-
It’s About the Legacy, Not the House
April 16, 2013 | 43 comments
-
Understanding the Left’s Demands on What Others Own
March 13, 2013 | 205 comments
-
Football, Fairness, and Hayek
February 1, 2013 | 18 comments
-
An Elite That Still Reject Him
December 24, 2012 | 76 comments
-
Why Rice?
December 11, 2012 | 31 comments
The Public Policy
Social Security’s Glimpse Into the Left’s Priority
A non-starter in any deficit reduction talks.
A recent episode involving Social Security shows how difficult real deficit reduction really is. The day before the State of the Union address, liberal activists held a conference call to inoculate America’s largest single program from inclusion in any deficit reduction discussion. The left’s unilateral attempt to remove the nation’s largest spending program from even a discussion begs the question: What is there to discuss?
The reason liberals wanted to preemptively remove Social Security from a deficit dialogue is that the President’s Deficit Reduction Commission last year inserted the program into it. Although the Commission’s final recommendation was not formally adopted — although approved by a majority — it did include a proposal to hike Social Security’s qualifying retirement age.
Responding as though Caesar had crossed the Rubicon, the left was not about to let its entitlement empire fall so easily. The Economic Policy Institute’s Ross Eisenbrey stated: “We are worried that the president will give encouragement [to Congress] to tackle Social Security now in an atmosphere of deficit reduction.” Shocking.
Of course, doing so would be the very audacity of accuracy. Social Security is contributing to the federal government’s deficit. That began last year when its tax revenues fell short of its outlays by $69 billion. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office spelled out its historic element: “In 2010, for the first time since the enactment of the Social Security Amendments of 1983, Social Security’s annual outlays will exceed its annual tax revenues…”
Until then, Social Security had produced surpluses, which helped reduce the overall deficit and largely insulated Social Security itself from budget scrutiny. Now Social Security has begun to live on its trust fund… literally. Because it had run surpluses, a trust fund was created on the federal books and credited with surpluses, which then were credited with interest. Of course, these “balances” never existed except on the federal ledger and never “earned” anything — at least as “earning” is understood outside of government.
Because the actual surpluses were simply spent and no additional resources were actually created, someone now has to foot the bill for the difference between the program’s annual tax revenues (real resources) and its outlays (real spending). While this may be offset on paper with IOUs, the result is still real federal deficits. Hence, Social Security joined the ranks of other hoi polloi programs last year.
Social Security’s pauperization could well be taken as the federal budget’s last shoe to fall… and keep falling and falling and falling. According to CBO’s latest budget projections released last week, Social Security’s outlays will exceed its tax revenue each and every year from now through 2021. In doing so, it will add $626 billion to the federal deficit from 2010 to 2016 and $1.361 trillion from 2010 to 2021.
The long-term shortfall is even worse — even including the program’s IOU balances. CBO stated in its July 2010 Social Security report: “[We estimate] the 75-year actuarial balance to be -0.6 percent of gross domestic product.… In other words, to bring the program into actuarial balance over the 75 years, payroll taxes would have to be increased immediately by 0.6 percent of GDP and kept at that higher rate…”
Yet despite the program’s true nature of simply using today’s taxes to pay today’s obligations, its current tax revenue shortfall, and its projected long-term deficits — even including its IOUs — the Strengthen Social Security Campaign’s Nancy Altman stated: “By sweeping Social Security into a discussion of the deficit the President fails to recognize what most Americans know: Social Security has not caused the deficit and should not be cut.”
That so glaring a problem can not only be ignored but disputed, shows how hard getting the federal government’s deficits and debt under control will be with the far left at the table. As enormous as the absolute problem is, the denial of it is even greater.
Such positions speak volumes about the left’s proposed solution to a problem that apparently only the rest of us see. At a time when America is running record deficits and debt because of excessive spending, what is needed is more spending.
Social Security’s past situation was akin to a homeowner claiming he would never need a new roof, merely because it was not leaking at the time. Now with water pouring in, most people would call a roofer. Yet apparently the left now would have us believe the problem is not the roof, but the rain. And the solution is that the rest of us not only call the roofers, but pay them as well.
