Personally, I’m not keen on the concept. To secure is to tie up or lock down. Which is probably why conservatives opt for the latter. Securing the nation is a more amorphous agenda and even less likely to be achieved. Besides, the promise of the Social Security program was never about the recipients, but about the money the working population was persuaded to relinquish for others, less able to provide for themselves, to play with. Not to mention that the age at which payouts were to commence was such that most workers would not live long enough to collect.
Of course, while the intent often doesn’t match up with the facts and nothing should be evaluated based on the intent, good or bad, that a pension for seniors keeps the currency moving is a good thing, especially in the context of people trying to hoard it. Squirreling needs to be countered; money need to be spent, if trade and exchange is to be sustained over distance and time. The economy of the single household is simply too constricting and inefficient, if only because talents are unevenly distributed. Never mind the people who can’t do anything for themselves.