Social Security’s Three Challenges (not Crises) and Why the Right is in a Box
{Cross posted from dkos Social Security Defenders Group}
If we back up a bit and examine Social Security absent the lenses of the various economic and ideological stakeholders, it is clearly not in crisis. But it does face challenges, or at least one challenge viewed three different ways.
The challenge is stated pretty simply: under current law and current intermediate economic and demographic projections Social Security’s income from all sources is projected to fall short of costs under the scheduled benefit in the late 2030s. But that is the last point of agreement in this debate and even that overstates the confidence in those projections. But ‘Intermediate Cost’ is at least a common point of departure.
The basic challenge as stated assumes that the assets in the Trust Fund both as to principal and interest will be available as income and will serve to backfill tax revenue until assets are depleted, after which current law mandates that benefits be cut to match then current revenue. Which under current projections means a 22% cut compared to the baseline. But this is where views of the challenge diverge dramatically, and so suggestions of what to do about it. Wonkery below the fold.
Supporters see the challenge as the cut in benefits itself and so frame solutions in the of better outcomes after 2038. That is one challenge.
One the other hand one group of critics see the problem as being in the benefit schedule itself which they see as overgenerous and so frame solutions in terms of keeping future retirees from demanding a 100% of schedule result, even as they may not openly advocate the 78% result current projections give us.
Which puts the two solution sets in dynamic opposition, with supporters wanting to drag 78% up and critics wanting to drag 100% down.
But a second, overlapping set of critics see the challenge in more immediate terms, for them the problem is paying down the current obligations of the Trust Funds, which in their more charitable public moments they express in terms of avoiding crowding out other spending, but in their more candid moments is revealed to be our old friend tax avoidance.
Which is why Republicans are in a box. There is no question that Trust Fund assets are a legal obligation under current law and backed by Full Faith and Credit, legalistic arguments that they have no real economic value, or that one part of government can’t ‘really’ owe another part, or appeals to Flemming v Nestor running into rock of law and historic and current practice, in fact the Disability Insurance Trust Fund is busily cashing in large chunks of its principal as we speak, just as both Trust Funds did throughout the 70s until the Funds went to near zero in 1982.
The box takes form. While it is reasonable to make the economic case that the projected scale of Trust Fund asset redemption on a year to year basis at some point becomes so onerous that it makes sense to stretch it out, that would require actual numbers for the years 2011 to 2037. Because for this group a policy of ‘Nothing’ simply brings forward their own ‘Tax Freedom Day’, for them Trust Fund Depletion is the equivalent of burning the mortgage, while any cuts in benefits prior to 2037 just extends the life of the Trust Fund and so their payments. Their only total escape is to cut benefits and shift taxes downward so dramatically that they never have to pay anything back, and so in effect abrogate the Trust Funds completely. Which gives them a teensy problem of buy-in, particularly if the end result results in a worse than 78% outcome that a policy of ‘Nothing’ provides.
Because 78% provides a kind of lower bound here and ‘reformers’ are faced with supplying numbers that show that in real terms their ‘Something’ provides a better real outcome for the grandchildren they profess to be worried about.
We know what it would cost right now if we left the system untouched and filled the projected gap by tax increases on people earning under the current cap schedule. We have the numbers and the dollars per week per worker and remarkably it turns out to be couch change, and CBO has confirmed the numbers of similar tax based plans. Or we could agree to split the difference and only take an 89% solution. But any solution that doesn’t provide a 78% plus outcome on net for those future taxpayers and retirees across the board should be rejected.
Graham made an appeal to that 78% number as something to be avoided, yet there is no plan currently on the board that delivers a better result for workers at a lower cost than ‘Nothing’. Maybe they can sell a straight out proposal to ‘reform’ Social Security by cutting benefits so as to fund tax cuts for billionaires and just be willing to take the political heat a naked CBO score would supply. But I don’t see it, which is EXACTLY they attempted to sneak Social Security into some packaged ‘Grand Compromise’ via the Catfood Commission and now the C.R. and Debt Limit showdowns, and why the Dems move to build a wall of separation this week are so important.
Because if they want a straight up and down fight over the economics and financing of Social Security based on actual cost and outcomes for a huge majority of Americans, we got the numbers and they just don’t. They were just hoping that people wouldn’t understand that in the Republican dictionary ‘shared sacrifice’ means ‘workers sacrifice, capitalists take shares in the result’.
Can the bi-partisan unwarranted influence of the military industrial complex overcome the third rail? I suggest the wars end, the Keynesian sending for unwarranted influence end and a war surcharge be levied to pay off the SSTF which forestalled war taxes and huge private borrowing for the wars.
Well
as you know, they don’t care about the numbers, except to put fright wigs on them and scare the children.
and I wouldn’t care to “split the difference.” just can’t see why you’d want to save yourself half of “couch change” at the risk of having to eat cat food when you are old.
SS benefits are not huge. In fact they are “just barely.” 10% less than “just barely” is “not enough.”
I support a war surtax, but it has no relationship to SS. Based on the estimates I have read, if a surtax collected enough to cover war costs, it would be more than enough to pay back the SSTF.
I also think income taxes should be raised at all levels. Regardless of whether it was the SS surplus that allowed the tax cuts to happen, we all benefited. Now we can all pay it back.
I only see critics viewing 78% as their upper bound and any solution for them must be lower, preferably turned into welfare so it could eventually be zeroed out.
I agree with Lord that 78 percent is an upper bound for SS opponents. Anyone remember Bush or even Ryan? SS proponents need 100 percent to be a lower bound defining the least acceptable level for “strengthening SS” as Obama claims he wants. Presidents, btw, mostly choose from among options placed before them and only occasionally push hard for better options. Other than misguided lefty ideas that would turn it into welfare there haven’t been many proposals to make it stronger than 100 percent.
But that is part of the box. Graham explicitly called out the 22% cut as something to be avoided, yet as you and Lord point out they really have to plans to lessen it, at best only finding a way to sweeten it a la Mary Poppins: “A spoonful of sugar makes the medicine go down!”
Witness here the power of ‘Nothing’.
The rebulicans are action takes, at least you can thank them for that.
I listen to the FFT guys over at they called the stockmarket crash back in 08 and this middle east
crisis. Well worth having a look at.
They also have a controversial ebook coming out next week called U.S. SECRET HIDDEN TREASURE MAP!
http://www.forecastfortomorrow.com/news/products looks intresting
Well
if a tax raise of 40 cents per week each year will restore 100% of benefits.. and it will… on a monthly basis for a longer number of months.. at a higher standard of living… just think what 50 cents could do.