About the Author
J.T. Young served in the Department of Treasury and the Office of Management and Budget from 2001 to 2004 and as a Congressional staff member from 1987 to 2000.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (46) | Leave a comment
More Articles by J.T. Young
More Articles From The Public Policy
http://spectator.org/archives/2011/03/15/social-securitys-glimpse-into
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- The Vast and the Tiny
- Of Wizards and Weapons
- Self-Righteous Republic
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 3.15.11 @ 6:27AM
Both political realities are at fault here so it's not just the left. Although conservatives claim they are for some type of reform it's always been attempted with half-hearted efforts they justify with more half-witted responses.
The only reason that Social Security is on the chopping block is because both political parties stole the funds, expanded the benefits to include people who never paid into it, then went on spending the funds like there was no tomorrow. Tomorrow has arrived.
The final element of your article should have noted that the only reason Social Security is even being looked at is that it is no longer the golden cow to be milked to cut the deficits.
For decades the money was taken and the public was given fake IOU's and this was done without guilt by both political parties.
Now that there is no more money to plunder the public who paid faithfully for years is being told, "Screw you, the rules will be changed to suit the ruling class."
Although it's a Ponzi scheme from the word go, the government obligations will not go away easily.
It's not like a leaking roof. It's a Bernie Madoff spending scheme, and it's over.
Like all central economic planning it will end badly and not for the government. It will end badly for you.
mames| 3.15.11 @ 12:22PM
Exactly right the GOP has been complicit in all of these social spending programs/money stealing redistribution. Time was when the King went too far the people cut of his head. Now we have to cut off over 400 of them. If you doubt me just look at the meager cuts the GOPs are currently offering.
Darin| 3.15.11 @ 6:37AM
Liberal logic 101.
Tax the rich because they make the most money and can afford it.
Exempt social security from any reductions even though it costs the most money and could afford it.
Stupid is as stupid does.
Clint| 3.15.11 @ 7:13AM
Dr.Ron Paul:
"When it comes to Social Security, we must understand that the system does not represent an old age pension, an “insurance” program, or even a forced savings program. It simply represents an enormous transfer payment, with younger workers paying taxes to fund benefits. There is no Social Security trust fund, and you don’t have an “account.” Whether you win or lose the Social Security lottery is a function of when you happened to be born and how long you live to collect benefits. Of course young people today have every reason to believe they will never collect those benefits."
Dan Hirsch| 3.15.11 @ 9:28AM
Of course young people today have every reason to believe they will never collect those benefits."
HA HA HAH!
Young people? Yea, sixty is the new thirty!
tj| 3.15.11 @ 1:47PM
Very good read. Please contact your Reps with this info
Chilean Pensions… it has been working very well for them.
Keep the Government out of Retirement Funds. This is our money not theirs!! Cant run the Post office, Can't run a train, can't really do anything but SCREW IT UP!
http://www.cato.org/pubs/journal/cj15n2-3-1.html
Appleby| 3.15.11 @ 7:17AM
The world has pretended to be shocked for the past 60 years that the Baby Boomers require treble the resources at every age, from birth to death. Now that we are old, the world is shocked all over again.
You took our money by force to spend on goodies for The Family Of Four and TheMostVulnrableAmongUs (welfare); now we want our money back for ourselves and you squall that there isnt any money.
We still have one weapon in our quiver: we vote. And our instructions to you are: cut the goodies you ladle out to the losers and give us our money back, or prepare to join the losers.
Richard Baker| 3.15.11 @ 8:04AM
Social Security HAS no money. It is, perhaps, the largest Ponzi scheme in history. Regardless of threats by voters, there is NO money in the "lockbox", as it is erroneously called, Baby Boomers be damned.
Dan Hirsch| 3.15.11 @ 9:12AM
Richard,
No Ponzi scheme in history has ever had SO much money in its hands and then blown it! These idiots had the money in their hands and literally burned it up trying to get themselves re-elected.
This is the theft and lie that could destroy our country. You think cranky government union thugs in Madison, Wisconsin raised a fuss? Washington really only has a short time, measured in months, to get this addressed.
President Obama is obviously a non-entity in this situation.
There is good news: if enough political energy is directed at addressing this insoluble problem, we all know President Obama will vote "Present" before heading to the golf course and the night's concert. Sheesh, even the Romans understood that "bread and circuses" were to be given to the people, not the Caesar! Not this idiot.
Don't tread on me!
