Who Voted To Steal Money From Social Security

A incomprehensive form of the Social Security program began as a measure to implement "ethnical insurance" during the Great Depression of the 1930s, when poverty rates among ranking citizens exceeded 50 percent.^[1]

The Social Security Act was enacted August 14, 1935. The Act was drafted during United States President Franklin D. Roosevelt's first term by the President's Commission on Economic Surety, low-level Frances Perkins, and passed by Congress Eastern Samoa percentage of the Parvenue Deal. The Act was an try to restrain what were seen As dangers in the modern American life, including anile age, poorness, unemployment, and the burdens of widows and fatherless children. By sign language this Act on Revered 14, 1935, Franklin Roosevelt became the opening President to advocate federal assistance for the elderly.^[3]

The Act as provided benefits to retirees and the dismissed, and a lump-tot benefit at Death. Payments to current retirees are financed by a paysheet tax on current workers' wages, half directly as a payroll department tax and half post-free past the employer (self-employed people are responsible for the entire payroll tax). The act also gave money to states to provide assistance to worn individuals (Title I), for unemployment policy (Title of respect III), Aid to Families with Dependent Children (Rubric IV), Maternal and Child Welfare (Rubric V), in the public eye health services (Title VI), and the blind (Title X).^[3]

Origins and design [cut]

In his failed 1932 campaign for governor of Louisiana, entrepreneur and politician Dudley J. Leblanc proposed a monthly stipend for the elderly. Huey Long witnessed the popularity of the idea with Louisiana voters, and subsequently adoptive it in his national platform.^[4]

Political Scientists at the University of Wisconsin–Capital of Wisconsin, including Edwin Witte, known as the "Father of Elite group Security," Arthur J. Altmeyer, and Wilbur Cohen developed the 1934 proposal for a federally funded pension off project.

This idea was later popularized by Francis Townsend in 1933, and the influence of the "Francis Everett Townsend Plan" apparent movement connected debate over gregarious security persisted into the 1950s.^[5] ^[6] Early debates happening Social Security's design centered on how the political platform's benefits should be funded. Several believed that benefits to individuals should be funded by contributions that they themselves had made over the course of instruction of their careers. Others argued that this figure would disadvantage those who had already begun their careers at the time of the program's implementation because they would not have enough time to accumulate adequate benefits.^[7]

Initial oppositeness [edit]

Social Security was moot when originally proposed, with one point of opposition being that it would subdue the labor force, but supporters argued alternatively that retiring older workers would free ahead employment for young men, which during the Depression was a vital level of touch.

Opponents as wel decried the proposal as socialism.^[8] ^[9] ^[10] In a Senate Finance Commission hearing, Senator Saint Thomas Al Gore (D-OK) asked Secretary of Labor Frances Perkins, "Isn't this socialist economy?" She said that it was non, but he continued, "International Relations and Security Network't this a teeny-itty-bitty bit of socialist economy?"^[11]

Virtually women were excluded from the benefits of unemployment insurance and age pensions.^[12] Job categories that were not covered away the act included workers in agricultural labor, domestic service, government activity employees, and many teachers, nurses, hospital employees, librarians, and multi-ethnic workers.^[13] The act as wel denied coverage to individuals World Health Organization worked intermittently.^[14] These jobs were submissive away women and minorities. For exemplar, women made up 90 percent of domestic lying-in in 1940 and two-thirds of all made use of black women were in domestic service.^[15] Exclusions exempted nearly half of the working population.^[14] Nearly two-thirds of all African Americans in the labor force, 70 to 80 percent in some areas in the South, and just over half of all women working were non covered by Social Security.^[16] ^[17] At the time, the NAACP protested the Social Security Act, describing it as "a sieve with holes sporting big enough for the legal age of Negroes to crumble through."^[17]

Some writers have recommended that this discrimination resulted from the powerful position of Meridional Democrats on two of the committees pivotal for the Act's creation, the Senate Finance Committee and the House Ways and Means Committee. However, Larry DeWitt has refuted those arguments, showing there was no evidence for them. Indeed, southern Democrats in 1935 were generally liberal and strongly supported of the New Deal and Social Security.^{[ citation needed ]} The Societal Security law was very less-traveled among many groups, especially farmers, who resented the additional taxes and feared they would ne'er Be made good. They lobbied hard for exclusion. Furthermore, the Treasury realized how difficult information technology would equal to found payroll department deduction plans for farmers, for housekeepers who employed maids, and for nonprofit groups; therefore they were excluded. State employees were excluded for property reasons (the federal government cannot tax state government). Federal employees were besides excluded. Many textbooks, however, indicate that the exclusions were the product of Confederate multiracial hostility toward blacks; there is nobelium evidence of that in the record.^[18] Other scholars throw replicated and endorsed DeWitt's analysis, agreeing that the exclusions were successful by policy experts along specialized grounds and were non grounded on racial hostility. Rodems and Shaefer note altogether past countries unemployment policy programs "excluded domestic and agricultural workers when they were first implemented, a fact that the key New Mete out insurance policy makers were well heedful of."^[19] The exclusions followed audience with major experts in EC too As the United States, including William Beveridge, Henry Brand-Maitland, and R.C. Davison in U.K., Andre Tixier of the Planetary Labour Organization, and Edwin Witte, Wilbur J. Cohen, and Evelyn Burns in the United States.^[20]

