Medicare To Be Insolvent This Year, Social Security To Follow In The Next Seven Years

More cheery news to go on top of what Obama is doing to our budget deficits and national debt. Not only is one of the two entitlement behemoths already in the red with the other to follow shortly, but fixing them could require 134% and 16% in the taxes funding them, respectively.
Unless we cut benefits and begin downsizing the programs recognizing that they’re doing us more harm than good. But something tells us that the big government types among us just can’t have that.

The trustees of Social Security and Medicare put out their annual report this week on the financial status of the two government programs. Medicare will be in the red this year, paying out more in benefits than it receives in tax revenue. (All Americans pay a 2.9% Medicare tax on their wages, half remitted by the employer and the other half withheld from the employee’s paycheck.) Social Security is still in the black but is expected to enter the red in 2016. (Americans pay a 12.4% Social Security tax on their wages up to an inflation-adjusted cap each year, again half remitted by employer and half withheld from paychecks.)
Notwithstanding the mountain of government IOUs both programs hold as assets, President Clinton once explained that there are only three options once these programs enter the red: (1) raise taxes, (2) cut benefits, or (3) get a better rate of return. The trustees say that balancing Social Security’s books would require a payroll tax of 14.4%, a 16% increase, if no promised benefits are cut. Medicare would require a 6.78% tax rate, a 134% increase, if no promised benefits are cut.

What bothers me is that all Americans are required to put 12.4% of their wages into Social Security. That’s more than most younger Americans can afford to put into their private retirement accounts. As someone not yet in his 30′s, I wonder if Social Security will even be around by the time I’m able to collect.
It’s clear that these programs don’t work. It’s clear that instead of having some massive government program aimed at providing people with health care and a retirement income, we should empower individuals so that they can do those things on their own. And save the government program for those who truly cannot provide for themselves.
But all of that would make too much sense. It would mean firing people who make six figures administering the current programs. It would mean going up against powerful lobbies like the AARP, which has created a cottage industry on the back of Medicare (for instance). And so sadly, it probably won’t happen.
But it should. Because we’d be better off.

Tags: , ,


«
»
  • http://Array sayanything-4625

    You idiots have been predicting that SS would go broke since inception…You kind are simply short-sighted, selfish people

    The “You idiots” that are predicting SS and Medicare are going broke are the trustees of the Medicare and Social Security you idiot. You know, the people that administer and report on SS and Medicare for the American people. Go read it for yourself.

    http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/TRSUM/index.html

    You kind are simply short-sighted, selfish people.

    How selfish and short-sight of Republicans to try to fix a program we know is going to run out of money, long before it does and becomes a crisis! We started trying to fix the problem in 2005 but were stopped by the Democrats. Senate Minority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.), “confirms that the so-called Social Security crisis exists in only one place: the minds of Republicans.” Just like the “Housing Bubble”, Republicans are sounding the alarm and Democrats ignore it and call us selfish and mean spirited but when the program crashes will try to blame it all on Republicans. “Reality based”? Ha!

  • SigFan

    Social Security and Medicaire make Bernie Madoof’s Ponzi schem look like amateur hour. If we the people who have been FORCED to pay into this scam for all of our working lives had been able to keep that money and invest it ourselves, even if it were mandatory that we put that same percentage of our incomes into a retirement account (even a money market pays better than 1.1%), none of us would EVER be dependent on the government. This of course is the real reason they do not want to reform these programs, because it will have the adverse effect of taking the power out of their hands.

  • Bat One

    George W. Bush is looking smarter and smarter all the time. Maybe a Harvard MBA is a more useful, worthwhile post-graduate course of study than a Harvard Law degree.

    Inevitably, some arithmetically-challenged, leftwing twit like Dino is going howl about President Bush’s private accounts proposal, and defend the fact that Democrats refused to even sit down and discuss the subject of Social Security when Mr. Bush pleaded with them to do so.

    But for those who don’t regard numbers as “word games,” here’s a little exercise to show the power of profit in a free market over plodding government bureaucracy. The current rate of return for the money “invested” in Social Security is roughly 1.1%. I defy anyone to show me a 35 year period when the return on either the Dow Jones or the S&P 500 has been as low as 1.1% return on Social Security.

    Of course, Mr. Bush’s proposal was voluntary. Truly voluntary. Only those who wished to invest a portion of their own money would have done so. And obviously, the argument made by the Democrats about the short term cost to the government of doing so is made moot by the multi-trillion dollar deficits and Treasury borrowing going on now under the Dems.