But that’s dangerous thinking. The point of social security is that it’s insurance, not a way of life. it collects the minimum tax that will provide a minimum decent retirement. any more than that and you are taking money away from “now” to provide more for “later”, while “now” still has its needs and demands. SS is balanced at a pretty good point between “now” and “later.”
which is also a pretty good point between “government” and “freedom”.
The greatest challenge to Social Security is, IMO, politicians who want to gut it.
The US has traditionally paid off the wars, Truman, Ike and Kennedy paid for WW II and Korea.
It was not until Reagan and Bush Jr. that the republicans decided to bankrupt the US.
Some have been after the New Deal since it was started. One reason that FDR was reelected in 1940.
They have been allied with the military industrial complex, Luce’s empirial aspirations and red scares.
To many of the anti New Dealers SS is smae as a red scare.
Bankrupting the US with perpetual war is a tactic of the anti New Deal crowd, helped by skimmed profits………………………………
There is a simple solution. Just raise the minimum wage over the next ten years to $20/hr, the income limit to $250K over the next ten years and tax the rich and corporations starting with capital gains to top rate of 70%. Raising the minimum wage will increase contributions both to SS and income tax. Increasing the income limits will raise more SS. And increasing the top tax rate will make sure the federal government can pay its SS obligations.
To quote Paul Newman in “Cool Hand Luke”: “Sometimes nothing is a mighty cool hand.”
Interesting thoughts from Webb today. He is focused on what might happen in 2037. The year that the TF runs out in his mind.
Just a reminder on this from Dean Baker. June 2004 he wrote about how great things were at SS. At the time the TF had just confirmed the good news. The fund would be exhusted in 2053!!!!
So in seven years the blowup in SS has been forshortened by 17 years!!!! And today Webb is talking about what 2037 could look like. Folks this has nothing to do with 2037. It is much sooner than you think. All your numbers are going to have to be revised. Just like they have been in the past 7 years.
I think the date is closer to 2025 at this point. That we are running cash deficits of $50b in 2010 makes the 2037 date a joke.
bkrasting,
I would just as soon the SSTF be depleted soonest.
The SSTF was nearly zero in 1975, and again in 1982. What is the significance of the TF “running” low? Not much.
You are wrong about a cash deficit in 2010. The SSTF holds about $2.4T, the deficit issue is with the US government.
If the SSTF had cash deficits of $50b in 2010, then the military industrial complex and the empire had cash deficits of $1T in 2010.
THe SSTF excess cash since 2002 was lent to the military industrial complex’ wars and waste.
At least Peter John suggests a solution. What have you got to offer beyond right wing ideological screed? With the wealthiest sectors of the income distribution enjoying an ever increasing share of the economic wealth of the sountry do you see that playing any role in our current state of financial affairs? Do you see the wisdom of going to the “bank” when one is looking for funding? And by the bank I mean to refer to the stored wealth of the top One Percent. The country gave it to them, and the country should taketh away. It’s not redistribution when one takes back what was once theirs.
Peter John
there is an even simpler solution: raise the payroll tax one half of one tenth of one percent per year.
all of your suggestions turn out to be quite complex and full of hidden traps.
certainly a raise in the minimum wage is a good idea. but $20/hr is unreachable and unsustainable and probably not even wise.
and certainly a raise in income taxes of about 3% for ten years to pay down the debt is a good idea.
raising the income limits (the “cap”) is a bad idea. SS is an insurance program. you don’t charge people a higher premium just because they are “rich,” you charge them a premium that reflects
the value of the insurance.
i think taxing capital gains as income would be fine, but the political problems with that are daunting, and a rate of 70% probably would cause all the dire consequences that the R’s keep saying any tax will cause.
you want simple: forty cents per week.
Well I am in agreement with you on this. I have said so on these pages many times. I favor a means test that eliminates SS benefits for about the top 10% of current and future recipients.
I agree that this country made some people rich. I have no problem with that. But at this point those that did get fat, don’t need the extra $1800 a month. At the same time we all agree that there are many folks in the system that are dependent on the program. To reduce their benefits would be very unfair.
This article is hard to follow. The author would have outlined it before he started writing.
One thing is left out. Why does no one mention economic growth. I know that the Republicans have been deliberately destroying the economy, so they can put the blame on Obama.
However, (1) assume (as economists say) that sane folk return to government, and the economy starts to grow again. (2) Note the fact that the US currently is at or close to zero population growth. No more baby booms. (3) Also no more floods of illegal aliens. The sane government that would give us economic growth would also (since they are sane) seal the borders.
So one scenario is that payroll taxes will keep bringing in more an more money (even without any increase in the rate) while the number of recipients will not increase or may well decline. Thus, we will be able to double benefits with no sweat.
So why does no one mention this scenario? No one knows what will happen during the next fifty years. All scenarios are dreams or phantasms. However, this scenario has the benefit of being historically accurate. Productivity has greatly increased since World War II.
All other scenarios are bound to be wrong because they assume there will be no productivity increases every again. Which is just nuts.
In a nut shell, There is no Social Security problem Zero problem No need even to think about the issue. If the Republicans bring it up, just point out that they are nuts.
Actually you are flat out wrong. SSTF ran a cash deficit in 2010 of $48,895,000,000.
Don’t believe me? Check with SSA:
http://www.ssa.gov/cgi-bin/ops_period.cgi
krasting
you are at it again. the 2037 date is not a predicition, its a projection. that is, if everything keeps happening the way it is happening then TF runs out in 2037. The 2053 number was CBO’s number, not SSA’s number, for a different year when “if everything keeps happening…” lead to a different projection.
i agree that focusing on the DEATH OF THE TRUST FUND is misguided, but when you have scary people running around shouting “WE’RE ALL GONNA DIE!” you have to start somewhere.
Starting with the official numbers seems like a better place to start that with Krasting’s Nightmare.
The date that the TF runs out has no practical effect on anything. The TF was just a bridge over the Boomer retirement and it will have done its job. The other effect on the TF is the recession, and that was also anticipated but not predicted in detail. The TF will have done its job if it sees us through the recession, In any case when the TF reaches the target one year reserve, that will be plenty of time to raise the payroll tax so it can continue “pay as you go,” the way Social Security was designed to work.
the raise in the payroll tax will be needed to pay for the longer life expectancy of the people paying the tax. it will amount to an increase of about forty cents per week each year.
if your friends keep mismanaging the economy, the payroll tax might need to be increased as much as eighty cents per week per year for a few years, but its unlikely the country can long survive being run by your friends. Social Security won’t be the cause of the collapse.