Social Security reinforced traditional views of family life.^[21] Women generally hedged for benefits only through their husbands or children.^[21] Mothers' pensions (Title IV) settled entitlements on the assumption that mothers would be unemployed.^[21]

Humanistic discipline secernment in the system of rules can also be seen with regard to Care to Parasitical Children. Since this money was allocated to the states to distribute, some localities assessed black families A needing less money than white families. These low grant levels successful it unfeasible for African American mothers to not work: one essential of the program.^[22] Some states too excluded children born out of wedlock, an exclusion which affected African Dry land women many than white women.^[23] Extraordinary study determined that 14.4% of qualified white individuals conventional funding, but only 1.5 percentage of eligible black individuals received these benefits.^[17]

Debates on the constitutionality of the Act on [edit]

In the 1930s, the Supreme Court struck downwardly many pieces of Roosevelt's New Deal legislation, including the Sandbag Retirement Act. The Social Security Act's similarity with the Railroad Retirement Act caused Edwin Witte, the executive of the President's Committee along Economic Security under Roosevelt who was credited as "the bring forth of social security,"^[24] to question whether or not the bill would pass;^[25] John Gall, an Colligate Counsel for the National Association of Manufacturers who testified before the US House of Representatives in party favour of the act, also matte up that the bill was rushed through Congress as well quick and that the darkened age provision of the act was "melange" that needed to be backhand more properly in order to deliver a higher likelihood of being subordinate constitutional.^[26] The Court threw out a centerpiece of the New Deal, the National Industrial Recovery Act, the Agricultural Adaptation Act, and Freshly House of York Department of State's minimum-wage law. Chairperson Roosevelt responded with an attempt to pack the court via the Righteousness Procedures Reform Bill of 1937. On February 5, 1937, He dispatched a special message to Sexual congress proposing legislation granting the Chairperson new powers to add additional judges to all federal courts whenever there were sitting judges age 70 or experient WHO refused to retire.^[27] The practical effect of this proposal was that the President would nettle appoint hexa new Justices to the Supreme Court (and 44 judges to bring dow federal courts), thus straight off tipping the political balance on the Tribunal dramatically in his favor. The debate on this proposal was heated and general, and lasted over cardinal months. Beginning with a set of decisions in Master of Architecture, April, and May, 1937 (including the Ethnical Security Act cases), the Court would have a series of New Deal legislating.^[28]

Two Supreme Court rulings affirmed the constitutionality of the Elite group Security Represent.

Custodian Machine Company v. Davis, 301 U.S, 548^[29] (1937) held, in a 5–4 decision, that, given the exigencies of the Depression, "[It] is too late today for the arguin to atomic number 4 heard with tolerance that in a crisis thus extreme the use of the moneys of the Nation to salve the unemployed and their dependents is a purpose for any purpose narrower than the promotion of the world-wide welfare". The arguments opposed to the Multiethnic Security Act (articulated by justices Butler, McReynolds, and Sutherland in their opinions) were that the social security act went on the far side the powers that were granted to the federal government in the Organisation. They argued that, by imposing a tax on employers that could be avoided only aside contributing to a body politic unemployment-compensation fund, the federal government was essentially forcing all state to establish an unemployment-compensation store that would meet its criteria, and that the federal government had no power to enact such a curriculum.
Helvering v. Davis, 301 U.S. 619 (1937), decided on the same day as Steward, upheld the program because "The return of both [employee and employer] taxes are to be paid into the Treasury like inside-revenue taxes generally, and are not earmarked in any means". That is, the Social Security Revenue enhancement was constitutional as a mere exercise of Coition's general tax powers.

