More than 65 years after it was created, Social Security is still a fundamental part of governmental services, but depending on it too heavily is a common problem.

"Social Security, from its inception in 1937, was never intended to replace more than one-third or about 35 percent of your income," said Bette L. Backus, Social Security district manager in Ironton. "People do tend to think it will pay for everything and that they will be able to live off of it."

Statistics from the Social Security Administration show that 20 percent of Americans over the the age of 65 are living solely on their Social Security benefits check. For one-third of the country's seniors, these checks represent more than 90 percent of their income.

Currently, 7.65 of a worker's income is withheld for Social Security, with the employer matching this amount. Approximately 3 percent of this is used to fund the Medicare program.

But these funds should not be relied upon. Now is the time that people need to learn the facts and save for their future, Backus said.

For years the federal government has ran public relations campaigns encouraging people to look at Social Security

as one leg of a three-legged stool with private investments and pensions filling out the rest, Backus said.

According to a recent survey, 68 percent of American workers have never tried to calculate how much money is needed to provide a comfortable retirement. Of those who have, nearly half have had to make changes in their retirement planning as a result.

Although she does not have any concrete statistics, Backus said her best guess would be that even more than 68 percent of people in Lawrence County have not thought about the future.

"People do not understand how much money is needed," she said. "Quite often they are very disappointed with what they receive."

Because many people underestimate what is needed, some seniors end up having to re-enter the workplace after they have retired.

"You see a lot of people go into retirement and then 10 years later they have to go out and get a job at Wal-Mart or somewhere," she said.

Eighty six-year-old Willis Manford of Coal Grove has been retired for 21 years. Although he receives a decent amount of Social Security, if it was not for his pension he said he would be in trouble.

"I would not be able to stay in my own home. I would not even try it," he said. "I would have to go to one of the high rises."

Helen Howland, 86, of Ironton, agreed that it would be nearly impossible to live on Social Security alone. From talking with other seniors, the retired school teacher said she believes that many seniors struggle financially with retirement.

"The cost of living just keeps going up and up," she said.

Some pessimists question whether or not Social Security will even still be available by the time future generations need it. However, Backus said she believes that somehow, someway, it will remain, but could require some changes.

"I would really like to reassure people that it is there to stay. It is one of the foundations of the government- for the people, by the people," she said. "If it fails, it means the whole government has failed."