And I agree with James Madison about the constitutionality of such largesse, which robs from one group of Americans, or from posterity, to benefit another more favored group of Americans.
-- James Madison"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents."
Social Security is modeled after the basic outlines of a user fee paid system ~ but what should outrage you is the failure of the system to apply the same fee to all users. It doesn't.
At the time it was felt that only the federal government could run an annuity system of the scale required to provide universal "coverage'. That's not a constitutional argument of course, but a practicality argument. Today numerous private entities, and all the states, run far larger systems than the nascent Social Security system ~ through the magic application of COMPUTERS.
The practicality argument upon which Social Security is based is simply no longer relevant!
The Constitutionality is another issue which could take weeks to cover, but if it is looked at strictly as a utility ~ like sewers, water, 'roads', navigation aids, gub'mnt owned port facilities, etc. ~ it can pass muster. However, we don't need it. Fidelity can and does handle more traffic than the Social Security Administration ~ and so does the state of New York, California, Texas, and probably Illinois!
Unlike private sector annuities, there's no inheritance option. When you die Social Security doesn't hand over any surplus unspent to your heirs ~ unless they are themselves disabled, or a widow, they are just out of luck!
The fact that unspent fees are not expended on the payee is a Constitutional failing. If USPS did that ~ cut off delivering your mail just because you dropped dead in the lobby, we'd all agree they were nuts, but this happens every day in Social Security and no one seems to care.