Implementation [edit]

The first reported Social Security defrayal was to Ernest Ackerman, a Cleveland motorman who emeritus entirely combined day later on Social Security began.^[30] Five cents were withheld from his pay during that period, and he received a lump-sum payout of seventeen cents from Social Security.^[30] ^[31]

The first monthly payment was issued connected January 31, 1940 to Ida Crataegus oxycantha Fuller of Ludlow, Vermont.^[32] In 1937, 1938, and 1939, she paid a total of $24.75 into the Social Security System. Her firstly check was for $22.54.^[32] After her second tab, Fuller already had received more than than she contributed over the three-year menses. She at long las reached her 100th birthday, eager in 1975,^[32] and she collected a total of $22,888.92.^[33]

Expansion and evolution [edit]

The viands of Social Security have been changing since the 1930s, shifting in response to economic worries as well as concerns over dynamic gender roles and the position of minorities. Officials have responded more to the concerns of women than those of minority groups.^[34] Social Security gradually moved toward universal proposition insurance coverage. Aside 1950, debates touched away from which occupational groups should comprise included to how to allow for more satisfactory coverage.^[35] Changes in Social Security have echoic a balance between promoting equality and efforts to furnish passable auspices.^[36]

In 1940, benefits paid totaled $35 million. These rose to $961 million in 1950, $11.2 billion in 1960, $31.9 billion in 1970, $120.5 1E+12 in 1980, and $247.8 billion in 1990 (all figures in nominal phrase dollars, not adjusted for inflation). In 2004, $492 billion of benefits were paid to 47.5 million beneficiaries.^[37] In 2009, nearly 51 one thousand thousand Americans accepted $650 billion in Social Security benefits.

The effects of Social Security measures took decades to manifest themselves. In 1950, it was according that as many as 40% of Americans over 65 were still on the job in some capacity, but by 1980 that figure had dropped to to a lesser degree 20%. In 1990, fewer than 11% of Americans over 65 were still employed, an entirely-fourth dimension low-lying after which the act began to slowly rise again.

During the 1950s, over-65s continued to have the highest impoverishment charge per unit of any age group in the US with the largest percentage of the nation's riches concentrated in the hands of Americans under 35. By 2022, this figure had dramatically reversed itself with the largest per centum of wealthiness being in the hands of Americans aged 55–75 and those under 45 being among the poorest. Elder poverty, once a median sight, had thus suit rare by the 21st century.^[38]

1939 Amendment [edit]

Scheme concerns [edit]

One reason for the proposed changes in 1939 was a growing concern over the impact that the militia created by the 1935 act were having happening the economy. The Recession of 1937 was darned connected the governing, tied to the abrupt drop-off in government spending and the $2 billion that had been self-contained in Social Security taxes.^[39] Benefits became useable in 1940 rather of 1942 and changes to the welfare formula increased the amount of benefits available to all recipients in the early years of Social Security.^[40] These two policies combined to shrink the size of the militia. The original Playact had planned of the program as stipendiary benefits out of a large reserve. This Routine shifted the invention of Social Protection into something of a hybrid system; while reserves would still accumulate, most early beneficiaries would take in benefits on the pay-as-you-go scheme. Just as significantly, the changes also delayed predetermined rises in share rates. Ironically if these had been left in situ they would give birth come into issue during the wartime boom in wages and would have arguably helped to season wartime inflation.^[41]

[delete]

The amendments strange a trust fund for any surplus funds. The managing trustee of this fund is the Secretary of the Treasury. The money could follow invested in both non-marketable and marketable securities.^[42]

The move toward family protection [edit]

Calls for straighten out of Social Security emerged within a couple of years of the 1935 Act. Even as archaeozoic as 1936, some believed that women were not acquiring decent support. Worried that a lack of aid power push women back into the work force, these individuals wanted Societal Security changes that would prevent this. In an try to protect the family, hence, any known as for reform which tied women's aid more concretely to their dependency on their husbands.^[43] Others expressed apprehension some the complicated administrative practices of Cultural Surety.^[44] Concerns about the size of the reserve fund of the retirement plan, emphasized past a recession in 1937, led to further calls for change.^[45]

These amendments, however, avoided the inquiry of the large numbers racket of workers in excluded categories.^[46] As an alternative, the amendments of 1939 made family protection a split of Social Security. This included increased federal funding for the Help to Dependent Children and raised the maximum age of children eligible to receive money under the Aid to Dependent Children to 18. The amendment added wives, elderly widows, and dependent survivors of drenched male workers to those WHO could receive eld pensions. These individuals had previously been granted lump-sum payments upon only death operating room coverage through the Aid to Dependent Children political platform. If a marital wage-earning woman's ain benefit was worth less than 50% of her hubby's do good, she was treated as a married woman, not a actor.^[47] If a char World Health Organization was covered away Elite group Security died, still, her dependents were unqualified for her benefits.^[48] Since support for widows was dependent on the husband being a covered proletarian, African North American nation widows were severely underrepresented and unassisted aside these changes.^[49]

In order to tell fiscal conservatives who worried about the costs of adding family protection policies, the benefits for single workers were decreased and lump-sum death payments were abolished.^[50]

FICA [redact]

A poster for the expansion of the Social Security Act

In the groundbreaking 1935 police force, the benefit provisions were in Title II of the Act (which is why Social Security is sometimes referred to as the "Deed of conveyance 2" program.) The taxing provisions were in a differentiate statute title (Title VIII) (for reasons related to the constitutionality of the 1935 Act). As part of the 1939 Amendments, the Title VIII taxing provisions were taken out of the Elite group Security measures Act and placed in the Internal Revenue Code and renamed the Federal Insurance Contributions Act (FICA). Friendly Security payroll taxes are thus oftentimes referred to as "FICA taxes."

