How Congress 'Extends the Life' of Social Security

American Thinker ^ | 05/08/2019 | Jon Hall

[SeekAndFind]

On April 22, the trustees for Social Security issued their annual reports, and the situation for the huge transfer program is unsustainable, the same as it’s been for years. The government tells us yet again that the program is running out of money. The danger here is that Americans have been hearing these dire predictions for so long now that they’ll no longer take them seriously.

April 23 on Fox News’ Special Report, Bret Baier reported on the trustees’ reports and discussed them with his panel. Panelist Charles Hurt opined that the financial difficulties of the big transfer programs are a “slow-rolling catastrophe,” and added this: “The fact remains that they're going insolvent.” If Social Security were a private sector enterprise, it’d long ago have been declared insolvent.

Although no link was provided, Baier surely got his information from the Social Security Administration’s A Summary of the 2019 Annual Reports or from Treasury’s April 22 press release, both of which say: “Social Security’s total cost is projected to exceed its total income (including interest) in 2020 for the first time since 1982, and to remain higher throughout the projection period.” What we should note here is the parenthetical “including interest.”

What the quote is referring to is OASDI, i.e. the combined trust fund operations of both Old-Age and Survivors Insurance (OASI) and Disability Insurance (DI). But the program for old timers (OASI) is already under water in that income from its dedicated tax, the payroll tax, isn’t enough to pay benefits.

To confirm that refer to Table II.B1. -- Summary of 2018 Trust Fund Financial Operations

[central_va]

Immigration has been a major bright spot in the Social Security solvency calculations.

Dumbest thing I ever heard but you are probably imported. Go to the DU immigration boy.

[OIFVeteran]

No one ever says, “damn that 110th congress really had a great economy.” Even though all three branches are equal the President is still seen as the top leader. So I look at it like the Army does, when your in charge you are responsible for everything your unit does or doesn’t do.

On another note I was hoping with Obama(who I did not
vote for)as President and a Republican Congress we would see a return to the Bill Clinton years of better fiscal responsibility. Disappointed it didn’t happen.

Half of all Americans are below average intelligence. Hell social security is fairer than the military. The military is paid for by people that pay taxes but everyone gets the benefit of it. With Social Security you have to contribute to get anything. (With some exceptions for widows/surviving children)

With the increase in life expectancy and the movement away from a farm based economy I think having a government run retirement program is the right move. Now it should have been created by a seperate constitutional amendment instead of through the taxing power of the 16 Amendment, but it is what it is.

[OIFVeteran]

Under Reagan the debt increased by 186%, the third highest of any President in history. The other two ahead of him, FDR and Wilson, were dealing with world wars.

Now I do give him some leeway since he was rebuilding the military and trying to defeat the Soviet Union without actually going to war. Ever since him every President has increased the debt substantially, except for Clinton.

Tax and spend democrats suck, but cut taxes and spend Republican suck more.

[OIFVeteran]

Also just because I gave him an F in that area I would still rate him overall as one of the best Presidents we’ve had.

[central_va]

Most deficit ‘chickenhawks’ (like you) decide to ignore the other side of the ledger, revenue. You are probably and anti tariff free trader too. So I discount anything you say.

[rhombus10]

You are quite correct. It is what it is. What children, grandchildren and beyond want to make of the program is up to them.

[OIFVeteran]

Yes, but we can do something now for our children and grandchildren. It is politically impossible to get rid of Social Security, or to even change the program to a private one. However, we can pressure our politicians to at least pay for it. The most politically palatable way to do that is by getting rid of the cap on the amount of income that is affected by the Social Security tax.

I think it is a very conservative position to pay for the benefits the American people want. It is not a conservative position to borrow endlessly to pay for programs.

[kjam22]

Third way.... offer citizens the opportunity to withdraw the funds that they paid in and were paid in for them over their work career.

[OIFVeteran]

So what if revenue goes up if you increase spending also? Your actually increasing the deficit and debt quicker.

I have been a strong supporter of tariffs. However, I am concerned by the reaction of American companies by Trump’s latest tariffs. From what I read American dryer manufactures have actually increased their prices to match the price of foreign made dryers to increase their profits. Instead of increasing their profits by increasing their sales by keeping their prices low. This negates any pressure a tariff could create in a foreign government. So their undermining Trump’s leverage against China.

[litehaus]

“STOP CONGRESS FROM RAIDING THE SOCIAL SECURITY TRUST FUND AND PUTTING IN WORHTLESS IOU’s TO FUND CURRENT EXPENSES.”