“cash deficit”
in Krasting World.. and the Big Liars… if you have a Trillion dollars in the bank and you withdraw one percent of it to buy something you have been saving for, that is a “cash deficit” and it proves you are “Broke! Flat Busted!”
Jan
I don’t mention your scenario because I prefer to work with the same assumptions the Big Liars do… and show they don’t amount to anything you would ever notice.
Bruce Webb has discussed your scenario elsewhere, but he can’t say everything every time he writes.
And if he is not clear here, it is because he has said this so many times he forgets that not everyone else knows the background.
What makes it so hard is that we say it and say it say it again and again, and the boys in the back of the class don’t listen. Then they keep saying the same dumb stuff that you just explained wasn’t true. It makes a teacher testy.
Flat broke? Busted? Just where have I said that Coberly? You chose to ignore the facts. SS was not supposed to be running deficits in 2010. But it did. And it is now well understood that it will run cash deficits for, well, forever. Got it?
You can sit there and claim that that this significant deterioration in fundamentals is of no concern. But you’re wrong.
SS is not broke. But it needs a fix. If you put your head in the sand and say this is not a problem until 2037 you will wake up in 2015 with a very big headache.
Do you really want across the board cuts? That is not what your boy Roosevelt would do if he were here today.
And please don’t tell me that the solution is to raise SS taxes. I don’t think you would get a single “yes” vote today with a proposal that starts with higher taxes.
I think it a shame that The Great Recession was not planned into assessments of SS. Oh wait….that WAS the purpose of the Trust Fund…to weather bad times. Over at Naked Capitalism BK said 2012 was the last date to fix SS, otherwise it was irreparable.
Good policy may not have the votes at the moment. How does that change the fact it is good policy not implemented yet? I can think of several aspects of the US and global economy that are much more problematic than SS appears in 2012.
“Just a reminder on this from Dean Baker. June 2004 he wrote about how great things were at SS. At the time the TF had just confirmed the good news. The fund would be exhusted in 2053!!!!”
Krasting you f-wad, the 2053 date is from CBO which has always had much more optimistic projections from SSA and still does, pegging it in 2041. I can’t tell whether your errors are ones of omission or commission but I know it is worthless trying to track down every instance of your cherry picking.
Plus the date of Trust Fund exhaustion has fuck all to do with the point of the post which is whether Republicans actually have any plan to produce a better outcome whether the precipitating event comes in 2037, 2042 (the 2004 projection for SSA) or 2053
We certainly have other pressing problems. But you use that as an excuse to avoid the issues with SS? The word is “multi-tasking”. We can deal with more than one problem at a time. I do think that 2012 is critical. The longer we wait, the greater the cost of the fix. Surely you realize that.
Jan if you click the link at the top of the page you will find an index of well over a hundred posts on this topic, a number of them focused on productivity. You might want to check out my Group at dKos where I plan in effect to start over with the basics and build on them again. Meanwhile the regular readers here are fairly up to speed and I am always ready to address specific questions in comments.
And if pointing out that Republicans were nuts were enough then this would have been over decades ago, turning your back on the assault is really not the answer.
For the record my friends aren’t running the economy.
SS will contribute to the collapse. It will not be the cause of it. To much debt will be the cause of it. But should it happen SS will be gutted. One again, you see this coming, right?
Hey, what a coincidence, the military retirement system will pay out $49B in FY 2011.
No a penny of it has any cash behind it and its trust funds contain accounting entries and the commitment of the US treasury to come up with cash.
The US spends 20% of federal outlays on wars. There are no war taxes, and that spending is anbout equal to whatthe rest of the world spends.
So, you need to cut a few hundred billion a year go see the pentagon and congress.
Leave SS alone until the real waste fraud and abuse in the US is divested.
The department of perpetual wars consumes as much as SS old age and disability outlays.
Why cut something that provides for 80 million people when the pentagon could lose 1 million jobs and the folks are young and can do better things?
If by magic this were to come true I would be the first to change my tune on how much this country could “afford”. Thousands of things could be fixed. Including SS.
But that is the least likely thing to happen.
Ah! I should have said CBO not TF. Please note that it was your champion, Baker, who used this estimate to support the view of how rosy things were.
So the CBO always has a rosier view than does TF? Interesting. The CBO is now forecasting a $500b cash deficit for SS through 21.
In this case i would agree with you. The CBO is again trying to put lipstick on the pig. The cash deficit will be at least $1 trillion. And they know it.
“I don’t think you would get a single “yes” vote today with a proposal that starts with higher taxes.”
The solution is still raising taxes, whether or not it gets votes today. Stuff like cutting federal support for Planned Parenthood and NPR will get yes votes but are not solutions. Stuff like cutting federal support for NIH and NSF will get yes votes but are not solutions. Stuff like cutting federal support for Social Security will get yes votes but is not a solution.
The solution is to raise federal income taxes on the wealthy back to the rates under the reign of St. Ronnie, to tax capital gains like regular income, to increase the gas tax by 50 cents a gallon, and to end the funding for the US military occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan. Those are solutions, whether or not they get votes today. Anyone who pretends to talk about solutions and doesn’t mention these as part of the solution is simply dishonest and not worth listening to.
Bruce K
The point is if you want to compare numbers, yoiu need to use ones from the same source. Otherwise you are simply showing you do not know how to d numbers.
If you look back over 15 to 20 years of projections, you will find that in boom times the projections become overly optimistic (during the dot-com boom), and in down times they become overly pessimistic (1991,2001, now).
bkrasting: “So in seven years the blowup in SS has been forshortened by 17 years!!!! And today Webb is talking about what 2037 could look like. Folks this has nothing to do with 2037. It is much sooner than you think.”
Correction: The “blowup” in social security (which is not really a blow-up) has not been foreshortened by 17 years. What has been foreshortened is the projection. And the projection has been foreshortened because of the financial crisis and recession, coupled with persistent high unemployment. The main message that I draw from that is not that The End Is Nigh, but that the projections have a lot of error. Yet everybody talks as though the projections are Gospel. They are not.
coberly: “you want simple: forty cents per week.”
That is ***assuming that the current projections are free of error.*** Surely 40 cents per week is swallowed up by the error term.
