The latest Newsweek column from Robert J. Samuelson challenges popular ? and dangerous ? notions about Social Security:

In a recent column on the senior-citizen lobby, I noted that Social Security is often ?middle-class welfare? that bleeds the country. This offended many readers. In an email, one snarled: ?Social Security is not adding one penny to our national debt, you idiot.? Others were more dignified: ?Let?s refrain from insulting individuals who have worked all their lives ? by insinuating that [their] earned benefits are welfare.? Some argued that Social Security, with a $2.6 trillion trust fund, doesn?t contribute to our budgetary problem at all.

Wrong. As a rule, I don?t use one column to comment on another. But I?m making an exception because the issue is so important. Recall that Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, the main programs for the elderly, exceed 40 percent of federal spending. Exempting them from cuts?as polls indicate many Americans prefer?would ordain huge deficits, steep tax increases, or draconian reductions in other programs. That?s a disastrous formula for the future.

We don?t call Social Security ?welfare? because it?s a pejorative term and politicians don?t want to offend. So they classify Social Security as something else, when it isn?t. Here?s how I define a welfare program: first, it taxes one group to support another group, meaning it?s pay-as-you-go and not a contributory scheme where people?s own savings pay their later benefits; and second, Congress can constantly alter benefits, reflecting changing needs, economic conditions, and politics. Social Security qualifies on both counts.