Dan Hirsch| 3.15.11 @ 9:26AM
Richard,
Do you always damn the victims of the crime? Or will you tell us that it's our fault because we couldn't defeat these crooks in Washington, despite a lifetime of voting for and supporting every conservative I could find?
Fie on you!
Obviously you don't want to have to 'contribute' to Social Security. I have 'contributed,' and just ask that I receive something for the tens of thousands I have paid in. You obviously think those who have worked to build the country over the last forty years are to be damned. I tried to save for my dotage, I paid for my house, and have watched in horror as all my investments shriveled in the last three years.
Someday, when your hair changes color, you may begin to understand why we cranky, unreasonable old people expect to get something back for our efforts.
Here's a hint for you: There is no place to save your money, if your government destroys your country and its currency and economy around you.
So are you a yuppie, Generation X, which is it? Well, I say, damn your own generation yourself.
I have.
Howard| 3.15.11 @ 8:34PM
I respectfully disagree. The capital markets are more than willing to fund Treasury deficits. This must be a scare tactic. That is of course, until the day when the merry go round stops and Obama and Company are exposed as Emperors without clothes.
DWS from West Virginia| 3.15.11 @ 7:02PM
You speak in ignorance. Almost none of the so-called "reforms" and amendments made to Social Security in the past 40 years were made by boomers or for boomers. Rather they were made by Greatest Generationers for Greatest Generationers. Get over this blame the ills of our country on the boomers business, which is just the kind of whining you accuse them of.
Dan Hirsch| 3.15.11 @ 8:58AM
I have been forced to "contribute" to Social Security since 1970. They have taken my and my employer's money for 41 years. Now, as I am within 9 years of collecting on that lifelong "insurance" policy, you call this an "entitlement?"
I understand and can accept that I may get less than I would have if I had been allowed to save that money in an FDIC insured deposit account due to criminally stupid, criminally sloppy financial behavior on the government's part.
DO NOT INSULT ME FOR EXPECTING SOME RETURN FROM THIS "INVESTMENT" BY CALLING THIS AN "ENTITLEMENT!" I PAID FOR THIS, IN CASH, OVER MY LIFETIME'S WORK!
THAT is the problem with the Beltway approach to this problem.
Don't tread on me!
CalMark| 3.15.11 @ 3:42PM
Calculate total contributions adjusted by T-Bill rates for "investment return." Adjust for inflation (it's a government program, after all. My 401K won't do that, but never mind.)
THAT is what you're entitled to. Not a penny more. The rest is charity from succeeding generations. Stop melting down.
Succeeding generations (people like me, who's been paying SS for almost 20 years) expect nothing from SS. It's purely an "existence tax" to fund the extended retirements of Boomers.
The Boomers EXPECT to retire at 65 and collect SS for another 10, 15--even 30 or 40--years, regardless how much they put in: "GIMME! IT'S MINE!" (The Baby Boomer motto.) Boomers' descendants will likely have to spend almost our entire (probably longer) lives in harness to pay for it.
The SS crisis and its consequences belong to the Boomers, including conservatives among them. Their detached, even laughing, acceptance of the conventional wisdom, "We can't defeat liberalism" is what led us here. And future generations are paying the bills so you can escape the consequences and have enough money to populate cruise ships.
Mitch Angoop| 3.15.11 @ 9:21AM
None of these programs have the slightest bit of Constitutional authority. They are all either ways to redistribute income and wealth; or a means to gather and weild power. We are out of 'nice words' and 'concerns'. Whether we like it or not, we're in a class war with the lefties/libs; and they are absolutely SHOCKED that the sheep are resisting being sheared. Liberalism is a mental illness and those exhibiting its' symptoms need 're-education' camps; just as Conservatives were told in the communist dictatorships. As proof, check out the reaction of the lefties and their union goons in Wisconsin.
The only things stopping barry the muslim and his thugs from crushing us by force are the two bedrocks of our republic in 2011:
First, the internet and the free dissemination of information that barry and his fellow thugs are desperately trying to get under their control; and, second; the presence of nearly a hundred million firearms in the hands of those they'd like to muzzel and then destroy.
grant1863| 3.15.11 @ 9:23AM
I admire Mr. Young's inclusion of a Caesar reference on the Ides of March but Caesar destroyed the Republic not an Empire. His successors had the empire.
