Posted on 11/26/2012 4:14:39 PM PST by all the best
I think you’re correct that Social Security was put “on-budget” under LBJ. I don’t think that played a significant role in funding Vietnam or the War on Poverty, though.
Back then, Social Security was essentially a pay-as-you-go system. It didn’t accumulate significant surpluses that could be borrowed for other purposes. That change came in 1983. At that time the FICA tax rate was increased for the specific purpose of building up a huge surplus that could be used to fund Baby Boomer retirements decades later.
It was only after 1983 that putting Social Security “on-budget” had a significant effect on the government’s annual reported surplus/deficit.
Of course, we’re nearing the point when, even in economic boom times, Social Security will show a net deficit, as it draws down the Trust Fund so as to maintain benefits. When that happens, the President, whether a Democrat or a Republican, will be strongly tempted to separate out the Social Security budget, because that’s what will make the “official” figure for the federal budget look better.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.