The Social Security Administration is ending a major, controversial experiment that began in 2003 to determine whether retirement savings could be transferred to the next generation.
The agency, in its first years, had found that most Americans could expect to save an average of $8,500 in retirement and $7,500 for their children.
But as it expanded the program, it discovered that some Americans were being cheated, and in 2011 it closed the program altogether.
Now, only the elderly, people who are disabled and those who have been laid off would be eligible for benefits.
The Obama administration has been criticized for taking the opposite approach.
A recent report by the Government Accountability Office found that it had increased the number of people in the program by more than 40 percent.
In October, the Senate voted down an amendment that would have given some people the option to transfer their retirement savings to another person.
It passed the House but failed to clear a veto-proof Senate majority.
But some of the lawmakers who voted against it are worried that the retirement program will be gutted.
It’s not the first time the Social Security administration has gone after seniors.
In the 1980s, the agency was criticized for cutting back on benefits to people with severe disabilities, such as those with spinal stenosis or stroke.
Those people could still get Social Security benefits after 20 years, but the benefits would be capped at $75,000 for each year.
Last year, Congress passed legislation to expand the program to people over 65.
The House voted down the amendment, but it passed the Senate with bipartisan support.
But a bipartisan coalition of lawmakers who are opposed to cuts in Social Security has proposed a new measure to extend benefits to older Americans who are living in poverty and who have received Social Security disability payments.
This new proposal would not increase benefits but would extend them until they reached the cap of $1 million.
It would also require Social Security to pay more into the Social Protection Trust Fund, the money the government used to pay benefits for disabled people.
The idea is to make sure that those who would benefit most from this proposal are those who can afford to do so.
The bill has bipartisan support in the Senate and is being pushed by Sens.
Bill Nelson (D-Fla.) and Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), two of the wealthiest senators in the country.
But it has no chance of passage in the House, where Republicans hold a narrow 52-seat majority.
It’s a politically toxic issue in a country that is becoming more affluent.
President-elect Donald Trump has also been criticized by his party for not doing enough to protect the elderly and disabled from the cuts to Social Security.
Republicans have opposed proposals that would increase benefits for the elderly.
“Social Security is a vital part of our society, and we must ensure it remains solvent,” said Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), the ranking Republican on the Senate Budget Committee.
“We must ensure that it remains affordable for retirees to receive benefits for decades to come.
If we don’t do that, we risk losing the future generations of Americans to Social Services.”
The American Council on Aging has said the program has failed to keep pace with inflation and that its benefits should be increased.
The group has said that people who receive benefits today could lose them by the time they retire.
Many retirees say that, if they can’t save enough money, they have to rely on food stamps or the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP).
The elderly, especially in rural areas, rely on these programs for emergency aid.
And some have seen the decline in their benefits as they age, as the unemployment rate has dropped.
“People who are in poverty are going to have less money to spend, and the money they have is going to be less,” said Kristin P. Miller, a senior vice president at the National Association of Social Workers.