Well, if we are now on the subject of unconstitutional...just where the heck do I start?
I still maintain that social security could/could have been a valid system, had the money been set aside/invested properly even in the safest investment. The recipients now, might not have been able to withdraw 7 times their input, but there would have been real money available to pay them, rather than the large sucking hole that is presently called the social security system.
On top of this, there would be real numbers, available and matched to the census, that would accurately predict, based on the latest acturial data, the health of the program, rather than the inacurate guessing game that is now meant to polarize the oldsters against the youngsters. As one who is still working, and eligible for the social security, but not yet taking from it, I am interested in having a system that works through good times and bad.
One system that used to get mentioned quite a bit, as the epitome of social secuity systems, was the one in Chile, but of late I haven't heard much. There is one large negative when speaking of the amounts of money we are speaking of. If I say the words "union pension funds" it should be clear what the problem is. Even congress couldn't resist the piles of ready cash, and engaged in pension fund raiding. The controls from beginning to end have got to be as strict if not stricter than those on the control of Muclear weapons during the cold war.
Mucular? Muckular? That is what I get for not proof reading.
Of course the word is nookuler. To quote a well known gentleman from the great state of Texas.