YEH ! AND pass a law those 535 ANUS’ have to live by what THEY make us live on !!! Equality for them too !! DOWN TO the level they forced on us ...OH YEH ! They get whatever we get for medical ins TOO.....

[Freedom_Is_Not_Free]

Thanks for the update. I appreciate it.

[OIFVeteran]

No problem. I had a lot of wrong information about Social Security also until a buddy I served with started working for them after he retired. Things he was telling me didn’t match things I had read and I knew he wasn’t a liar. So I started researching it myself and found out many things I thought I knew were wrong and many things I didn’t know about the program.

To effectively solve a problem you have to be working with the correct information. Too many people on both sides of this problem are working from faulty info, so you’ll never get a correct solution.

[rhombus10]

Half of all Americans are below average intelligence.

I constantly have people reminding me of this fact when I talk about personal responsibility. Since I worked for five years as a social worker, I won't deny that there's plenty of ignorance out there but like all social welfare programs (and that is the direction social security is going), where does the rationale end? They're stupid so we feed them. They're stupid so we house them. They're stupid so we force retirement savings. Meanwhile, others work and work. Who is stupid again?

[OIFVeteran]

It ends when enough Americans decide they want it to end and pressure/vote for representatives that will end it. Most Americans want Social Security, at least from the way they pressure/vote.

I want us to stop going into debt to pay for programs the majority of Americans want. If it means we have to raise taxes to do that, then so be it. The Republicans used to be the party of fiscal responsibility but every President from Reagan on, excluding Clinton, has increased the deficit and debt dramatically. So out of the last six Presidents four have been Republicans, if they were truly the party of fiscal responsibility we would not be in the debt we are today.

Also kudos to you for being a social worker which is a thankless job with low pay. I would imagine you deal with a lot of people on SSI and SSDi?

[rhombus10]

For what it’s worth, I left social work because the jobs I had didn’t really help people, they just increased public dependence. And sure, some people wanted those programs. What of it? I grow weary of people telling me what “most Americans want” and then telling me that most people are not that intelligent.

[grania]

If salaries for all workers were at a self-sufficiency level, two things would happen. (1) they'd pay more tax and (2) they wouldn't need federal handouts.

It doesn't make sense to cap what's paid into Social Security for higher-income earners. They're benefitting from the system that's out of balance for employee income. They should pay some of that back into the system so lower-income victims of the system can have a survival-level Social Security income in retirement.

I'm one of those who is very cynical. The feds print or digitize what they call money for everything else. They sure as *ell can print the stuff for Seniors who've worked to get this pension.

Add to that an economic factor. A very good way to boost local economies is to give Seniors a paycheck that's ample to meet their needs and then some. A lot of that money goes into the local economy, where there's a multiplier effect from its impact.

[grania]

George the Younger tries to promote that (privatization) right after his re-election. It did not go well

Little Folk do not trust the Masters to have total control over having enough money to survive our senior years. Who knew? <^..^>

[OIFVeteran]

That’s one of the many problems with our system. In most states unless you are declared mentally incompetent you can vote. My friend at SS was doing a review on a young man with down syndrome who had just turned 18. It happened to be election day and the guy had a I voted sticker on his jacket and so did his mom. He asked the mom if her son voted and she said yes. He was shocked. He had assumed (as I had) that if you were mentally incompetent you couldn’t vote. Not in our state. If your not declared mentally incompetent by the courts you can still vote. He asked the mom how did he know who/what to vote for? She replied she gave him a list and the poll workers let her help him. That just blew me away.

Would love to see a constitutional amendment restricted the right to vote to those with an IQ of 100 or greater, but it will never happen.

[rhombus10]

Would love to see a constitutional amendment restricted the right to vote to those with an IQ of 100 or greater, but it will never happen.

You believe in IQ tests? Sorry, I've way too many statistics and experimental design courses to believe any IQ test. Oh but it's science. Not so much.

Earning an advanced degree in an engineering school is what lowered my confidence in "smart people", their degrees and their IQ tests. Even "mentally deficient" folks can love America. My beef is with mentally deficient and historically ignorant media who twist and take advantage of the mentally deficient "smart people".

[OIFVeteran]

So you don’t believe IQ tests accurately measure intelligence, or just that having a high IQ doesn’t necessarily mean your “smart”? If it’s the latter I agree with you. Met a lot of high IQ people who I wouldn’t trust to watch my dogs.

However, I’m not a big fan of universal suffrage. Also not a big fan of the government deciding who and who cannot vote. It’s a pipe dream anyways. Politics is the art of the possible and you would never pass an amendment that would disenfranchise about 1/3 of all voters.