Hot Air Mobile
Home The Vault Gear About
Hot Air -- get your fill


Social Security already running red; Update: Going bad faster than trustees admit

posted at 8:44 am on May 13, 2009 by Ed Morrissey
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly

The big story for the day will probably be the new report that Social Security will start running in the red in 2016.  The stories will include talk of a “trust fund” as well, as does the Washington Post:

Specifically, the trustees’ report predicts that the trust fund from which Social Security payments are made will be unable to pay retirees full benefits by 2037, four years earlier than forecast a year ago. In particular, the trustees single out the financial weakness of the part of the program that subsidizes disabled Americans, saying that fund will run out of money in 2020.

Only three times in the past 15 years have the trustees predicted that Social Security would run out of money sooner than previously expected. Last year, they forecast no change from the 2007 prediction, and in 2007, they predicted that the fund would last a year longer than they had previously thought.

Yesterday’s report also said the Social Security trust fund will begin to spend more money than it takes in through tax revenue in 2016, one year sooner than predicted a year ago.

There is no trust fund.  Social Security surpluses have always been used by the federal government for general-fund allotments, replaced essentially by IOUs.  This became an issue in the 2000 presidential election, when Al Gore talked about a “lockbox” to keep Congress out of the surpluses.  The “trust fund” consists of bonds, not cash, and they have to be redeemed by the US government, which already runs massive deficits.

For the second piece of bad news, the report is wrong in the timing as well.  They claim that outlays will exceed receipts for the first time in 2016.  Unfortunately, that’s already the case.  In February, as the Treasury’s own website makes clear, we took in $54.5 billion and paid out $55.7 billion, for a deficit of $1.25 billion.  In March that recovered to gain a $2.7 billion profit, but the first red ink has already been spilled, and it’s not going to stay black again for very long.

What does that mean for the US?  I’ll have more later this morning.

Update: Chuck Blahous has more bad news:

  • More than 3/4 of this year’s previously-projected Social Security surplus appears to be gone.
  • Annual shortfalls are more likely to arrive still sooner than later – even than the now-worsened Intermediate projection.
  • The single-year deterioration in the 2009 report is historic by any standard.  Very few previous annual updates have showed a worsening of this magnitude, and those were often a result of changes in methodologies or assumptions.  The current worsening is a real one, not a methodological one.
  • Policy makers’ options for closing the shortfall are becoming even more tightly constrained.
  • Updated data are now wholly discrediting previous claims that the Trustees had been exaggerating the program’s shortfall.

He has much more at the link.


Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

Odd… I thought the Dems said social security was fine.

jeffn21 on May 13, 2009 at 8:46 AM

They did say that Jeff. And they lied.

They lied, and seniors died.

JohnGalt23 on May 13, 2009 at 11:32 AM

The big story for the day will probably be the new report that Social Security will start running in the red in 2016.

Yawn.

I wish you were right but no one cares and they have not for the last forty years. Taxes will be raised and the retirement date will be moved out a few years.

patrick neid on May 13, 2009 at 11:40 AM

Not sure what they mean by “the cap”. Somebody please explain why this wouldn’t work (I assume), so I’m prepared for my next argument.

playblu on May 13, 2009 at 10:10 AM

At present, SS security wages are capped. That is, you only pay SS taxes on the first X dollars earned. Above X, you don’t pay SS.

Removing the “cap” means that all income is subject to the SS tax.

Since removing the cap will increase the amount of money coming into the SS system, the brain dead believe that this is a good way to save SS while socking it to the evil rich at the same time.

It won’t work, because as currently constituted, SS payments are based on what you put in. So when the evil rich put in more today, they will be entitled to that much more when they retire.

Of course what will happen is that in 10 years when those evil rich guys start retiring and getting $10K per month checks, the brain dead will start screaming about how the rich are ripping off the SS system, and besides, they don’t really need the money since they are already rich.

MarkTheGreat on May 13, 2009 at 11:45 AM

The problem has existed longer than I have been alive. And solutions have been proposed for 40 years. At this rate, I’ll die before anything gets fixed. Now, more than ever: http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?docid=-1777069922535499977&hl=en&fs=true

jbsaff on May 13, 2009 at 11:47 AM

Obama is afraid of solid economics. If we raise the retirement age, his votes will shrivel accordingly.I suspect the hand wringing will start. How do we blame Cheney for this?

seven on May 13, 2009 at 11:50 AM

What “surplus”? What “trust fund”? What “lockbox”? There is NOTHING of that sort!

