Social Security Psychosis

by James A. Bacon

Calling politics in Washington, D.C., “dysfunctional” severely understates the incompetence, hypocrisy, intellectual dishonesty and cavalier disregard for the national well being that predominates in the nation’s capital. A better term would be “psychotic,” as in divorced from reality. Or even “schizophrenic,” characterized by a disintegration of the thought process and emotional control. How else can one describe a group of people seemingly bent upon the nation’s destruction?

A case in point is the conflicting message regarding Social Security. As the Washington Post noted in a recent article, Social Security cash flow went “cash negative” last  year. Instead of running a surplus that gets applied to reducing the national deficit, the program ran in the red in 2o1o, augmenting the deficit by $46 billion.

According to the most recent calculations of the Social Security and Medicare boards of trustees, the Old-Age and Survivors Insurance (OASI) fund wasn’t supposed to slip into a chronic deficit until 2025, and it wasn’t supposed to drain its trust fund until 2038. But with slow economic growth and prolonged high unemployment, Social Security is bringing in tens of billions of dollars less in revenue than forecast, meaning that the trust fund will run dry earlier than anticipated. Meanwhile, the Disability Insurance fund began running a deficit in 2009 and is projected to exhaust its trust fund in 2018.

And the reaction in Washington?

“Let’s worry about Social Security when it’s a problem. Today, it is not a problem,” said Sen. Harry Reid in a March rally. Later, in an MSNBC interview, he added, “Social Security does not add a single penny, not a dime, a nickel, a dollar to the budget problems we have. Never has and, for the next 30 years, it won’t do that.”

Wow! This guy is the Senate Majority Leader, the second most powerful politician in the country? Reid may not be swatting at imaginary flies and gibbering nonsense on the street corner, but he has constructed an alternate reality that exists nowhere but inside his head.

Meanwhile, President Obama ignored the blueprint for Social Security reform advanced by his own deficit-cutting commission and decided last year instead to implement — with Republican connivance — a $105 billion payroll tax holiday. And he now proposes another tax break that would add another $267 billion to the Social Security deficit, an action so irresponsible and reckless that even Republicans have backed away from it.

The Disability Insurance fund, an indispensable safety net for more than 10 million Americans, is scheduled to run out of money in seven years and the impending disaster is not a topic of conversation for neither the political class that purports to represent the people, nor the mainstream media, which purports to hold accountable those in power. The program currently costs $92.5 billion a year to administer. When its trust fund spends the last dollar, where will the money come from to cover the operating deficit?

The Bowles-Simpson deficit-cutting plan would have restored Social Security to solvency by gradually phasing in payroll tax increases and trimming scheduled benefit increases so the burden didn’t fall on anyone too suddenly or severely. But the powerful AARP discouraged serious discussion of the ideas behind the plan, reports the Post, by “airing television ads in which an older man warns viewers that ‘some in Washington want to make a deal cutting the Social Security and Medicare benefits we worked for,’ instead of cutting “waste and loopholes.’”

The phrase “pathological liar” comes to mind.

When the reality of the Disability Insurance fund’s looming  meltdown has finally penetrated Congress’ collective consciousness, I am betting that it will address the problem by merging the DI fund with the much larger OASI fund, paying for disability benefits with revenues previously reserved for retirees. That would solve a smaller problem, saving the DI fund, which covers 10 million Americans, by accelerating the larger problem, the impending implosion of the OASI fund, which covers 47.5 million Americans.

The very people who pose as champions of the social safety net are driving it to utter ruination.


Share this article



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)


Comments

19 responses to “Social Security Psychosis”

  1. Jim, one of your best posts.

    Keep up the good work.

  2. Disability Insurance is a worker’s comp issue, not a retirement plan. Another employment benefit cop out. The original idea was intended for… gasp!… OLD PEOPLE too young to receive their pension.

    Pension: A private or government fund (or payments therefrom), from which intermittent and regular benefits or allowances are paid to a person upon his or her retirement or disability.

    http://www.ssa.gov/history/edberkdib.html

    While we play with semantics, the honest answer is that the entire scheme of benefits and entitlements needs to be examined. I’m an American. What’s in it for me? You know, the social contract that each of us accepts and expects in being a citizen. If all I am expected to do is pay taxes and shut up about it, then why should I remain an American?

  3. re: best post… no… better… getting better.. but not there yet..

    yes the economy and the 2% FICA tax “cut/stimulus” has driven SS “cash negative” by 46 billion…. true enough.

    but now, put it in context. Not only has SS paid 2.1 trillion MORE into the fund that it has paid out but more important… out of a 1.5 TRILLION dollar Deficit – we are talking about a 46 billion bite…not chump change, I agree, but 3.1% of the total problem.

    That’s right….3.1%.

    so why are the Armageddon alarm bells going off on Social Security?

    Once the 2.1 trillion surplus is paid back to Social Security – the law requires social security…including disability insurance and Medicare Part A to NOT pay out any more than it takes in …..