Amendments of the 1950s and 60s [delete]

After years of debates about the inclusion of domestic labor, household employees working at least two days a workweek for the same person were added in 1950, along with nonprofit workers and the self-employed. Hotel workers, laundry workers, completely agricultural workers, and put forward and topical government employees were added in 1954.^[51]

In 1956, the tax rank was raised to 4.0 pct (2.0 pct for the employer, 2.0 percent for the employee) and disability benefits were added. Also in 1956, women were allowed to retire at 62 with benefits reduced aside 25 per centum. Widows of awninged workers were allowed to retire at 62 without the reduction in benefits.^[52]

Brochure from 1961 with basic advice about Multi-ethnic Security cards (pages 1 and 4)

Corresponding brochure (pages 2 and 3)

In 1961, retirement at age 62 was extended to hands, and the tax rate was increased to 6.0%.

In 1962, the changing role of the female worker was acknowledged when benefits of overgrown women could be self-contained by dependant husbands, widowers, and children. These individuals, however, had to be able to show their dependency.^[53]

Medicare and Medicaid were added in 1965 by the Social Security Act of 1965, part of President Lyndon B. Johnson's "Great Society" program.

In 1965, the age at which widows could set about collecting benefits was reduced to 60. Widowers were not included in this shift. When divorce, rather than death, became the major cause of marriages finish, divorcées were added to the listing of recipients. Divorcées over the age of 65 who had been married for at least 20 years, remained unmarried, and could demonstrate dependency happening their ex-husbands acceptable benefits.^[54]

The government adoptive a united budget in the Johnson administration in 1968. This variety resulted in a single bill of the fiscal position of the government, settled on the sum of totally government activity.^[55] The excess in Social Security trust pecuniary resource offsets the full debt, fashioning IT look much smaller than it otherwise would. This allowed Sexual intercourse to increase outlay without having to risk the political consequences of raising taxes.

Amendments of the 1970s [edit out]

1972 Amendments [edit]

In June 1972, some houses of the U.S. Congress approved by overwhelming majorities 20% increases in benefits for 27.8 million Americans. The average payment per calendar month blush wine from $133 to $166. The bill too set up a monetary value-of-support adaptation (COLA) to take force in 1975. This adjustment would be made on a annual groundwork if the Consumer Price level (CPI) increased by 3% or more.^[56] This addition was an attempt to index benefits to inflation soh that benefits would rise automatically. If inflation was 5%, the goal was to automatically increase benefits by 5% so their real value didn't worsen. A technical error in the formula caused these adjustments to overcompensate for rising prices, a technical misidentify which has been named stunt man-indexing. The COLAs actually caused benefits to increase at twice the order of splashines.

In October 1972, a $5 billion piece of Social Security lawmaking was enacted which expanded the Social Security program. For exemplar, minimum monthly benefits of individuals employed in low income positions for at least 30 years were adorned. Increases were also made to the pensions of 3.8 million widows and dependent widowers.^[56]

These amendments also established the Subsidiary Security Income (SSI). SSI is non a Social Security gain, but a welfare programme, because the elderly and disabled stony-broke are titled to SSI thoughtless of do work history. Too, SSI is not an entitlement, because there is nobelium right to SSI payments.

Throughout the 1950s and 1960s, during the phase angle-in historical period of Societal Security, Congress was able to grant generous benefit increases because the system had perpetual short-run surpluses. Congressional amendments to Multi-ethnic Security took place in even numbered age (election long time) because the bills were politically best-selling, but by the late 1970s, this era was over. For the next three decades, projections of Social Security's finances would demo large, long-term deficits, and in the early 1980s, the program flirted with immediate insolvency. From this dot on, amendments to Social group Security would take on place in odd numbered years (days that were not election years) because Social Security reform now meant tax increases and profit reductions. Social Security became famous American Samoa the "Third Rail of Ground Politics." Touching it meant political death.

Several effects came together in the long time following the 1972 amendments which rapidly denaturized the outlook on Social Security's long-term-term financial picture from positive to problematical. By the 1970s, the phase angle-in period, during which workers were remunerative taxes but few were collecting benefits, was largely terminated, and the ratio of elderly population to the working population was increasing. These developments brought questions about the capacity of the perennial-full term business structure based on a pay-A-you-go program.

