Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise

The right has created powerful and lasting myths about the state of the program's finances.

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Memo to Obama: No Rush to "Fix" Social Security

By Mark Weisbrot, AlterNet. Posted November 14, 2007.


The right has created powerful and lasting myths about the state of the program's finances.
Advertisement

Despite the defeat of President Bush's attempt to partially privatize Social Security, the mass misunderstanding of America's largest and most successful anti-poverty program persists. This was evident on Sunday's Meet the Press with Tim Russert, which was devoted to an interview with Democratic Presidential candidate Barack Obama.

Obama is no enemy of Social Security. But like most of the country, he is misinformed on this issue. So he is going after his opponent, Hillary Clinton, for saying "if we just get our fiscal house in order that we can solve the problem of Social Security."

Obama told Russert: "Now, we've got 78 million baby boomers that are going to be retiring, and every expert that looks at this problem says 'There's going to be a gap, and we're going to have more money going out than we have coming in unless we make some adjustments now.'"

In fact, there is not the least bit of urgency regarding Social Security, and it would be best to take the issue off the table entirely until we have at least a few years of public education. Some of that public education took place during the grass-roots campaign that defeated President Bush's attempt to partially privatize the program in 2005. The President was forced within weeks to stop using the word "crisis" to describe Social Security's finances. But it was not nearly enough. Many journalists and editors remain confused, and therefore so is the citizenry.

In fact, the first cohort of baby boomers (those born in 1946) will begin retiring in just a couple of months, since many people take their Social Security at age 62 (with a correspondingly reduced benefit). Our Y2K moment is upon us, and nothing will happen - because the baby boomers' retirement has already been financed.

Back in 1983, when Social Security really was running out of money, with just a few months of payments on hand, Congress raised the payroll tax substantially. This was done deliberately in order to pile up a surplus to finance the baby boomers' retirement. And so it did: that accumulated surplus stands at more than two trillion dollars today, and is increasing at a rate of $190 billion annually.

As a result of this surplus, all the baby boomers' will have retired before Social Security runs into a projected shortfall in 2041. That is according to the Social Security's (mostly Republican-appointed) Trustees. According to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office, Social Security can pay all promised benefits even longer, until 2046. By either date, most baby boomers will be dead, and almost all of the rest retired, before there is a problem.

Of course, there are some who maintain that the surplus "has been spent," that the Social Security Trust Fund "doesn't exist," and so on. These stories should be given all the credibility of reports about "Bat Boy" sightings in the Weekly World News. But unfortunately they are often taken seriously in the major media.


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: social security, obama, clinton

Mark Weisbrot is Co-Director and co-founder of the Center for Economic and Policy Research. He received his Ph.D. in economics from the University of Michigan. He is co-author, with Dean Baker, of Social Security: The Phony Crisis (University of Chicago Press, 2000), and has written numerous research papers on economic policy. He is also president of Just Foreign Policy.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
The problem is the government
Posted by: DrColes on Nov 14, 2007 9:35 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The full retirement age is based on maintaining a 50% death rate, so the government does not have to pay any paid for benefits but to half of the investors. The government gets 15% of all wages (up to $102,000) in America and is so incompetent as an investment manager, if we could we would have fired them, they do not invest our money and grow the funds. The problem with Social Security is totally caused by government. No, matter your political party affiliation, and setting aside your thoughts on issues. We all need to remember what it is to be an American Citizen. We need to make sure our elected representatives obey their Oath of Office and keep their Oath of Allegiance. See http://tinyurl.com/2znnvl Know whom you are voting for.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: The problem is the government Posted by: Democritus
Great article
Posted by: chaoslegs on Nov 14, 2007 9:38 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The right is pushing to fix social security because as the inputs from payroll taxes don't meet all the outputs in the form of payment of benefits. The accounting trick of using the Social Security surplus to justify tax cuts to the wealthy won't work.

And that is what it is all about, using payroll taxes to offset reductions in income taxes that benefit the wealthy via accounting.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Jim Z.
Posted by: jzelensk on Nov 14, 2007 10:20 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Mark is right on.

