A review of Social Security, in light of opposition to health care

ObamaCare is a subject of much discussion, especially in the halls of Congress and talk radio.

I propose to examine what the nation went through when the Social Security Act was signed by FDR on 8/14/35. The Social Security Act itself was much broader than just the program, which today we commonly describe as "Social Security." The original 1935 law contained the first national unemployment compensation program, aid to the states for various health and welfare programs, and the Aid to Dependent Children program.

Social Security was controversial when originally proposed, with one point of opposition being that it would allegedly cause a loss of jobs. However, proponents argued that there was in fact an advantage: it would encourage older workers to retire, thereby creating opportunities for younger people to find jobs, which would lower the unemployment rate. Opponents also decried the proposal as socialism.

Most women and minorities were excluded from the benefits of unemployment insurance and old age pensions. Employment definitions reflected typical white male categories and patterns. Job categories that were not covered by the act included workers in agricultural labor, domestic service, government employees, and many teachers, nurses, hospital employees, librarians, and social workers. The act also denied coverage to individuals who worked intermittently.

Women and minorities dominated these jobs. Women made up 90 percent of domestic labor in 1940 and two-thirds of all employed black women were in domestic service. Exclusions exempted nearly half of the working population. 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 employed were not covered by Social Security. Southern congressmen supported Social Security as a means to bring needed relief to areas in the South that were especially hurt by the Great Depression but wished to avoid legislation that might interfere with the racial status quo in the South. The solution to this dilemma was to pass a bill that both included exclusions and granted authority to the states rather than the national government.

These arguments seem to be a “legal” method of discriminating against anyone who is not a white male – very similar to what we see today from the members of the ultra right.

John W. Merrick

Newnan



More Opinion

Georgia Says

The Times, Gainesville, Georgia, on expressions of faith: On any given fall Friday night, you'd be hard-pressed to find a football field in ... Read More


Foley beheading is ‘growing up’ moment for social media

The beheading of American journalist James Foley – and the distribution of images showing that crime – have led to a moment of m ... Read More


Who is the real victim?

We will soon see a new phrase added to the urban dictionary – “looting tourism.” Over the last several days, Americans hav ... Read More


Rants, Raves & Really?!?

A look back at last week’s highs, lows and whatevers: RANT: Two people were killed in a single-engine plane crash near the Coweta and ... Read More


Georgia Says

The Augusta (Georgia) Chronicle on stronger borders: If America's border security is so weak to be breached by thousands of unaccompanied C ... Read More

Helping the homeless

Living in a big city, one of the more uncomfortable aspects of walking down a sidewalk is seeing the homeless begging for money. Many are po ... Read More