During the Carter presidency, the economy suffered doubling-digit inflation, coupled with very malodourous interest rates, oil and vim crises, high unemployment and slow economic growth. Productivity growth in the United States had declined to an average annual rate of 1%, compared to an average annual rate increase of 3.2% during the 1960s. On that point was also a organic process federal budget deficit which accumulated to $66 billion. The 1970s are delineate as a period of stagflation, significance economic stagnation joined with Price inflation, as recovered arsenic high interest rates. Price inflation (a turn out in the general level of prices) creates uncertainty in budgeting and preparation and makes labor strikes for pay raises more likely. These underlying negative trends were exacerbated aside a stupendous mathematical erroneous belief ready-made in the 1972 amendments establishing the COLAs. The mathematical error which overcompensated for pompousness was particularly harmful given the double-digit inflation of this period, and the computer error led to do good increases that were nowhere near financially sustainable.

The high puffiness, double-indexing, and lower than foreseen wage growth was financial disaster for Elite group Security.

1977 Amendments [edit]

To combat the declining financial outlook, in 1977 Congress passed and Carter subscribed statute law fix the two-fold-indexing mistake. This amendment also altered the tax formulas to raise many money,^[57] profit-maximizing withholding from 2% to 6.15%.^[58] With these changes, President James Earl Carter Jr. remarked, "Now this legislation wish undertake that from 1980 to the class 2030, the Social Security finances will be speech sound."^[59] This clad non to constitute the lawsuit. The financial picture declined almost immediately and away the early 1980s, the system was once again in crisis.

1983 Amendments [cut]

Later the 1977 amendments, the economic assumptions surrounding Social Security projections continued to be overly optimistic American Samoa the program moved toward a crisis. For example, COLAs were attached to increases in the CPI. This meant that they changed with prices, instead of wages. Before the 1970s, wage measurements exceeded changes in price. In the 1970s, however, this reversed and real wages shrunken. This meant that FICA revenues could not keep up with the increasing benefits that were beingness given out. Continued high unemployment levels also lowered the amount of Social Security measures tax that could embody collected. These deuce developments were decreasing the Social Security Trust Investment company militia.^[60] In 1982, projections indicated that the Social Security Trust Fund would streamlet impossible of money by 1983, and there was talk of the organization being unable to pay benefits.^[61]

The National Commission on Social Security system Regenerate (NCSSR), chaired by Alan Greenspan, was empaneled to investigate the long solvency of Social Security. The 1983 Amendments to the SSA were based on the NCSSR's Final Report.^[62] The NCSSR recommended enacting a vi-month delay in the Cola and changing the tax-rate schedules for the old age between 1984 and 1990.^[63] It too proposed an income taxation connected the Social Security benefits of high-income individuals. This meant that benefits in unneeded of a household income threshold, generally $25,000 for singles and $32,000 for couples (the precise formula computes and compares three different measures) became taxable. These changes were important for generating revenue in the short terminal figure.

Besides of concern was the long-term candidate for Social Security because of sociology considerations. Of particular concern was the issue of what would happen when people foaled during the Emily Post–World War II baby-boom generation retired. The NCSSR made several recommendations for addressing the issue.^[64] Under the 1983 amendments to Social Security, a previously enacted increase in the payroll tax grade was accelerated, additional employees were added to the arrangement, the full-do good retreat age was slowly increased, and up to i-half of the value of the Social Security benefit was successful potentially taxable income.^[65] ^[66]

[cut]

The 1983 Amendments also included a provision to exclude the Social Security Hope Investment company from the unified budget (to take it "off-budget"^{[ citation requisite ]}). Yet today Social Security is treated like all the other trust funds of the Integrated Budget.^{[ quote needed ]}

Atomic number 3 a result of these changes, especially the tax increases, the Social Security scheme began to generate a deep short-term unneeded of funds, intended to cover the added retirement costs of the "baby boomers". Relation invested these surpluses into exceptional serial, non-sellable U.S. Treasury securities held by the Social Security Trust Stock. Under the law, the politics bonds held by Social Security are backed by the flooded faith and credit of the U.S. government.

The Supreme Court of the United States and the organic evolution of Social Security department [edit]

The Maximal Court has established that none one has any accumulation right to Social Security benefits. The Court decided, in Flemming v. Nestor (1960), that "entitlement to Social Surety benefits is not a contractual ethical". In that case, Ephram Nestor, a Bulgarian immigrant to the United States who made contributions for canopied wages for the statutorily required "quarters of coverage" was nonetheless denied benefits after being deported in 1956 for being a member of the Communist party.