Here is a thought. Since everybody worships the projections, make the projections better by restoring economic health, by increasing employment, by increasing GDP. 🙂
You are of course correct on the facts. Problem is, I open my (2) newspapers each day and they are plastered with misinformed columns by every notable name in my community and state whether they possess even the elast qualification on the subject, screaming to cut SS benefits in one way or another because “we can’t afford them.” I’m beginning to think that Peter G. Peterson is actually sending these dupes a check for their trouble, the contents seem so scripted. The American public BELIEVES this crap, and belief is reality.
For gosh sakes, even my two Democratic senators are now fully on the pseudo-fiscal hawk bandwagon. Lies are now reality, regardless of the actuarial and fiscal facts.
Aha….well, I can be snarky too…but if that is all you have, selling disaster scenarios willy nilly and with no thought to sorting it out, and then incredulously asking whether I see a crisis from a less than satisfactory and piss poor presentation…what kind of response are you actually looking for?
If fixing SS in your personal terms becomes a political impossibilty does that mean you move on?
To readers…ooops.
krastin
you missed Jack’s point. The rich need to pay back the money they borrowed from SS.
the 2000 per month they get from SS, they paid for. You don’t take away the rich man’s groceries that he paid for because he doesn’t “need” them.
a means test would cost more than the money you are going to save by stealing the SS benefits from the rich. and it would completely destroy the whole point of the program: IT’S NOT WELFARE. it’s a way for workers to save their own money for their own retirement, insured against inflation, market losses, and personal bad luck. it doesn’t cost the government a dime.
krasting
your friends are the people, like you, calling for “reform” of SS. the fact that you don’t know a damn thing about SS almost excuses you. They know what they are doing, and they are evil. their purpose is to break the working class and reduce it to a condition of indentured servitude.
SS has nothing to do with “the debt.” Except that your friends are using debt hysteria as an excuse to gut social security.
krasing
the cash deficit doesn’t matter. that’s what the money in the bank is for. when it runs out, time to raise the payroll tax to pay for longer life expectancies, at a rate of 40 cents per week if we start now. eighty cents per week if we start in 2026. maybe 16 dollars a week if we start in 2036, or 2042, or 2050, when the income of the workers will have increased by $160 per week, or 320 dollars per week or 400 dollars per week.
JimZ,
The American public BELIEVES this crap
That is because the public is looking at the bigger picture, not just the Social Security actuarial facts. In 2011 the Federal Government is projected to take in $2.2T in revenues, and will spend $3.7T. So they are spending 1.5 times income right now. This causes debt to increase to $18T in 2021 (not including Special Treasuries) or right around 100% of GDP. http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/120xx/doc12039/SummaryforWeb.pdf
There is no way you can ignore SS. It is about 20% of revenues and 20% of expenditures. SS will be just one of many constituencies pleading that their share not be cut.
min
i would assume there is some error. the 40 cents per week is CBO’s number… it turns out to be the same as the SSA number “on average”. and the reality will not be very different…. some where between zero cents per week and eighty cents per week. you need to understand these are “guesses” but not “wild ass guesses.” and 40 cents per week is a pretty damn good idea of the scale of the problem…. that is there is no problem that a sane person would even notice.
by the way, Krastings 49B cash deficit is 2% of the Trust Fund. What is the interest on the Trust Fund?
you mean the “cash deficit” is less than the interest payment?
gosh, and here i thought we needed to cut off our heads to save the cost of tomorrow’s dinner.
Krasting
you are getting tiresome. you keep repeating yourself with no sign that you have heard the answers you get. a 40 cents per week increase in the tax would meet the approval of the tax payers. the fact that you have liars and fools running the congress does not alter that fact. our job is to get the message out so the voters can tell the Congress what to do…. as if we had a democracy.
I do remember this post and link to it regarding Mr. Krasting and SS. Somewhat different take on things, with somewhat different availabilty of responses (and hypotheticals at the least.)
http://www.angrybearblog.com/2010/01/after-party.html
Dan, instead of a full Bwa Ha Ha, how about just a little giggle. Easy to snark when the passions rise, ehh? :-))
Sammy
spoken like a true criminal.
the SS beneficiaries have paid for their benefits. the deficit has nothing to do with Social Security.
Social Security could go right on paying benefits if there were no federal government at all… beyond what was needed to keep order in the streets.
when you say “political” you mean the liars and crooks are trying to take away the savings of the working people… even take away their ABILITY to save so they can buy their own freedom when they get old… and you think its a good thing. because you think its a ‘tax’. and you think it comes out of your pocket. it doesn’t.
saying that SS is 20% of expenditures is like me saying the kid next door spends 20% as much on groceries as I spend on car payments. Sure, it’s true, but it doesn’t mean anything.
The point about SS “regardless of need” is that works better than means tested welfare. That regardless of need shit is just another one of the clever lies the Big Liars tell to fool people like yo who don’t think too good.
Try to fix in your mind that no one gets a SS check who didn’t pay for it. Because “the rich” didn’t have the bad luck to end up poor, part of what they paid is what enables SS to be insurance. It’s like fire insurance… you don’t always want to get “your money’s worth” unless you are smart enouh to know that being insured was worth your money even if after a lifetime of making payments you never have a fire.
The Rich pay more and get a smaller “return on investment.”… but a larger dollar return that makes their return on investment still about 2% real (above inflation). but you can’t understand that because it’s too hard for you to think that much.
I was wondering when some one here would call Krasting on that.
No Sammy,
For a grown-up (which you clearly are not), what cannot be ignored is the need to raise taxes back to the rates that prevailed during the reign of St. Ronnie. What cannot be ignored is the need to end the wasted spending on the US military occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan. What cannot be ignored is that Social Security has nothing whatsoever to do with the federal deficit.
What cannot be ignored is that you are a troll.
coberly,
the deficit has nothing to do with Social Security.
I hate to break it to you, but the whole SS structure is an ARTIFICIAL CONSTRUCT.
For example, the current SS tax rate is 12.2%, the Medicare tax rate is 2.9%, for a total tax rate of 15% of income. If the tax rate for SS was 8% and the Medicare rate was 7%, it still adds up to a 15% tax rate but your projections for SS would look a whole lot worse, and the projections for Medicare would be a whole lot better, but THE BOTTOM LINE WOULD BE THE SAME, and we’d be talking about a SS problem while Medicare would be “fine.”
It’s the same thing with the benefit side. If the program had originally been designed, and modified, with a higher or lower benefit calculation, we would have a bigger or smaller “problem.”
