YOUR SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER SHOULD MEAN SOMETHING BEFORE YOU TURN SIXTY-FIVE.

JUSTICE · SOCIAL JUSTICE

Published by Langhorne P. Breedlove

MONDAY, NOVEMBER 9, 2026 · 12:38 AM ET

Tags: Social Justice · Social Security · Children · Disability · Retirement · Income Security

Dear fellow American proletariat: Americans receive a Social Security number practically before they can hold up their own heads. Then we spend decades trying to convince the country that economic security is something we ought to enjoy only after our knees have filed for retirement. Remarkable administrative efficiency: the government can identify a newborn, but it cannot always tell you how that child is supposed to eat.

Social Security already protects millions of children, disabled workers, survivors, and retirees. It is not merely a retirement check, and pretending otherwise erases people the program serves today. Our question is what it would take to make the principle of economic security reliable across an entire American life, without sacrificing the protections people have earned or promising financing that does not exist (Sources 01, 02).

THE MANDATE

American Proletariat proposes developing a broader Social Security framework that delivers predictable income security from childhood through disability, caregiving, survivorship, and retirement. It would protect current earned benefits, examine new child and caregiver supports, strengthen disability access, improve older Americans' economic security, and identify duplicative cash-assistance administration that might be consolidated without extinguishing essential services.

The program's architecture is a proposal, not a claim that every American already qualifies for an unconditional monthly check. Eligibility, benefit amounts, treatment of nonworkers and mixed-status households, interactions with work and taxes, financing, and safeguards for people who depend on existing programs must be drafted and publicly costed.

AP also proposes studying the removal of the annual ceiling on earnings subject to Social Security payroll tax. That change belongs in a solvency model together with benefit formulas, employer effects, investment and retirement behavior, administration, and the new benefits being proposed. Raising revenue and expanding obligations in the same breath is not a balanced plan. It is two lines of legislation awaiting arithmetic.

ROOTS · SOCIAL SECURITY WAS NEVER FINISHED IN 1935

President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed the Social Security Act on August 14, 1935. The original old-age insurance program centered on retired workers, but the broader statute also established federal-state unemployment and public-assistance arrangements. Congress expanded old-age insurance in 1939 to provide benefits for eligible dependents and survivors. Disability benefits arrived through amendments beginning in 1956 (Source 01).

Those changes tell an important story. Social Security became a family-protection program because losing a wage earner, developing a disability, and becoming old are different ways a household can lose income. Congress did not regard the 1935 design as a sacred completed manuscript; lawmakers amended it when the shortcomings became evident (Source 01).

Children today can qualify for Social Security benefits when a parent retires, becomes disabled, or dies, subject to family and age rules. In general, eligible unmarried children are younger than eighteen, are eighteen or nineteen while attending elementary or secondary school full time, or have a qualifying disability that began before age twenty-two. These rules are not a universal child allowance (Source 02).

WHAT EXISTING SOCIAL SECURITY ACTUALLY DOES

The Social Security Administration's June 30, 2026 program fact sheet reports approximately 71.3 million people receiving Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance benefits. Included were roughly 3.7 million children, with about 2.4 million younger than eighteen and about 1.2 million disabled adult children. Those are existing beneficiaries, not an estimate of all children who would qualify under AP's proposed expansion (Source 03).

The same snapshot reported an average retired-worker benefit of about $2,084 per month. An average is not a guaranteed floor; actual payments depend on a person's covered earnings and benefit rules. Social Security is meaningful income insurance, but a single number cannot describe every older American's rent, medications, family obligations, or regional cost of living (Source 03).

Supplemental Security Income is another important distinction. SSI is administered by SSA but funded from general federal revenues rather than Social Security payroll taxes. It provides means-tested support to eligible older people and people with disabilities, including some children. Reorganization must not confuse its funding with the OASDI trust funds or assume that eliminating a program name eliminates the needs it serves (Source 04).

CHILDHOOD IS NOT A FINANCIAL ERROR

Our first design question is what guaranteed baseline of child security should exist independent of whether a parent has accumulated sufficient covered work credits. Options could include a direct child benefit, caregiver assistance, targeted payments for families with high needs, or combinations designed alongside public childcare, healthcare, and education. The amount, eligible child ages, household treatment, and enforcement against exploitation would require legislative decisions.

The purpose is not to make children responsible for obtaining a job to finance their own existence. It is to acknowledge that raising children consumes resources and that child poverty, deprivation, and unstable family income impose consequences far beyond one family's balance sheet.

Payments intended for children must be designed with protections for foster children, children with disabilities, guardianship changes, family violence, institutional placements and guardians who misuse resources. A publicly financed child benefit should improve a child's actual life; it must not become an untraceable deposit that disappears in an adult's account.

