The simple message from the trustees of Social Security and Medicare

FAH1223

Go Wizards, Go Terps, Go Packers!
Staff member
Supporter
Joined
May 16, 2012
Messages
67,860
Reputation
7,967
Daps
206,049
Reppin
WASHINGTON, DC
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...security-and-medicare/?utm_term=.d7e676a6dc6d



By Jared Bernstein June 6
Jared Bernstein, a former chief economist to Vice President Joe Biden, is a senior fellow at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities and author of 'The Reconnection Agenda: Reuniting Growth and Prosperity'.

WWG6FHARGE3EPIEXT772IH2QGY.jpg


Yesterday, the trustees of our two big social insurance programs — Social Security and Medicare — released their annual reports on these programs’ current and future financial conditions. The reports contain hundreds of pages of technical analysis. But their message is simple: We must preserve these valued programs, which means protecting them against “reformers” who would cut them.

The headlines from the reports tend to focus on the shortfalls in the trust funds designed to ensure the payment of full benefits for both programs. For Social Security, the combined trust funds (one for retirement and the other for disability) are expected to be depleted by 2034, the same forecast as last year. Social Security’s financing shortfall over the next 75 years is projected to be 1 percent of GDP.

For Medicare’s Hospital Insurance Trust Fund, however, there was a negative change: Its depletion date was moved up to 2026, three years earlier than in last year’s report (its shortfall is 0.4 percent of GDP). I’ll explain how this deterioration occurred in a moment; for now, the key point is that it is anything but an inevitable outcome. Instead, it is a function of terribly shortsighted policies that can and must be reversed.

But first, it is essential to understand what “depleted” means in the context of these trust funds. It does not mean that either program is broke and can’t pay benefits. Most of the funding for these insurance programs comes through payroll and income taxes levied on current incomes. Therefore, even if the trust funds go to zero, about three-quarters of Social Security and 90 percent of Medicare benefits will be financed by dedicated revenue.

To be clear, these cuts should by no means be allowed to occur. But beware of scare tactics suggesting that the trust funds are the programs’ only source of revenue. This Politico article, for example, announces that Medicare is scheduled “to go broke three years earlier than expected,” without any qualifying points about how the lion’s share of benefits will still be financed by revenue inflows.

Those are the facts. But in our national debate about “entitlements,” they get framed in two very different ways.

Together, Social Security and Medicare comprise about 40 percent of the federal budget. Thus, if your goal is to reduce the size of the government to help offset the cost of tax cuts for your donor base, they constitute a prime target. You are then highly motivated to rail about trust-fund depletion and the crushing obligations of supporting these programs. The framing, given Social Security and Medicare’s popularity, is “we’d love to support them, but we just can’t afford it. Therefore, we must reform them,” where “reform” is a euphemism, or, more precisely, a weasel word, for cut.

The other frame recognizes that these are efficiently run, essential programs that are highly popular for good reasons: They provide income and health security for those who have aged out of their working years, lost a breadwinner (survivors benefits), or become too disabled to sustain gainful employment. Such social insurance functions exist in every advanced economy, where, especially regarding income security, they are more generous than our versions.

Their pervasive existence across countries is no coincidence: They correct a market failure. There are no private-sector insurers who would guarantee pension and health coverage to aging Americans, regardless of their income. Of course, private insurers would offer such services for the wealthy, but they could not profitably do so for those of modest means.

Some thus suggest means-testing these benefits — reducing or eliminating them for high-income persons — to lower their overall costs. To do so, however, could risk undermining their political support (for the record, parts of Medicare already include means tests). But I’ve also grown suspicious about the motivation for means-testing Social Security. It already has a highly progressive structure, meaning those with low-incomes get more back than they put in relative to high-income retirees (that said, the average monthly benefit is just $1,300). This structure limits the savings to the program from cutting the benefits of the wealthy. My concern is that to fix Social Security through benefit cuts, you’d have to break it — in other words, cut too deeply into the benefits of retirees who need the money.

What is the way forward? Surely, the sooner we tackle these shortfalls, the better. Wouldn’t it be awesome to avoid yet another one of those fiscal cliffs that we know is coming but are too dysfunctional to address until the last minute, when we kludge together some patch?