So since the whole thing is artificial, why should we not be allowed to change it with changing circumstances? Your Social Security statement even spells this out:
*Your estimated benefits are based on current law. Congress has made changes to the law in the past and can do so at any time. The law governing benefit amounts may change because, by 2037, the payroll taxes collected will be enough to pay only about 78 percent of scheduled benefits.
Sammy
why do you persist in being ignorant. you have been at this long enough to find out the facts.
OASDI is what we are talking about when we (I) talk about Social Security and it is what the evil bastards are trying to cut. OASDI pays for itself. IT is not an artificial construct. it is a real system that has been functioning for seventy years and can continue to function in the same way it always has for the forseeable future… right over that “infinite horizon”.
If you knew how to read, or were honest, you would realize that the Social Security statement you cite is exactly what we have been talking about for five years.
lets call that 78% three quarters. for every dollar SS is going to need in 2037 it will collect three quarters from the existing tax. to pay for the rest of the dollar in benefits it will need to collect an extra quarter. one extra quarter for every three it now collects. but it now collects 6% from the workers paycheck. an extra one part out of three would be an extra 2%.
or 4% if you insist upon the “combined tax” but keep in mind that if the bosses share is really the workers money then you need to add it to his paycheck, l and when you subtract it again for SS , you leave him with exactly as much money as he had before.
so sometime around 2037 the worker will need to find an extra 2 dollars out of every hundred dollars of his pay, but by 2037 his pay will have increased by 50 dollars for every hundred dollars he gets today. i suspect he can find 2 dollars in that fifty dollars to pay for his expected increased life expectancy in retirement.
but once more Sammy shows us the brilliance of only looking at the “facts” he wants to see and then running around screaming and shouting and telling us to cut off our heads to save on the cost of living.
i have to admit your little essay into “assuming” that the retirement tax was only half what it is so you can apply the remainder to the rising cost of health care was sheer brilliance if you like brilliant mendacity. but don’t count on getting Biggs’ job.
No Krasting, you completely6 miss my point. Leave social security out of the fix. Once the economy and the general budget are repaired Social Security will be as healthy as ever in the past. Tax those that have in order to pay the cost of the general budget. It really is that simple. When multi million dollar annual pay and other forms of earnings are taxed at higher levels we may then begin to see pay scales at the lower end begin to rise. Until there is a restructuring of the income distribution curve the economy is doomed.
What cannot be ignored is that you are a troll.
And Joel jumps in to the debate with another one of his scintillating rebuttals.
Dale, Joel, Bruce, et al you can protest Sammy znd the others of us who disagree with your understanding of revenues and spending, but, it doesn’t matter. Go to DC and tell it to the Congresscritters who can do what they must to make them better matched. The simplest of facts is that they have not matched the revenues to outlays, and they know both sides of the equation include SS.
Dale, Joel, Bruce, et al you can protest Sammy and the others of us who disagree with your understanding of revenues and spending, but, it doesn’t matter. Go to DC and tell it to the Congresscritters who can do what they must to make them better matched. The simplest of facts is that they have not matched the revenues to outlays, and they know both sides of the equation include SS.
CoRev,
I suggest you consider the treasury deciding to extend the term of the next $100B in 60 days notes coming due, make them 60 year notes. Then the next 100 B in 30 day notes become 30 year notes, no change in interest……….
Etc.
So, you don’t think the US government should borrow money or raise taxes to pay out the $48 B that SSA did not collect to meets it obligations. Easy, just go to Staples and press the red button it can just decide to not borrow or tax any money to pay off short term T bills. Easy!!
Your claims, as well as sammy and krasting, is that SSTF does not have a claim on the future revenues and spending of the US government. I suspect the claims of the OPM retirement as well as the military retirement system trust instruments are even less pursuable.
The $2.4T of intragovernment instruments in the SS TF have a prior to claim to any revenues and priority over spending choices of the US. You disagree.
You suggest default or unilateral change to the current social contract.
I believe the last Bourbons in France had some grievances against them and their breech………………
A guillotine comes to mind.
While you are abrogating debt instruments why not cancel the $4T odd held by US citizens along with the 3T odd held by foreigners.
Very easy!!
no CoRev
only if you think the bank has a right to take your money and give it to one of its other clients… because after all you both deal with the same teller.
your inability to understand this suggests that you would not be a good person to leave alone in the house with the family silver set.
of course we already know that about congressmen. and if you would introduce us to one willing to listen, we would try to explain it to him. but so far in this democracy our best hope is to try to explain it to honest citizens.
Sammy, don’t forget it was a point-by-point rebuttal. ;-))
coberly: “you need to understand these are “guesses” but not “wild ass guesses.”
Oh, I know that they are educated guesses. But that does not mean that the error term going out so many years is small.
coberly: “40 cents per week is a pretty damn good idea of the scale of the problem…. that is there is no problem that a sane person would even notice.”
I agree, and, as far as I can tell, the scale of the supposed problem is well within the error. I suppose that the CBO is required by law to come up with the 40 cents per week figure, but it is virtually useless without an error term. Without an error term, no sane person should be talking about it. Just tell the fear mongers to STFU.
ILSM, Dale, I’ve made my point, and you respond with argument by analogy????S
Sheesh!!!
coberly,
This must be very frustrating for you. EVERYONE that disagrees with you re. Social Security is a liar, thief, and and a criminal. (Even though what they are thieving is not clear. It does not correspond to any legal definition of a crime. They certainly derive no personal benefit).
This includes all Republicans, Conservatives, Tea Partiers, the President and some other Democrats, CBO, Pete Peterson, Heritage, bond rating agencies, etc, etc. Everybody EXCEPT for you, the last honest man, the modern day Diongenes.
Either that, or you refuse to understand what they are talking about.
Bruce,
we got the numbers and they just don’t.
You might have the SS actuarial numbers, but your opponents have these numbers:
Federal Revenues: $2.2T, Federal Expenditures: $3.7T = 1.5T deficit (40%).
Cutting spending will be extremely difficult. Just look at what happened in Wisconsin when they asked the teachers to contribute 5% towards their retirement and 12.5% towards their health insurance. Walker = Hitler. Every constituency that is cut will scream bloody murder, and people that are dependent on the Federal Government will be genuinely hurt. People will actually die if Medicare/Medicaid gets gutted, not to mention other programs for the poor.
So in this context, cutting Social Security payments to the wealthy elderly via a means test is extremely low hanging fruit. It is practically rotting on the ground.
CoRev,
Smarter scientists please!