Mike | 3.15.11 @ 10:06AM
It must be frustrating being a conservative bent on destroying a program ( for ideological reasons) that the majority of people in a democratic republic support.
Social Security is solvent and will remain so until 2042. It is true that contributions (a more accurate term than taxes) will have to be increased and benefits redefined to sustain the system in the future, but this is the real debate.
The primary problems are medical costs and military spending. Given the rate of increase in the former, no increase in Medicare contributions will be able to keep up. No need to state the obvious about Medicaid.
Concerning the military, fighting two wars on the national credit card appears to have had an effect on the deficit and debt problems that was unanticipated (or intentionally ignored) by the GOP. But, cutting taxes, especially for the wealthy, always was the number one priority. Still is. This is what passes as fiscal responsibility in some quarters.
tonypal| 3.15.11 @ 11:43AM
Mike, you've caused the cliche-o-meter to explode. The idea that conservatives want to "destroy" social security is a well worn liberal bromide with a single purpose; to protect liberals from having to be serious about a serious matter. Just as when liberals call conservatives racist in order to avoid an intellectual debate over affirmative action, the goal is to discredit the opposition before the debate begins. Kind of makes life easy for the lame brained.
What I always find particularly entertaining is how so-called "progressives" are hell bent on preserving a 1930's era program that has truly run its course. Are we really to believe that social security, in its current iteration, is the best we can do? Seriously Mike?
Of course, no liberal post would be complete without a mention of military spending or tax cuts for the wealthy. Yes, the costs associated with war are very high. But those costs pale in comparison to entitlement outlays. You can't be a serious person and believe that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan will have a significant impact on our long term solvency. That's pure nonsense, which is a pretty good description of liberalism.
As for tax cuts for the wealthy, let me ask you this: If we had allowed the Bush tax rate reductions on upper income earners sunset, how much revenue are you alleging would be available to the federal treasury? Then explain how that alleged, additional revenue resolves any matter that you and your fellow travelers are so concerned about.
Mike | 3.15.11 @ 8:08PM
A well worn liberal bromide. So the push for privatizing Social Security, a real boon to Wall Street, is your answer to reforming the 1930's era program that has truly run its course? Good luck with that one.
Liberals call conservatives racist. Well the conservative party (GOP) did steal most of the hard core southern racists from the Democratic Party following the passage of the Civil Rights Act. And it appears that you have successfully kept them. Hint: you are on firmer ground in this debate if you refer to the "soft bigotry of low expectations."
I would agree with you that the cost of the wars is very high. About $1.1 trillion. Notice how conservatives tend to forget to mention the Prescription Drug Program when railing against Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. Its hard to balance the budget when fighting two wars and starting another entitlement program especially while cutting taxes in a way that benefited primarily the rich.
LiveFreeOrDie| 3.15.11 @ 2:15PM
"It must be frustrating being a conservative bent on destroying a program ( for ideological reasons) that the majority of people in a democratic republic support."
Must be frustrating to be brain dead, Mike. Ideological reasons? Give me a break. It's simple mathematics. SS is spending more than it takes in and the crooks in D.C. have spent the excess anytime any existed. It's been used and abused for purposes never intended. Finally, it's doubtful a majority of people "support" the present system.
"Social Security is solvent and will remain so until 2042. It is true that contributions (a more accurate term than taxes) will have to be increased and benefits redefined to sustain the system in the future, but this is the real debate."
SS is solvent? Solvent by what twisted governmental definition? Contributions is a better word than taxes? You should run for office. You sound just like the politicians who've recently implemented "fees" for anything and everything across this country and with a straight face claim they haven't raised taxes. Or did you mean contributions, like one makes to his 401(k) or other retirement fund expecting to earn some kind of return on investment? There's no return coming, except negative. Either way, it's a tax and in no way anything else. What the money is supposed to be used for is irrelevant.
"The primary problems are medical costs and military spending. Given the rate of increase in the former, no increase in Medicare contributions will be able to keep up. No need to state the obvious about Medicaid."
Medical care costs what it costs. How exactly would you like to make it less? I might agree that we should not be spending so much on military actions but that doesn't solve the social security problem.
