Title: Social Security Byte, June 2004: CBO Finds Social Security Solvent For Fifty Years
CBO
Finds[U.S.]Social Security Solvent for Fifty
Years
By Dean Baker
The Social Security shortfall is half the size
security/medicare
the main danger to Social Security is not demographic. It's people like
Greenspan and Bush. As Doug discovered years ago, the Trustees of the SS
are low-balling estimates future economic growth, making the situation look
much more dire than it is.
-
andie nachgeborenen wrote:
I do not expect to have
Social Security or Medicare, for example.
what did you folks think of kuttner's piece in business week (march 2004):
if you have a BW online id (i do not):
http://www.businessweek.com/premium/content/04_11/b3874042_mz007.htm?se=1
essentially
The social security crisis is much inflated. As with any social inusrance
system, the ratio of workers to retirees flattens as the system matures.
But talk of a crisis is merely a wedge to open some political space for
privatization, a scheme that would speed, rather than delay, the day
The social security crisis is *not* much inflated--it is pure fiction.
The Trust Fund--containing only US Gov't bonds--is sufficient
to pay all obligations for well over 50 years. The scarecrow is
the threat that sometime before then, current social security/medicare
receipts will fall below
the main danger to Social Security is not demographic. It's people like Greenspan and
Bush. As Doug discovered years ago, the Trustees of the SS are low-balling estimates
future economic growth, making the situation look much more dire than it is.
Jim Devine [EMAIL
Thanks for providing the article James. I agree with
your assessment 100%.
Best,
Mike B)
=
...the safest course is to do nothing
against one's conscience.
With this secret, we can enjoy
life and have no fear from death.
The main danger to SS is that they want to loot it. It's such a nice
pile of $$; why should the worker yahoos get it? In fact, they've been
looting it for years.
Joanna
Devine, James wrote:
the main danger to Social Security is not demographic. It's people like Greenspan and Bush. As Doug
-
From: Mike Ballard [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tue 3/16/2004 4:25 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc:
Subject: Re: [PEN-L] the future of social security/medicare
Thanks for providing the article James. I agree with
your assessment
moneybox
The Social Security CrisisSolved!
A Democratic economist's miraculous plan.
By Daniel Gross
Posted Tuesday, March 9, 2004, at 2:24 PM PT
This is the fantasy of every Washington politician: You wake up one morning, and the
Social Security crisis has vanished. Who knows where
to collect.
The bottomline is that labour entitled to all the
wealth it creates and that we're more productive than
we've ever been. The only crisis in social security
is the lack of political consciousness of this fact on
the part of the working class.
Best,
Mike B
erelman" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2004 9:09 PM
Subject: [PEN-L] Greenspan on Social Security
Is Greenspan working for the Dems.? Make the tax cuts permanent, cut
social security
to make the economy grow faster.
--
Michael
Is Greenspan working for the Dems.? Make the tax cuts permanent, cut social security
to make the economy grow faster.
--
Michael Perelman
Economics Department
California State University
Chico, CA 95929
Tel. 530-898-5321
E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu
and spine of a tapeworm.
dms
- Original Message -
From: Michael Perelman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2004 9:09 PM
Subject: [PEN-L] Greenspan on Social Security
Is Greenspan working for the Dems.? Make the tax cuts permanent, cut
social security
Seems like it. Greenspan said the USA can't afford the retirement benefits
promised to baby boomers and urged Congress to trim them. This is a cohort
theory of perpetuating capitalism, according to which what you deserve
depends on your age, and if by a ceryain age you haven't got the cash
Get a grip Jurriaan, not everything has to do with whoring.
Joanna
Jurriaan Bendien wrote:
Seems like it. Greenspan said the USA can't afford the retirement benefits
promised to baby boomers and urged Congress to trim them. This is a cohort
theory of perpetuating capitalism, according to which
Get a grip Jurriaan, not everything has to do with whoring.
More than you think anyway.
J.
Social Security Reform to Drive Up Debt -White House
By Adam Entous
Reuters 2/9/2004
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Bush's economic advisers said on Monday adding personal retirement accounts to Social Security would send the nation's debt soaring over the next three decades.
