Home Mobile Archives Reader Blogs Register Login

Saturday, February 26, 2005

The Reality Of The Social Security Trust Fund

Those who are opposed to President Bush's Social Security reforms often tell us that there is no crisis facing the program. In support of that statement they tell us that the date the President has given us for when Social Security will reach critical mass, approximately a decade or so from now, is really just the point at which Social Security will cease to have a surplus and will have to start paying out of its trust fund.

Which sounds reasonable enough, until you find out what exactly this "trust fund" is all about.

PARKERSBURG, W.Va. - The Social Security trust fund really does exist --ť nestled in the bottom drawer of an unremarkable government file cabinet.

It's in a pair of white loose-leaf notebooks holding plastic page covers. Each caresses a piece of paper representing a bond worth a staggering amount of money. Say, $8,577,396,000.00 ($8.577 billion), due on June 30, 2013, with 6.5 percent interest. . . .

"The paper is symbolic," says Pete Hollenbach, spokesman for the U.S. Bureau of Public Debt, the creation of a 1994 law that anticipated the current debate about Social Security's solvency and whether the trust funds held anything more than IOUs.

As the computer era flowered, Congress passed legislation requiring the Treasury to create a "physical document in form of bond, note or certificate of indebtedness, rather than accounting entry."


Or, in other words, a big fat IOU for $8+ billion. That's the safety net that Democrats want you to believe exists.

But the government will surely pay it back when we need it, right? Well of course they will if we reach that point, but who's money do you think the government uses to pay off such debts? The people's money of course. Any way you cut it the American people get the pointy end of the stick. If we stay with the current system we're either going to get a big tax hike or a major cut in Social Security benefits.

Which isn't to say that President Bush's plan is the best one out there. I certainly don't like the way he's talking about raising taxes to accomplish it, but given the hopeless reality of the current situation doesn't it behoove Democrats to at least offer an alternative? There are plenty of alternatives to Bush's plan floating around, why aren't they latching on to one of these?

I'll tell you why: Its because they're playing partisan politics with this issue. They don't want to see Social Security fixed during a Republican administration. Regardless of how bad the situation is, they want to push it off until a time when they can fix it under a Democrat administration. And frankly, that's more than a little bit appalling.

Comments

Avatar for Gary Gunnels

The President’s plan is stupid.  SSI should be completely privatized as Chile’s pension is.  Instead we get this conservative big government program which only promises to create another layer of bureaucracy.  And people wonder why libertarians don’t vote for Republicans.

Gary Gunnels on February 26, 2005 at 08:02 pm
Avatar for Gary Gunnels

likwidshoe,

This isn’t baby steps in the direction of privatization is the problem.  Which of course I’ve already stated at least once.

Republicans don’t vote for libertarians because Republicans are largely socialists.

Gary Gunnels on February 26, 2005 at 09:02 pm
Avatar for likwidshoe

Gary Gunnels said, “SSI should be completely privatized as Chile’s pension is.”

Baby steps Gary.  The thought is, when Americans are allowed to control a piece of their Social “Security” and they see the difference in return rates, they’ll demand more and more control over their own money. It’s the “getting one foot in the door” idea.

Totally privatizing it right now won’t fly politically.  It’s not going to happen like that.  And people wonder why Republicans don’t vote for the Libertarians.

likwidshoe on February 26, 2005 at 09:03 pm
Avatar for Gary Gunnels

What the Bush administration will do is to create an entirely new layer of bureaucracy charged with running these “private” accounts (they they are indeed private is a myth).  That bureacracy will control the accounts not the individual citizen.  This is just more big government Republicanism.  Just like “No Child Left Behind,” the medicare bribe, the FMA, etc.

Why don’t Republicans just drop the pretensions of being the party of limited government?  Because clearly they are just a clone of the Democrats.

Gary Gunnels on February 26, 2005 at 09:03 pm
Avatar for Gary Gunnels

Republicans have been telling us since at least 1980 that “things are changing.” Eventually such snake oil prophecies fall on deaf ears.  The government is more intrusive than its ever been and attacks on our liberty are more intense than ever and much of this has occurred when Republicans were dominate in at least one of the branches of government.  The “reform” suggested by “Dear Leader” Bush is just more of the same crap.

Gary Gunnels on February 26, 2005 at 11:03 pm
Avatar for Gary Gunnels

If its anything like what Bush is trying to pull numbers-wise with Medicare there isn’t much reason to have faith in “Dear Leader” Bush.  Of course the WaPo doesn’t come out looking all that great either.

http://www.reason.com/hod/mc022805.shtml

Gary Gunnels on February 28, 2005 at 09:03 pm
Page 1 of 1        

Post a Comment


Before commenting, please recite:

Grant me the serenity to ignore the trolls,
the courage to debate with honest opponents,
and the wisdom to know the difference.

Name   
Email   
URL   
Human?
  
 

Upload Image    

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Note: Notifications will only be sent to confirmed email addresses.