Social Security Isn't Broke, But We Still Ought to Fix It

It has been a big week in Washington for thrashing out the federal budget, both this year's and those for the future. Along with discussions about slashing spending on such things as defense and Medicare, a growing number of lawmakers are lining up behind plans to cut Social Security, one of the most cherished -- and vital -- programs for the elderly in this country.

Republicans want to increase the retirement age and some Democrats have joined the chorus to cut benefits. Even President Obama, in outlining his budget proposals on Wednesday, indicated that Americans would have to accept "reforms" of Social Security.

"There are those who believe we shouldn't make any reforms to Medicare, TERA Gold Medicaid or Social Security out of a fear that any talk of change to these programs will usher in the sort of radical steps that House Republicans have proposed," Obama said. "I understand these fears. But I guarantee that if we don't make any changes at all, we won't be able to keep our commitments to a retiring generation that will live longer and face higher health care costs than those who came before."


But is the program that has provided retirement benefits to millions of Americans since the Depression really broken? Is it causing the federal deficit to spiral out of control as some have suggested?

The Real Numbers on Social Security

Peter G. Peterson, chairman of Blackstone Group, for example, has repeatedly claimed that Social Security is not adequately funded and that younger Americans will have to pay double the amount of Social Security taxes within 10 years. And even the normally sober factcheck.org, which debunks myths propagated by both parties, has repeated claims that Social Security is contributing to the federal deficit.

The fact is, though, that most of the arguments for why Social Security is facing bankruptcy in the short term are simply not true. RIFT Platinum As Dean Baker, co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research in Washington, says: "The biggest weapon for people who want to change Social Security in a big way, such as privatizing it or seriously cutting benefits, is that the program is on life support." If the program seems like it's going to fade away anyway, people won't feel they have anything to lose by gutting it.

But a close reading of the Trustees report and the Congressional Budget Office analysis paints a different picture. rift gold Social Security received about $37 billion less in payroll taxes than it paid out in benefits in 2010. It will have a larger shortfall again this year because the federal government decided to give workers a 2% tax holiday on the amount they pay toward Social Security in 2011.

But Social Security has a trust fund of $2.6 trillion. This is money that was paid into the system but hasn't yet been spent by it. RIFT Platinum The money is all held in government bonds for which the Treasury must pay interest. It earned $119 billion in interest in 2010 and is projected to receive a similar amount in 2011. Total income in 2010 was $788 billion; total outgo was $706 billion. Does that sound like bankruptcy?

Now, some people regard those interest payments as contributing to the federal deficit. That's correct in in a strictly bookkeeping sense, Rift Gold because the federal government must pay them out of general revenues. But if Social Security didn't own these bonds, someone else would -- perhaps China or a pension fund in California. It is nonsense to suggest they are contributing to the federal deficit, too.