Social Security started as an insurance program, but wages have been flat, investment return near zero, and defined pensions have vanished. I’d say that 70% or more of all retirees have no choice but to rely on their insurance. Like the mortgage insurance debacle, where so many financial experts found themselves relying on their insurers that the government had to step in as insurer as last resort, we have a similar problem with retirement insurance. If incomes had been rising, people might have been able to save more. If the stock market and housing markets hadn’t crashed, people might have accumulated assets to fund their retirements. If fewer companies had stopped offering pensions, more people might have been able to retire on private benefits. It’s all if, if, if.
Thanks ot the economic policies of the last 30 years, most baby boomers are looking at their Social Security insurance benefits as their reitrement funding of last resort.
Why gut Social Security? We didn’t gut the financial sector when it screwed up totally. I’m sure a panicky Congress can find a few trillion bucks, just the way it did for TARP, the big job creating tax cuts, the War in Iraq and other such emergency spending.
The trick to successful multi-tasking is setting priorities. Social Security has a long lead time during which a lot can happen, and it has a simple fix. Yes, the Sun will eventually turn into a red giant and engulf the earth, but there is no need for a crash evacuation program.
You may be correct that the country will continue its anti-tax, anti-investment policies and implode, but a lot of other things are going to break before Social Security does if that happens. Odds are if we fix those other things first, we may never need to fix Social Security. For example, deregulation and tax cuts have restrained GDP growth and flat-lined incomes. If we fix the GDP growth and income problem, Social Security will fix itself.
Ah, sammy,
And that is your idea of a rebuttal? Poor thing.
Actually, young sammy, there are lots of folks who understand, as Dale and I do, that SS has nothing to do with the deficit. The fact there are clowns and liars in among Republicans, Tea Partiers (but I repeat myself), and some in the Democratic party who share your misunderstanding doesn’t demonstrate that we don’t know exactly what they are talking about. There are lots of Republicans and Tea Partiers (but I repeat myself) who believe in Creationism, who think Saddam had WMDs and who believe in UFOs. If it makes me Diogenes to call them fools, color me Diogenes.
Joel,
And that is your idea of a rebuttal?
There is nothing to rebut. You only offer unsupported opinion and insults. I am starting to believe that you are not really a scientist. You only play one on blogs.
Joel,
And that is your idea of a rebuttal?
There is nothing in your comment to rebut. You only offer unsupported opinion and insults. I am starting to believe that you are not really a scientist, but only play one on blogs.
Revenue and spending.
Provide a fault to the syllogism.
You said the politicians will default on SSTF………………….
That needs a response that says why default on SSTF when there is another 11T of obligations to default on?
And a few trillion in military industrial complex waste fraud and abuse to deliver spending reductions.
“Cutting spending will be extremely difficult.”
Cut the elephant in the room: A few trillion in military industrial complex waste fraud and abuse to deliver spending reductions.
Look outside your box. That Randian box which says the highly evolved owners won’t pay anything for the unevolved masses.
But this is somewhat boxed in wrong: “People will actually die if Medicare/Medicaid gets gutted, not to mention other programs for the poor. “
People in the US are dying because the Randian approach to medical delivery. So that the doctors and onwers of medical facilities don’t go Galt.
sammy
i guess it’s a debating trick they teach you in troll school. just keep repeating the same dumb argument as if they haven’t answered it a dozen times. eventually they give up and go home, and you are the last man standing. call it victory.
Ah, Sammy,
I can’t imagine caring about anything less than about your beliefs concerning me and my profession.
What are your beliefs concerning raising federal income tax rates to balance the federal budget? Because if you believe the federal budget can be balanced without raising taxes, you are unserious.
What are your beliefs concerning cutting US defense spending by terminating the US military occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan? Because if you believe cuts in Social Security will have more impact on the federal deficit than ending the US military occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan, you are unserious.
ILSM said: “Look outside your box.” But, but, but, the box is the overall budget, which includes yout trollish subject and Dale’s trollish subject. Convince the Congress critters who actually have the responsibility.
This is the last stand of bkrasting as well. How is it that the current and probably temporary prevailing political sentiment becomes the basis for good policy? And that a sound program becomes a target because someone might have spent too much on too many things?
Such power plays are occurring, but you are not addressing them in any sort of big picture nor in detail. While some of us ARE involved with Congresscritters and national player levels for the program, to offer it here as a rebuttal to the figures is trollish I believe.
Conflating the issues here is not useful except as a political calculus….but the moves put on the national level by some of us do not translate well into a post on SS efficacy…low hanging fruit is a political decision (as a political operative you can make your own choices).
The only answer to your statement is that it is being done by several here…are you doing so personally as well, which is the implication. What more do you want except to simply ask a rhetorical question?
Corev:
This is the last stand of bkrasting as well. How is it that the current and probably temporary prevailing political sentiment becomes the basis for good policy? And that a sound program becomes a target because someone might have spent too much on too many things?
Such power plays are occurring, but you are not addressing them in any sort of big picture nor in detail. While some of us ARE involved with Congresscritters and national player levels for the program, to offer it here as a rebuttal to the figures is trollish I believe.
Conflating the issues here is not useful except as a political calculus….but the moves put on the national level by some of us do not translate well into a post on SS efficacy…low hanging fruit is a political decision (as a political operative you can make your own choices).
The only answer to your statement is that it is being done by several here…are you doing so personally as well, which is the implication. What more do you want except to simply ask a rhetorical question?
CoRev,
Let them eat cake while they default on the obligations to real people.
It is obvious, to all but the neocon and organized western religion, that you cannot legislate morals, even flawed morality.
Every two years, if the agitprop don’t squirrel the masses.
Note Fox was excluded from Canada where the central government, like that of ancient Rome, thought misleadiing the voters a crime.
Dan, what are you trying to say with this? “This is the last stand of bkrasting as well.”
Otherwise, the plethora of articles protecting SS from potential change appears to be a eraction to the political change that occurred in November. It was a bipartisan commission and Democratic president that did that.
Just exactly did I say to elicit this response, or are you just commenting in general?
BTW, unless the crew here working with Congress are talking to the correct power players, then I doubt it will have any more impact than the other blogland efforts.
Dan, what are you trying to say with this? “This is the last stand of bkrasting as well.”
Otherwise, the plethora of articles protecting SS from potential change appears to be a reaction to the political change that occurred in November. SS is on the budget review table, but it was a bipartisan commission and Democratic president that did that. This article aqppears to imply it is the “right” driving this, but the reality is it is a bipartisan recognition of a bigger potentail budget problem.
