Yes, Social Security drives the deficit
It’s one thing to argue that growing health care costs make Medicare and Medicaid a more daunting long-term fiscal challenge. But to say Social Security isn’t a driver of the debt is to ignore math and huddle in a state of liberal denialism.
More money is spent on Social Security than on any other single program in the federal budget, including all defense spending. By 2022, nearly 25 percent of federal spending will be devoted to Social Security, according to the Congressional Budget Office, up from 20 percent last year. In contrast, even if Congress votes next month to avert automatic defense cuts, the share of the budget devoted to defense spending is projected to shrink from 19 percent in 2011 to 12 percent by 2022.
All told, the federal government will spend $10.5 trillion on Social Security over the next decade (2013 to 2022), according to the Congressional Budget Office. To say this will have no effect on deficits is preposterous on its face.










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
Then we’d better not touch it, by golly.
Akzed on November 29, 2012 at 4:42 PM
Wait! Are you sure? Some of the “liberals’ here have stated that not only is Social Security sound, it doesn’t drive the deficit … and we all know liberals are never wrong.
darwin on November 29, 2012 at 4:43 PM
Wrong.
bryg on November 29, 2012 at 4:52 PM
Social Security jumped $6 trillion in the last 4 years??
I thought it was the Left’s radical spending??
If not, then what the *** are we talking about?
faraway on November 29, 2012 at 4:53 PM
Social security drives our social decline! That social decline drives our budget deficit.
astonerii on November 29, 2012 at 4:54 PM
Incorrect – Socialism drives the debt!
OldEnglish on November 29, 2012 at 4:56 PM
You are all wrong, it is Bush.
tom daschle concerned on November 29, 2012 at 5:00 PM
Reagan was a liberal RINO hackjob.
lester on November 29, 2012 at 5:05 PM
Except SS hasn’t been fully funded by the payroll taxes the last couple years and is projected to be in the red perpetually.
theperfecteconomist on November 29, 2012 at 5:24 PM
Let me see if I follow your argument.
1) Social Security has 2,600 billion dollars, has all it’s own money, and does NOT require Federal Borrowing to keep it going in any way shape or form. That’s your first point, right? You’re agreeing with Reid, etc. on this.
Oh, and point #2…
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20078789-503544/obama-says-he-cannot-guarantee-social-security-checks-will-go-out-on-august-3/
Without Federal borrowing in 2011 they couldn’t do 23 Billion or even ONE MONTH of checks without Federal borrowing. At least according to Obama… is Obama wrong?
You don’t need ANY Federal borrowing, but you can’t manage ONE MONTH without it? And you think anyone who disagrees is wrong?
You have 2,600 but don’t have 23 AT THE SAME TIME?
If you think having 2,600 means you don’t have 23 then you’re ignoring math… even to the level of counting.
gekkobear on November 29, 2012 at 5:50 PM
Did you actually listen to it? Reagan said that SS is completely paid for by the payroll tax. When Reagan said this it was true. It is no longer true and we are on the cusp of the boomers collecting SS at the expense of their progeny (which the boomers didn’t bother to have in sufficient numbers to pay for it).
gwelf on November 29, 2012 at 6:00 PM
Exactly.
platypus on November 29, 2012 at 6:15 PM
“The only way we can afford to pay for your social security is if we stop abortions!” The only way it happens. No workers, no tax payments. No tax payments, no social security checks for you.
astonerii on November 29, 2012 at 7:07 PM