More

Obama Jobs Plan: Social Security Advocates Worry Major Tax Cuts Would Drain Revenues

By ALAN FRAM   09/12/11 10:31 PM ET   AP

WASHINGTON -- Some Social Security advocates fear that President Barack Obama's desire to cut taxes supporting the program will undermine its vaunted stature as a self-financing pension system that provides checks to retirees based on contributions they made while working.

For now, though, the administration insists – and many experts agree – that the proposal would have no impact on the program's financial soundness or ability to pay benefits averaging $1,077 a month to 55 million recipients..

Cutting Social Security taxes is the keystone of Obama's $447 billion plan to create jobs and leave more cash in people's pockets, an effort by the president to bolster the ailing economy and his own 2012 re-election prospects.

The payroll tax cut – an enlargement of one already in effect this year – would take a $240 billion bite out of Social Security revenues in 2012. Obama would replenish the lost FICA (Federal Insurance Contribution Act) taxes with money from the overall federal budget – keeping Social Security whole but forcing the government to borrow more and further swelling the federal debt..

The problem with Obama's proposal, critics say, is that propping up Social Security with general funds from the Treasury erodes its revered status as a self-funded insurance program in which payroll taxes collected from workers pay benefits for retirees, the disabled and their survivors. The proposal would put Social Security into competition for scarce federal dollars with other programs, leaving it more exposed to budget-cutters.

"As long as we could say it's self-funded, we have the high ground" in defending the program from efforts to trim benefits, said Max Richtman, president of the nonprofit National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare. "This will make it much harder to make this case."

Last year, Social Security's expenditures were $49 billion more than it collected in taxes, the first time it ran a deficit since 1983. Back then, the deficit prompted a bipartisan commission headed by Alan Greenspan to curb benefits, increase FICA taxes and gradually raise the retirement age to push the system back into the black and create a huge reserve for covering benefits of baby boomers who are starting to retire now.

The 2008 recession, with a net loss of 6.8 million jobs, and some workers' decisions to retire early amid the economy's stubborn softness have reduced the system's revenues. With Social Security already paying out more than it takes in, Rep. Raul Grijalva, D-Ariz., a leader of House liberals, said he worries that financing part of the program from the overall federal budget leaves it relying on "the most tenuous of any source of revenue, especially in these times."

Social Security, created in 1935, pays its beneficiaries from payroll taxes collected from workers and companies and from interest earned by the trust fund where those taxes are deposited. The government collected $638 billion in payroll taxes last year and its trust fund is worth around $2.5 trillion.

That $2.5 trillion, though, is not sitting in a government vault. The government has borrowed it, and it's one big component of the nation's $14.3 trillion federal debt..

By law, the money is invested in special Treasury bonds – in effect a promise that the government will repay the Social Security system when the money is needed, plus interest. Meanwhile, with the federal budget running annual deficits exceeding $1 trillion, the government uses the trust fund cash to help pay for all its other programs.

This has long fueled a debate over Social Security's soundness.

Critics say the program's trust fund is nothing more than a mountain of IOUs, money the cash-strapped government would be hard pressed to repay. Others counter that a federal promise to provide Social Security with cash has always been as good as gold and any politician hedging on the bonds owned by the deeply popular program would do so at his own risk.

Obama's proposal to cut the payroll tax and finance part of Social Security from the overall federal budget has added has added a new twist to the debate.

Some analysts say Texas Gov. Rick Perry, the Republican presidential hopeful, goes too far in calling Social Security a "Ponzi scheme" and denying the validity of its financing. But they also say Obama's payroll's tax plan focuses attention on how the system is more and more based on government promises, not on the hard cash raised through FICA taxes.

"A Ponzi scheme is fraudulent. This is not intended to be fraudulent," said Robert Bixby, executive director of the nonpartisan Concord Coalition, which advocates a balanced budget. "But it points out that the system is underfunded and is promising benefits it can't afford."