"Concerning the military, fighting two wars on the national credit card appears to have had an effect on the deficit and debt problems that was unanticipated (or intentionally ignored) by the GOP. But, cutting taxes, especially for the wealthy, always was the number one priority. Still is. This is what passes as fiscal responsibility in some quarters."
Lower taxes = increased tax revenue, this has been proven time and time again. Only willful ignorance leads to any other conclusion. Conservatives are generally for tax cuts while acknowledging that spending is the problem, not the solution. The liberal answer is raise taxes, raise spending. Of course the spending is always a little more than the taxes which leads to an even bigger problem for which the solution remains the same, more taxes and disproportionate spending all over again. Is this your definition of fiscal responsibility? That's no way to run anything except into the ground, hence our current situation.
Mike | 3.15.11 @ 8:18PM
Its doubtful a majority of the people support the present system. No, the majority support Social Security, but they also realize the long term funding issues have to be addressed.
Medical care costs what it costs. A breathtakingly brilliant analysis LiveFreeOrDie. You could be a policy wonk for a conservative think tank.
Lower taxes=increased revenue. This has been disproved time and time again. But, I must admit I wish it were true
LiveFreeOrDie| 3.16.11 @ 10:47AM
Yes, it does cost what it costs. Still waiting for your ideas on how to make the best health care in the world cheaper. Oh, and who exactly determines when it costs just the right amount?
Lower taxes encourages business and investment which provides jobs. Real jobs, not tax payer funded ones that are always a net negative. You can disagree all you want but the numbers don't lie. Follow your tax logic and why not tax everyone 100%, that should really get the economy going right? That's the short of it, hardly worth the time and effort to debate the effects of taxation on the economy in this forum.
Dave | 3.15.11 @ 11:22AM
First of all, actual numbers (or accounting) mean nothing to the Left. As ol' Tip O'Neil once blubbered: "A billion here, a billion there and pretty soon you're talking real money."
There's more, but you know the drill and no doubt get the drift. Having said that, with our gutless Republican leadership currently hell bent on signing yet another Continuing Budget Resolution WITHOUT omitting that 105 billion in "implementation bucks" that was stashed in the original bill for the initial funding of Obamacare/ Phase 1 -- let me just point out that if you've been cozy- comfy over these many decades with the feds management of (a) Social Security (b) Medicare (c) the U.S. Postal Service and (d) your friendly DMV - then your going to love what's ultimately going to be looking up your B-side in the future: Socialized Healthcare - "The Final Single Payer Solution."
Oh yes, Virginia, the feds management of Social Security, Medicare and all other national programs has been amazin' to watch.
Or if your definition comes from a pocket dictionary and not the STEET: "They bad, they be REALLY bad."
Mike| 3.15.11 @ 11:38AM
Dave,
Everett Dirksen, not Tip O'Neil, made the comment about a billion here, a billion there...
The Feds don't run DMVs.
You're are also wrong about socialized health care.
tonypal| 3.15.11 @ 11:55AM
Mike, I have another question for you. Would you please explain why you have so much confidence in government. Why do you think it is preferable to have people with little or no experience in practical matters running unimaginably complex, multi-trillion dollar programs such as national health care, social security, etc? I'd love to discuss it with you, but first I'd like you to give it a shot. If you can pull it off, I'll support your presidential candidacy. LOL
Tim the Enchanter| 3.15.11 @ 12:35PM
tonypal... I have a similar exercise when confronted by liberals: I ask them if they trust the Government to do this/that/et al, and they naturally say "of course!". Then I propose to them if they'd trust their next-door neighbor to do the same things, and they of course tell me No. Then I point out the 800 pound gorilla in the room: Your next-door neighbor (and thousands like him) ARE THE GOVERNMENT! You wouldn't believe the looks as this sinks in.
Mike | 3.15.11 @ 8:21PM
Well, Tim, there are people in government who are a whole lot smarter than your neighbors. And, for that matter, they are a whole lot smarter than you. You wouldn't believe the looks as this sinks in.
Mike | 3.15.11 @ 8:25PM
I was impressed with the way Wall Street and the mortgage brokers engineered the last financial bubble.
And, please spare me the diatribe about Fannie and Freddie. They should never have jumped into the game, but they didn't engineer it.
Mike | 3.15.11 @ 8:30PM
And I suppose that, contrary to the statistics, you think we have the best health care system in the world. What do you like most about it? Fee for service, for profit insurance companies (seen the rate increases being requested around the country), the torts, the fact that so many of your fellow citizens are uninsured?
