The Adherence of National Security to Civil Liberties

Throughout the topics of study in this course I found the following subjects the most compelling. We have studied the federal court system and judicial review, American civil liberties, and American public policy. Within the study of public policy, domestic and foreign policy are by far the most important concepts of Political Science in this authors opinion. These are the concepts from this course this author enjoyed the most. Specifically, American public policy needs to adhere to civil liberties with the court system upholding this balance through judicial review ensuring the system continues to serve the people.

The federal courts' utmost power is judicial review, the authority to interpret the Constitution. When federal judges rule that laws violate the context of the Constitution, they form public policy. “The text of the Constitution does not contain a specific provision for the power of judicial review” (Judicial review, 2019), instead, it was determined at the ruling of Marbury v. Madison that the power to proclaim laws unconstitutional is a latent power.

American civil liberties are rights in which a person receives just for being a citizen. The rights cannot be taken away by other individuals or the government, thus they are inalienable. The Declaration of Independence defines these as life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. “Protected civil liberties include the right to due process, equal protection, and a prohibition against any state law that supersedes federal law” (Civil Liberties, 2016).

Public policy is made by the democratic system in the United States and involves interest groups competing to convince policy makers to set public policies in favor of the greater good and wellbeing of the citizens. In some cases pushing for policy that lean in that interest groups favor. Public policy is “defined as a system of laws, regulatory measures, courses of action, and funding priorities concerning given topic promulgated by a government entity or its representatives” (Kilpatrick, 2019). Public policy may include regulating taxes, social security, among many other policies voted upon.

“During the George W. Bush administration, Social Security became a highly politicized topic as the Republican Party sought to find a way of preventing what experts predicted would be the impending collapse of the Social Security system” (Davis, p.602, 2019). Social security is a public policy that currently faces age inequity, severe investment and solvency problems. The program taxes yield insufficient funds to pay dividends that have been promised to future beneficiaries. Government forecasters have examined the social security asset reserves and predict that under the current program mandate depletion will occur within the next 75 years. One approach believed to benefit future beneficiaries is the increase in early eligibility age, however it is not strongly favored by voters. The average age of employed people currently looking to retire is nearing the age of 62 years old. “While the average retirement age is 62, most people can’t collect Social Security until age 66. And if you were born after 1970, you have to wait until you’re 67” (Chris Hogan, 2019).

When policymakers urge us to elevate the retirement age, they're proposing to extend the overall retirement age past 65 years of age. Later retirement may protect future funds; however, it also cuts the month-to-month retirement stipends with equal percentage for every worker as “the amount of money a worker receives is based loosely on his or her lifetime earnings” (Davis, p.602, 2018). This type of policy might appear straightforward if people in future generations enjoy a longer life expectancy. New research indicates that positive factors in life expectancy were very unequal, with the largest probability amongst folks who earn top incomes already. Lifestyles expectancy for workers with the bottom incomes were small or negligible in terms of gains. While life spans have increased historically it is possible more people will have the ability to work past the age of 65 years old. While there are people who work into their mid 60’s this has become not only less desirable but may in fact be something many Americans are incapable of doing.

Today workers can count on working longer than today’s retirees, although there may not be any social security compensation. Considering that Americans are living longer, their lifetime advantages will fall short of this resource unless policy is adjusted. The government is already elevating the retirement age. This cannot be the only thing adjusted, currently due to wage cap coverage that cuts the lifetime stipend of future low-salary employees by using a higher proportion than it does of future higher-wage employees. The fact that low-wage employees have considered small or negligible fine components in lifestyles expectancy indicators that their health whilst they're past 60 isn't any higher than that of low-wage personnel born 20 or 30 years in the past. This suggests their capability to work preceding 60 is not any better than it was for past generations. A smart insurance for cutting future benefits ought to therefore preserve cutting-edge-day benefit degrees for employees who have contributed to social security for many years however have earned low wages.

“Social Security was conceived as a solution to several problems inherent to the Industrial Era economy” (Davis, p.601, 2019). Today social security provides essential living income to approximately 62 million people, some 30 percent are other than retirees. The robustness of such a program needs to be revisited not only at the funding level, but also at the use level. Pulling back social security to its roots will help the program survive as it was intended. The funds being administered to people who never paid in can fall under new programs and funds sanctioned explicitly for those purposes with the proper oversight. Another adjustment to consider is raising the income level ceiling for tax withholding to help fund the future. Companies largely no longer provide retirement benefits. Social security can be up to or more than 50 percent of middle to low wage earners retirement income.

The future of social security is a burning political and fiscal issue for America. The program needs to endure as so many elderlies have the ability to be dependent on the funds. It is this authors opinion that raising age limits and lowering cost of living increase are merely band aids to a wound that’s infection is growing faster than the cure. If policy makers are to be successful in the future major focus and concern for social security need to be atop their list. This author is young and sees how the elderly, some are close family, are living in these tough economic times. Zero retirement and health benefits from employers is now the norm with alternatives to retirement welfare vanishing with every generation.