Posted on 06/14/2004 11:17:50 AM PDT by areafiftyone
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Social Security's long-term prospects are better than previously thought, a congressional report said Monday, estimating the program won't become insolvent until 2052, a decade later than projected earlier this year.
The report by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office still paints a bleak financial picture for the future of the retirement system, which faces significant strain as the aging baby boom generation retires.
But the report's projection will jump-start debate this election year about President Bush's proposal to revamp the system by adding personal investment accounts.
The bipartisan trustees who oversee Social Security predicted in March that the system's shortfall would be 1.89 percent of taxable payroll, or about $3.7 trillion.
But using rosier economic assumptions over the next 75 years on such things as inflation and productivity, congressional budget forecasters said the shortfall would be 1 percent of taxable payroll.
"While the differences in the estimates should be fully studied by economists and actuaries, they are not an excuse to delay strengthening Social Security," said Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., who has introduced legislation to overhaul Social Security to let younger workers invest some of their payroll taxes in the stock market through personal accounts.
"Even with the more optimistic assumptions used by the CBO, the long term deficits facing Social Security do not go away," he said.
But opponents of plans to partially privatize Social Security say the new report raises questions about the severity of system's finances.
"The CBO report shows just how tentative estimates about the problems of Social Security are, and how absurd it would be for policy-makers to dramatically alter the program based on those numbers," said Barbara Kennelly, president of the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare.
Both reports pegged 2019 as the year the system will start paying out more in benefits than it takes in payroll taxes.
Analysts say that date is likely more significant because the insolvency projections count on funds owed the system by the government in the so-called trust fund. Those funds, however, already been spent and must be repaid.
ping
Bad news. Until the problem poses a potential threat to the careers of people who are in office right now, it will never be addressed.
Have they found the "lock box"?
LOL!
Heh heh heh, Kerry is suffering from issue vapor-lock.
I know. The only thing he can run on is (according to the Dems)is Health Care! Or he can go realy wacky and run on the Environment ala Al Gore!
More than one year is counted:
But using rosier economic assumptions over the next 75 years
Looks like the boomers will get back what they put in or some of it. I'll be mad if it's cut back when we retire. Boomers have contributed since we started to work,unlike the elderly in there 70's and 80's. I hate SS, needs reform, yet boomers did pay alot into the system.
Please stop taxing 6.5% of my check and let me put it in my own account! If that amount equals the max I can have in an IRA, 3k at this time, then at 10% over the next 40 years I'll have 1.5 million.
With inflation, not enough to retire, but a pretty penny at that. I'm already contributing that on my own. To think I could be putting that money back into the economy . . .
I can't believe anyone would admit to holding such a position. I think I'd rather be president of a consortium of bank robbers; at least there's supposed to be some honor among those particular thieves.
I assume this is based on the erroneous assumption that all the money stolen from social security over the years will be paid back with interest at some point.
Notice how that minor detail was buried in the last paragraph of the article. Oh, well, at least they mentioned it for a change.
Preserving Social Security in its present form just keeps people dependent and poor. Once fully phased in (a long, long process that would benefit my kids, not me, if started right now), privatization would yield significantly higher retirement incomes and make virtually all retirees financially independent.
But explaining this to the lefties is well-nigh impossible. I have always resisted the easy assumption that people on the left are just stupid, but this is one of the issues that makes me wonder.
Reform COLA, reducing it on a quickly sliding scale. Time to get rid of the Nixon era gift to old people. SS was not meant to cover 100% of living expenses from retirement to death. Disability coverage was reformed, but should be looked at again.
So, the power of Social Security is stronger than "The Power of Positive Thinking"?
Oh, well. At least no one has to break the news to Norman Vincent Peale.
I want my FREE MONEY.
Since you'll be "mad" if it's cut back (at all?), what you're really asking for is more than you put in, not "what you put in". As long as you live long enough, you'll get way way more than what you put in.
Which is what everyone wants.
If SS were only required to pay you "what you put in" then there'd be no solvency problem. (It'd also be dumb to have the program at all. Rather: it would be more obvious that it's dumb to have the program. It's dumb to have the program *right now* but that's not as obvious to lots of people...)
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.