[...]

The future costs of Social Security and Medicare commitments are reported in the Statement of Social Insurance in the Financial Report. We were able to render an unqualified opinion on the 2007 Statement of Social Insurance–a significant accomplishment for the federal government. The statement displays the present value of projected revenues and expenditures for scheduled benefits of social insurance programs. For Social Security and Medicare alone, projected expenditures for scheduled benefits exceed earmarked revenues (i.e., dedicated payroll taxes and premiums) by approximately $41 trillion over the next 75 years in present value terms. Stated differently, one would need approximately $41 trillion invested today to deliver on the currently promised benefits not covered by earmarked revenues for the next 75 years.

[...]

Sooner or later, something’s gonna have to give.

Thank you for this informative post, Ed.

We will need to see the actual details of this ’stimulus’ to find out what implications, if any, are in it. For example, if he is refunding revenues that are collected for social security, is he referring to both the employee and the employer contributions? How will this impact the ultimate distribution to the contributor at retirement?

I do not think any of this has been considered by Obama as he is simply not yet aware.

At least with partial privatization the greediest generation couldn’t get it ALL.

Y’know that scene in “Dumb’n’Dumber’ at the end, where the bad guy looks in the briefcase to find a kajillion IOUs…

LimeyGeek on January 6, 2009 at 3:24 PM

Hey, spoiler alert! I was waiting to go see that movie!

By Ed Morrissey
HOT AIR – Anyone who follows politics will recall the hue and cry that greeted President Bush’s 2005 proposal to allow workers to save a portion of their Social Security payroll taxes in personal accounts. But even many who follow…

W.A. Mozart: But, Sire!

Emperor Joseph II: My dear young man, don’t take it too hard. Your work is ingenious. It’s quality work. And there are simply too many notes, that’s all. Just cut a few and it will be perfect.

Mozart: Which few did you have in mind, Majesty?

Its MY MONEY you idiots.

DavidM on January 6, 2009 at 3:35 PM

Well, actually, no it’s not. Your parents and mine have promised your money to pay off the bills they agreed to starting back in the ’30s or so. And now they want your Grandchildren’s money to pay THEIR wages so that Social Security payments can cover all of their retirement costs.

Reality Check: Ask a retired Republican if they support only paying Social Security to those who have no way to pay for food and rent. Go ahead. Today’s retirees had their Congressmen create this mess. Today’s workers are sheepishly allowing it to continue, because they can still buy a big screen TV. Today’s children are scheduled to pay the Big Bills.

As you would expect, not a happy ending with this story either.

Galt’s 50+ page monologue requires prescribed cocaine to endure.

LimeyGeek on January 6, 2009 at 4:27 PM

I get the impression that Rand couldn’t be bothered to go back and proof read it. It is also full of strawman attacks on religion so crude that even I find them insulting–I would wonder and the tenacity of an actual christian that didn’t throw the book across the room.

So in other words, its worthless.

Here’s how these things work… they pass a huge amount to make it look like theyre doing something to the public. If the economy turns around on its own, they cancel the bulk of the spending and claim fiscal responsibility.

It’s win/win for them.

He’ll get rid of all limits on income that is subject to payroll taxes, and for those poor fools who dare to make more than $250,000 a year, they will be taxed on every dime they make – to infinity.

In other words, it’s the greatest wealth re-distribution scheme evah (in the U.S. of A.).

And before our local moonbats can ask. Yes, the conservatives also condemned the Bush deficits. Those deficits are a big reason why they did not support the Republicans in 2006 and 2008, resulting in big Republican losses in both years.

Tom Shipley: Giving people private accounts *lessens* the needs of Social Security. Current SS monies accrue NO interest at all, while SS expenditures are rising constantly.

Calling private accounts a “cost” is Orwellian doublespeak. Letting me keep and control my money doesn’t cost anyone anything, unless you are a rabid Socialist who assumes the money belongs to the Feds in the first place.