Is social security really secure?

As the debt ceiling negotiations continue on Capitol Hill, one segment of the U.S. population is becoming increasingly nervous with each passing day. Approximately nine million Americans age 65 and over rely on social security checks as their main source of income each month. If the United States government defaults on its loans, the president has said that there may not be enough money in the coffers to send out next month's checks. If this were to occur, it could be devastating to those who depend on social security. When an individual reaches the age of 65, they shouldn't have to worry about where their income is going to come from. At the least, a guaranteed check from the government in the form of social security should be their reward for a lifetime of hard work. That guarantee is in real jeopardy if a deal does not get done in Washington. A number of proposals have been considered to ensure that social security is around for future generations. Some in Washington are suggesting that the retirement age should be increased from 65 to 69. Other politicians have called for the privatization of social security to ensure its survival. None of this will matter if our elected officials don't come up with a compromise on the deficit and debt. Some have suggested that President Obama is trying to scare seniors by claiming that their August checks may not go out. Critics of the president say there is enough money to fund social security for the next several years. I'm sorry, but I just don't buy it. As a country, we owe it to the elderly, senior citizens, and social security beneficiaries (such as single mothers) to make sure that they are taken care of. With the threat of cuts to social security looming large, perhaps those in Washington should consider the words of Mahatma Ghandi who famously said, "a nation's greatness is measured by how it treats its weakest members."