Obama and Congress agreed in December to cut the 6.2 percent payroll tax that workers pay on their wages to 4.2 percent in 2011 as part of a deal continuing former President George W. Bush's 2001 and 2003 tax cuts. That cost Social Security $112 billion – money the government is making up by putting an equal amount of additional IOUs in the system's trust fund.

Now Obama is proposing an even costlier plan for 2012. He would halve workers' payroll taxes from 6.2 percent to 3.1 percent – about $1,500 a year in savings for a family earning $50,000.

He would also cut the matching 6.2 percent Social Security tax that employers pay to 3.1 percent for their first $5 million in payroll next year. And he would eliminate employer-paid Social Security taxes in 2012 for some new workers or on increased pay for current employees. He would reimburse the trust fund with another $240 billion in IOUs.

Many analysts say that technically it makes little difference whether money going into Social Security's trust fund comes from the payroll tax or from other government revenue. Either way, the cash purchases special bonds that are banked in the trust fund.

"It will in no way weaken the Social Security fund," Robert Reischauer, former head of the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office and one of six trustees who oversees Social Security, said of partially financing the program with general revenues.

White House spokeswoman Amy Brundage said that, under Obama's proposal, "Social Security will still receive every dollar it would have gotten otherwise."

But for politicians, other questions are involved.

Polls show Social Security is hugely popular across party lines, particularly with elderly people who vote in high numbers. There are plentiful recent examples of the program's political potency.

When Democrats and Republicans fought over budget surpluses that emerged briefly in the late 1990s, President Bill Clinton headed off large GOP tax cuts by saying the extra money should be used to buttress Social Security. In 2000, Democratic presidential candidate Al Gore tried capitalizing on that same sentiment with his proposal to keep parts of the surplus in a "lockbox" for Social Security.

And in 2005 after his re-election, President Bush saw his plan to let Social Security recipients turn benefits into stock market investments quickly go down in flames.

This summer, Obama and House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, failed to reach a "grand bargain" for cutting federal debt by $3 trillion or more. Their discussions included curbing how Social Security benefits would grow to reflect inflation – a bold proposal that would have posed risks for any politician who backed it.

With next year's presidential and congressional elections on the horizon, lawmakers remain eager to demonstrate support for the program. Underscoring that sensitivity, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., gave an ambivalent response last week when asked if there was concern that Obama's proposal would threaten Social Security's financial soundness.

"Let's put it this way," she said. "It doesn't mean that every piece of everything the president said, that everybody was saying, `Oh, my gosh, I am so glad about that.'"

___

Associated Press writers Stephen Ohlemacher and Jim Abrams contributed to this report.

FOLLOW HUFFPOST POLITICS
Subscribe to the HuffPost Hill newsletter!
WASHINGTON -- Some Social Security advocates fear that President Barack Obama's desire to cut taxes supporting the program will undermine its vaunted stature as a self-financing pension system that pr...
WASHINGTON -- Some Social Security advocates fear that President Barack Obama's desire to cut taxes supporting the program will undermine its vaunted stature as a self-financing pension system that pr...
Filed by Paige Lavender  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 11
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
01:54 PM on 09/25/2011
For the last 25 years, the United States government has been cheating millions of Social Security recipients out of up to 60% of their EARNED benefits due to the unfair WEP and GPO laws. If a person has paid into two separate retirement systems, that person should receive the full benefits of each. The Reagan administration changed the rules after people had been paying into Social Security for decades. How fair is that?

If you have a private retirement system or a 401K, do you honestly believe that your Social Security benefits should be reduced by up to 60% and you be falsely accused of "double dipping"– especially after the Social Security system has been accepting your Earned Contributions for decades? Are we now going to be means tested, and if our government deems we have worked and earned “too much” during the course of our lives, than have our Earned Social Security Benefits reduced or completely eliminated? And how can you trust a government that changes the rules you’ve fairly played by just before you’re ready to retire?