Tapping the bond
Some time ago, I recall seeing some gloating about how the elimination of
Social Security, by making workers more reliant on the stock market, will
make workers more business friendly. Does anyone here have a better
memory than I do?
--
Michael Perelman
Economics Department
California State
Some time ago, I recall seeing some gloating about how the elimination of
Social Security, by making workers more reliant on the stock market, will
make workers more business friendly. Does anyone here have a better
memory than I do?
--
Michael Perelman
It is not surprising that the PSA
Title: Social Security and the 2002 Election
November 7, 2002
Social Security and the 2002 Election
by Michael Tanner
Michael Tanner is director of the Cato Institute's Project on Social Security Choice.
"This election is a refer
For those who haven't seen it, Thomas Frank has a very good piece on
plans to destroy --- er save --- social security (The Trillion
Dollar Hustle: Hello Wall Street, Goodbye Social Security) in the
January 2002 issue of Harper's Magazine.
In it, he makes the following claim:
... when
campaign by rail
industry, labor and retiree groups.
The railroad retirement system, which predated Social Security, was
designed to ensure the survival of the nation's rail system and its
workers during the Great Depression. It is funded by companies and
their employees but invests only in government
Center for Full Employment and Price Stability
The Social Security 'Crisis': Critical Analysis and Solutions
November 12, 2001 8:30am-5:00pm
University of Missouri - Kansas City - University Center - Room 106
Conference Schedule
9:00am REPORTS AND PROJECTIONS: SOME CRITICAL
Center for Full Employment and Price Stability
The Social Security 'Crisis': Critical Analysis and Solutions
November 12, 2001 8:30am-5:00pm
University of Missouri - Kansas City - University Center - Room 106
Conference Schedule
9:00am REPORTS AND PROJECTIONS: SOME CRITICAL
== Please respond to the address at the bottom of this post
== via snail mail, not email, and not to ME! -- mbs
Institute for Womens Policy Research
Job Announcement
Study Director, Social Security/Older Womens Economics Project
The Institute for Womens Policy Research (IWPR) is seeking
The Center for Full Employment and Price Stability's Open Letter to U.S.
Congress on Social Security can now be viewed on-line. Those wishing to
sign the petition may also do so at the same site:
http://www.cfeps.org/petition.html
We believe that the Interim Report approved
Matthew Forstater wrote:
The Center for Full Employment and Price Stability's Open Letter to U.S.
Congress on Social Security can now be viewed on-line. Those wishing to
sign the petition may also do so at the same site:
http://www.cfeps.org/petition.html
David wrote:
what is the justification for running a social security surplus today,
other than as a regressive tax to fund general expenditures?
I'm sure that our politicians don't see it that way, but that's the way it
works.
Is there any legitimate argument, then, against immediately
- Original Message -
From: Institute for Public Accuracy [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2001 10:38 AM
Subject: Perspectives on Bush's Social Security Commission
Institute for Public Accuracy
915 National Press Building, Washington, D.C. 20045
(202
to
Social Security, but abandoned it when it became clear the president would
be impeached, according to a paper by three former administration officials
that will be presented today at a Harvard conference.
Many of the options seriously considered by the Clinton White House include
portions
Well, it's nice to see a top Bush official being so clear on the goal of
leaving the multinationals untaxed and gutting the Social Security and
Medicare systems. Worth passing on- NN
---
O'Neill lays out radical vision
Source: The Financial Times
Published: May 18 2001 19:18:25 Author
nts/Interviews: Dean Baker (252) 995-7869
Mark Weisbrot (202) 432-6762
UNDERSTANDING THE SOCIAL SECURITY
TRUSTEES REPORT
Will Trustees Follow CBO on Growth Projections?
WASHINGON, D.C. -- The biggest question mark with
the release of the year 2001 Trustees Report, is
whether
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
March 16, 2001
CONTACT:
Info: Quetta Carpenter (202) 293-5380 ext 208
Comments/Interviews: Dean Baker (252) 995-7869
Mark Weisbrot (202) 432-6762
UNDERSTANDING THE SOCIAL SECURITY
TRUSTEES REPORT
Will Trustees Follow CBO on Growth Projections?