SpiralArchitect | 3.15.11 @ 1:47PM
Not looking to be a nussiance - buy silver. It was worth jsut over 4 bucks (oz.) 2 years ago, now... over $36 z. I has outpaced everything in gorwth, especially gold. It will be over $100 bucks and oz. soon.
Oh, make sure you get the silver. A cert saying you own it is as good as a Fed Note and we know what thats worth!
Three jeers for the Comrad in Chief!
Oldefarte| 3.15.11 @ 1:53PM
I have gotten into near fist fights here on this subject, and should have my head examined for venturing forth again, but here goes. SS was established by the Roosevest administration as a FORCED [by government] savings-retirement vehicle in order to protect those too stupid, too lazy to do so on their own initiative. No one had the option to opt out of same, and SS was/is deducted from everyone's paychecks accordingly. As someone else said, IT IS NOT A GD ENTITLEMENT, but rather something that the recievers/beneficiaries of HAVE PAID FOR by the time they collect at 65 or at being judged disabled. It is not welfare, Medicaid, food stamps, free public education, Aid to Dependent Children, and Affordable Home mortgage giveaway, etc....it is EARNED/CONTRIBUTED TO/ENTITLED SAVINGS etc belong to each and every such contributor. As also stated above, I and others have had/made tens of thousands of payroll deductions to SS so it BELONG TO ME AND TO EVERYONE ELSE WHO'S LIKEWISE CONTRIUBUTED. Even though [for legal means] termed such, it is not a TAX! That said, it should not be included within the defecit/debt arguments/debates as to a possible/partial solution for same, because as said, IT DID NOT CAUSE THE DEFECIT/DEBT [because the contributions to date have PAID FOR the paid out benefits to date [and could continue to do so with proper fiscal management]. Ther are tow roads to solution of SS: [1] fix it or [2] disolve/eliminate it. You can do [1] by FORCING THE GOVERNMENT TO REPAY THE $1TRILLION THAT HAS BEEN STOLEN/BORROWED FROM SAME SINCE INCEPTION; eliminating the salary [$100000] cap from taxiation, thereby making ALL INCOME SUBJECT TO THE SS TAX ON A DECREASING SCALE; raising the eligability age from 65-67 to maybe 70; force the government to improve its management of SS by not allowing the excessive/permissive claims of DISABILITY [and thus recieving benefits before 65-67 and of a higher amount] that are presently provided;etc. If the desired solution is instead to disolve/eliminate SS, then each/every contributor [that has not received their full amount contributed reimbursed to them] must be PAID BACK IN FULL OF THEIR AMOUNT CONTRIBUTED THROUGH THEIR SS PAYROLL DEDUCTIONS. Door ONE or door TWO, take your pick [but again, it ain't an entitlement/welfare; so forget about that bullexcrement]!!!!!!!!!!
Oldefarte| 3.15.11 @ 2:17PM
PS: The idea of so-called 'means testing' as a solution to SS is ludicrous, since the same effect could be accompolished by my above recommendation to simply un-cap the maximum salary subjected to SS taxiation of $100000. If everyone's entire wages were to be SS taxed [with possibly and eligable opt-out clause if the wealthy wanted to exercise same for alternative investment purposes], the added SS receipts from same would greatly add to its saving-fund survival purposes!!!!
Richard Baker| 3.15.11 @ 1:59PM
Hirsch:
I'm 58 and a large part of the problem is that the citizenry bought into the something for nothing idea and look where we are now. Don't lecture anyone on Social Security. The populace of this country, along with the political class, thought that endless increases in government programs could go on forever. It's over and, I repeat, there is NO money in the Social Security "lockbox." Regardless, this is the largest Ponzi scheme in history and the game is over.
CalMark| 3.15.11 @ 3:47PM
Concur. See my reply to Hirsch above.
Ever since I graduated from college in the early 1990s, I've been hearing old folks (the allegedly "Greatest" Generation and now Boomers) complain. Often, this is on cruise ships, where many of them practically live, or their very comfortable homes.
Boomer parents indulged them endlessly. Now it's their descendants' turn. Must be nice.
