Budget battle puts Social Security in play

In the midst of the budget crisis, an old debate has broken out with new force: Should Social Security be seen as part of the deficit that Washington needs to rein in?

The White House is balking at calls to tackle Social Security’s financial problems now, before baby boomers swamp the system. But the massive retirement program, like the rest of the government, is running a deficit and has become part of the argument on Capitol Hill.

The elderly and disabled don’t need to worry about losing their benefits or seeing them cut anytime soon. The Obama administration is correct in asserting that Social Security doesn’t face an immediate crisis. But the program’s red ink will only get worse the longer policymakers don’t act.

While Congress has spent the past several weeks debating how much to cut government spending through September, a growing number of lawmakers say they also want to act on long-term concerns about benefit programs like Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.

“If you don’t think Social Security is becoming unraveled as a safety net, you’re not listening,” says Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C. “This year it is paying more in benefits than it collects in taxes. Once it goes off this cliff, it goes fast.”

House Republican leaders say their budget plan for next year will address entitlement programs, including Social Security. President Barack Obama kept the administration’s hands off the big benefit programs in his budget plan for next year, saying it will take time to create the political environment necessary for Democrats and Republicans to negotiate in good faith on such difficult long-term issues.

But Social Security’s problems do have some immediacy. Last year’s $37 billion operating deficit — the first since the system was last overhauled in the 1980s — is expected to grow to $45 billion in 2011. Over the next decade, the program is projected to run up more than $500 billion in operating deficits if Congress doesn’t act, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.

White House officials and some Democrats in Congress say not to worry: Social Security has built up a $2.6 trillion surplus over the past 30 years.

“Social Security benefits are entirely self-financing,” White House budget director Jacob Lew wrote in a Feb. 21 article in USA Today. “They are paid for with payroll taxes collected from workers and their employers throughout their careers. These taxes are placed in a trust fund dedicated to paying benefits owed to current and future beneficiaries.”

That argument, however, overlooks a nagging fact: The money in the trust funds has been spent over the years to help fund other government programs. In return, the Treasury Department issued bonds to Social Security, which earn interest and are backed by the government, just like bonds sold in public debt markets.

When Social Security runs a deficit, it redeems its bonds with the Treasury Department to cover the red ink. But Treasury gets the money to pay Social Security the same places the government gets all its money: either from taxes and other revenues or by borrowing it. Last year, the government borrowed 37 cents of every dollar it spent. This year it’s borrowing 43 cents of every dollar.

Here is how Lew described the Social Security trust funds when he was budget director under former President Bill Clinton, in Clinton’s 2000 budget request:

“These funds are not set up to be pension funds, like the funds of private pension plans. They do not consist of real economic assets that can be drawn down in the future to fund benefits. Instead, they are claims on the Treasury that, when redeemed, will have to be financed by raising taxes, borrowing from the public, or reducing benefits or other expenditures.”

Few on Capitol Hill are suggesting that the federal government won’t make good on its IOUs to Social Security. But now that it is time to start repaying Social Security, Lew’s decade-old analysis of where the money will come from still holds true.

“The only way those bonds are redeemed is out of current income, and Social Security is cash negative today,” said Sen. Kent Conrad, D-N.D., chairman of the Senate Budget Committee.

Advocates for Social Security say the program is being unfairly blamed for the budget deficit, and they worry that benefits could be put on the chopping block. They correctly argue that Social Security did not cause the nation’s fiscal problems. For the past 30 years, when Social Security posted big surpluses, the program actually reduced the amount of money the federal government had to borrow on public debt markets.

“Blaming Social Security for our deficit is nothing but an ideological attempt to slash benefits and privatize the program,” said Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y.

The problem, as Lew points out, is that the rest of the government has been running up big budget deficits, including a record $1.5 trillion deficit this year. The national debt now tops $14 trillion, including the $2.6 trillion owed to Social Security.

In the short term, Social Security is suffering from a weak economy. Payroll taxes that finance the program are down and applications for benefits are rising because fewer people are working. In the long term, Social Security will be strained by the growing number of baby boomers retiring and applying for benefits.