WASHINGON
I heard Rudolph Penner on US National Public Radio today saying that the
social security benefits are indexed to wages. Is there any truth at all to
this assertion? Isn't it the revenues that are indexed to wages, while the
benefits are indexed to the CPI?
Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http
I heard Rudolph Penner on US National Public Radio today saying that the
social security benefits are indexed to wages. Is there any truth at all to
this assertion? Isn't it the revenues that are indexed to wages, while the
benefits are indexed to the CPI?
Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http
] writes:
I heard Rudolph Penner on US National Public Radio today saying that the
social security benefits are indexed to wages. Is there any truth at all
to
this assertion? Isn't it the revenues that are indexed to wages, while
the
benefits are indexed to the CPI?
Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED
I heard Rudolph Penner on US National Public Radio today saying that
the social security benefits are indexed to wages. Is there any
truth at all to this assertion? Isn't it the revenues that are
indexed to wages, while the benefits are indexed to the CPI?
Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http
of their Social Security contributions into
personal retirement accounts might work.
I say "might," because Mr. Bush has not been forthcoming on specifics.
Indeed, the paper contains a disclaimer: "although the plan described here
resembles the proposal of Governor Bush . .
. . .
PK goes on to critique the Feldstein/Samwick paper. I think he's totally
right here: the F/S paper has the Bush-like plan running down the social
security trust fund much faster than is currently expected. But then the
benefits of the plan -- which are based on a theory that's very
Max wrote:
There is NO regard of the fact that diverting the 2% from the trust fund
(known as a 'carve-out') makes the bankruptcy 'problem' much worse, much
sooner, and does nothing for the ROR within SocSec. So PK is right, there
is no plan. It's nice to see MF go
on the record to that
Securities
Regulatory Commission and his press conference and interviews last month
appear to be highly authoritative.
Certainly this is capitalism, but it also indicates state policy at a high
level trying to foster an increasingly flexible market but manage a)
growing social security needs
of labor "educationals," short 15-20 minute
presentations/discussions on various topics of interest to workers. We
suggested that we try one of these educationals out at a Central Labor
Council meeting. The president agreed. The first one will probably be
in August on the subject of socia
Anyone on lbo or pen mind providing me with a good source on the chilean
social security system? thanks much in advance, steve
Stephen Philion
Lecturer/PhD Candidate
Department of Sociology
2424 Maile Way
Social Sciences Bldg. # 247
Honolulu, HI 96822
For starters. Doug has a nice summary on pp.304-305 of Wall Street.
Joel Blau
Stephen E Philion wrote:
Anyone on lbo or pen mind providing me with a good
source on the chilean
social security system? thanks much in advance, steve
Stephen Philion
Lecturer/PhD Candidate
Department of Sociology
For a really good analysis of this and a debunking of other features of the
"Pinochet miracle", I recommend www.foodfirst.org's "Chile's Free-Market
Miracle: A Second Look" by Joseph Collins and John Lea.
I can't remember if he specifically talks about the Chilean social
security at the moment, but check out _Neo-Conservative Economics in the
Southern Cone of Latin America, 1973-1983_ by Joseph Ramos, John Hopkins
Press, Baltimore, 1986. It must cover Chilea, Argentina, Uruguay and
Brazil.
Mine
Steve: the Diamond Valdes-Prieto chapter in
Bosworth et al. eds. 1994. _The Chilean Economy._ Brookings,
describes the mechanics and has a good bibliography. There must be more recent lit,
but that's a starting point.
I had a note on the system a few years back on PKT:
May 31, 2000 / New York TIMES
RECKONINGS / By PAUL KRUGMAN
Truth in Advertising
Oh no, not another column on Social Security! But the mailbag suggests
that the issue needs one more go-round, because some readers still think
Social Security is just a pension fund -- one that compares
, and
fewer claims to everyone else. The issue is 95%
political, rather than economic.
mbs
May 31, 2000 / New York TIMES
RECKONINGS / By PAUL KRUGMAN
Truth in Advertising
Oh no, not another column on Social Security! . . .
