I don't understand how "entitlement" became a bad word. I believe Social Security is an entitlement. You are entitled to the benefit because you paid the premiums all those years. I don't believe there is any definition of Entitlement that says Handout or anything like that. If you earned it, paid for it, or received it as a benefit, it's an entitlement.
You can not calculate an ROI because it's a community program. It's retirement insurance. Like all insurance, there are winners and losers. Although you may not want to be a big winner on your Auto, File, Health, and Homeowners insurance. You make years of premiums and never have a claim and you're probably very happy never having a claim. I suppose everybody is a winner on life insurance, although the big winner dies the day after he takes out the policy.
The calculation gives the impression of a big ripoff. Actually many in that scenario may do better. There's no way to get a risk-free 5% these days, but the $36,287 is a bit less that a couple would get in guaranteed inflation protected benefits, with just 35 years at the max. Currently, the max FRA benefit is about $2366/mo, a spouse would get 50% of that for $3549/mo, $42,588/yr. Factor in multiple marriages, disability, under age children, and you could be considerably more. And it's all with annual COLA increases.
Social Security is simply a retirement insurance policy. It's insurance by ever measure. Many people don't realize the payroll tax is not deductible. You paid income tax on those premiums (FICA), just like any other insurance premium. Normally, insurance premiums are paid in post-tax dollars and the benefit is tax-free. Of course that's changed now, Social Security benefits can be partial taxed.
Social Security is sound. It may need some tweaking because we're living longer and it covers more. But there's no rush on that. It has produce a surplus every year for 75 years. By law the SSA can not borrow money. Imagine the early days when everyone started paying in and few collected. Huge surpluses, never accounted for. A couple decades ago, recognizing that the Baby Boomer Bubble was on the way, the rate was increased to accelerate collections and build the trust fund. It worked very well. Most of the boomers will be gone when when the Trust Fund runs out (if we ever use it).
While it's true that those excess contributions over the years went into Treasuries, which essentially went out the other door and into the general fund. It's not entirely fair to say politicians stole or misappropriated. The law specifically stated that the excess must go to US Treasures, full faith, and all that stuff. In fairness, there really was little other choice. Where do you put $2.6 Trillion? Ideally, it would have been invested, diversified in stock, bonds, etc. But no one would go along with that. And you're certainly not going to stack up dollar bills in the corner somewhere. So US Treasuries was the only realistic option. And, BTW, they do pay interest.
We're approaching the point where not enough is coming in to cover the outgo for Social Security. There's some $2.6 trillion in the fund now, over 99% from the middle and lower class. If those Treasuries are cashed in, it has to come from somewhere. Hence, all the screaming about Social Security. Even though it never contributed one penny to the deficit, and in fact, always contributed to reducing the deficit. The cries (mainly from the right) call for changes to Social Security to avoid raising taxes on the rich, and avoid needing to access the trust fund Treasuries. They want to maintain excess contributions from the middle class to maintain the low tax rates for the top 1%. Simple as that.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PPeUrJF6AM8