Just exactly what did I say to elicit this response, or are you just commenting in general?
BTW, unless the crew here working with Congress are talking to the correct power players, then I doubt it will have any more impact than the other blogland efforts.
ILSM, what is this supposed to mean? Who is proposing defraulting on obligations. Why are you asking me? Talk to your own Congresscritter.
ILSM, what is this supposed to mean? Who is proposing defaulting on obligations. Why are you asking me? Talk to your own Congresscritter.
Sammy you tempted me into looking into your statements about the artificiality of the SS structure and I can only establish, in the text of 1990 law, the exact opposite of your claim: that is, it would appear that a unified budget that includes SS is the “ARTIFICIAL CONSTRUCT” with no legal basis. Has that provision of law changed? The President proposes a budget (and since 1968 has provided a unified budget proposal) but, of course, Congress actually legislates one and that’s the only one that legally is real (not artificial). The legislated budget excludes SS trust funds’ receipts and outlays as off-budget, as required by its 1990 law. If this is correct, then the unified budget is as artificial as the the notion of “entitlements” (which then is an artificiality within an artificiality). Maybe there’s a budget lawyer out there who can correct me if this is wrong.
Cash is everything Coberly. Your brain can’t get around that. In the years to come you will. This will be central to the debate on SS.
McConnell made reference to the $50b deficit on Face The Nation this AM. Get ready, you will hear it again and again.
http://www.cbsnews.com/sections/ftn/main3460.shtml?tag=hdr;snav
CoRev,
I thought you’d read Tyler Cowen in NYT. Said folks who hold US notes are suckers the terms are changing……….
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/06/business/06view.html
“others of us who disagree with your understanding of revenues and spending, but, it doesn’t matter.”
Why would I want to influence my congress critter, if not to try and balance the libertarians and anti new deal oligarchs who would default on the $2.4T that is owed to me and the 100M paying into to SS.
Better they close down the DoD, and save a trillion a year from paying off the military industrial complex.
I would rather they reneged on the $800M special notes in the OPM retirement fund or the $438B in the military which included about 138B it owes to medicare, which means a few more years before it goes broke. The money there because DoD don’t pay cash to medicare for their soldiers’ future benefits.
CoRev,
Call me paranoid.
Hurting a lot of people a lot is more politically acceptable than hurting a few a little or cutting corporate welfare.
I thought you’d read Tyler Cowen in NYT. He said folks who hold US notes are suckers the terms are “they are a changin……….
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/06/business/06view.html
“others of us who disagree with your understanding of revenues and spending, but, it doesn’t matter.”
Why would I want to influence my congress critter, if not to try and balance the libertarians and anti new deal oligarchs who would default on the $2.4T that is owed to me and the 100M paying into to SS?
Better they close down the DoD, and save a trillion a year from paying off the military industrial complex.
I would rather the congresscritters reneged on the $800M special notes in the OPM retirement fund or the $438B in the military which included about 138B it owes to medicare, which means a few more years before it goes broke. The money there because DoD don’t pay cash to medicare for their soldiers’ future benefits.
A lot fewer people hurt a lot less than cutting SS or Medicare.
Just don’t call me “late for dinner”.
PJR, go look at the Prez’s budget, and you will find the answers there. But, the totals include both “on” and “off” budget amounts when showing the projected deficit.
ILSM, what we on the right have noticed is the complete disinterest in the budget/deficit. One side thinks its a potential disaster, and the other concentrates on protecting the SS part of the budget, while apparently ignoring the impacts of that decision.
CoRev that is the President’s PROPOSED budget. It is not a real budget, it is an artificial budget. Please understand that only Congress has the power to create a real budget. It does not matter whether the President wants to use the accounting method that we call a “unified budget” when he is proposing a budget. That’s his choice. Congress, however, is required by its own law NOT to include SS receipts and outlays in the legislated (real) budget and, instead, to deal with them off-budget. My point is that anybody who claims that the unified budget is a real budget, and that separating SS from it is artificial, has it wrong and ass-backwards from a legal standpoint.
BTW, the President’s budget proposal says this: “The total or unified budget surplus consists of two parts: the on-budget surplus or deficit; and the surplus of the off-budget Federal entities, which have been excluded from the budget by law.” This legal understanding seems to lie behind many statements on AB by Coberly, Webb, and a few others when they are insulted for not understanding the budget. They appear to understand it better than their critics.
CoRev,
Rolling on the floor laughing!!
I should stop here. But………………
You are trelling me deficits are okay for current waste fraud and abuse.
How do you define serious?
Ignoring the annual elephants (38% of outlays for corporate welfare, and untold tax expenses for the wealthy) in the room, talking only of SS the “right” is being serious about budget/deficits!
The right’s serious solution is to refuse to cash SSTF instruments?
Not addressing hundreds of billions a year in military industrial complex waste fraud and abuse is being serious.
How do you define serious?
Dishonor……………………….
CoRev,
Rolling on the floor laughing!!
I should stop here. But………………
First, a little history: 11 Apr 1951, nearly 60 years ago, Truman fired the imperial general Mac Arthur after he nearly lost the US 8th Army twice in 10 months. Then politiced for his ego and WW III.
You are trelling me deficits are okay for current waste fraud and abuse.
How do you define serious?
Ignoring the annual elephants (38% of outlays for corporate welfare, and untold tax expenses for the wealthy) in the room, talking only of SS the “right” is being serious about budget/deficits!
The right’s serious solution is to refuse to cash SSTF instruments?
Not addressing hundreds of billions a year in military industrial complex waste fraud and abuse is being serious.
How do you define serious?
Dishonor……………………….
It is simply unacceptable to run a government funded retirement program as an income redistribution (out of present revenues). This is known as a Ponzi scheme. “Challenges” the ultimate in euphomistic denial.
PJR, confusing isn;t it! :-)) You arecorre3ct, that;s what the law says, but what do we see, the total number in thst very same projected deficit. From that point you get into the word salad world of Federal bidgetting. The next step is a series of authorization bills that set spending limits to be considered by the various congressional budget committees. The Congressional committees then draft appropriations bills fcor the vaious agencies and department. Once they are passed Treasury can then release funds/spending authorites to OMB who then forwards them to the Executive Branch Agenices and Departments.
Notice there is no reference to “The Budget”. It has been superseded by the appropriations bills. There is a legal requirement for the president to report semi annual budget performance. But, even this is a misnomer, because it is delivered to Congress late in the fiscal year to allow the various committees to start their budget estimating/deliberations for the next fiscal year.