The Social Security Trust Fund is the most solvent part of the federal government. Working stiffs since 1983 have been contributing to a huge and growing Fund surplus, which, by law since 1935, has been placed in US Treasuries.

Over the years survivor and disability benefits were added to Social Security, whose beneficiaries usually did not pay into the fund sufficiently (if at all) to cover all of these expenses. In addition, pension benefits were first paid out in 1941, long before workers from 1935 had paid in enough to cover the costs of their own retirements. This set up the pay-as-you-go scenario which works as long as the productivity of the US economy continues to improve (as it has since such data has been collected beginning 1947). The US gets richer by about 2.2% per year compounded (that is after inflation and population growth). Because of this, the fact that "there will be fewer workers per retiree" is totally irrelevent. But a bottom line is that it is false to compare Social Security with a 401 plan, as they perform fundamentally different tasks.

Privatizers conveniently ignore the question of what to do with the one-third of beneficiaries who are on disability and survivorship payments - that is, the "social insurance" aspects of Social Security. One study concluded that the Surv. and Disab. benefits amount to around a $400,000 insurance policy provided to every American (worker and/or family member). I don't see one of those anywhere in my 401 plan.

When Presidents and Congess began calling it the "unified budget," that is, not separating out the Social Security Trust Fund from the goverment's general fund when they discuss the budget balance, they took us down the road of conveniently forgetting that it has been through the regressive payroll tax that workers have been building the Trust Fund; while it is the progressive Income Tax that has been slashed for the wealthy under Reagan and especially Bush II as the nation entered periods of budget deficit. In effect the Trust Fund has been bankrolling general government operations - defense, etc., instead of these activities being supported by general taxes on income.

So in effect the working class's money has been funneled right into the pockets of those in the economic stratosphere. Now, then, columnists like Robert Samuelson (Newsweek) are claiming that the nation "cannot afford" the Social Security promises that it has made. This is another way of saying that politicians should find some way to permanently keep all that money out of the Trust Fund and never pay it back. This slight of hand could not wash if Washington had not begun considering the two funds (SS Trust and General) as if they were blurred into one vast pot of money. They are not.

Thanks to Mark for exposing these falsehoods.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

WOW, he is SOO wrong!
Posted by: Western Independent on Nov 14, 2007 12:51 PM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I usually don't respond to these pieces much, but there was SO much in this piece that is inaccurate, I must. For example, the author says that "the projected shortfall over SS's whole 75-year planning period is less than what we fixed in each of the decades of the 50's, 60', 70's and 80's. This is flatly false. 1966, spending on entitlement programs like Social Security and Medicare amounted to only 16 percent of federal expenditures. In 1986, it was 30 percent. Last year it was a whopping 40 percent!

David Walker, the government's head auditor at the nonpartisan Government Accountability Office says that "We are mortgaging the future of our children and grandchildren at record rates, and that is not only an issue of fiscal irresponsibility, it's an issue of immorality." (CBS News "60 Minutes", March, 2007

Another quote from Walker: "The first baby boomer will reach 62 and be eligible for early retirement of Social Security on Jan. 1, 2008. They'll be eligible for Medicare just three years later. And when those boomers start retiring in mass, then that will be a tsunami of spending that could swamp our ship of state if we don't get serious.”

Who are you going to believe? I put my money on the Clinton appointed (in '98 to a 15 year term) chief auditor of the government.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: WOW, he is SOO wrong! Posted by: coberly
» RE: WOW, he is SOO wrong! Posted by: Joshua Holland
» RE: WOW, he is SOO wrong! Posted by: JSquercia
I forgot one more comment....
Posted by: Western Independent on Nov 14, 2007 1:10 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The author states: "Of course, there are some who maintain that the surplus "has been spent," that the Social Security Trust Fund "doesn't exist," and so on. These stories should be given all the credibility of reports about "Bat Boy" sightings in the Weekly World News."