Social Security is nothing else than our seventy-year-old Ponzi scheme… or shall I call it “Madoff scheme”? It is a generational redistribution scheme – robbing the young to pay the old. Too many people have not realized that yet. They will find out when it is too late. (Gee, thanks, FDR!)

(Yep, there are still news about that other scheme.)

newton on May 13, 2009 at 11:50 AM

Bad economy, everything in our society ties to the economy. Except of course the Obama Administration and the federal government…

tarpon on May 13, 2009 at 11:52 AM

As the SS fund starts going negative, the Treasury is going to have to start paying back the trillions of dollars it has “borrowed” from the SS fund over the years.

Since the treasury is currently running it’s own deficits, it will either have to borrow the money, or raise taxes in order to fund the SS payments.

Yet another reason why the deficit over the next few years is going to be a lot greater than Obama has been predicting.

MarkTheGreat on May 13, 2009 at 12:32 PM

Odd… I thought the Dems said social security was fine.

jeffn21 on May 13, 2009 at 8:46 AM

And they also said Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were fine…didn’t they?

18-1 on May 13, 2009 at 12:45 PM

Based on the Trustees assumptions, things are probably worse:

Annual percentage change in:
Productivity (total U.S. economy) 1.7%
Average wage in covered employment 3.9%
Consumer Price Index (CPI) 2.8%
Real-wage differential (percent) 1.1%
Unemployment rate (percent) 5.5%
Annual trust fund real interest rate (percent) 2.9%

WashJeff on May 13, 2009 at 12:45 PM

At least Ive got some good news.

For the first time in living memory, the US government ran a deficit for the month of April. Normally its a massive surplus because of 4/15.

You know, now that I see it typed out, I guess thats not good news at all.

Chuck Schick on May 13, 2009 at 12:58 PM

This is bad, but it’s not like anyone should be surprised.
People have been warning about this for many years.

BakerAllie on May 13, 2009 at 12:59 PM

We are so screwed. They will have to raise taxes. Everyone knows that taxes are punitive. They will have to raise SS taxes and push the retirement age out to age 75. We cannot pay for the debt that we have now. We are a creditor nation borrowing from other nations. Our biggest creditor is China. Then they are going to bring in a national health care plan. There isn’t enough money in the whole wide world to pay for all of this. There will be wars, disease, and starvation of the masses in the near future.

Sorry about being so glum, but there it is.

cjs1943 on May 13, 2009 at 1:04 PM

Hey, we can always print our way out, right? I mean, if we drop a trillion or two, or even three, who will care?

GunRunner on May 13, 2009 at 1:06 PM

Ed, you have mail explaining a bit of the monthly negative balances.

Short version (which is only going to mask the problem a short while) – expenditures are on a more-or-less constant rising curve while receipts are anything but regular. Between those of us who pay quarterly estimated taxes rather than pay via withholding, a quarterly application of the taxes on benefits, and a semi-annual (mis-)application of the interest on the bonds that represent the “trust fund” (which promptly gets kicked back to the Treasury in exchange for even more bonds and thus actually represents an unfunded liability rather than an asset), the high-water months see 50% more real income (and 100% more when the interest is mis-applied) than the low-water months.

The bad news is the money games are about to start failing.

steveegg on May 13, 2009 at 1:29 PM

The only solution is to get Obama’s Kevorkian Health Care system going as soon as possible. That should reduce the social security outlays considerably.

MB4 on May 13, 2009 at 1:34 PM

The trustees tend to count the surplus as FICA taxes plus non-existent interest on non-existent trust funds minus benefits and expenses when, in reality from a cash flow point of view, it is FICA taxes – benefits and expenses.

It makes no sense to raise taxes higher than current costs because the excess will just be spent on other programs while more IOUs will pile up in the “trust fund”.

Currently, almost $5.3 trillion of our national debt is comprised of various non-existent “trust funds”.

And lifting the salary cap would raise more in taxes than would be offset by higher benefits. If you made an extra $35,000, you and your employer would pay almost an additional $5,000 combine and the corresponding benefit payable at retirement, whether 65 or 67 depending on your birth year, would be a mere $150 per year. Of course, that $5,000 would have been spent long before you start collecting benefits.