The final confusing factor is that Tresury caloculates the actual YTD/annual deficit (revenues in minus expenditures). If you check the Presidcent’s budget, it will show up as the previous years’ deficits. These are actuals and not projections, and reflect what you are calling the “Unified” budget.
The “Off Budget” concept is a political artifact used to hide the impacts of deficits, and not an accounting reality. The actual deficit, calculated by Treasury, is what matters, and that is based upon what you call the “Unified Budget.” Regardless, think of the ramificationsw if there was no tracking of “Off Budget” amounts, which is onbe concept you folks are trying to push.
PJR, confusing isn;t it! :-)) You are correct, that’s what the law says, but what do we see, the very same numbers in the president’s budget. From that point you get into the word salad world of Federal bidgetting. The next step is a series of authorization bills that set spending limits to be considered by the various congressional budget committees. The Congressional committees then draft appropriations billsfcor the vaious agencies and department. Once they are passed Treasury can then release funds/spending authorites to OMB who then forwards them to the Executive Branch Agenices and Departments.
What is different this year is the entitlements are also being considered for reductions, when they are usually on auto pilot.
Notice there is no reference to “The Budget”. It has been superseded by the appropriations bills. There is a legal requirement for the president to report semi annual budget performance. But, even this is a misnomer, because it is delivered to Congress late in the fiscal year to allow the various committees to start their budget estimating/deliberations for the next fiscal year.
The final confusing factor is that Tresury caloculates the actual YTD/annual deficit (revenues in minus expenditures). If you check the Presidcent’s budget, it will show up as the previous years’ deficits. These are actuals and not projections, and reflect what you are calling the “Unified” budget.
The “Off Budget” concept is a political artifact used to hide the impacts of deficits, and not an accounting reality. The actual deficit, calculated by Treasury, is what matters, and that is based upon what you call the “Unified Budget.” Regardless, think of the ramificationsw if there was no tracking of “Off Budget” amounts, which is onbe concept you folks are trying to push.
ILSM, now I’m ROFL. You can not even discuss a federal issue without trolling. Sad, really. I’m going back to ignoring you.
Sorry if you find it confusing, CoRev. It helps to remember that combining legally separate budgets simplifies accounting but doesn’t change the law. (FYI it’s here: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c101:4:./temp/~c101cHuBvW:e2039001:) You and I could add up our joint revenues and expenditures to measure our joint financial balance but, if it’s bad, one of us surely will remember that they’re really separate budgets before we decide who needs to work more or spend less.
Sammy
Why not let the wealthy keep the SS benefits to which they are entitled and simply raise the marginal tax rates in order to end the tax holiday they have been enjoying? The government used to recognize that inheritance was income and should be subject to taxation. The government used to recognize that a capital gain was income and subject to taxation at an adjusted rate. The government used to recognize that dividends are income and subject to taxsation as income, earned or unearned. Why is it that the government has made every effort to reduce the taxes of the wealthiest Americans and can’t seem to figure out that a big budget deficit is the result? The only balanced part of the budget is the SS program budget. So why the effrot to screw that up when the failure to tax high levels of income is so much more likely to result in a good budgetary effect?
A reasonable budget isn’t such a mystery when you eliminate the lies and deceptions of some of our wealthiest Americans and their appointed representatives in the government.
So, we have a law that is not actually practiced when projecting an annual budget; is not practiced during everyday operations; is not practiced when we show historical amounts when projecting the next budget year, and could not be practiced due to reasonable accounting practices, and you rely on that law for some obtuse argument? Moreover, to argue your case, must use analogies and not reality, that is a weak and losing position.
Regardless, the issue is being debated in DC, and will be resolved there.
So, we have a law that is not actually practiced when projecting an annual budget; is not practiced during everyday operations; is not practiced when we show historical amounts when projecting the next budget year, and could not be practiced due to reasonable accounting practices, and you rely on that law for some obtuse argument? Moreover, to argue your case, must use analogies and not reality, that is a weak and losing position.
Regardless, the issue is being debated in DC, and will be resolved there.
BTW, your analogy is wrong. They are never separate budgets, they are on the very same line on the projcted budget and buried in the totals in historical records.
CoRev
you are confused. or you are simply trying to confuse any children who may be listening.
you expressed elsewhere the thought that i must find it frustrating that “everyone who disagreed with me was evil” etc.
in the first place not everyone disagrees with me, which you have a hard time remembering,
and in the second place as an old math teacher i am used to being frustrated when people can’t understand something i think is fairly simple. i do not think those people are evil.
i don’t think you and sammy are evil… but sometimes i am not sure. i am aware that one of the techniques of an evil person is to pretend to be stupid in order to confuse debate. the people who want to destroy social security are evil. most of the time you sound like you are on their side, and your contribution to the “debate” has usually been to confuse it.
I should have added to that last sentence, …and their paid and voluntary sycophants and lackeys who crawl the web looking for unsuspecting places to regurgitate their absurd lies and distortions. Sammy, that’s you and several others who comment here at AB. They can be recognized by their persistent adherence to one meme in several guises. The government is bad, but in fact it protects their wealth. Taxes are bad, but the working class should bear the brunt of the budget. What workers have paid for in the past is subject to taking in the present and the future, preferably the near future.
I don’t need an analogy but thought one possibly might help. Guess not. Regardless, I agree that the political, vice legal, story is quite different. Congress can cut SS spending as much as it likes and/or raise SS taxes as much as it likes to balance the combined/total/unified budget. As we see this year, Congress also can do the opposite. From a political angle, the off-budget law mostly forces some budget transparency regarding the link between SS taxes and SS spending. Some on the left and right find the transparency and link to be politically inconvenient.
PJR said: “From a political angle, the off-budget law mostly forces some budget transparency regarding the link between SS taxes and SS spending. Some on the left and right find the transparency and link to be politically inconvenient.” Which makes no sense.
A unified budget actually listed and calculated the deficits using the SS revenues. In other words added transparency. Now, PJR claims taking SS revenues “off budget” added transparency by supposedly removing (but not actually as shown above and the multiple references MG provided in prior threads) the SS revenues from deficit calculations.
Your arguments are poor, weak, and now circular. What point is it you think you are making?
I hope you folks caught these words from Doug Elmendorf today. I liked the part for a need to cut some of our “most favorite” programs. When Doug is leaning against you, you have a problem.
http://cboblog.cbo.gov/