But the mailbag suggests
that the issue needs one more go-round
Max wrote:
The SS problem, such as it is, is rather a matter of reassigning claims to
output, not augmenting output per se.
the gov't may not know about stimulating long-term supply-side growth, but
they should.
More claims must be assigned to beneficiaries for benefits to be payable,
and
May 28, 2000 / New York TIMES
RECKONINGS / By PAUL KRUGMAN
Money for Nothing?
I have a lot of time today, but I don't need it, since I have no real
comment on PK's column criticizing the idea of putting social security
funds into the stock market. He's right to criticize
I doubt it, but this was a particularly well-done column.
mbs
today's column [May 17, 2000] is a case where PK is accurate, applying
economic logic where it's appropriate (criticizing George W. Bush's
proposal to put Social Security dollars into the stock market. This is a
big
It should be pointed out that we get into these problems of high marginal tax
rates and rapid phase-outs because unlike every other country, we try to support
families indirectly through the tax code rather than directly through universal
family/children allowances. If we are going to spend $85
It should be pointed out that we get into these problems of high marginal
tax
rates and rapid phase-outs because unlike every other country, we try to
support families indirectly through the tax code rather than directly
through universal family/children allowances. If we are going to spend $85
This is the classic problem of universalism vs. targeting efficiency, but I'm
not sure I come down on the same side you do. On the universalistic side,
money for the poor requires, as a kind of informal political blackmail, money
for the rich (or at least the more affluent). Targeting focuses the
This is the classic problem of universalism vs. targeting efficiency, but
I'm
not sure I come down on the same side you do. On the universalistic side,
money for the poor requires, as a kind of informal political blackmail,
money
for the rich (or at least the more affluent). Targeting focuses the
On Behalf Of Max Sawicky
If you spread $85 billion over all families w/children,
the poor would see less than they do now.
Here is where I politically disagree with you. If most families with
children were given the credit, a larger percentage of them would have no
tax liability at all.
Max:
Then, you are trying to find a way to do targeting within universalism, and we
agree. I thought for a long time that something like what you are doing is the
way out of the dilemma I described, so I'd be interested in seeing what you
come up with.
Joel Blau
Max Sawicky wrote:
This is
On Behalf Of Max Sawicky
If you spread $85 billion over all families w/children,
the poor would see less than they do now.
Here is where I politically disagree with you. If most families with
children were given the credit, a larger percentage of them would have no
tax liability at all. They
estion. He provides backhanded support for those who
would weaken if not eliminate Social Security as an "entitlement". Although
Rorty's op-ed piece is directed against legislation that would allow
retirees to supplement their income, the logic points in the direction of
turning the entire So
The problem that Louis seems to be noting is that a move is afoot to make
social security means tested which converts it to a welfare program. Rorty
doesn't realize that once a program becomes a program for the needy, that it is
doomed.
--
Michael Perelman
Economics Department
California State
On Behalf Of Max Sawicky
I happen not to put much stock in the so-called
marginal implicit tax rate. I don't think people
making $16,500 determine whether they will optimize
by moving to $16,501 or $16,499. The main thing
under the EITC is that, for those eligible, they
have more income
with such an earnings test.
Since the point was he wanted Social Security to survive, how does comparing
it to institutions like slavery serve the argument? What point were you
trying to make?
-- Nathan
Nathan wrote:
Social Security survived for sixty-five years with the earnings
test, so
On Behalf Of Max Sawicky
I happen not to put much stock in the so-called
marginal implicit tax rate. . . .
NN:
That's one main thing, but I think you are falling into serious
number-crunching wonkery if you don't think it matters to a person that when
they get a raise, the government takes a
On Behalf Of Max B. Sawicky
[mbs] A concern with marginal tax rates is founded on behavior.
My skepticism rests on the question of behavioral effects.
Certainly a raise that is consumed by the Gov is demoralizing.
Whether someone has the flexibility and inclination to change
their work
. . .
The problem is if you want to do an earned income tax
credit (or a negative income tax), the more you give, the
more you have to take away, and the higher the implicit
marginal tax rate must be in the take-away zone.