Oldefarte| 3.15.11 @ 4:51PM
No, the Greatest Generation that prevented Adolph/Nazies from controlling this country are mostly dead. The Baby Boomers [of which I'm one] suffered from being pi*sed upon by Kennedy/Johnson/Democrats with their Great Society BULLEXCREMENT, their INCOME TAX SURCHARGES [in addition to normal income tax rates], etc managed to financially lift up this country through dedicated hard work and productivity increases; and are also dying out. Now it's up to you Generation X'ers to put down your X-Boxes, stop watching ESPN 24-7, keep [or get] your jobs, and to do what former generations have done before you. So stop whining, pi*sing, moaning and groaning and keep the ball rolling, as is your societal duty!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
CalMark| 3.15.11 @ 5:15PM
Whatever.
You suffered under liberals, but you did nothing. No principled resistance. No Tea Party type movement. No, a lot of Boomers still laugh, at the latest government atrocity: "Well, what can you do?" Nothing has changed: Tea Parties are full of Boomers, but it was Gen X'ers who got the movement organized.
You missed the point: overhearing "Greatest Generation" or Boomer retirees loudly bellyaching about their financial suffering while in a good restaurant, or on a cruise, or some other nice and pricey location--where they are "regulars," unlike us lazy Gen-Xers who are still working.
It's all funded by Ponzi-style pension schemes, public and private. I'm paying the bill, and I wonder at two generations who have better retirements (an alien concept, as we know it now, until the 1960s) than any generation before complain about their lot in life.
As for "duties to society," who exactly is on the front lines of the War on Terror? Because by your thesis, it can't be Gen X: we're too busy with our video games.
WhiteBikerTrash| 3.15.11 @ 7:30PM
I shall repeat myself,
Social Security needs to be deconstructed!!
I was born back in 1957, I knew in the early 70s that there would be no Social Security for people my age.
It has been a Pozi scheme from the start and like any other Ponzi, it must collapse under it's own weight of promise!
My suggestion, Freeze all admission to SS. Freeze all benefits. Make an offer to all people born between Jan 1 1945 through Dec 31 1960 you receive all of your "contribution" plus 2% per year interest in one lump sum, or collect SS at the frozen level after you reach eligibility age.
You must sign up for one or the other.
Stop collecting SS Taxes.
Return all SS contributions to anyone born between Jan 1 1961 to Dec 31 1970.
66% to Jan 1 1971 to Dec 31 1980.
33% Jan 1 1981 to Dec 31 1990.
none returned to Jan 1 1990 and later. The Government is now out of the retirement business! The returned monies will be spent or invested. People will take responsibility for their own retirement, or not!
CalMark| 3.15.11 @ 8:00PM
Amen, brother! Tell it!
Great ideas.
Nite| 3.15.11 @ 10:29PM
There are three things that would make SS sustainable. I agree with other posters, but the third, I have not heard from the politicians. First no cap on income used to pay into SS. Second, raise the retirement age, with an allowance for individuals who develop a serious disease and can not work. The third and one of the most important is that SS funds coming into the government NOT BE PLACED IN THE GENERAL FUND AND SPENT! Place the funds in a true trust fund instead of IOU's.
Morgan| 3.17.11 @ 10:49AM
Again and again ... in the interests of being reelected in 2012 the Democrats in Congress and Obama himself are not going to do anything that will offend any of the constituencies that benefit from federal spending. They're content to let the Republicans position themselves as the "bad guys" and play rope-a-dope with the budget, even going so far as to ignore Obama's own deficit commission. If some sector of the American public is not looking down the road on the economy, it is in part because all that is vague and ifsy-maybe, but funding is real and today. If there was any doubt about this before Wisconsin, the question is closed now. The 11th Commandment for Democrats: "Thou Shalt Not Offend Any Special Interest".
tj| 3.19.11 @ 10:47AM
Good Read About Chilean Pensions. Maybe we could implement something similar here.
But we need to do something now rather than later.
Vote me all out 2012 and beyond. "We the people" will set their term limits for them. Arrogant B- -tards.
tj| 3.19.11 @ 10:47AM
That should have been Vote em
tj| 3.20.11 @ 8:06AM
Chilean Pensions
http://www.cato.org/pubs/journal/cj15n2-3-1.html
Creative Recreation | 8.11.11 @ 12:27AM
is good