Founding father Benjamin Franklin once said: “An investment in knowledge pays the best interest.” Those words could serve as a motto for my Mind Over Markets column.

Every day, my email inbox is brimming with letters from readers seeking not just specific investment recommendations but also greater knowledge about the world of money. That’s what I try to give them.

Perhaps the following Q&As can put more “Benjamins” in your pocket. Let’s answer the latest batch of reader emails, while they’re still timely.

Whither the Fed?

In response to my columns Hard Data, Hard Investment Choices (July 19) and Will The Fed Play Santa in July? (July 3):

“Thank you for your insights and guidance…I have always believed the market is largely manipulated…

My real concern is anticipation that the Fed may reduce the prime rate. There is no valid reason for a reduction in the interest rate. Quite the contrary, I think it should go up. On the other hand, we have President Trump, market gurus and others pushing for a reduction.

However, I see a strong economy, low interest rates (my first mortgage was 14.5%), essentially no unemployment, etc. So what’s the issue other than those in powerful positions wanting the market to continue to go up at all costs? They’re trying to bully the Fed into reducing the rate.

I’d be interested in your thoughts as to the appropriateness of the Fed acting not in response to economic growth/recession, unemployment rates, and the like, but to political pressure and the desire to simply see the market go higher. Keep up the great work.” — Edward W.

“Rates are going down .5% next week. It’s already baked in. Smart move? Hell no. Trump is recklessly pressuring the Fed to cut and they are gonna buckle under the pressure. The market is going higher, possibly much higher in the next year. So is the deficit, but then who cares, right. Where are the deficit hawks?

Not sure the market is smart enough to see through his nonsense. They haven’t so far. Exhibit A: trillion dollar deficits as far as the eye can see…

The market drop will come when it is clear that Trump will lose reelection. If it also appears the Senate may change hands, the drop will be a big one. Democrats controlling the gov’t will guarantee a reversal of the tax cut, higher taxes, and greater regulation. But the planet may at least survive.

However, as long as Trump is in power and can make it look like he is winning, the market will go up. You are going to miss a bunch of profit if you bet against it.” — Jim C., Loyal Subscriber

Both Edward and Jim make worthwhile points.

Wall Street is praying for another substantial interest rate cut at the next meeting of the Fed’s policy-making Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) on July 30-31.

In describing its policy stance in June, the FOMC dropped the word “patient.” This new tone was interpreted as positive by Wall Street, because it supposedly means the Fed is no longer staying neutral and has adopted a bias toward cuts.

Despite intense pressure from President Trump to stimulate the economy with further monetary loosening, Fed Chair Jerome Powell seems reluctant to take actions that might fuel inflation. We’ll know for sure, next week.

Will Social Security survive?

In response to my column Social Security: The “Third Rail” No More (July 1):

“My wife is turning 62 this year. I am 72 and already on Social Security. Is it more advantageous for her to start collecting now or wait? Also, is she penalized for being married? Is her benefit reduced?” — Dennis L.

Under current law, the “early retirement” age of 62 is when you can begin collecting Social Security benefits. However, I strongly advise you to wait for full retirement age (FRA), if possible. If you start your retirement benefits at age 62, your monthly benefit amount is reduced by about 30%.

Your full retirement age is determined by the Social Security Administration based on when you were born. A married couple can each receive the maximum individual retirement benefit, if they qualify based on their own work histories.

You also need to consider income limits (see chart):

Source: Social Security Administration, Investing Daily

“Many thanks for all of your interesting articles. In regard to Social Security, it’s unfortunate, but Congress must do something to ‘reform’ Social Security, whether it’s a ‘third rail’ or not.

When the program was proposed by FDR back in the 1930s, the average life expectancy for men was 63 and for women it was 67. With benefit payments beginning at age 65, the average male never collected a dime from the program (he died before he was eligible for benefits) and the average female only collected benefits for two years before she died.

Life expectancy is currently 77 for men and 81 for women. To ‘sync’ Social Security for an equivalent benefit payout as was intended in the 1930s, the eligibility age for full benefits would need to rise from 66 to 79.

Simply put… the program was not designed to provide the sort of ‘retirement plan’ that many folks today expect. It was intended more as a supplemental income stream that would preclude a decline into poverty at the end of one’s life.

Raise the eligibility age to 79 to re-sync the benefit eligibility age to life expectancy as existed when the program was first proposed, and the program’s funding problems will be mitigated.” — Tim L.

Thanks for your comments, Tim. It’s true that Social Security faces challenges. The trust funds that support Social Security are at risk of depletion by 2035. If that occurs, retirees will receive only 80% of the benefits they’re owed.

For the first time in nearly 40 years, Social Security in 2020 will start to pay out more in benefits than it receives in funding. That will compel the program to dip into a rainy day fund that will be wiped out in 15 years.

Proposals to reform Social Security and ensure its financial survival run the gamut, from tinkering all the way to privatizing. The exploding federal deficit caused by the 2017 tax cuts has renewed talk on Capitol Hill of curtailing social safety net programs, such as Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. GOP Senate Leader Mitch McConnell has reiterated his intentions to put Social Security under the budgetary knife.

It’s unclear which direction Congress will take. The Democratically controlled House of Representatives will probably stymie any GOP attempts to gut Social Security.

But one thing is quite clear: when you retire, you can’t rely on Social Security alone. You’ll need a diversified portfolio of long-term investments. That’s where the experts at Investing Daily can help.

Got opinions or questions? Get ‘em off your chest! You can reach me at: mailbag@investingdaily.com. I edit letters for the sake of concision, clarity and civility.

John Persinos is the managing editor of Investing Daily.