If you want a low marginal rate at the bottom, you must
dispense
was
prosecuted, but "virtually no movement" is not
a remotely accurate characterization of what was
attempted.
LP: " . . . In today's NY Times, Rorty finds himself on the wrong side of a
key domestic policy question. He provides backhanded support for those who
would weaken if not eliminate
I think it would be more accurate to say that the political implications of
Rorty's column are up for grabs. Under the best circumstances, universal social
programs--and Social Security is about as close to a universal social program
as we have in this country--should have their benefits taxed
[mbs] Evidentally LP hasn't heard of the AFL's campaign
on behalf of the strawberry workers in CA. One might
criticize the manner in which this campaign was
prosecuted, but "virtually no movement" is not
a remotely accurate characterization of what was
attempted.
When the UFW organized grape
I absolutely agree with this in the sense that we are dealing with a
"broken line." In essence, the proposed legislation has to be seen in the
context of the overall attack on Social Security. It has been a pet
hobbyhorse of the Republicans and the corporate elite for many years. So
wh
y accurate characterization of what was
attempted.
LP: " . . . In today's NY Times, Rorty finds himself on the wrong side of a
key domestic policy question. He provides backhanded support for those who
would weaken if not eliminate Social Security as an "entitlement". Although
Rorty'
position, one would have to say that
someone could receive an unlimited amount of income without any taxes on social
security. Social security or no social security, no taxes on the wealthy does not
sound like a militant socialist politics.
Joel Blau
"It is not sufficient to oppose the legisl
and Bush, but they don't want to dis the Dem
at 1600 now, even though the gini has risen under Clinton). But
Rorty's argument is a spurious redistributionism that give aid and
comfort to the means testers. It's like the taxation of Social
Security benefits - it sounds nice, but it's right up Pete
and Bush, but they don't want to dis the Dem
at 1600 now, even though the gini has risen under Clinton). But
Rorty's argument is a spurious redistributionism that give aid and
comfort to the means testers. It's like the taxation of Social
Security benefits - it sounds nice, but it's right up Pete
On Behalf Of Michael Perelman
The problem that Louis seems to be noting is that a move is afoot to make
social security means tested which converts it to a welfare
program. Rorty
doesn't realize that once a program becomes a program for the
needy, that it is
doomed.
Michael, I think you
ed support for those who
would weaken if not eliminate Social Security as an "entitlement". Although
Rorty's op-ed piece is directed against legislation that would allow
retirees to supplement their income, the logic points in the direction of
turning the entire Social Security system i
Max, the tone of your note is overly contentious. Try not to call somebody
uninformed even if you think your information is better than that of the other
person. Misinformed is probably worse.
I would rather be called "misinformed" than
"uninformed"--"misinformed" at least implies that I have
Ken:
While I agree with Louis' critique of Rorty I don't see any evidence given
that
the AFL-CIO supports Rorty's position. Rorty's logic would lead to means
testing but in itself I don't see how it implies anything one way or the
other
about privatisation. Does the AFL-CIO support privatisation?
So how long did the US survive with slavery, with no voting rights for blacks or
women.
Is that an argument for slavery, etc.?
Nathan wrote:
Social Security survived for sixty-five years with the earnings test, so it
is more likely part of the reason for its resiliency not a hindrance
survived
quite well with such an earnings test.
Since the point was he wanted Social Security to survive, how does comparing
it to institutions like slavery serve the argument? What point were you
trying to make?
-- Nathan
Nathan wrote:
Social Security survived for sixty-five years
On Behalf Of Michael Perelman
I sympathize with much of the rest that you wrote, except for
your defense of
the Democrats. I will not go into that space because we have
already rehashed
much of that discussion.
Boy, the one time I condemn the Democratic "capitulation" to the Right and
A basic feature about Social Security that seems
to be under-appreciated is that it is already
'means-tested' to a degree. It's not an either/
or proposition. First of all, the benefit formula
is redistributive, which is the same thing for
practical purposes as 'means-tested.' It just
happens
On Behalf Of Max Sawicky
Fourth, we have an Earned Income
Tax credit, the base for which is the same
as that for the payroll tax, so there is already
an offset to the payroll tax for those with incomes
below $30K or so.