DISABILITY IS NOT AN EARLY RETIREMENT APPLICATION

Disability insurance must recognize that some people will never work in conventional employment, some will experience disabilities after decades of work, and some can work intermittently with accommodations. These groups have different eligibility histories and needs. An AP expansion must carefully distinguish work-based disability insurance from needs-based supports, accessible healthcare, personal assistance, housing and employment services.

We would examine how application evidence, appeals, benefit interruptions, earnings thresholds and disability reviews affect people with fluctuating or permanent conditions. Work incentives should permit appropriate employment without imposing sudden benefit cliffs or requiring people to jeopardize medical treatment to prove they can earn.

Caregiving also matters. Parents raising children, family members providing disability support, and people caring for aging relatives perform work that markets and pension formulas do not always recognize adequately. Caregiver credits, leave benefits and portable income protection should be costed alongside other public services, not announced as though caregivers already receive a paycheck for their time.

THE RETIREMENT PROMISE REQUIRES REPAIR

The 2026 Social Security Trustees projected that the Old-Age and Survivors Insurance trust fund's reserves would be depleted in the fourth quarter of 2032 under their intermediate assumptions. Dedicated income continuing at that point would cover approximately 78% of scheduled OASI benefits absent legislation. If the two legally distinct OASI and Disability Insurance trust funds were hypothetically combined, reserves were projected to last until 2034, when continuing income could cover about 83% of scheduled combined benefits (Source 05).

Those are projections, not an announcement that checks stop in 2032. They also make a crucial point: the existing program has financing commitments that must be honored while we debate expansion. It would be irresponsible to promise new benefits without a plan for current beneficiaries who already built their lives around payments established by law.

AP would examine ways to protect existing benefits, address poverty in retirement, modernize survivor protection, and improve support for people whose labor histories include unpaid caregiving, precarious work or long stretches outside covered employment. These options involve tradeoffs among benefit adequacy, program fairness, the incentives to work and save, and long-run solvency. We will publish the tradeoffs.

REMOVE THE CAP? SHOW WHAT IT WOULD DO.

In 2026 the Social Security payroll tax applies to covered wages only up to $184,500. The employee and employer each generally pay 6.2% Social Security tax on covered wages up to that ceiling. Medicare payroll tax is distinct and does not have the same wage cap. AP's proposal to remove the OASDI cap is therefore a specific change to payroll taxation—not the same proposal as eliminating federal individual income tax on the first $80,000 (Sources 06, 07).

Removing the cap could bring additional high earnings into the contribution base. But the analysis must specify whether those newly taxed earnings also increase eventual benefits, whether benefits are limited or credited differently, how self-employment is treated, how employers adjust compensation, and what anti-avoidance measures are permissible. Different designs yield different revenue and fairness outcomes.

The proposal to tax high earnings cannot be presented as a magic fountain sufficient to finance every new child benefit, disability payment, pension expansion and existing trust-fund deficit. Separate trust-fund and general-revenue accounting is necessary, and independent actuaries must assess both the next decade and the longer horizon.

ONE FRONT DOOR. NOT ONE SIZE FITS ALL.

There may be sensible opportunities to simplify overlapping cash-benefit applications, income verification, eligibility notices, appeals and payment administration. A family should not have to explain the same crisis to six agencies with six incompatible forms. AP proposes testing a coordinated public-service gateway, with clear responsibilities and protected access for people unable to use digital systems.

Consolidation is not automatically cheaper. Moving a disability service, childcare subsidy, nutrition benefit or medical program into the Social Security umbrella can create transition costs, change eligibility, interrupt service, or reduce specialized expertise. Some programs are in-kind services, not cash transfers, and cannot responsibly be merged into a monthly benefit as though a dollar deposit builds a wheelchair ramp.

For every proposed merger, identify the existing legal right, affected population, service provider, funding source, protections, current administrative cost, replacement administrative cost and transition risks. No person's benefit disappears merely because a consultant promises efficiency. The same public ledger should show whether a simplification actually saved money or merely renamed the office.

THE LEGAL PATH

Congress would have to amend the Social Security Act and relevant provisions of federal tax law to create a new universal or expanded child benefit, change disability or survivor eligibility, authorize caregiver credits, alter payroll-tax rules, and establish any consolidation. Treasury, SSA and other agencies would need detailed regulations, systems changes, appropriations and data safeguards.

We propose stages: first, strengthen service delivery and protect current recipients; second, commission independent actuarial and fiscal options for solvency and a child-to-retirement framework; third, test targeted expansions with explicit eligibility and appeal rights; fourth, scale legislated benefits only with funded transition and demonstrated administrative capacity.

Civil-rights protections, privacy, appeals, Tribal and territorial considerations, accessibility and procedural fairness belong in the statute from the beginning. A person should not lose a survivor benefit because two databases disagree about whether an old address is still current.