He's misleading readers to the max here when he implies that the Social Security Trust Fund is filled with bonds that can be used to pay future benefits--with no cost to the taxpayer. WHO, does he think will have to fork over the money to do it -- Santa Claus? Experts and government leaders for years have said he's wrong. Here is a quote from President Clinton's budget document:
“These [Trust Fund] balances are available to finance future benefit payments and other Trust Fund expenditures – but only in a bookkeeping sense. … They do not consist of real economic assets that can be drawn down in the future to fund benefits. Instead, they are claims on the Treasury that, when redeemed, will have to be financed by raising taxes, borrowing from the public, or reducing benefits or other expenditures. The existence of large Trust Fund balances, therefore, does not, by itself, have any impact on the Government’s ability to pay benefits.”
FY2000 Budget, Analytic Perspectives, p. 337.

Senator Patrick Moynihan (D-NY), a staunch defender of the Social Security program has called the Trust Fund "a pile of chits". Here is an exchange between Sen. Moynihan and Senator Harry Reid in 1990, talking about the Social Security Trust Fund...

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I express my great appreciation to my colleague and friend from Nevada. He has a quiet, effective way of putting things. I can see why he was so successful an advocate. We are dealing with such elemental issues of trust and the relationship of people to their government. If they cannot trust that, then what can they trust?

SENATOR MOYNIHAN: We have just had passed out for us the Democratic Policy Committee legislative bulletin. I have to say I am appalled. I really am appalled. I knew our party was in trouble, but I did not know how much trouble. It asks what the effect of this bill will be. It says it will diminish [Social Security] fund reserves by almost $4 billion in fiscal year 1991 and it will diminish fund reserves by more than $170 billion over the next 6 years.

There are no reserves. They have all been embezzled. They have been spent.

Mr. REID. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Yes.

Mr. REID. Maybe what we should do in conjunction with the President to really carry this conspiracy to its appropriate end, is rather than having it called the Social Security trust fund, why do we not change it and call it the "Social Security slush fund?"

DON'T BE MISLED BY THIS AUTHOR. Research it for yourself.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Where's the $$ for the Treasuries? Posted by: Disconsolate Chimera
» RE: I forgot one more comment.... Posted by: Democritus
SS Trust Fund sham
Posted by: kenger on Nov 14, 2007 9:59 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There are several points to consider when talking about the SS Trust Fund. The most critical point that needs to be understood is that the SS bonds are not standard treasury bonds. The SS bonds are in fact non-marketable (i.e., non-negotiable) bonds. The significance of this is that it enables those in office to use the SS surpluses to offset a substantial portion of the general budget’s annual deficits. As a result, a general budget deficit of $350 billion gets reported as $200 billion, which means those in office today do not have to assume any formal debt for the $150 billion difference. Instead, this unpleasant task is being left for future generations. This is obviously great for today’s officeholders because they are able to provide $150 billion worth of government services above and beyond the total revenues they need to collect either through increased taxes, reduced spending, or borrowing.

But what happens when SS starts experiencing a negative cash flow in the very near future? Not only will there no longer be a SS-surplus offset to the general budget deficit; but instead, there will be a SS-liability added onto the general budget deficit. Despite this reversal (from having a general budget deficit that is reduced by SS surpluses to one that will have an added burden of financing the SS bonds), there are those who would have us believe there is nothing that should concern about the status of the SS Trust Fund. The key to what is wrong with the SS Trust Fund is the use of non-marketable bonds, which has allowed for all manner of fiscal chicanery on the part of our elected officials. If it is all so harmless, why was it even necessary to resort to using such bonds in the first place? We’ve been led down the proverbial primrose path, and we’re about to find out how unprincipled our elected officials truly have been.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: SS Trust Fund sham Posted by: coberly
» reply to coberly Posted by: kenger
» RE: reply to coberly Posted by: coberly
» RE: reply to coberly Posted by: kenger
» RE: reply to coberly Posted by: coberly
» RE: SS Trust Fund sham Posted by: coberly
Let's stop lying about Social Security. The system is NOT that broke.
Posted by: yellow on Nov 15, 2007 11:26 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Privatization would only benefit the rich. Right now the majority of US retirees get most of their income from Social Security and this trend will not change with the increasing impoverishment of the American working class. Privatization will only benefit Wall Street and the rich. Let's protect our seniors with steady funding for Social Security.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Let's Be Accurate About Exactly What Is Broken.
Posted by: Urgelt on Nov 17, 2007 6:52 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What is broken is a government that has spent its treasure and borrowed more and spent that, too.