Laurence on May 13, 2009 at 1:36 PM

Here is part of the solution:

Take all the state and other government worker pension funds and put them into FICA and Medicare. If FICA and Medicare are such good deals for the commoners who employ these people, then why shouldn’t they participate too?

Maybe cops, firefighters and military should be excluded, since they can be asked to do very risky things a Chuckie Schumer or a desk drone in HUD never will be, but why should a one-term Senator retire at full salary and medical for life…or even a long term Senator?

Given where they have taken us, elected officials in DC, with a few exceptions, should forfeit their pensions. Pelosi and Feinstein don’t need them, for sure. Bama will need his unless he continues with political fakery. He couldn’t get a real job.

Harry Schell on May 13, 2009 at 2:01 PM

This became an issue in the 2000 presidential election, when Al Gore talked about a “lockbox” to keep Congress out of the surpluses.

I found that hilarious, it would have been like locking up your credit card bills because it represents money you once had (which incidentally wasn’t even yours to begin with).

TheMightyMonarch on May 13, 2009 at 2:07 PM

Pay back those IOU’s government! But with what? Is there anything left over to pay them back with?

jeanie on May 13, 2009 at 2:40 PM

Social Security is the biggest scam on the American worker ever. Only a total fool would willingly invest in such a scheme. You give me 1% of every paycheck you make for you’re entire life and IF you live to age 65 I will start to give it back to you. You will break even IF you live to age 77 and then you can really start to enjoy life. If you die before then, well, thanks for the gumball. Deal?
There is a reason why investment companies don’t sell a social security investment plan, nobody in their right mind would buy it and quite possibly would be illegal. This is a giant ponzi scheme that mathmaticly is unsustainable. Social Security only needs one reform and that is to support freedom and liberty and make partisipation optional. I am even willing forfet every penny that I have paid into it to have it end today. Social Security is 100% social and 0% security and needs to end yesterday.

Dollayo on May 13, 2009 at 3:00 PM

Didn’t the Demcorats say, four years ago, that if they let us run our own Social Security (i.e., privatize it), that it would be ruined?

well, guess what, we didn’t, and it did!!!!!

ToddonCapeCod on May 13, 2009 at 4:26 PM

The funny thing is that at least a partial reason for the Social Security shortfall is abortion. When you are short millions of workers paying in, is it any wonder that the money is running out faster than originally expected?

coyoterex on May 13, 2009 at 6:09 PM

And another CRISIS waiting to be deployed!

Cybergeezer on May 13, 2009 at 6:46 PM

Odd… I thought the Dems said social security was fine.

I mean Honest Al Franken talked about how little of an issue it was in his 2005 book and how easy it would be to fix. You mean to tell me he was being dishonest? GASP I’m shocked. (Ok, not really but it did take me about an hour to find out what those figures he was talking about meant and how he was BS’ing about it and that’s more effort than most people would put in.)

Dave_d on May 13, 2009 at 7:11 PM

I’m shocked! Wow, I guess George Bush left us in a bigger mess than even Obama thought. One more horrible thing The Great Leader inherited.

JeffinOrlando on May 13, 2009 at 8:57 AM

It’s O-man’s problem now.

Carter II

Sapwolf on May 13, 2009 at 7:12 PM

Is it time for militias to form for self-preservation rather than overthrow of the government?

And, if they form up, will they advertise on the internet for skills they need?

I would figure doctors and nurses will be in high demand for any militia, along with people who know firearms, farming, hunting, food preparation. And don’t leave out the chaplains.

If everything goes to hell, you need to join a gang for protection.

I’m not too far from Kentucky. Names anyone?

Kentucky Longrifles
Louisville Sluggers
Frankfurt Fighters

The MMO gaming ideas boggle the mind.

Sapwolf on May 13, 2009 at 7:25 PM

This is great news,since I’m eligible in 2015.Thank’s a he$$ of a lot FD f….ing R.

DDT on May 14, 2009 at 2:33 AM

Does anyone really think the S.S. funds exist today? With Dabama pissing away TRILLIONS I’m certain those monies are gone, gone, GONE!

This is what democrats knew would happen. This is what lazy Americans voted for. Big deal, NOT!

DannoJyd on May 14, 2009 at 4:01 AM

Comment pages: 1 2


You must be logged in to post a comment.