| 08 February 2010
Does anyone remember President Bush's attempts to fix Social Security? If you do you should remember that Democrats said that nothing was wrong with Social Security. The lied!
A report from the Congressional Budget Office shows that for the first time in 25 years, Social Security is taking in less in taxes than it is spending on benefits.
It would have been a lot simpler to fix the system years ago, when we could have used Social Security's cash surpluses to buy non-Treasury securities, such as government-backed mortgage bonds or high-grade corporates that would have helped cover future cash shortfalls. Now it's too late.
Even though an economic recovery might produce some small, fleeting cash surpluses, Social Security's days of being flush are over.
To be sure -- three of the most dangerous words in journalism -- the current Social Security cash deficits aren't all that big, given that Social Security is a $700 billion program this year, and that the government expects to borrow about $1.5 trillion in fiscal 2010 to cover its other obligations, about the same as it borrowed in fiscal 2009.
But this year's Social Security cash shortfall is a watershed event. Until this year, Social Security was a problem for the future. Now it's a problem for the present.
Obama has wasted a year on health care and our country is in far worse financial shape at the end of that year. The time has come for Democrats to start being honest about the fiscal problems our nation faces. Sadly, I doubt that they have any intention of doing that.
Set as favorite
Bookmark
Email this
Trackback(0)
TrackBack URI for this entryComments (10)
Subscribe to this comment's feed
written by Al Gore , February 08, 2010
Thankfully, private accounts never went anywhere. You can only imagine where people would be given recent market activity. Another massive bail out would be required.
By any measure, of all the solutions offered to fix SS, the most effective will be removing the SS wage base limit and including all income. Medicare went in that direction in the 1980's and without that change, Medicare would be broke now.
Of the more than 60 million participants getting SS now, it is the primary source of income for over half. Average benefit is just over $1000/month. For many retirees, there isn't much separating them from abject poverty. As Medicare premiums continue to rise, they fall farher and farther behind.
Those recipients are people's parents and grandparents which is why those programs are the third rail of American politics. Factor in boomers just starting to collect benefits, and cuts in benefits and premium increases without tax increases won't fly.
written by Barthélemy Barbancourt , February 08, 2010
His plan would have had a gradual transition so the current market would have had little effect on retirees.
If you are for increasing taxes how about means testing it too? Then we can call it what it is, welfare for the elderly.
Social Security is broke, just like our Democrat controlled government. If you think future workers are going to hand over 70% of their income to the richest people in the US you are mistaken. (The elderly control the most wealth in this nation)
The government stole money from people and squandered it and now there is nothing left to pay the benefits that the government promised them. This is the very definition of poor governance and a recipe for so serious social unrest.
written by Al Gore , February 08, 2010
"the richest people in the US you are mistaken. (The elderly control the most wealth in this nation) " They're probably hiding in the same cave as all those abusers of welfare. Osama's probably there too.
"If you are for increasing taxes how about means testing it too? Then we can call it what it is, welfare for the elderly. "
Means testing is a great idea but every time its suggested, the wealthy start whining about how its so unfair etc,
Now the tax cuts -- that was welfare for the wealthy.
written by tom anderson , February 08, 2010
Start increasing premiums, start decreasing benefits, gradually increase the starting age for benefits, raise the ceiling on SS taxes and build in a regular increase so that this figure doesn't have to be revisited every five years. The answer is obvious, most everyone knows it, no one in Congress has the seeds to just do it. Which explains our present situation.
written by Nobody , February 08, 2010
What did people do before to SS I mean other save? Did geezers just die in the snow bank ? No, they were just fine without the govmint sticking it's nose in. Families and fraternal groups took care of them.
written by Al Gore , February 09, 2010
Nobody -- its comments like the above that make being a smug liberal so dam easy.
"Did geezers just die in the snow bank ? " The life expectancy for a 65 year old in the 1930's and 1940's was -- 67.
"Families and fraternal groups took care of them. " Sure, when families were located in one geographic area. Families are now smaller and generally scattered all over. And given the economy, dont have the resources to take care of aging family members and their healthcare costs.
And those fraternal organizations? Been to an Elks or VFW lodge recently? In a decade or so most of the members will have died off. Boomers and below just arent joiners.
written by tim-The Dyslexic Blogger , February 09, 2010
If we returned SS to what it was original set up for that would help some also. When they started giving SS benefits to People that are disabled and/or never worked so never paid into the program. I do have one question and grip about the way things are now with SS. There is no means testing for how much money you have or earn, but if you are like me I am receiving a VA disability check each month for a service connected injury. I will get docked that amount from any benefit I will receive when I retire. how is that right where some one that really doesn't need it will receive a full benefit?
written by Al Gore , February 09, 2010
Tim -- I agree with means testing. But every time its suggested, the people who would see their benefits reduced or eliminated due to their income or wealth are the first to complain. They feel that since they paid SS taxes in, they are entitled to a benefit.
As for SS disability, I encourage you to read up on what is involved in qualifying for that benefit. The SS definition of disability is -- unable to provide any economic benefit to society. It is truly the worst of the worst.
written by tim-The Dyslexic Blogger , February 09, 2010
Al
I have a daughter that was on the very edge for the longest time per the SS rules. I have looked at it rather closely myself so I know what you are saying. Needles to say it is not fool proof I know of 2 people that are on it and one of them I really believe is faking it.
The biggest issue I have about government programs that give money for disabilities. They are not set up to also reevaluate at say every five years to protect the program. Don’t jump up and yell about how I don’t want to give money to the needy as I myself am disabled but am also still able to work full time in my chosen field. There just needs to be some kind of safe guard because we have too many programs out there just giving money away wilily Nelly with no one watching the totals.
Al this is not a straw man question but one I would really like to know how you would answer it.
What is the maximum amount of government benefits someone should be able to get for not working? I’m not saying unemployment but on welfare. What is the maximum amount someone should expect to receive form the government, and what rules should they be placed under. In fact if you would be willing ill set this up as a separate post asking people for their real answers to that question. I’m looking for information on what each of us think. About that question. Would anyone be interested?
written by ......... , February 09, 2010
The answer
written by tom anderson , February 08, 2010
Start increasing premiums, start decreasing benefits, gradually increase the starting age for benefits, raise the ceiling on SS taxes and build in a regular increase so that this figure doesn't have to be revisited every five years. The answer is obvious, most everyone knows it, no one in Congress has the seeds to just do it. Which explains our present situation.
You and Gorecarbon, should chair the SSS Committee...Save Social Security...
Hear is a great means test:: if one has worked all their lives, if never been on welfare, have more than $19,999.99 in assets, you do not qualify for SS.
As soon as you are done, we elect you to the SMM Committee!
Greenscam cut benefits and raised taxes - Head Start economics....
Write comment
This content has been locked. You can no longer post any comments.
You must be logged in to post a comment. Please register if you do not have an account yet.
