
Background And Development Of Social Security.” For those who want (and have
the time to read!) detailed information, that is the place to go. Here I will
just write briefly about the years from 1933 to 1940.
There had long been a dire need in this
country for financial help for the elderly. One of the most popular plans
before 1935 was the Townsend Plan as proposed by Francis Townsend (b. 1/13/1867).
In 1933, Townsend launched his career as an
old-age activist, proposing that every retired person over 60 be paid $200 per
month—with the stipulation that they had to spend the money within 30 days (to
stimulate the economy).
Within two years, there were over 3,400
Townsend Plan Clubs in the U.S. Their popularity prompted FDR to propose Social
Security and then spurred Congress to pass the Social Security Act (SSA), which
President Roosevelt signed into law in August 1935.**
Taxes were collected for the first time 85
years ago this month, in January 1937, including Ackerman’s nickel. However, the
first monthly retirement check was not issued until January 31, 1940. That
check was sent to Ida May Fuller of Ludlow, Vermont, and was for $22.54.
Opposition to Social Security
As you might well guess, there was considerable opposition to the SSA of 1935 as there was to most of FDR’s New Deal proposals. From the very beginning, one of the main arguments against Social Security was that it was a form of socialism.
But by 1936 economic conditions in the U.S. had
improved considerably and Roosevelt was widely popular. So, in spite of the
opposition to the New Deal by Republicans and criticism of Social Security as
being socialist, Roosevelt was re-elected by a landslide.
In July 1965, under the leadership of President Johnson, Congress enacted Medicare under Title XVIII of the Social Security Act to provide health insurance to people aged 65 and older, regardless of income or medical history.
Opposition to the federal government passing
legislation for the benefit of the general public increased after 1981, with
President Reagan declaring in his inaugural address “. . . government is not
the solution to our problem; government is the problem.”
Conservative Republicans ever since have
consistently used Reagan’s words and their opposition to socialism to oppose
greater levels of healthcare, such as their unified opposition to “Obamacare”
in 2010, and some even wanting to alter or dismantle Social Security.
Gratitude for Social Security
Millions and millions of USAmericans
(including me), though, are deeply grateful for Social Security and Medicare.
And for the benefit of a wider public, many (again, including me) are in full
support of expanding Medicare and “Obamacare,” which has steadily gained in popularity.
A 2019
Gallup poll indicated that “Social Security is a mainstay of older Americans’
financial wherewithal, and . . . a system Americans greatly value.”
The same article reports that some 57% of retirees indicated that Social Security is a major
source of income in their retirement, eclipsing by far the second and third
sources—retirement accounts such as 401(k)s and IRAs, and work-sponsored
pension plans.
Similarly, Medicare/Medicaid also has
widespread public support, and a strong majority now believe that those
benefits should be expanded.
And then according to a Kaiser
Family Foundation poll in Oct. 2021, nearly 60% of all U.S. adults approved
of “Obamacare,” the highest percentage of approval since its beginning. It was
opposed, though, by 72% of the Republicans polled.
But yes, along with so many others I have
great gratitude for Social Security (and Medicare) which has provided so much
financial help through the years since June and I turned 65.
_____
** Here is the
link to Heather Cox Richardson’s informative four-page “letter” posted on
Aug. 14, 2021, the anniversary of Roosevelt’s signing the SSA into law. It is
partly about Francis Townsend, but has more about Frances Perkins, FDR’s
Secretary of Labor.
Not long after 6 a.m. I received the following comments from local Thinking Friend (and retired Baptist pastor) Bruce Morgan:
ReplyDelete"Republican use the concept of Socialism as a weapon to scare people away from advocating for programs designed for their benefit. Having benefitted from European medical care provided for all residents, a plan decried by American conservatives as an evil Socialized medical plan, I can attest to its benefits. Nobody denied medical care! What a grand idea. As for Social Security, the American Baptist Churches Retirement Board has always encouraged its members to enlist in SS, even though it has historically been optional for clergy. I give thanks monthly for SS benefits in retirement."
Local Thinking Friend Anton Jacobs writes,
ReplyDelete"Thanks for the blog today, Leroy. Actually, some Republicans are still fighting to defund Social Security. I don’t actually know what they’re trying to do, if anything, about Medicare. They don’t seem to be trying to destroy Obamacare anymore, so far as I can tell."
Anton, while there doesn't seem to be a lot of effort by Republican politicians to destroy Obamacare now, it is still highly unpopular by Republicans in general and, I assume, with Republican members of Congress as well. The Oct. 2021 KFF poll I cited in the article indicates that 72% of the Republicans polled have an unfavorable view of the ACA, and most likely a similar majority of the Rep. Senators and Representatives have the same negative view, although they may not be actively opposed at this time.