The Social Security trust funds are projected to be drained by 2037 if Congress does not act, according to the trustees who oversee the program. At that point, payroll tax receipts would be enough to pay about 78 percent of benefits.

“We can either wait and have huge problems, and it won’t be here for my kids and grandkids, or we can address it now, make relatively small changes and make sure that it’s going to be safe for the next 75 years,” said Erskine Bowles, who served as chief of staff under Clinton and co-chaired the recent deficit commission under Obama. “I think this is all about politics now because I haven’t met anybody here on the left or the right that doesn’t see the arithmetic.”

Copyright © 2011 The Associated Press

Enhanced by Zemanta

Comments

  1. woody188

    They failed to mention Ronald Reagan “fixed” Social Security for the Boomers by regressively over-taxing workers in the theory that the mounting surplus would eventually be paid back. Then Bill Clinton and the Republican Congress run by Newt Gingrich “stole” the surplus money issuing the Treasury Bonds instead. This made Clinton famous for “balancing the budget” when he really just hid the deficits using Boomer retirement money.

    I guarantee that is what will happen again if we are made to “fix” it again.

    Let’s make Bill Clinton, Newt and all those responsible for robbing the fund pay it back with their own personal income.

    • Carl Nemo

      Thanks Woody for putting a few more names in lights concerning SS Trust Fund pilferage. : )

      Carl Nemo **==

  2. Carl Nemo

    I thought I’d use the link to “FactCheck.org” to see if there was anything about the SS fundiing debacle.

    http://factcheck.org/2011/02/democrats-deny-social-securitys-red-ink/

    I found the coverage to be somewhat biased against the Dems concerning SS funding and nowhere was it mentioned that Congress and the Executive have been using the SS Trust Fund for its personal ‘piggybank’ since the Nam era when LBJ decided it was a way to fund the war; i.e, ‘borrow’ from the fund then pitch Treasury backed ‘IOU’s’ back with a promise to pay in the future. Unfortunately it set a precedent for future administrations to do so too with evermore ‘IOU’s’ pitched into the ‘lockbox’.

    Last year was the first of these T-backed IOU chits to be redeemed to the tune of 28 billion and this year it’s projected to be 130 billion at the worst of times concerning deficit spending etc. So now when it’s time for the government to cover it’s agreed upon ‘IOU’s’ to the Trust Fund they want to reneg by cutting SS benefits or better yet pull the plug on millions of seniors evidently to encourage ‘rioting in the streets’ or mass suicides.

    The SS Trust IOU redemptions only cause a problem because it’s time for Congress along with the Executive to pay their debts, but seemingly like most of America they’d prefer to file for bankruptcy and stiff the creditor if they could do so. If they want to fix things then they have to raise the limits above the $109,000 per annum cap on deductions for such and quit sucking up to the to upper the class who make $250,000 and beyond on this issue. If John McCain is claiming his SS bennies while also getting paid as a U.S. Senator, a guy who between he and his wife are worth $100 million, then Congress needs to get motivated on fixing the problem and to quit whining. With some simple relatively painless tweaks they can make the fund solvent into the future and put this ‘tar baby’ issue to rest.

    Since this is my first public useage of the FactCheck.org function concerning alternative facts on issues; I did some research as to what their political leanings might be. Much to my concern I’ve discovered they have left-leaning bias although posturing to be neutral to center. Now I can’t view their charter and look into the types of people and personas that drive the foundation, but seemingly their analysis could have a slant as gleaned from a number of sources and not just “The Free Republic”. Another thing I don’t like is there’s no place for readers to respond directly to any of their supplied articles as on CHB in order to get public feedback as to what’s being used as ‘facts’ to support Brooks Jackson’s editorialship of this web-based Annenberg Foundaton funded ‘fact center’. Although posturing as a center for a neutral, source for news, their ‘facts’ should not be construed as always being a source for absolute truth due to implied political bias. So researchers beware when using “FactCheck.org” as your source for unbiased reporting, cross-referencing etc.

    Carl Nemo **==