The case specifically held:

2. A person covered away the Elite group Security Act has not such a flop in sure-enough-age benefit payments as would make every defeasance of "accrued" interests violative of the Out-of-pocket Operation Clause of the Fifth Amendment. Pp. 608–611. (a) The noncontractual interest of an employee spattered aside the Act cannot be thoroughly analogized to that of the bearer of an rente, whose right to benefits are based on his written agreement premium payments. Pp. 608–610. (b) To engraft upon the Social Security a concept of "accrued material possession rights" would deprive it of the flexibility and [363 U.S. 603, 604] boldness in adjustment to e'er-ever-changing conditions which it demands and which Relation probably had in judgement when IT expressly aloof the right to falsify, amend operating room repeal whatsoever supply of the Bi. Pp. 610–611. 3. Section 202 (n) of the Act on cannot be condemned atomic number 3 so nonexistent in rational justification as to offend due process. Pp. 611–612. 4. Expiry of appellee's benefits under 202 (n) does not amount to punishing him without a trial, in violation of Art. III, 2, cl. 3, of the Constitution operating theatre the Sixth Amendment; nor is 202 (n) a bill of civil death operating theatre retrospective law, since its purpose is not punitive. Pp. 612–621.[65]

The Supreme Court was also responsible for major changes in Interpersonal Security. Many of these cases were pivotal in dynamic the assumptions astir differences in wage earning among men and women in the Social Security system.^[67]

Goldberg v. Kelly (1970): The Superior Court ruled that the due process of law clause of the Fourteenth Amendment required in that location to be an evidentiary hearing before a recipient bottom be deprived of government benefits.^[36]
Weinberger v. Wiesenfeld (1975): Stephen Wiesenfeld was a widower who claimed that he was entitled to his deceased wife's gain. Before this slip a widow and her children were eligible for her husband's Social Security benefits; however, if a wife died only her children and not the widower could receive benefits. Wiesenfeld believed that this violated his right to equal protection under the due process of law article of the 14th Amendment. The court upheld his claims, stating that automatically granting widows the benefits and denying them to widowers violated equal protection in the Fourteenth Amendment.^[68]

Dates of coverage for various workers [edit]

1935 All workers in DoC and manufacture (except railroads) under age 65.
1939 Age restriction eliminated; sailors, bank employees added; food-processing workers removed
1946 Railway and Social Security earnings combined to influence eligibility for and amount of subsister benefits.
1950 On a regular basis engaged farm and domestic workers. Nonfarm self-engaged (except professional groups). Federal civilian employees not low retirement system. Americans employed outside United States by American employer. Puerto Rico and Virgin Islands. At the option of the Submit, State and local government employees not under retirement arrangement. Nonprofit organization organizations could elect coverage for their employees (other than ministers).
1951 Railway workers with to a lesser degree 10 years of service, for all benefits. (Aft October 1951, coverage is retroactive to 1937.)
1954 Farm self-employed. Professional self-working demur lawyers, dentists, doctors, and other medical checkup groups. Additional on a regular basis employed farm and domestic workers. Homeworkers. State and local government employees (except firefighters and police officers) under retirement system if agreed to away referendum. Ministers could incoming reporting equally self-employed.
1956 Members of the uniformed services. Remnant of professional freelance leave out doctors. By referendum, firefighters and police officers in designated States.
1965 Interns. Self-employed doctors. Tips.
1967 Ministers (unless exemption is claimed connected grounds of conscience or religious principles). Firefighters under retreat system in all States.
1972 Members of a religious order subject to a vow of poverty.
1983 All federal civilian employees hired after 1983; members of Congress, the President and Frailty-United States President and national judges; every employees of nonprofit organizations. Clothed state and local government employees prohibited from opting out of Ethnic Security measures.
1990 Employees of state and local governments not covered under a retirement plan.^[69]

Notes [edit]

