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

[rhombus10]

There are multiple IQ tests each with different reliability and validity measurements. Some have suggested the tests can be culturally biased which may or may not be true in today’s so-called connected world. Regardless, there are so many factors that impact the reliability of these measures (e.g., the person administering the test, etc.) and clearly one can’t have a valid measure without reliable measurements. All that said, I guess I can buy off on SOME IQ tests but if someone is going to say a person with an IQ of 102 is “Smarter” than someone with an IQ of 100, I’ll just laugh. I don’t believe the measuring instruments are that refined. Psychological measures have a long way to go and currently they are as much art as science.

[rhombus10]

We humans are so smart... :-)

https://www.petplan.co.uk/pet-information/petiq/

[gogeo]

Both will be wildly popular with most of the population. Sorry to break that to you, guys.

Wildly popular but economically poisonous. Why stop there?

[gogeo]

How about this -— STOP CONGRESS FROM RAIDING THE SOCIAL SECURITY TRUST FUND AND PUTTING IN WORHTLESS IOU’s TO FUND CURRENT EXPENSES.

That money is paid back with interest. It's a false issue.

The SS trust fund is used as a piggy bank. Benefits are paid to those who have not earned them. Retirement yes, disability especially. During how many years of Obie's presidency was there a "tax holiday," where everyone got a 'tax cut' that came from SS contributions?

Raising the retirement age is imperative. Stop using the trust fund as a source of new benefits.

[gogeo]

Bite your tongue. Screw that. I look at SS as a tax break and nothing more. Why should 65+ be paying taxes?

Because they're still working.