Social Security
Even a casual viewer of the 2007 report from the trustees of the Social Security system (www.ssa.gov) can see that Social Security is fully funded through 2041, 34 years from now. After that, revenue is projected to fall below estimated expenditures, so that Social Security by itself will “only”
Additionally, this Social Security “crisis” assumes future economic growth far slower than what the US has enjoyed for the past century. If we instead assume growth similar to what we experienced in the 20th century, the Social Security deficit disappears and all beneficiaries will receive full benefits.
The repeated laments that “the sky is falling” come from naysayers like Mr Samuelson and other conservatives, who do not like to see a low-cost, successful government program like Social Security. Wall Street firms smell billions in commissions if Social Security is privatized.
We must cut through the propoganda and do what is right for the tens of millions of elderly, disabled, and younger widowed families who depend on Social Security to keep them out of poverty.
This letter has not been edited.
M. Donahue,
How much of that funding is part of the national debt? The government has been borrowing from Social Security for years. The funding you seem to be talking about are nothing more than promissory notes written by our government. The only way to continue paying SS is to find a way to raise taxes, or maybe just maybe we can find a way to stop lending the money to our government. Right now that is what is called a very bad loan.
Posted by jgd777 on August 10, 2007 02:46 PMWhat about the "assumption" that millions of illegals will be granted SS benefits, as quite a number of our elected officials seem to be hell bent on doing? How will that affect the solvency?
The SS program is a sham, a government sponsored pyramid scheme with a pathetic payout, basically, a government arm-twisting loan of our money for their use.
Wow. Somebody claiming that SS is not in trouble. Never thought I'd see that.
Posted by RU Serious on August 10, 2007 05:26 PMThank! You!! Mr. Donahue.
Posted by on August 10, 2007 06:26 PMI bet Boulder Donahue is a aging white (98% of Boulder is) baby boomer who couldn't give a crap about any of us in 34 years.
Posted by raoul on August 10, 2007 06:38 PMLet's see if I understand this....I pay into the system all of my life...expecting that I will receive 100% of what has been promised me...only to find out that I will receive maybe 70%?
And I am not supposed to be upset with the fact that the government will still take 30% of my pension? 30% of very little is still a lot for some of us
Some still complaining about "illegal immigrants" trying to get SS? The fact that some of them have paid into the system knowing they will never receive benefits is what is helping to keep the fund solvent.
Some estimates have "them" paying up to 8 or 9 BILLION dollars into the Suspense Fund of Social Security. That is a lot of money we are going to lose as we chase "them" away from the jobs they will only work.
Just thank Homeland Security for keeping our borders "safe", but ripping us off from our SS benefits because baby boomers are no longer putting in the big bucks into the fund.
So if the extra bonus payments from "illegals" stop....who picks up the slack?
That is what i want to know....and then tell me with certainty that the fund will still be there in 34 years....!.
Posted by Adam 2 on August 11, 2007 04:37 AMSocial Security has been the funding source for everything that has nothing to do with the intent of the original act for so long now that whenever a politician wants funding for another idea that won't work, they automatically dip their greedy fingers into that fund. Hasn't anyone thought to question the legality of using that money to fund projects that directly put money in the pockets of private mercantile interests. Sure seems to me like there is something not exactly legal about that.
Posted by Allen Campbell on August 11, 2007 07:19 AMjgd777,That's why harry reid was so happy that S.S. reform was defeated.That is congress's money to spend,not our'sWhat isn't funny is 70% of the people wanted private accounts which means congress could not touch that part of the money.Yes the dems in congress won that one,the people lost,even those idiots who voted for the dems..
Posted by bart on August 11, 2007 08:49 AMjgd777,That's why harry reid was so happy that S.S. reform was defeated.That is congress's money to spend,not our'sWhat isn't funny is 70% of the people wanted private accounts which means congress could not touch that part of the money.Yes the dems in congress won that one,the people lost,even those idiots who voted for the dems..
Posted by bart on August 11, 2007 08:49 AMThe really shocking part is the people exempt from paying into Social Security: State and local government employees. Even military personnel must pay into SS, but the alternate retirement programs of state and local governments are so good, those people are exempt from paying SS AND they have an ownership right in their retirement accounts! Their is NO private sector equivalent. As another poster pointed out, the primary focus of social security reform was to provide an ownership right to those paying into the system. The Dems fought this, not because they were "protecting" the people, but because they want to use the people's money to buy votes with. Hence, the "do nothing" approach won out.
The number one reform that must occur is to give citizens paying into the system the same rights as those state and local government employees receive - ownership. Put some teeth into those annual statements that show the payer how much they have invested. People paying at the annual top rate on their payroll tax now pay a $1,000 per month in addition to Medicare payments. Most people pay more into their social security fund than their 401K - the only other retirement option the vast majority of middle class Americans even have. Private pensions are dead and buried, but most of us pay into the system for 50 years (67-17 years old). Does our government really think they can take 15.3% of a persons income for LIFE and not guarantee a return to that person? Do they really want ALL of us to view our social security contributions as merely another tax; raising the marginal tax burden for an individual making more than $30K per year into the 50% range? That is exactly the numbers we face now, and if you don't have children to offset the high income taxes, what is the incentive to make a significantly higher income? The politicians are not even discussing this massive issue!