With the 2012 election on the horizon, Social Security is worming its way back into the headlines. While President Obama and the putative "Left" threaten to increase the Social Security shakedown tax, the so-called "Right" proposes cutting payments -- and even Medicare. Isn't this the "third -rail" of politics, as former President Ronald Reagan called it?

The situation differs slightly from the 2000 election, where Bush promised to save the program by offering a private alternative, while Gore vowed to clap it into a (presumably environmentally friendly, dolphin-safe) "lock box."

It's eerily similar though, in that Social Security was a non-issue then, and still is.
Yes, you read that correctly. Social Security is a non-issue. A distraction. Utter nonsense.
As it stands, no President can save the program, put it in a lock box, add it to the pile of corncobs and old Sears-Roebuck catalogs in his outhouse, or do much of anything else with it. If the reader is a little fuzzy on the functions and powers of our government's executive branch; I'd refer him/her to Article II of the Constitution

Executive authority (or lack thereof) aside, the Social Security Program is not what most Americans assume it is. In the broadest sense, it conforms to the bill of goods Roosevelt sold the public when he rammed the act through Congress in 1935. As the old adage goes, though: the devil is in the details.

This brings us to the role of the government's judicial branch, a.k.a. the Supreme Court. Yes, it's time to refer to the Constitution again. This time, the relevant portion is Article III.

Now that the reader is clear on the basic functions of the Supreme Court, I'll refer him/her to Marbury v. Madison

Although Marbury… was a landmark case in several respects, the most important in this context is that it established the Supreme Court's right to say what the law is. The decision effectively confirmed the court's implied right to interpret the Constitution.

Let that sink in for a moment.

By now, the reader is probably thoroughly confused, sick of American history, and wondering what any of this has to do with Social Security. As it happens, it has everything to do with Social Security. Read on.

The SSA was passed in 1935, ostensibly to fund a "safety net" for retirees, the unemployed, accident victims, mothers with dependent children, etc. In 1937, however the Supreme Court Ruled in Helvering v.Davis that Social Security taxes "are to be paid into the Treasury like internal-revenue taxes generally, and are not earmarked in any way."  So much for "lock boxes." The nation's highest court has long since ruled that Social Security funds are just so much slop in the federal trough. This is to say that the government is under no obligation to use Social Security taxes to finance the program. It can squander them in any way it sees fit.
Fast-forward to 1960. While the country dreamed of "New Frontiers," the Supreme Court was up to the same old tricks. In Flemming v. Nestorit ruled that there is no individual, legal right to Social Security.

Time for a recap. You have no right to receive Social Security payments, while the government is under no obligation to spend Social Security taxes on Social Security -- or anything else, for that matter. What this means is that until congress scraps, amends or rewrites the SSA, or until the aforementioned Supreme Court decisions are reversed, nothing will change. Social Security will still be a general purpose slush fund, and you'll still have no legal right to receive payments, no matter how long you've been paying into it.

So argue about the Patriot Act, if you must. Argue about the "war on terror." Argue about illegal aliens, outsourcing, H1-B visas, or anything relevant. But give Social Security a rest. At present, it's a non-issue. Just like always.