Where did the government go to borrow? Two places. It borrowed money on the open market by marketing negotiable treasury securities. And it borrowed money from the Social Security Trust Fund.

Borrowed all of it, in fact. Every single nickel ever taken in by the Trust Fund from our payroll taxes went to "buy" nonnegotiable US treasury securities. The Trust Fund holds IOUs.

The national debt now stands at more than $9 trillion - nearly doubled since Bush took office (thanks, George). That's money that has to be paid back - to private lenders and to the Trust Fund, with interest.

Right-wing "social security reformers" enjoy this situation. They've cut taxes for the rich and financed foreign wars which enrich corporations, all by running up the national debt. This tactic of bankrupting the government has armed them with a powerful argument against social programs of all kinds - "we can't afford them."

Social Security reform, to the corporatists, means dissolving the trust fund and moving the treasury securities it holds - IOUs from the US Government - to private corporations. Then the corporations can practice the same profit-taking, benefit-pinching tactics that the health insurance industry currently uses to extract wealth from ordinary Americans.

Nobody envisions the IOUs will never be repaid. So the treasury securities owned by the Trust Fund do have value. Because they have value, they are a political target. Privatization would produce billions in profit for the wealthy.

At our expense.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Why SS is in crisis now
Posted by: kenger on Nov 17, 2007 8:11 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Why SS is in crisis now

The question being debated on SS is whether the program needs to be fixed now to prepare in advance for a funding crisis that will begin to unfold in the very near future; or whether, as some suggest, there is no funding crisis facing SS that requires doing anything in the short term, because all is well with the SS Trust Fund.

Those who hold the former view attempt to reassure everyone by pointing out that it will only cost a dollar a week per worker over a twenty year period to repay the money that has been “borrowed” from the SS Trust Fund. While this gives the impression that repaying this money would be a relatively easy task, the reality is that this money will have to be paid by future taxpayers via the general tax code. Even though this is not something that is disputed by those who say there is no crisis facing SS, they never talk about what it will cost those taxpayers who will actually have to bear this tax burden.

One way to put this in perspective is compare the dollar a week figure over twenty years with the fact the SS Trust Fund will holding approx. $5 trillion in bonds by the year 2016. The cost of repaying this sum of money over twenty years comes to $250 billion a year, all of which will have to be borne by the top 5% or so taxpayers. So the question is how likely is it that a future Congress will levy such a tax on the wealthy? And if such a tax is not imposed, what is Plan B? Maybe some think we can just borrow the money, but look at what happening today with the drop in the value of the dollar? The long and short of it is that things may not be quite so rosy as some would like us to believe?

In others words, don’t be too surprised if things get a little dicey in the not too distant future. A Trust Fund that allows Congress to use the money for general budget expenses, while covering the debt that is incurred with non-marketable bonds, may not be as secure as you think. To my mind, it takes the word “trust” to a whole a new level of meaning.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Why SS is in crisis now Posted by: coberly
Social Security Trust Fund CANNOT BE DRAWN UPON
Posted by: DrTW on Nov 18, 2007 6:59 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The real issue with respect to Social Security is that the Trust Fund can never be allowed to redeem the $2 trillion in U.S. Government bonds that it holds. Where would the Government get the money to give to the Trust Fund? At the time of redemption, this could be done only by raising revenue (taxes), using Government budget surpluses, or borrowing from others. If the Trust Fund had invested in stock markets or other non-governmental assets, the impact of selling those assets would be equally problematical. At the time of redemption, something would have to give. Note that putting additional money into the trust fund today does not fix this, except to delay the breakeven point where SS revenues = SS outlays by a few years. Hence, the cliche, "future generations will pay..."

The fiscal effect of most fixes to SS, which increase revenue in or or reduce outlays from the Trust Fund, is to reduce the public debt of the U.S. (that not held by Government trust funds).

The best way to save Social Security is to have a balanced and responsible fiscal policy so that Trust Fund shortfalls can be managed at the time of need.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]