in 1983. Congress and President Reagan tweaked the numbers to assure the program remained solvent. However, it was much easier then because the ratio of workers putting money into the program to beneficiaries Morris 8was much larger than it will ever be again. The only way to bail out Social Security like 1983 would have to entail an expansion of immigration four-fold, or about 2.5 million new workers from abroad each year for about forty years. Each of the new 100 million immigrants would have to find jobs and living quarters, a nearly impossible feat even for the best economy in the world. To put this in perspective, the U.S. would have to attract double the amount of immigrants it took in at the beginning of the twentieth century (Garrett: 150-155). Obviously this type of population explosion is doubtful. Unless something is done to revamp the system, FICA and Medicare taxes, if unchanged, will have to be more than doubled to an average level of 28% to endure the influx of beneficiaries or benefits will have to be cut in half. Such an increase in taxes, on top of the other payroll taxes, will cause the average American worker to lose nearly 60% of their wages in taxes. This will surely stunt growth and cause a severe negative impact on the economy (Garrett: 155).Once Americans learn the truth about Social Security, the setting for change will have been set. However, Congress must also have to be strategically oriented to induce change. This is where reform will hit a brick wall. The reason so many years have gone by without reform is because of the political weight Social Security carries. Voter turnout is one reason Social Security has not been touched. With reelection the top priority for most Congressmen, they realize that 72% of citizens age 65-74 votes, compared to only 36% of 18-24 year olds who vote. This number alone acts as a Morris 9deterrent to reforming Social Security. No Congressman will fight to change ...