    So when taxes are raised again, and Social Security and Medicare benefits cut, as they will have to be, further reducing that pathetic 1.1% rate of return, perhaps then people will look back and realize that, Gee, should have listened to Mr. Bush when we had the chance.

  • pak

    Ah has any one looked at their retirement plans. Nothing like loosing 30%.

  • sayanything-4625

    Far from sounding any warnings, the republicans fueled the housing bubble in multiple ways from Greenspan to bush to Congress. If they were that alarmed they would have done something seeing as how they were in control of CONGRESS, the WHITE HOUSE and the FED during the time of bubble inflation.

    Dude, what are you smoking? Who was Barney Frank talking to when he said we have no housing bubble?

  • sayanything-2407

    I agree this has been on the table before, it was blasted by democrats – but now scatn year or so later, how has everything changed where it is now a top priority now?

    President Bush had the foresight and gravitas to take this on, it is too bad no one stood up with him to try and get this fixed. It is also too bad he let it go so easily.

    That being said, how bad would the results of privatizing SS been in the such a downturned market?

  • http://sayanythingblog.com/entry/america_is_back/#c397018 Dino2

    You idiots have been predicting that SS would go broke since inception.

    Without Medicare most of you would be dirt poor from paying to keep your elderly relatives healthy.

    You kind are simply short-sighted, selfish people.

  • SigFan

    Nothing like loosing 30%.

    Yeah, but I still have 70% and it’s coming back. SS and Medicare are BROKE (or soon will be) – that’s 0%. I’ll take 70% over 0% any day.

  • tsterious

    Dino just posts stuff to see another picture of Ace and Gary on-line…

    Let’s make this simple for the simple folk: Why is it ok for someone else to hold on to OUR money that we made?

    When I make my money, I want to invest it MY way. If people are stupid about it, then you lose your money. Why should the gov. lose my money?

    Give me the money I made. I worked for it. I will invest it, spend it, and pay for things that I need. Is that simple enough?????? Or did I break it down too much?

  • robert108

    SS has always been a Ponzi scheme, with the Dems as enforcers.
    The Dems have resisted all efforts to reform it into a real investment plan, and have looted it for their wasteful social spending.

  • Bat One

    Senate Minority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.), “confirms that the so-called Social Security crisis exists in only one place: the minds of Republicans.”

    Greg,

    Would that be the same Democrat Senator Harry Reid who told us that the Iraq war was “lost” and that General Petraeus’ “Surge” would never work?

    Or was it maybe Obama who said those things?

  • http://sayanythingblog.com/ likwidshoe

    Cue the left wing idiots who say that we deserve these failing enterprises because we’re not paying enough in taxes.

    And forget about getting rid of these thieving programs or having the option of opting out. Left wingers aren’t pro-choice. They’re little dictators.

  • atease

    The cartoon picture says it all. The option to fix all of these issues was on the table and ridiculed by the left. This can be laid at their feet now. Another election issue win for conservative republicans to pounce on.

    atease

    conservative and proud, and still pissed off..

  • http://magyartruth.blogspot.com/ Chief RZ

    FDR started this lie back in the mid 1930s. One answer is to simply push the retirement age older like the Democrats and Clinton did for us, from 65 to 67. Just make it 70 or 75, then we will still have SS. The hard working people, the real forgotten man paid for FDR’s socialist/communist executive games.

  • http://sayanythingblog.com/entry/america_is_back/#c397018 Dino2

    Just like the “Housing Bubble”, Republicans are sounding the alarm and Democrats ignore it and call us selfish and mean spirited but when the program crashes will try to blame it all on Republicans.

    Far from sounding any warnings, the republicans fueled the housing bubble in multiple ways from Greenspan to bush to Congress. If they were that alarmed they would have done something seeing as how they were in control of CONGRESS, the WHITE HOUSE and the FED during the time of bubble inflation.

    And you managed to wrap some victimhood whining in there, too. Good job!

  • WOOFX

    the Trustees Say (on p 13) that we can pay for Social Security forever with a 3.4% increase in the payroll tax. That means that a 1.7% extra deduction from your paycheck will pay for you to live an average of 7 years (about 30%) Ionger than the people who retired in 1985, the last time the tax rate was set (page 89). And the best news is that you don’t have to take that tax hike all at once. You can take it at half of one tenth of one percent per year.

    http://angrybear.blogspot.com/2009/05/misdirection-how-they-keep-you-from.html

Create a SAB Readerblog


Recent Comments

Powered by Disqus

Blog Advice and Support
Installs and Upgrades
Theme Modifications
Custom Plugins
Theme Design
Conversions and Relocations
Hacked Site Recovery
Mobile Apps Development