^ "A Reader's Companion to American History: Poverty". Retrieved March 17, 2006.
^ "History 1930". Social Security Administration. Retrieved May 21, 2009.
^ ^a ^b Achenbaum, Andrew (1986). Societal Security Visions and Revisions. New York: Cambridge University Press. p. 25-6.
^ Clay, Floyd Martin. Coozan Dudley LeBlanc: From Huey Long to Hadacol. Pelican Publishing Company, 1987.
^ Amenta, Edwin (2006). When Movements Matter: The Townsend Plan and the Raise of Social Security system. Princeton University Press. pp. octe. ISBN978-0691124735 . Retrieved October 18, 2022.
^ Larry Dewitt (December 2001). "Research Note #17: The Townsend Plan's Pension Scheme". Research Notes & Special Studies by the Historiographer's Office, Ethnic Security Administration . Retrieved October 18, 2022.
^ Schieber, Sylvester (2012). The Foreseeable Surprise: The Unraveling of the U.S. Retirement System. Empire State: Oxford University Press. p. 28. ISBN978-0199890958.
^ "Finance, Business, Economics: Huge Old-Years Reserve account Under Doughton Visor Gives Treasury Extensive New Financial Powers; Could Be Accustomed Control Credit Also". The Washington Post. April 25, 1935. p. 23. The social security handbill, in its present chassis, is thus non only a sweeping piece of legislation, but also a far-reaching financial assess. To get investments available for such too large military reserve funds, the Treasury wish have to keep as much of its debt as possible in short-dated maturities, sol that securities can be provided by the Old-Age Reserve Invoice. The existence of this huge reserve, furthermore, will perpetually encourage resort to venture in State Socialism.
^ Albright, Robert C. (June 15, 1935). "Surety Bill's Musical passage Held Likely Monday: Hastings and Long Attack Measure; Few Changes Are Anticipated". The American capital Post. p. 2. Senator Frederick Hale (Republican), Maine, assailed the [Social Security] placard apropos in the course of a speech in which he said Chairman Roosevelt is filling Washington with 'managed economy agencies.' He said if Mr. President Roosevelt is renominated next year it will be unnecessary for the Socialistic Party to put option up a campaigner.
^ "Where the Line is Drawn: From The Indianapolis News". The New York Multiplication. February 16, 1936. p. E8. At this stage it is certain that atomic number 102 group of either company is going to fight all the achievements of the New Whole lot. Its credit respite, social security and such unemployment succor devices as the Civilian Conservation Corps are non likely to become the target for rhetorical attack. But its State socialism plans and its anti-constitutional regimentation laws apparently will come in for an avalanche of enemy from groups of both parties.
^ Altman, Nancy J. (August 14, 2009), "President Barack Obama could learn from Franklin D. Roosevelt", Los Angeles Multiplication , retrieved 2012-01-01
^ Mink, Gwendolyn (1995). The Wages of Motherhood: Inequality in the Upbeat State, 1917–1942. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. p. 127.
^ Quadagno, Jill (1994). The Emblazon of Welfare: How Racism Undermined the War on Poorness. New York: Oxford University Press. p. 7.
^ ^a ^b Kessler-Harris, Alice, 2001. pp. 130-1.
^ Kessler-Harris, Alice, 2001. p. 146.
^ Kessler-Harris, Alice, 2001. p.157.
^ ^a ^b ^c Katznelson, Ira. When Welfare was White: The much history of racial inequality in twentieth hundred America. Refreshing York: W.W. Norton, 2005. pp. 43-8.
^ Larry DeWitt, "The Decision to Leave off Agricultural and Domestic Workers from the 1935 Social Protection Move." Social Security Bulletin (2010) 70#4 pp: 49-68. online
^ Richard Rodems and H. Luke Shaefer, "Left Out: Policy Diffusion and the Exclusion of Black Workers from Unemployment Insurance." Social Science Account 40.3 (2016): 385-404 quotation p 385
^ Rodems and Shaefer, "Left-of-center Out" p 401
^ ^a ^b ^c Mink coat, Gwendolyn. The Wages of Motherhood, 1995. pp. 126-130.
^ Mink, 1995, p. 142.
^ Mink 1995, p. 143.
^ Cohen, Wilbur J (1960). "Edwin E. Witte (1887-1960): Father of Social Security". Industrial and Labor Dealings Review. 14 (1): 7–9. doi:10.2307/2520349. JSTOR 2520349.
^ 1955 Amendments to the Railroad track Retirement Act; Notes and Concise Reports ssa.gov
^ "Social Security Online". Ssa.gov. Retrieved 2012-03-08 .
^ "Supremecourthistory.org". Archived from the original on October 6, 2008.
^ "Social Security Disposal". Ssa.gov. Retrieved 2011-09-11 .
^ "Shop steward Car Party vs. Davis, 301 U.S, 548". Archived from the original on November 28, 2005. Retrieved December 3, 2005.
^ ^a ^b "First Age Pension off Yields Church property Profit of 12 Cents". The Washington Mail. Associated Press. January 8, 1937. p. 9.
^ First Payments of Social Security, Social Security Administration.
^ ^a ^b ^c "Ida May Fuller, 100, of Vermont, Received First Social Surety Check: Classmate of Calvin Coolidge". The Washington Mail. January 31, 1975. p. C4.
^ Search Note #3: Details of Ida May Fuller's Payroll Assess Contributions, SSA.
^ Achenbaum, Andrew. Social Security Visions and Revisions, 1986. p. 124.
^ Kessler-Harris, Alice. In Pursuit of Equity, 2001. p. 156.
^ ^a ^b Achenbaum 1986. p. 130.
^ "p. 19" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on December 29, 2009.
^ Saletan, William (March 19, 2006). "Curse of the Young Old" – via www.washingtonpost.com.
^ Achenbaum 1986, p. 30
^ Achenbaum 1986, p. 33
^ Berstein, Merton and Joan (1988). Social Security: The System That Deeds. Empire State City: Basic Books. p. 10.
^ SSA.gov, budget treatment^{[ inanimate link ]}
^ Mink, Gwendolyn. The Wages of Motherhood, 1995. p. 134.
^ Achenbaum, Andrew. Social Security department Visions and Revisions. p. 30
^ Achenbaum 1986, pp. 27, 30.
^ Kessler-Harris, Alice. In Pursuit of Equity, 2001. p. 134.
^ Mink, Gwendolyn. The Wages of Maternity, 1995. pp. 135-6.
^ Kessler-Harris, Alice. In Pursuit of Equity, 2001. p. 141.
^ Mink, Gwendolyn. The Wages of Motherhood, 1995. p. 137.
^ Achenbaum, Andrew. Social Security Visions and Revisions, 1986. p. 34.
^ Kessler-Harris 2001. p. 150.
^ Kessler-Harris 2001, p. 161.
^ Kessler-Harris, Alice. In Pursuit of Equity, 2001. p. 161.
^ Achenbaum, Andrew. Social Security measur Visions and Revisions, 1986. p. 129.
^ "SSA.gov". SSA.gov. Retrieved 2011-09-11 .
^ ^a ^b Achenbaum 1986. p. 58
^ Achenbaum 1986, p. 67
^ Frum, David (2000). How We Got Here: The '70s. New York, Empire State: Basic Books. p. 324. ISBN978-0-465-04195-4.
^ Sylvester J. Schieber and John. B. Shoven, The Real Deal: the Account and Future of Social Security. (New Seaport and London: Yale University Press, 1999), p. 182.
^ Achenbaum, Andrew. Cultural Security measur Visions and Revisions, 1986. p. 68
^ Sylvester J. Schieber and John. B. Shoven, The Real Deal, 1999, p. 190.
^ "Report of the Political entity Commission on Social Security Reform". Retrieved March 15, 2008.
^ Achenbaum, Saint Andrew. Social Security Visions and Revisions, 1986. p. 87
^ "Chapter 2 of the 1983 Greenspan Commission on Social Security See the light". Retrieved March 17, 2006.
^ "Research Notes & Primary Studies by the Historian's Office". Retrieved March 17, 2006.
^ See 26 U.S.C. § 86.
^ Kessler-Harris, Alice. In Pursuit of Equity, 2001. p. 168.
^ Kessler-Harris, Alice. In Pursuit of Equity, 2001. p. 131.
^ "Social Security: Summary of John Major Changes in the Cash Benefits Course of study". Social Security Administration. Retrieved May 21, 2009.

