When Shakespeare wrote the words in his play “Hamlet,” “to be or not to be, that is the question,” he could not have anticipated the various interpretations these words would take on throughout history. To have or not to have Social Security, that is the question.President Trump denies plans to cut Social Security but can still influence administrative appointments more in line with his goals. DOGE adviser Elon Musk has proposed eliminating the Social Security Administration due to concerns about fraud and waste, yet to be proven. Sen. John R. Curtis of Utah supports major reforms to address potential fiscal issues with the system. These represent three different perspectives on how to handle the financial challenges facing Social Security.There is currently enough trust fund money to pay benefits to 70 million elderly citizens until year 2035. If Congress does not find a way to fund the program by then, Social Security benefits must be reduced significantly. That is still 10 years away. So why the cry from Musk and other Republicans to eliminate Social Security all together when it is so popular with the American people?  One solution to the fiscal concerns is that Social Security benefits, like Medicare and Medicaid, use substantial federal funds. Some Republicans have suggested that by cutting these programs and reallocating the funds for tax cuts could benefit lower, middle and upper socioeconomic groups. However, the wealthiest would benefit the most.Only Congress can change or eliminate Social Security. Republican lawmakers risk backlash if they suggest cuts, so adviser Elon Musk’s proposal for its elimination acts as a shield for Trump and others. House Republicans may consider reducing or eliminating Medicare and Medicaid to save on taxes and impact fewer people. Gradual benefit reductions are more acceptable than cutting Social Security completely, akin to a frog in a pot of water and not noticing the water temperature rising to boiling, then it’s too late.Another Republican proposal suggests maintaining the current structure, using existing trust fund money for eligible individuals but halting payroll taxes for younger workers and entrusting them with their future retirement planning. This would effectively end Social Security, contrary to the original 1935 act’s goal of ensuring sufficient retirement savings.Lastly, one in seven Utah residents receive Social Security benefits, adding over $8.6 billion annually to the state’s economy. Reducing these benefits would harm both the state and its most vulnerable citizens. We have come so far as a nation for a better way of life. To reverse course is unconscionable. So tell your congressman not to cut Social Security benefits!John WhiteMidwayThe post Social Security at risk appeared first on Park Record. ...read more read less