This year, the system will pay out more in benefits than it receives in payroll taxes, an important threshold it was not expected to cross until at least 2016, according to the Congressional Budget Office.Stephen C. Goss, chief actuary of the Social Security Administration, said that while the Congressional projection would probably be borne out, the change would have no effect on benefits in 2010 and retirees would keep receiving their checks as usual.
The problem, he said, is that payments have risen more than expected during the downturn, because jobs disappeared and people applied for benefits sooner than they had planned. At the same time, the program’s revenue has fallen sharply, because there are fewer paychecks to tax.
Analysts have long tried to predict the year when Social Security would pay out more than it took in because they view it as a tipping point — the first step of a long, slow march to insolvency, unless Congress strengthens the program’s finances.
Let's look at three charts compiled from information provided by the CBO:
Mandatory spending (which included SS) has been increasing as a percentage of the total federal budget. This means that Washington has less and less ability to cut spending without a change in the law.
Interestingly enough, medical payments are the real reason for the increase in mandatory payment increases.
Mandatory spending as a percent of GDP has been pretty stable. This is a very good development as it indicate we're far from the point of financial Armageddon.


2 comments:
They act as if this has never before happened, when in fact it has, though not for a while -- the last time was under Ronald Reagan. Furthermore, it's not a sign that we need to take the trillions in the SS trust fund and give them to hedge fundies so they can take 20% off the top as opposed to the less than 1% overhead that SSA runs up. It's a sign that a) the economy sucks, and b) the revenue needs slight tweaking.
So, what's the revised projection for SS insolvency?
When considering the solutions to this problem, let's all keep in mind the government fought tooth and nail to AVOID putting failed investment banks into receivership when they were going insolvent now.
I like double standards. Smashed to pieces by the Hammer of Truth.
Post a Comment