Trays of printed social security checks wait to be mailed in this 2005 file photo from the U.S. Treasury's Financial Management services facility in Philadelphia. Trustees for the government's two biggest benefit programs warned Tuesday that Social Security and Medicare are facing "enormous challenges," with the threat to Medicare's solvency far more severe. (AP Photo/Bradley C Bower, FILE)

Government Benefit Programs in Trouble

MARTIN CRUTSINGER | March 25, 2008 11:05 PM EST | AP

Compare other versions »

stumble digg reddit del.ico.us news trust

WASHINGTON — Trustees for the government's two biggest benefit programs warned that Social Security and Medicare are facing "enormous challenges" with the threat to Medicare's solvency far more severe.

The trustees, issuing their once-a-year analysis, said the resources in the Social Security trust fund will be depleted by 2041. The reserves in the Medicare trust fund that pays hospital benefits were projected to be wiped out by 2019.

Both those dates were the same as in last year's report. But the trustees warned that financial pressures will begin much sooner when the programs begin paying out more in benefits each year than they collect in payroll taxes. For Medicare, that threshold is projected to be reached this year and for Social Security it is projected to occur in 2017.

Both programs are expected to come under increasing pressure as 78 million baby boomers start retiring and drawing benefits.

"The financial difficulties facing Social Security and Medicare pose enormous challenges," the trustees said in their report. "The sooner these challenges are addressed, the more varied and less disruptive their solutions can be."

Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, one of the trustees, warned of a fiscal train wreck unless something is done.

"Without change, rising costs will drive government spending to unprecedented levels, consume nearly all projected federal revenues and threaten America's future prosperity," Paulson told a news conference where he and the other trustees released the report.

President Bush, who wanted to make overhauling Social Security a top priority in his second term, tapped Paulson to lead that effort. However, Paulson has been unable to forge a consensus with Democrats, who took control of Congress in 2006. He has complained that he is getting tired of playing "solitaire."

Democrats contend that Bush lost valuable time after his 2004 re-election pushing a plan to allow younger workers to direct their payroll tax contributions into private accounts, an idea that went nowhere in Congress.

Reaction in Congress divided along party lines with Republicans saying the new report was an urgent call for action while Democrats accused Republicans of using the report as an excuse for making Draconian cuts in benefits.

For the second year, the report contained a Medicare funding warning that will require the next president to submit soon after he sends his first budget to Congress next year recommendations for dealing with a shortfall in Medicare taxes and projected benefits.

Bush submitted the first of these required responses in February. He recommended among other things that wealthier Medicare beneficiaries pay higher monthly premiums for prescription drug coverage. Under the 2003 law that provided for drug benefits under Medicare, the president is required to submit cost-saving proposals to Congress if the trustees project Medicare will need to rely on general revenue for more than 45 percent of its funding in any future year.

Administration officials said Tuesday that Bush's recommendations, along with proposals to slow Medicare's growth included in the budget, would make a significant dent in the program's shortfalls. However, Democrats have attacked the proposals, making the prospect for legislation this year unlikely.

House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charlie Rangel said Congress "will do what we have to in order to restore long-term financial stability to these programs."

But many analysts think the whole debate will be left for the next president to take up with Congress, given the difficulty of making changes in such politically sensitive programs as Social Security and Medicare during an election year.

While the Social Security trust fund will have resources until 2041, the more critical date in terms of government revenues will occur in 2017. In that year, Social Security, which has been providing billions of dollars in surpluses to the government for over two decades, will start having to pay out more in benefits than it will receive that year in payroll taxes.

At that point, the government will have to start replacing the money it has borrowed from the Social Security trust fund. It can do that only by increasing borrowing from the public, raising taxes or cutting other government programs. The elimination of the Social Security surplus is a key reason that experts are projecting sizable budget deficits in future years.

In 2041 when the Social Security trust fund is exhausted, the program will be collecting enough in payroll taxes to pay 78 percent of current benefits. That is up from an estimate of 75 percent last year. The improvement came in part from an increase the report made in the number and type of immigrants, both legal and illegal, who will be arriving in the country in future years. The higher number boosts the number of people paying into Social Security.