Our government's Social Security rules changes mid-stream have thrown many of our senior citizens into poverty. The average Social Security payment is around $1,100 per month but tens of thousands of retirees effected by Reagan's WEP & GPO laws earn far less than even $1000 per month because their EARNED benefits were unfairly reduced. Try living on that pittance in your "golden years."
06:55 PM on 09/13/2011
He cut Medicaid benefits in his health care law. Now, he cuts Social Security revenues by decreasing the FICA taxes withheld from paychecks. And people THINK the Republicans are the ones trying destroy these institutions? The President is ACTIVELY cutting these programs. Where is the outrage?
09:37 AM on 09/14/2011
Obviously you did not read the article you are commenting on, as it mentioned multiple times that the Federal Government would transfer the same amount of money into the SS trust fund as the decrease in FICA taxes. Hence, there is NO NET IMPACT to social security's finances.

And this is incorrect: "He cut Medicaid benefits in his health care law.", because lowering Medicare Advantage subsidies to insurance companies is not a Medicare benefit cut.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patient_Protection_and_Affordable_Care_Act
02:35 PM on 09/14/2011
I read that part. Why would he play the games with where the money comes from? Cut the taxes and SAY that you will replenish it from another pool of money.... We will have to borrow that money and when we cannot borrow that money, SS loses out. We lose out as a nation when the President plays these FOR-POLITICS money games.

As for the other statement, thanks for correcting me - I typed Medicaid, not Medicare. And way to cite Wikipedia. As people learn in college, don't cite Wikipedia. It is untrustworthy. Here is an article you can cite about the Medicare cuts: http://washingtonexaminer.com/politics/congress/ten-inconvenient-truths-about-obamacare

As for "subsidies to insurance companies" not being a benefit.... Those are benefits going to companies that pay for senior's medical care. Cut that and now those seniors pay for all their care on there own. Whether you like it or not, those "subsidies" are benefits, bud.
photo
pickles n pops
No more payroll tax cuts Mr. Obama!
03:40 PM on 09/14/2011
Enemies of Social Security (and Medicare) are constantly producing disinformation about the reliability of the SSTF. Maybe you trust Obama 'n' Geithner to monkey around with the funding mechanism for Social Security and Medicare with "payroll tax holidays". I don't. In a new poll about Obama's jobs bill, the American People have AGAIN told Barack Obama to stop cutting the payroll tax. http://www.nationaljournal.com/daily/with-doubts-voters-prefer-obama-jobs-plan-20110912

The $500 billion in payroll tax receipts that were earmarked for Medicare recipients, that Barack Obama diverted toward ObamaCare, is just plain theft. I don't care whether that money was going to be used to help fund a program that augments Medicare, or was going directly into Medicare. It was earmarked to help seniors with their medical payments, and should be restored for that intended purpose. Let Obama tax the rich to pay for ObamaCare, as he committed to do during the 2008 campaign.

Stop stealing from seniors to fund your other ambitions Barack Obama!
11:45 AM on 09/13/2011
The right wing advocate three ways to destroy Social Security.
1. Cut benefits
2. Cut revenue
3. Privatize
Obama has used two of these actions. Don't let him get to third base.
07:03 PM on 09/13/2011
As it is right now, Social Security will destroy itself. Those on the right are proposing ways to change the way it operates so that it can still exist and provide that safety net. Since when does change mean destroy?
08:37 PM on 09/13/2011
Raise the payroll ceiling, case closed, come-back in 2100. They know this, all the rest is mischief. Those on the right want to steal the funds.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
09:27 AM on 09/13/2011
Another AP hit-piece misdirection.

Payroll taxes and Social Security are separate deductions­.

Employers must withhold "payroll taxes" from an employee's check and hand them over to several tax agencies by law. Payroll tax line items may include:

• Federal income tax withholdin­g, based on IRS withholdin­g tables.
• Social Security contributi­on.
• Medicare tax.
• State income tax withholdin­g depending on your state.
• Various local tax withholdin­g: city taxes, county taxes, school taxes, state disability­, and unemployme­nt insurance, again if applicable­.