I respectfully disagree for two reasons.
1) Think about how much us FReepers rightly fuss that our govt can't keep running up a bunch of debt. Eventually it'll have to be paid back. That means that the treasuries have real value (the treasury / IOU's have to be paid or the country is no more). I'm not saying $1K in treasuries is as valuable as $1K in gold. I'm just saying that it's a stretch to talk like treasuries are just worthless paper. Also to say that the SS fund's purchase of treasury debt "has not been replaced" is simply not true. The U.S. Treasury Dept. has made regular debt payments to all treasury holders, including making payments to the SS fund. Just like my two treasury mutual funds grow from dividends, the SS fund slowly gets back dividends for owning treasuries more than it paid for the treasuries. My mutual fund balances are 1.5 times the money I put into them (when I rebalanced 7 years ago to prepare for an eventual retirement and shifted a quarter of my growth portfolio to bonds/treasuries/money market funds). I'm not saying owning treasuries grows as fast as a simple S&P 500 index fund (I was amen'ing Bush when he tried to allow us put just a portion of our SS contributions into investments). I'm simply saying that treasuries have value well above zero and the SS fund has benefited from being able to invest in something (I just wish they were allowed to invest in more than just treasuries).
2) As far as "Social Security would not be in trouble", yes it would be. The bottom line is that the payouts promised for SS checks is larger than the incoming receipts to SS plus investment growth (investing in treasuries). In other words, it's the Ponzi scheme property of SS that makes it insolvent, not the underlying savings account medium of the trust fund investment (cash vs treasuries).
Don't get me wrong. I hate the SS Ponzi scheme. I wish we were allowed to keep what we put into SS and invest it on our own and retire based on our rules, not the rules of lying, broke, corrupt govt. (For the record, I still plan to be fully retired in my late 50's.) I'm just saying us FReepers especially should make sure we get the details right when we fuss about govt incompetence and fraud.
From Search Assist:
Key Supreme Court Cases
Helvering v. Davis (1937)
The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the Social Security Act, affirming Congress’s power to tax for the general welfare. This case established that the government could use tax revenues to fund social programs.
Flemming v. Nestor (1960)
This ruling clarified that Social Security benefits are not contractual rights. The Court determined that Congress retains the authority to amend benefits, meaning funds can be redirected or adjusted without violating due process.
Implications of the Rulings
The rulings confirm that the government can allocate Social Security funds to the general budget, as long as it adheres to constitutional guidelines.
The trust fund is often viewed as a political construct rather than a true financial asset, as it primarily consists of IOUs from the Treasury rather than actual cash reserves.
These decisions underscore the flexibility Congress has in managing Social Security funds, impacting how benefits are funded and distributed.