 
 

Comments
147
Pending Comments
0

Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to

View Comments:
Page: 1 2 3 4 Next › Last » (4 pages total)

Mission Accomplished! Heckuva job Greenie!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:25 PM on 03/26/2008

Bollocks! This is a last ditch attempt by neocons to shear the American sheeple.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:51 PM on 03/26/2008

ECONOMY -- NEW SOCIAL SECURITY TRUSTEE REPORT SHOWS PROGRAM IS NOT IN CRISIS: Yesterday, the Social Security trustees released their annual report on the state of the trust fund. As the Washington Post's Dana Milbank writes today, it is "a bit ceremonial" for Bush administration officials to warn "about entitlement calamity" every year when the report is released. Almost on cue, Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson announced yesterday that "rising costs will drive government spending to unprecedented levels, consume nearly all projected federal revenues and threaten America's future prosperity." Conservatives in Congress joined in as well, with House Minority Whip Roy Blunt (R-MO) issuing a statement claiming that the new report proves there is a Social Security "crisis." But the report actually shows something quite different, according to Center For American Progress Action Fund Domestic Policy Adviser James Kvaal, who wrote yesterday that "the report is an important reminder that the program is not in a crisis." "While we need reforms to extend the life of Social Security, we do not need to panic and adopt massive benefit cuts," writes Kvaal. Economist Paul Krugman agrees with Kvaal, writing on his blog yesterday that the report shows that "the actuarial balance has been improving rather than worsening" and that "Social Security's financial problem is relatively minor."

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:35 AM on 03/26/2008


The world aspecialy the US is now just one giant Monopoly game. All running for the next dollar the next brass ring (the toy) the biggest stack of money. Then snakes and ladders divorce, taxes, death, sickness, get the idea.

Unfortunately these game end with a winner and everyone else a loser.

Sorry we all lose.

Social Security is not welfare or a government entitlement program. SS is insurance bought and paid for by the US worker. The benefit's are not enough to live on now so question its buying power in the future.

This Social Security has bin and still is one of life saving for children who lose there parent. For the worker harmed and broken by his labor. If it is your only retirement money you are in for a ruff ride but without without SS your hand would have to be out all the time at the mercy of others ,no options no independence no life.

The future?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:31 AM on 03/26/2008

Wall Street and the War Pigs are gonna sack as much treasure as they can as the Repuglicans are forced from office.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:29 AM on 03/26/2008

What, unlimited funds for Halliburton, Blackwater, Bear Stearns, War, Murder and Mayhem, but you lost our medical and retirement funds?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:13 AM on 03/26/2008

Isn't is ironic how the vapid presidential campaign is sidetracking the media and the American people from the most important issues of the day? It's as if they don't exist in the constant babble and prattle of he said/she said and what does Hillary have to do to get more delegates or popular vote or states that goes on ad nauseum, day after day, week after week, month after month. Well, unlike the war, at least it has to end by August. But will the McCain vs. Obama campaign be anymore illuminating to voters, or will the media trivialize that, too? Of course they will.

And when the new president is sworn in, as likely McCain as not, the media will soon move on to the 2010 Congressional races, and then it's time for another presidential election cycle.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:12 AM on 03/26/2008

if im rich, why should i work more if you are going to tax me harder?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:40 AM on 03/26/2008

Isn't it strange there is enough money for a War in Iraq and to bail out Wall Street.....but not for these programs? If the government would stop taking money out of these systems to use elsewhere they would be solvent as FDR planned them to be.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:09 AM on 03/26/2008

im not paying for it!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:35 AM on 03/26/2008

You may not have noticed the 35 year Republican plan to destroy New Deal programs. An agenda they've been pretty successful at carrying out.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:14 AM on 03/26/2008

They ( Republicans ) feel that only Wall Street ...not Main Street ( mortgage crisis) is worth helping. We are in a recession and the new deal policies helped out country during the depression....the same things that worked then could work now ...but the emphasis is on people in high tax brackets ....not the average person that depends on these programs. Why a poor person votes Republican is laughable.... maybe they just want to feel rich.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:36 AM on 03/26/2008

In essence Republican programs are welfare for the rich.. The money that used to get spent on social programs is now being given back to the rich in forms of tax breaks and subsidies. For all their proclaiming that capitalism is best for this country they'd be dead under a truly capitalist economy.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:01 PM on 03/26/2008

It doesn't take much effort to upset Ponzi schemes. Medicare wasn't New Deal though, it was LBJ and his "Great Society" nanny state.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:29 AM on 03/26/2008

I didn't say it was. I didn't sayt OSHA was either but both are New Deal type programs and I think they refer to New Deal programs generically. The Great Society - nanny state. Some nanny!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:33 PM on 03/26/2008

True dat.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:26 AM on 03/26/2008

Republican's have tried to rid this country of Social Security for years! It's been their number one priority! Republican's resent seeing any working person with a dime in their pocket or a decent life! It's always been that way with them and always will be. I know Republican's and that's always the first thing they start whining and belly-aching about...entitlements!!!! They have to be the most selfish, greedy immoral people on the planet. So think about that when you vote! Whether you are going to vote for your interests or Wall Streets!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:50 AM on 03/26/2008

Here's the ongoing GOP playbook: lower taxes for the rich, start a war, borrow beyond our capacity to pay and then tell the middle class there's no money available for Medicare, Social Security or national healthcare. We've seen it time and again from Reagan to Jr Bush. Fuck 'em. Raise the taxes on the bastards and let them squeal!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:48 AM on 03/26/2008