DeleteAnd here are comments from Thinking Friend Virginia Belk in New Mexico:
ReplyDelete"We, too, are grateful for Social Security and Medicare. Without these two programs, Fred [her husband] would not be able to survive without continuing to work or receiving assistance from someone. My teacher pension is much greater than his as a retired minister. However, without SS and Medicare, I would be in trouble because my pension has no COLA and has not increased since before 2013. . . . I realize that I would have never saved enough, nor would I have been adequately savvy to invest in stocks, bonds, etc. but because it was required that I pay into the SS fund, I can now receive those two pensions for as long as I live. That is a huge blessing!!!"
Thanks for your comments, Virginia. My guess is your comments express the sentiment of a vast majority of us U.S. citizens over the age of 65.
DeleteThanks for a great piece. Many of the right-wing ideologies we see today were forged in the opposition to FDR's New Deal.
ReplyDeleteThinking Friend Glenn Hinson in Kentucky shares these comments:
ReplyDelete"Thanks for calling attention to Social Security, Leroy. It is arguably the most important program ever set in motion in this country. Without it we would have the desperation people experienced during the Great Depression. Republican efforts to torpedo or privatize it must be resisted with every energy we can muster."
And here are brief, and pertinent, comments by local Thinking Friend Ed Kail.
ReplyDelete"I can’t help but think of Abraham Lincoln’s concept of democracy, stated in his Gettysburg Address, of 'government of the people, by the people, for the people.' Would/do today’s critics deem that to be 'socialism'?"
It is so ironic that even today some conservative Republicans claim that they are "the Party of Lincoln." Of course, Lincoln was a Republican, but that designated a Party whose central beliefs are almost 180 degrees from what Republicans are today, as, of course, the Democrats then were about 180 degrees different from what Democrats are now. It was the Democrats then who wanted "states' rights" in order to protect the institution of slavery and Lincoln who wanted the federal government to act first to protect the Union (the U.S.) and then to free the enslaved people. And certainly, he wanted the federal government to be for (all) the people of the nation.
DeleteAlso, a few minutes ago I received the following thoughtful comments from Thinking Friend Eric Dollard in Chicago:
ReplyDelete"Thanks, Leroy, for your comments about Social Security. There is little doubt, among reasonable individuals, that Social Security has been a boon for older Americans and the American economy. It should be expanded into a comprehensive retirement program rather than just a supplemental one.
"The retirement age, regardless of whether Social Security is comprehensive or supplemental, will need to be increased periodically to be sustainable as medical science extends the average life expectancy.
"I also favor universal Medicare. The most intelligent retirement and medical insurance programs are those in Singapore and we should consider the Singaporean programs as possible models for our own programs.
"As for socialism, the most socialistic institution in the US is the military. The Republicans seem to have no problem with that form of socialism."
Thanks, as always, for your comment, Eric. As I said in the article, there is considerable support for expanded Medicare--and maybe even for universal Medicare. But I don't think there is the slightest possibility of that being enacted by Congress until the time when the Democrats have the majority in the House, which they may not have after the elections this year, and a super-majority (60, or maybe 62 as long as there are Democratic Senators such as Manchin and Sinema) in the Senate--which may never happen (at least in my lifetime and maybe not in yours). (I think I am being realistic with this latter statement, not pessimistic.)
DeleteLocal Thinking Friend Chris Sizemore sent the following comments yesterday afternoon:
ReplyDelete"Thanks for the reminder of how and why we came to this point. I would encourage you to send copies to the recalcitrant Supreme Court members."
Thanks, Chris, for your comments and your suggestion. But I'm afraid if the conservative members of the SCOTUS wouldn't listen to the wisdom of the three dissenting justices, they certainly couldn't care less about what I would say to them!
DeleteThe US Constitution begins with these words: "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." I do not see a single word there that suggests any conflict with Social Security. On the other hand, Donald Trump hardly conforms to any of it!
ReplyDeleteOn Sunday, I also received a couple more comments about this article. One was from local Thinking Friend Linda Schroeder, who wrote,
ReplyDelete"Thanks for the historical review. Yes, I am exceedingly grateful for Social Security and Medicare. Ted [her husband] and I could not have survived all these years without them. A few days ago, I picked up a renewal dosage of a prescribed antibiotic for which I had been charged $75 copay last summer. This time it was $150, and when I expressed my shock, the pharmacist said I should be grateful that Medicare and my secondary insurance had paid $2000 as their share!"
Also this from Thinking Friend Truett Baker in Arizona:
ReplyDelete"Thanks for the well-written blog about Social Security and Medicare. I too am a grateful beneficiary of those programs, and I am particularly grateful for Medicaid in spite of its abuse, as is true in most of the government's family support programs. Reform is needed but I am very grateful for its effectiveness in the past. I am both disappointed and somewhat angry at the long history of Republican objection to approving family-support programs. I'm not so sure about their minds, but I'm adamantly sure that Republican hearts are not in the right place."
Affordable Care Act, a.k.a. Obamacare, was ruled constitutional by the SCOTUS by the slimmest of margins (5-4). It survived two more challenges, but If the same questions were placed before today's current court I am convinced the vote go the other way. Past SCOTUS rulings with many years of precedence appear to be in jeopardy with today's court. Some of our favorite federal programs may still be in danger.
ReplyDelete