Posted on 12/22/2004 8:26:42 AM PST by Tumbleweed_Connection
PRESIDENT Bush's entire plan for Social Security privatization rests on the premise that the system is in severe crisis. But a careful look at the numbers suggests that the financial crisis is largely a myth.
For years, the Social Security Trustees have used very conservative assumptions about future rates of economic growth, productivity growth, and growth of the labor force. These assumptions, in turn, affect the projected payroll tax collections that will fund Social Security payouts.
Five years ago, in the late 1990s, they estimated the long-term economic growth rate at just 1.7 percent. The reality has been well over 3 percent.
Most economists now believe the economy can do a lot better than 1.7 percent annual growth. In its 1997 report, the trustees projected that the system would no longer be able to meet all its obligations by 2029. Just six years later in 2003, based on their acknowledgement of stronger economic growth, the trustees moved the crisis date back to 2042. So if the system can gain 13 years of life in six years, there's not much of a crisis.
But that's just the beginning. In June, the bipartisan Congressional Budget office used more realistic assumptions about economic growth. CBO puts the first shortfall year at 2052, not 2042, and it projects Social Security's 75-year shortfall at only about four-10ths of one percent of gross domestic product. Currently, that's about $40 billion a year, or one-fifth of the revenues that the Bush administration gave up in tax cuts for the wealthy.
(Excerpt) Read more at boston.com ...
In Democrat land, letting people have their name on their own money - now that's a crisis!
He's on to something here. Economic growth is the ONLY thing that can keep the thing from collapsing (and that happens in about 12 years when outlays exceed income, not when the non-existent "trust" fund is exhausted). Somehow 2 people have to become as productive as 5 people now.
Question to Kuttner: And we use that card to verify a person's identity when they show up to vote? And if someone doesn't have an national ID card we deport them? Oh, I thought not.
More bombast from the Teddie Kennedy network.
What this knucklehead (and other assorted "experts") fails to address is the over 50 TRILLION $ in "unfunded liabilities" hanging over the fedgov's head.....a good chunk of which comes from the borrowings of Social Security surpluses over the past couple decades or more. Those borrowings were conveniently used by the CONgress to gives us the illusion that we had more revenues than in actuality and helped mask huge budget deficits for many years. My guess is that the crisis is probably due to the fact those notes are coming due and both parties are responsible for violating the public trust.
"when the non-existent "trust" fund is exhausted"
Yes, the trust fund is a bunch of paper "IOU's" left when the government grabbed and spent the money. The real funding are the day to day payroll deductions from present workers. I guess when we are old and deductions don't keep up, we can eat the IOU papers for food or heat our homes with them.
I've read that Bush is going to address deficit reduction in his next budget, at which point The Boston Globe will wonder "What deficit?"
How about some of the BG's own words from the archives. (I couldn't see the whole articles WO paying but found these little tidbits.......
Endorsing a system that allows individuals to create wealth for themselves is the antithesis of Social Security.
Author(s): Charles Stein, Globe Staff
The nation's 47 million Social Security recipients got a bit of good news yesterday: their checks next year will increase 2.7 percent, or an average of $25 thanks to the program's annual cost-of-living adjustment. But looking further into the future, the news is less encouraging. A trio of forces higher taxes, rising medical costs, and a mandated increase in the retirement age will shrink the value of Social Security checks over the next few decades.....
IT FRUSTRATES me that John Kerry is unwilling or unable to make the connection between policies and beliefs he has supported during his political career and the problems our nation now faces.
Kerry supports abortion without any reasonable restrictions. This policy has led to the aborting of many millions of unborn human beings over the past 30 years. At the same time, Kerry bemoans the future of Social Security, fearing it will not be solvent when the baby boomers retire
Globe Staff
WASHINGTON - George W. Bush promised four years ago that he would rescue Social Security as president. But Bush has not yet picked one of the three rescue plans proposed by advisers, and he hasn't pumped billions of dollars into the system as he pledged during a 2000 debate.
Globe Staff
A burgeoning federal deficit is again an issue in the presidential campaign, and one that almost certainly will overshadow the next administration and the nation's economic prospects. But neither candidate has a credible plan to address the nation's exploding debt, economists and analysts say.
In fact, analysts say, the key budget proposals of President Bush and Senator John F. Kerry will only make it harder to solve a long-term shortfall estimated in the tens of trillions of
"change the eligibility
age to 70"
I wish someone would run the numbers on this. It seems the most rationale and you could move it slowly while grandfathering in people within 5 years of eligibility at implementation.
I wish someone would run the numbers on abolishing it. No money in the trust fund. No plan to get more money in the trust fund. This was the first savings plan built into the system. How did it work out? You want more savings after this debacle? It could possibly be a plan to fund the government as the first priority and the recipient secondly. Decide where the cut-off date is and eliminate all FICA taxes for workers younger than that date. That is the only honest choice.
I would agree that we need a National ID Card .... but ONLY when we want to vote - or if we need something that has costs borne by other citizens.
I shouldn't have to show a National ID card at anyone's whim (read police or other) .... but if I had one and wanted to show it, it might help me get through airport security faster, etc. (I already have a "national ID Card" - it is called a military ID, and it has a chip on it that has biometric data, including my left and right forefinger prints. That military ID sure does help me more than a driver's license does.)
But anyone wanting to get welfare or other handouts (often called by liberals "entitlements") - should be required to prove that they are who they claim to be - with a national ID card. No illegal immigrants claiming anything. No citizens creating 2nd and 3rd identities and double or triple-dipping at the welfare teat.
Mike
Hell no, we don't want to marginalize our criminal classes. How else would we ensure a Democrat majority in the Merrimack Valley?
Can you spell Gerrymandering? I sure as hell can't but I know that for ever vote I cast someone in Lawrence casts three.
He fails to mention the demographic nightmare headed our way with this pyramid scheme. When 2 workers will be carrying my "share" of the pie, it will mean either incredible tax burdens for them or chump change for me. I don't know about you, but I am looking for the lifeboats.
OK that part I dont get- why are we (conservatives?) against a national ID card? With computers and databases designed the way they are it would simpify a lot of things. I dont get the 'loss of freedom' argument.
(privacy)
And on their way to the polling place, they stage a fake auto accident and cash in with a little insurance fraud.
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.