    Now I challenge readers here to show me a similar restriction on the other side of the budget that has the 1.5 trillion deficit and 15 trillion debt.

    show me where the law requires them not to spend more than they take in.

    Do we need to cut entitlements – YES!

    Will cutting entitlements alone balance the budget? NO!

    so why do we run away from the real issues here?

    the real issues are not social security but the non-FICA budget of which Medicare Part B and MedicAid AND DOD are the biggest culprits.

    Medicare Part B is VOLUNTARY. It’s a fee-for-service plan that the Feds can easily bump up the premiums, require higher co-pays and deductibles to fix it.

    MedicAid is harder but we must make cuts.

    DOD is even harder but we must cut it also.

    Instead of getting on to the task of what we really have to do.. we blather on incessantly about ….the impending “doom” of the Social Security “crisis”.

    lord. lord..

  4. oh.. and one more…

    how comes the Bush Tax cuts help the economy and increase tax revenues to the govt….

    but the Obama tax cuts do not?

  5. Darrell: you are flat out wrong on disability.

    Most people do not realize tat almost 1/$ of the working population will be disaster led at some point intheir lives.

    It happened to me, and after three years I was fortunate enough to recover completely.

    Spend a year, flat on your back, u able to get even a drink of water by yourself. Then talk to me
    .

    Spend three years out of work, and see if you do not feel lowe_r than snail shit.

    I was fortunate. My

  6. Wrong? If workplace safety is the highest its ever been then why are the SSDI enrollments going through the roof? We have all these grand plans in place like OSHA, that cost business and taxpayers billions but we are forcing Social Security into bankruptcy because 10 million of people are permanently disabled or near death. That’s the defined requirement to get SSDI isn’t it? Or are we cooking the books by allowing not so dead people onto the rolls? Because our employers refuse to live up to their obligations? If a company like Walmart can advocate workers comp as their employees health plan, why should it be any different with SSDI when one of their employees has a pallet of Chinese crap fall on them?

    Even with the clearest documentation, a truly disabled person has to apply at least twice. usually with a lawyer, in order to be accepted by SSDI. Automatic disapproval is not how the system should be working.

  7. two points:

    1. – the program can only pay out what it takes in. You set the benefits to meet that restriction no matter how “unfair” they may seem. The alternative is a system that goes away.

    2. – there is something exceptionally odd about disability now and when SSI was first created.

    by any standard, one would believe that we would have LESS disabled people in the workplace as Darrell points out – yet we have MORE….

    we need to get tougher on the standards if the program is going broke from MORE disabled than there used to be…. that does not seem right.

    as far as transferring FICA SS to SSI… I seriously doubt it because SS itself is going to not be fully funded either unless reforms are enacted.

  8. […] pay out any more than it takes in ….. Now I challenge readers here to show me a similar … Source AffordableONE Insurance Wants Local Residents to Start the New Year Right With … Filed […]

  9. I have read accounts that suggest SS disability is being awarded to people who have “timed out” from regular welfare programs. If so, I am not sure how to address that issue.

  10. one way to do it is just stop paying when the money runs out.

    first come, first served… when we’re broke, tough luck.

    I think we need to require work unless the person is doctor-certified as 100% disabled ( actually two different doctors concurring 100% and one of them is a VA hospital doc….using the same criteria we use for disabled service men).

    we have to get much, much tougher on entitlements. We have to charge people or at least provide an accountability of their benefits and the expectation that they be paid back once the applicant recovers).

    we have to dispel the notion of a money tree for those that “qualify”.

    of course… I also think the right wing should stop lying and propagandizing which basically ends up driving an even bigger wedge between the two sides ending any chance to seek reasonable compromises on entitlements.

    The Republicans are on a failed strategy…that is basically premised on them taking over all levels of govt and implemented their uncompromising “solutions”.

    In an elective, representative form of govt – that’s a failed approach.

    the more the right wing stirs things up.. the farther and farther apart the country ends up.

  11. azrainforest Avatar
    azrainforest

    One additional reason for the decline in the revenue contributions to social security is outsourcing and offshoring American jobs. Those in India, China, the Phillipines, Mexico and everywhere else that our jobs have been sent certainly do not contribute to our social security system.

  12. Wrong? If workplace safety is the highest its ever been then why are the SSDI enrollments going through the roof?

    ==============================================

    One in three people will be disabled at some point in their lives. The population is getting older and the age of retirement is rising.

    While more people are healthy and living longer, and choosing to work until their full retirement age, we can ALSO expect taht more people won;t make it, and wind up on disability.

    There is no reason to assume that the numbers collecting disability will be stable or shrinking, and no reason to beleive they are not critical to those that get them.

    And remember, that your private disability insurance only kicks in AFTER social security disability. In this respect SSDI is a subsidy to the insurors.

  13. I think we need to require work unless the person is doctor-certified as 100% disabled ( actually two different doctors concurring 100% and one of them is a VA hospital doc….using the same criteria we use for disabled service men).