I am glad to see everybody against means-testing.
But consistency
NEWMAN!
" . . . during the phaseout of EITC,
for those making above $13,000 per year with a couple of kids, they face
something like a 35% tax rate from FICA plus EITC phaseout on all additional
income, . . .
It just so happens that I'm finishing a paper
now w/Bob Cherry on expanding the EITC
Security. Admittedly, we don't
hear much resistance since Peterson's "movement" in which young people complain
about paying Social Security taxes has disappeared.
I do appreciate the perspective that you offer in your note, despite the muffled
dig at your bete noir.
Max Sawicky wrote:
A bas
Security. Admittedly, we don't
hear much resistance since Peterson's "movement" in which young people
complain about paying Social Security taxes has disappeared.
I do appreciate the perspective that you offer in your note, despite the
muffled dig at your bete noir.
Thanks. I
Nadler - who was rated by Roll Call a few years ago as the second
most left-wing member of Congress, after Maxine Waters, and who's
also probably one of the smarter members of that esteemed body - is
drawing on polls and focus groups done by the AFL-CIO. They found
that people are so
DOUG ORR wrote:
Hopefully this won't get lost in the flood on nonsense that has been flowing
the past few days.
A month or so ago, someone posted a quote from some congressman who said
that he knew there was no crisis in Social Security, but he could say
that publicly because no one would
Doug,
The quote was from Nadler (D-NY), quoted in
The Progressive, an article by, I believe, Ruth
Coniff (sp?) about two months back.
For stats on cars versus bikes, I don't know
much, but there was an excellent article in In
These Times a couple of weeks ago by
Jane Holtz Kay (her book
the guy was Gerry Nadler from NYC. Don't know
where the quote appeared, if anywhere.
mbs
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of DOUG ORR
Sent: Wednesday, July 21, 1999 10:29 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [PEN-L:9492] Social Security quote
Hopefully this won't get lost in the flood on nonsense that has been flowing
the past few days.
A month or so ago, someone posted a quote from some congressman who said
that he knew there was no crisis in Social Security, but he could say
that publicly because no one would believe him. I would
*** Democracies Online Newswire - http://www.e-democracy.org/do ***
-- Forwarded message --
Date: Thu, 15 Apr 1999 21:10:21 -0700
From: Laurie Maak [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Press Release-National Dialogue on Social Security
NEWS RELEASE
At 02:38 PM 3/31/99 -0800, you wrote:
As long as SS remains defined-benefit (social insurance), I don't really
care what the predicted returns on the stock market are. For me, the
tradeoff in investing in equities is that more money goes to the private
rather than the public sector (bad) but
--
The following is a petition requesting that the Social Security
Administration produce projections on stock returns before any
Social Security money is placed in the stock market. Most of the
debate around placing Social Security funds in the stock market
has used
that the Social Security
Administration produce projections on stock returns before any
Social Security money is placed in the stock market. Most of the
debate around placing Social Security funds in the stock market
has used the assumption that the real returns in the stock market
will be between 6.75-7.0
Sunday Journal, suburban DC
"On the Left"
Robert Naiman
March 21, 1999
Foolish Partisanship on the Budget and Social Security
"Partisanship" is not necessarily bad. It's no threat to the Republic when
politicians take strong positions in defense of core values. Such
Doug's
article, as the low growth assumptions create the crisis
projections, and he said he already knew it. Later, a paper
of his on growth included Social Security as a reason for
his progressive growth agenda, and refers to the "purported
crisis", with analysis like Doug's.
Nadler's staff
Several people have told me this is the AFL-CIO's line too -
you can't say there's no crisis or people won't believe you. Talk
about the citational nature of truth, eh? I wonder, though, if
this isn't just a bit of convenient cowardice that excuses the
AFL-CIO and Nader from criticizing
, as the low growth assumptions create the crisis
projections, and he said he already knew it. Later, a paper
of his on growth included Social Security as a reason for
his progressive growth agenda, and refers to the "purported
crisis", with analysis like Doug's.
June Zaccone, National Jo
1 - 100 of 213 matches
Mail list logo