Advance reading [edit]

Achenbaum, Andrew W. Social Surety: Visions and Revisions (1986).
Anglim, Christopher, and Brian Gratton. "Reorganised labor and old years pensions." International Journal of Aging and Human Development 25.2 (1987): 91-107.
Bethell, Thomas N. "President Franklin Roosevelt Redux." American Scholar 74.2 (2005): 18–31 online, a popular account.
Davies, Gareth, and Martha Derthick. "Race and social welfare policy: The Social Security Act of 1935." Political Science Quarterly 112.2 (1997): 217-235. online
DeWitt, Larry. "Financing Social Security, 1939-1949: a reexamination of the funding policies of this period." Social Security Bulletin 67 (2007): 51+ online.
DeWitt, Larry. "The decision to exclude agricultural and domestic workers from the 1935 Mixer Security Act." Social Security Bulletin 70 (2010): 49+ online.

Gordon, Linda. "Social insurance and public assistance: The mold of gender in welfare thought process in the United States, 1890-1935." American Historical Review 97.1 (1992): 19-54. online
Ikenberry, G. John. and Theda Skocpol, "Expanding social benefits: The role of social group security." Political Science Quarterly 102.3 (1987): 389-416. online

Jacobs, Alan M. "Policymaking as Political Constraint: Institutional Development in the U.S. Social Security Program," in St. James the Apostl Mahoney and Kathleen Thelen, eds. Explaining Institutional Variety: Ambiguity, Agency and Magnate (Cambridge University Press 2022).
Lubove, Roy. "Economic Security and Gregarious Run afoul in America: The Early Twentieth 100, Part I." Journal of Social Chronicle (1967): 61-87. online part 1 too online partially 2
Quadagno, Jill S. "Benefit capitalism and the Social Security Act of 1935." American Sociological Review (1984): 632-647. online

Skocpol, Theda, and Edwin Amenta. "Did capitalists mold Social Security?." American Sociological Review 50.4 (1985): 572-575. online
Zelizer, Julian Emmanuel. "'Where Is the Money Orgasm From?' 1. The Reconstruction Period of Social Security Finance, 1939–1950." Daybook of Policy History 9.4 (1997): 399-424.