Have to wonder why the editorialist, Marylin Olds, would spin a story promoting the good shape Social Security and Medicare is in (“Championing the need for Social Security,” page 5, September Kingston Community News.
Interesting, as a means of attempting to support the theory that Social Security is not in need of immediate attention, she quotes Sen. Bernie Sanders as a source. The only senator who is openly a committed socialist in Washington, D.C. is used to promote her theory on our government safety net for our seniors, orphans and the disabled. Not exactly my source for a serious discussion on maintaining the needed programs so many of us have planned our retirements around.
Recently, NPR and a host of media outlets have come out with the recent report from the trustees of the programs. The Social Security Trust Fund is being squeezed. It’s now projected that the trust will no longer be able to fully fund benefits starting in 2033. That’s more than two decades from now, but the new depletion date, as it’s called, is three years earlier than last year’s projections.
Secretary of the Treasury Timothy Geithner stated, “What these reports also reinforce is that we must take steps to keep these programs whole for the future. Pressures on these programs are mounting and Americans are living onger and the number of retirees is growing.”
In 1940, there were 42 workers per retiree. In 1950, the ratio was 16-to-1. In 2010, there were 2.8 workers per retiree, and within 40 years, it’s projected that there will be just two workers per retiree. At the present rate, as the population ages and life expectancies continue to rise, the system will not be able to sustain itself into the future without major reform. With even more people retiring early because of disability, with a large increase recently attributed to seniors not able to find work, according the Congressional Budget Office we are headed for major problems. Perhaps attacking the right wing helps those with a belief that theory trumps math. In reality, we need people understanding we need more going into this program than is being taken out. If we are only subjected to left-leaning views, could we possibly get some balance with those on the left who understand the issues at least?
I am convinced those on the left and right want to leave this nation a better place for our kids than how we found it. Using political ideologies without the facts will not allow that.
Mick Sheldon
Kingston
n n n
“Misinformation on Social Security is rampant.”Marylin [Olds] should know — she’s part of the problem.
It’s clear that you can find someone to quote in order to support (almost) any position.
In her piece on Social Security, she quotes Sen. Bernie Sanders saying that Social Security “can pay 100 percent of all benefits owed to every eligible American for the next 21 years” and then quotes New York Times columnist Paul Krugman saying that Social Security faces only a “shortfall — a quarter of a century from now.”
According to the annual report from the Social Security board of trustees from 2004, the OAS (Old Age/Survivors Insurance) Trust Fund will be exhausted in 2044. The same report from last year put the date at 2036. This year’s report has it three years earlier — 21 years from now.
The other trust fund — the Disability Insurance (DI) Fund — was estimated to be wiped out (by the 2004 report) in the year 2029; last year’s report estimated that event at 2018, and this year’s report puts it at 2016. I’d be willing to bet that next year’s report will have it sooner still — if it hasn’t already occurred by then.
This year’s report also indicates that as of 2012, program costs have now actually exceeded non-interest income and will remain higher for the remainder of the 75-year accounting period.
The report goes on to say, “The projected actuarial deficit over the 75-year long range is 2.67 percent of taxable payroll — .44 per cent larger than last year — and that overall, the Trust Funds will require 8.6 trillion (with a “T”) in present value dollars to pay all scheduled benefits.” Again, that’s $8.6 trillion.
Deficit? Bankrupt? Ponzi Scheme?
In light of the facts presented above, and in spite of the commonly accepted and readily understood definitions of those terms, Marylin still says “No” to all of them — and she has the right to do so. These terms (and whether they apply or not) are not the real issue here.
Ms. Olds’ montage of dire notions of what life might be like as we age, coupled with misleading quotations from questionable (and demonstrably incorrect) sources does not help us fix the problem — some might even classify it as debate of an “underhanded” nature.
I believe acceptance of the truth is what we all need to work toward — if we are able. The first step toward recovery is to “admit that there’s a problem.”
Our elected officials must act quickly, fulfill the task they were elected to perform, and get these balance sheets in order before the costs of this program (one of our government’s most expensive) spiral further out of hand and lead to more debt, decline and the ultimate destruction of our shared national wealth and prosperity — or at least, the wealth and prosperity on which we are currently making payments.
Dave Walker
Kingston