THE TEN-YEAR LEDGER

The fiscal account must separate: existing OASI and DI obligations; proposed child benefits; expanded disability and survivor supports; any caregiver credits; retirement-floor proposals; payroll-tax receipts after cap changes; administrative costs; state and local effects; and any verified savings from consolidation. The same program cannot be counted as both a new expense and a fully offsetting saving.

For scale, Social Security's 2025 operations involved approximately $1.449 trillion in program income and $1.609 trillion in costs, including about $1.597 trillion in benefits and $7 billion in administration. Those figures are reported for the existing OASDI program. They are not a budget estimate for AP's proposed expansion (Source 08).

Even a modest new monthly payment becomes large when multiplied by millions of eligible recipients. To evaluate it honestly we need beneficiary counts by age and eligibility, proposed monthly amounts, interactions with current benefits and taxes, indexing rules, take-up estimates, administration and appeals, and effects on work and family behavior.

The fiscal model must extend beyond ten years for solvency analysis. Social insurance makes promises lasting generations; a program balanced in year ten but insolvent in year eleven fails the basic test. The model should publish low, central and high scenarios and preserve a clear distinction between dedicated trust-fund financing and general-revenue expenditures.

WHAT COULD GO WRONG?

An expansion can create new financial obligations without dependable revenue. Poorly designed consolidation can deny services or create benefit cliffs. Additional payroll taxes may change wages, hiring or compensation, and can raise concerns about the link between contributions and benefits. A rigid universal benefit may send substantial funding to households that do not need it while leaving specialized disability and care costs inadequately covered.

Those are genuine design questions, not excuses to declare that childhood, disability and old age are private hobbies. A responsible debate should compare universal and income-tested approaches, the treatment of household income, the value of stable benefits, administrative simplicity, work incentives and the protection of people with the greatest needs.

A system built around one administrator could also centralize errors and create dangerous single points of failure. We would require independent audits, accessible human assistance, corrections, data security and an effective appeal process. The government should not be allowed to simplify six confusing letters into one beautifully designed denial.

MEASURING SUCCESS

Publish annual child poverty and material-hardship measures, disability-benefit access, application and appeal times, erroneous denials, payment interruptions, retirement income adequacy, beneficiary satisfaction, benefit take-up, administrative cost, contribution patterns and ten- and seventy-five-year actuarial results. Outcomes must be disaggregated as appropriate without compromising household privacy.

Compare what the program promised with what people actually received. Did children have more stable homes? Did disabled people gain dependable support? Did caregivers avoid losing all retirement credit for years spent keeping families alive? Did older Americans preserve the benefits they were promised? Did the trust funds become more sustainable?

The answer cannot be another century of asking Americans to justify why they need security at the beginning, middle and end of being alive.

Your Social Security number should identify a promise we intend to keep—not merely a bill waiting for your first paycheck.

SOURCES & FURTHER READING

01 · Social Security Administration — Social Security History: Frequently Asked Questions (1935, 1939 and 1956 expansions). https://www.ssa.gov/history/hfaq.html

02 · Social Security Administration — Can Children and Students Get Social Security Benefits? https://www.ssa.gov/faqs/en/questions/KA-02053.html

03 · Social Security Administration, Office of the Chief Actuary — Fact Sheet on OASDI, June 30, 2026. https://www.ssa.gov/OACT/FACTS/

04 · Social Security Administration — Supplemental Security Income (SSI), Publication 05-11002. https://www.ssa.gov/pubs/EN-05-11002.pdf

05 · Social Security Administration — Summary of the 2026 OASDI Trustees Reports. https://www.ssa.gov/OACT/TRSUM/

06 · Social Security Administration — Maximum Earnings Subject to Social Security Tax, 2026. https://www.ssa.gov/faqs/en/questions/KA-02387.html

07 · Internal Revenue Service — Topic 751: Social Security and Medicare Withholding Rates. https://www.irs.gov/taxtopics/tc751

08 · Social Security Administration — 2026 Trustees Report: 2025 Financial Operations. https://www.ssa.gov/OACT/tr/2026/II_B_cyoper.html

10 RECOMMENDED ARTICLES, ESSAYS & POLICIES

→ Explore Social Security:  Children, Seniors, Disabled

→ Explore Cost Savings When Consolidating Social Programs Into Social Security

→ Explore Maternity, Childcare & Caregiving

→ Explore Redesign the Faces of American Currency

→ Explore Global Ocean Restoration

→ Explore New Dealers

→ Explore Libertarians

→ Explore Reformers, Abolitionists & Civil Rights

→ Explore Outlaws, Pirates & Folklore

→ Explore Safe, Dignified Public Housing

WE ARE ONE.  ·  E PLURIBUS UNUM.