I believe she is misinterpreting what Walter Williams said and meant. He was making a point that there would be no hold up in the Social Security checks because the democtats keep saying we have over $1T dollars in the trust fun so we should use that money. (Of course, we all know there is nothing but a bunch of IOUs in there and the democrats are playing a shell game.) He has always been in favor of revising SS for those younger than a certain age such as 45. Nothing would change for those currently on SS and those who are "close" to becoming eligible for SS. Yes, the letter writer as well as myself, paid into SS and are drawing benefits and some call it an entitlement; but, as we know words in DC have some scewed up meanings and entitlements is one such word and Mr Williams indicated as much in his column. As to the term "handout" which the letter writer is so agitated about he was referring to all the dispersments coming from DC and not SS per se. He meant that no matter what anyone tried to reform there would be those against it. To me, Walter E. Williams and Thomas Sowell along with the late Milton Friedman are the greatest economists in the history of the US. When one reads what he writes one has to understand he is writing as an economist. If I thought he was calling SS a handout, I too would be upset, yet that is not his intent and never has been in any of his writing.

what one means as ''entitlement". If one means getting something for nothing and not being deserved that is a poor definition and unfortunately that is what some in DC wants everything to be. On the other hand, if one means that an ''entitlement'' is something that one has earned by putting in contributions then that is something else. Websters has the definition of "to furnish with proper grounds for seeking or claiming something." I think using that as a definition SS is an entitlement in that it is something for which we have proper grounds; i.e, our evidence of our contribution for receiving it. I don't think welfare, free cell phones, WIC programs, food stamps, and the like would qualify as entitlements nor do I think Mr Williams is putting SS in that same category. I agree that the term "entitlement" has come to mean to many of us something that people get because they think they deserve it simply because of their circumstances or simply for being on this earth and gracing us with their presence. My whole point in all of this is to try to correct what I think is a false impression of Mr Williams' comments...not that Viola is not "entitled" to her SS or that she is getting a handout. Nothing could be further from the truth.

have no legal claim to money they pay into Social Security"

It's my understanding that the court ruling simply meant that even though IT IS YOUR MONEY, you can't demand that what you paid into the system be summarily handed back to you on demand. That's a far cry from saying it's not your money.

Still, Social Security has been corrupted into a government run ponzi scheme. Not a doubt about that.

Generally speaking, the Democrats consider Social Security to be a government handout or benefit. And by the same token, most Republicans are of the opinion that it's your money to begin with.

Dems often complain that some people get more out of the system than they put in. That's true, but many people die before drawing anything from the system. Don't hear any complaints from liberals about that.

Those folks who do die befoe drawing benefits lose it all. Their estate or survivors get zilch.

A couple of points If you are a minor and have never contributed to social security you can qualify for disability based on YOUR PARENTS SS qualifications! Children also qualify for benefits based on parents history. Benefits are based on length of time what you contributed. Now you do not leave your social security benefits to your estate. You do not have a "right "to social security benefits. Social security, in my mind, is a quasi entitlement!

Miss Viola, I understand your concern and feel your pain. Congrats on the letter and the courage to speak out about the scam that has been perpetrated against hard working, tax paying, Americans of all ages. We could have invested our own money and been much better off for it.

"and over 3/4 of that 47% are fixed-income seniors, i.e. Social Security recipients."

In the 1960 Supreme Court decision, the plaintiff's denial of benefits was upheld even though he had contributed to the program for 19 years and was already receiving benefits. The individual appealed the termination of his benefits, arguing, among other claims, that promised Social Security benefits were a contract and that Congress could not renege on that contract. In its ruling, the Court rejected this argument and established the principle that entitlement to Social Security benefits is not a contractual right.

Verbatim from the Supreme Court ruling:
"BUT EACH WORKER'S BENEFITS, THOUGH FLOWING FROM THE CONTRIBUTIONS HE MADE TO THE NATIONAL ECONOMY WHILE ACTIVELY EMPLOYED, ARE NOT DEPENDENT ON THE DEGREE TO WHICH HE WAS CALLED UPON TO SUPPORT THE SYSTEM BY TAXATION. IT IS APPARENT THAT THE NONCONTRACTUAL INTEREST OF AN EMPLOYEE COVERED BY THE ACT CANNOT BE SOUNDLY ANALOGIZED TO THAT OF THE HOLDER OF AN ANNUITY, WHOSE RIGHT TO BENEFITS IS BOTTOMED ON HIS CONTRACTUAL PREMIUM PAYMENTS.

WE MUST CONCLUDE THAT A PERSON COVERED BY THE ACT HAS NOT SUCH A RIGHT IN BENEFIT PAYMENTS AS WOULD MAKE EVERY DEFEASANCE OF "ACCRUED" INTERESTS VIOLATIVE OF THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FIFTH AMENDMENT."