I found these points from Paul Van de Water, my colleague at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, about the deterioration in the HI Trust Fund to be instructive regarding where to go next with this debate. He points out that “much of this deterioration is due to actions by the administration and Congress:
  • enacting the tax law, which reduces income taxes on Social Security benefits, part of which go to the HI Trust Fund;
  • repealing the individual mandate that people get health insurance or pay a penalty, which will increase the number of uninsured and increase Medicare payments for uncompensated care;
  • repealing the Independent Payment Advisory Board, which was projected to help slow Medicare’s cost growth.”
In other words, it is unconscionable to pass $2 trillion in regressive tax cuts (that’s also about 1 percent of GDP over the next decade) and then argue that the nation cannot afford to insure against the economic insecurity caused by old age or disability. This is even more so the case given that the demographic pressures on the programs’ finances have been known for decades. It is equally wrong to argue, as Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin did Tuesday, that the economic growth that the tax cuts will allegedly unleash will close the financing gap (the trustees wholly discounted such claims). Clearly, we will need more revenue (my colleague Kathleen Romig offers some good options).

It is equally shortsighted to get rid of mechanisms designed to slow the growth of health costs, as this, too, must be a solution.

To me, and I’m sure I’m not alone, these hundreds of pages of actuarial analyses are telling us something extremely simple. Given how much the majority of us value Social Security and Medicare, we must begin now to raise the revenue and hold down the costs to sustain them. Everything else is just noise.
 

Geek Nasty

Brain Knowledgeably Whizzy
Supporter
Joined
Jan 30, 2015
Messages
27,917
Reputation
3,965
Daps
105,043
Reppin
South Kakalaka
The solution is simple. Stop Congress from raiding Social Security funds and leaving IOUs. Social Security has never been in financial trouble. It's like saying momma needs to tighten up her budget when daddy is taking money to gamble every weekend.
 

DEAD7

Veteran
Supporter
Joined
Oct 5, 2012
Messages
50,644
Reputation
4,345
Daps
88,449
Reppin
Fresno, CA.
The solution is simple. Stop Congress from raiding Social Security funds and leaving IOUs. Social Security has never been in financial trouble. It's like saying momma needs to tighten up her budget when daddy is taking money to gamble every weekend.
:russ:Just stop human beings from occasionally being self serving irresponsible pricks.


edit: :lolbron:Seems doable...
 

Geek Nasty

Brain Knowledgeably Whizzy
Supporter
Joined
Jan 30, 2015
Messages
27,917
Reputation
3,965
Daps
105,043
Reppin
South Kakalaka
:russ:Just stop human beings from occasionally being self serving irresponsible pricks.

They can set up guards on SS funds that are harder to break than a majority vote. Kind of like how there are different barriers for budget bills. That was the lockbox people used to clown on Al Gore about.

As it is every few years we hear a SS scare but the press never talks about how Congress diverted X billion to cover a budge deficit.
 

DEAD7

Veteran
Supporter
Joined
Oct 5, 2012
Messages
50,644
Reputation
4,345
Daps
88,449
Reppin
Fresno, CA.
They can set up guards on SS funds that are harder to break than a majority vote. Kind of like how there are different barriers for budget bills. That was the lockbox people used to clown on Al Gore about.

As it is every few years we hear a SS scare but the press never talks about how Congress diverted X billion to cover a budge deficit.
They certainly can legislate against their own interest to shore up SS :sas1:
At no point has either side done so tho…:sas2:



:sas1:The only thing I believe we can really count on is human nature, which is why I lean heavily towards diminishing their power.
 

the cac mamba

Veteran
Joined
May 21, 2012
Messages
92,809
Reputation
13,336
Daps
273,055
Reppin
NULL
SS is :scusthov: as is anyway...
biggest ponzi scheme in the history of the country

the government takes 250 a month from my checks, and that's supposed to turn into 2000 a month every month until i die. best of all, i have no choice but to participate :obama:
 

Geek Nasty

Brain Knowledgeably Whizzy
Supporter
Joined
Jan 30, 2015
Messages
27,917
Reputation
3,965
Daps
105,043
Reppin
South Kakalaka
biggest ponzi scheme in the history of the country

the government takes 250 a month from my checks, and that's supposed to turn into 2000 a month every month until i die. best of all, i have no choice but to participate :obama:

Nah a ponzi scheme isn't sustainable because it's based on adding more and more people until it collapses. SS is like any insurance program. SS's problems aren't with the system, it's with external forces leaching from the system. By the time you retire assuming no one fukks with holdings, there will still be enough working people to cover your costs.
 

Secure Da Bag

Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2017
Messages
36,570
Reputation
19,665
Daps
116,845
biggest ponzi scheme in the history of the country

the government takes 250 a month from my checks, and that's supposed to turn into 2000 a month every month until i die. best of all, i have no choice but to participate :obama:

250 * 300 million is a lot of money. Plus, not everyone is dying at once. So the math works out :whew:

It is a pretty good ponzi scheme though. :obama:
 
Top