    ================================================

    Are you freaking nuts?

    And you put that in the same post with a line about uncompromising solutions?

    It took me two more years to recover from one year of total disability. During the first part of that time I was so weak that there was little likliehood of me getting any kind of job, part time or otherwise, yet Iwas not flat on my back as before. Eventually I gost some work and eventually I was able to work ful time from home, before I was fially 100% well enough to go back to work, without risking my health again.

    I got declining benefits as my part time income went up, and I felt the system was fair and helpful.

    If they had simply cut me off as soonas I was not 100% disabled, I would have been ruined, and it would have seriously affected my health.

    No one would have benefited. Instead, I was able to get back to work at a reasoable pace and start paying back into the SS sytem once I was 100% rehabilitated.

    And, I was incredibly lucky. Had my skills or circumstances been only a little different, I might have drawn a blank on ever going back to work.

  14. Lets not replace Social Security Psychosis with Debt Reducction Dementia.

  15. and the expectation that they be paid back once the applicant recovers

    =============================================

    No way.
    I got back to work and started paying into the system again.

    Now you are suggesting that I pay back all I got while I was out for three years? That might take 25% of my income for the next ten years to do.

    Be realistic. it is one thing to agree that all benefits have to be paid for. but it is INSURANCE. There should be no expectation that those that benefit have to pay back 100%, otherwise there is no benefit and no insurance.

    If you collect storm damage insurance on your house, you don;t expect to have YOUR premiums raised until the insuror get s the money back. But, if the historical record shows that more storms are happening and more people are collecting, then you WOULD expect to see everyone’s storm premium go up.

  16. Carly EngageAmerica Avatar
    Carly EngageAmerica

    In order to reduce the deficit the Super Committee should have looked to take from all areas of federal government activity. If entitlements were to go untouched there would be nothing left for younger generations and all other activities funded by the government will cease to exist. Changing the benefit formula for SS would have essentially eliminated the long-run funding gap and would have required no additional solvency tax. It also would have produced the most dramatic reduction in spending on benefits, equal to 23% of long-run spending under the current benefit formula. In addition, it would have retained the progressive nature of the benefit formula, but reduce the degree of progressivity relative to the current formula. Also, raising the retirement age would have reduced Social Security’s unfunded obligations for retiree benefits to $6.3 trillion and would have required a solvency tax of 1.3% of taxable payroll. It would have resulted in the third-largest program, with about 87% of the current law spending. Moreover, though the distribution of net taxes would still be progressive, of the four potential changes considered it would have reduced the degree of progressivity the most relative to current law (http://eng.am/sWDUJ8).

  17. here’s the bottom line on SS. By law, we cannot pay out more than we take in -in FICA taxes. This is not only SS, but DI and Medicare Part A.

    we have to cut back on DI and Medicare Part A (or increase FICA).

    SS will automatically reduce to 75% of scheduled benefits if we do nothing.

    either way, it will have no impact on the non-FICA budget and deficit.

    In fact, if the General Fund ran like FICA/SS works.. we’d have no deficit because, by law, we’d not be able to spend more than we take in in revenues – we’d be forced to stay within revenues – or – raise taxes to cover the loss.

    I know. I know. what a NOVEL concept. It ..USED to be a REpublican concept before they went stupid on us.

    I don’t have a problem with cutting SS benefits…or DI or Medicare Part A. We have to do it or we have to bump FICA. pick your poison.

    but again… SS has no impact on the Federal Budget and deficit (other than the 2.1 trillion in IOUs that it is owed – and after that is paid back.. zippo.

    so why is the “cut entitlements” focus on SS in the first place if it is not really THE problem to start with?

    that’s the part that makes me crazy.

    we pathologically avoid the real issues and latch on to things that are ancillary at best.

    it’s almost like.. we want to continue the debate instead of actually doing something about the deficit.

  18. Larry, you are correct, if the trust funds run out of money, then either (a) Congress will have to make up the difference, or (b) benefits will be cut to a level that can be sustained by incoming revenues. In either case we have a major s*** storm on our hands.

  19. well I think two things:

    1. – we have to promote the truth about what happens

    2. – I think even the dullest of people will understand that it’s not sustainable to pay out more than you take in.

    I mean that’s the basic message coming from those who don’t want to pay higher taxes… … “cut”… so they should fully agree with the consequences of “cut”.

    3. – if you think Congress is in a dither about balancing the budget, I’d love to see what they do with a proposal to increase FICA taxes to keep SS benefits “level”.

    I can predict right now how the issue will go….

    the only question is whether or not one side or the other – has the votes to do something other than status quo….i.e. reduce payouts…

    but this is child’s play compared to how we deal with the income-tax-funded side of the budget…..

    I think SS will be a gnat on a dog’s butt…. compared to the size/scope of cuts necessary on the non-FICA budget.

Leave a Reply