Raise the limit on income. There is no reason for millionaires to be exempt from paying after the paltry limit is reached. Millionaires do not "work" for their money, they get it on the backs of those they bully into having no choice except to take what is offered to them in the way of wages. This should have been done years ago. The next step is to stop stealing money out of the trust funds and leaving IOUs that this or any other repu branch of government has no intention of paying. This has been the aim of the republicans since 1950, to destroy Social Security because it was designed and instigated, and made successful, by a DEMOCRAT. They have been stealing from it and howling about "shortfalls" and the "need to privatize" and yammering about how everyone should be responsible for themselves. Trouble, most poor people can find it in their hearts and minds to give whatever they can to help someone else, the rich think only of themselves.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:09 AM on 03/26/2008

Thank God there is still plenty of money to bail out wall street and for illegal wars and occupations.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:59 AM on 03/26/2008

"Bush submitted the first of these required responses in February. He recommended among other things that wealthier Medicare beneficiaries pay higher monthly premiums for prescription drug coverage."

Well, everyone's premiums went up this year (and benefits went down). Here's a thought: instead of gouging some Medicare recipients, how about negotiating with the drug companies for lower prices based on quantity purchasing? And then, since Medicare is already an insurance program, how about cutting out the private insurance companies and paying for the drugs directly? But no, that wouldn't feed some of Bush's favorite beasts, the drug and insurance industries.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:45 AM on 03/26/2008

The last time Bush and company scared us I was months from the magic number of 55 which is when your benefits would be protected. Now I am over 55 and more scared than ever. What do they expect us to do? I am already planning on working way past when most people work (if my health holds up). All I can say is push the Baby Boomers out on the streets and we will have no choice but to riot. Young folks best have extra money so they can take care of their parents and grandparents.

How sad. I have worked my whole life and now that it is my turn: So sorry.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:39 AM on 03/26/2008

That is what happens when you become dependent on the government. They can change anything they choose. Privately held retirement accounts is what people should be pushing for. It may be too late to benefit those in our generation that didn't plan ahead, but our kids would be better off.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:54 AM on 03/26/2008

Yeah, right. Wall Street has done SUCH a good job that the Pig Men need to be in charge of our retirement money, too. Can't you see even now -- in the midst of the economic meltdown they caused (while raking off billions for themselves and still expecting us to bail them out) -- how crooked they are?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:40 PM on 03/26/2008

The government better find some solutions. It has been fooling around with the imperial dictates of Bush-Cheney et al for far too long. These are programs that have a real effect on the people of this country, people who the president and the vice president have no feeling for at all. Troops die and Cheney says, "so?" Old folks can't pay for scripts and people who have paid into social security for years, honoring their part of the bargain are seen as complainers and bums. The government better start getting it right about who is in charge of it and do something on these programs or they will have some people in their face fast. It is the government that has squandered the deposits of millions of Americans and now the government needs to cover its loans.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:21 AM on 03/26/2008

These political appointees (Trustees) were put in their positions to help eliminate the Social Security tax on business. Social Security funds that were raided will have to be replaced and taxes raised.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:16 AM on 03/26/2008

The tax cuts that were given to the upper tax bracketts need to be raised, and loop holes closed. Warren Buffet said himself " something is wrong with a tax system where his secretary pays more total taxes than he does " The current system breaks the backs of the average middle class person while the upper crust don't pay at all. Now that middle class has no jobs, can't pay their mortgage, can't save, all these factors affect the economy. A new system where a flat tax is imposed would be more fair.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:08 AM on 03/26/2008

What's interesting is that the pundits always talk about the demise of SS because soon, retirees will far outnumber workers putting money into SS. But they never address the obvious in reverse - that, what that means is, for the last 30-40 years far MORE people have been contributing than have been using SS. WHERE DID ALL THE MONEY GO? We know the answer. It was squandered. So future retirees will be give handfuls of guilt for being born and working hard and contributing to SS for all those years while the politicians use the money for their own ends, most recently to run a disastrous, unnecessary, war.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:34 AM on 03/26/2008

They didn't use the SS money for war, it was already spent by Congress (Republican) and the SS fund has IOUs in the safe deposit box.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:28 AM on 03/26/2008

Another name for IOUs? The U.S. dollar.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:28 PM on 03/26/2008

Don't ask!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:12 AM on 03/26/2008

I remember in December of 2005, when Secretary Snow said he found more money in a Retirement
Fund for Federal Employees. I guess this administration robbed everything. The missing 2.9 billion from a pension fund now, where are the headlines? We know where the money went.
Senate/congress and corporate welfare is in tact but SS and Medicare is not. I say lift the cap of
$ 90,000 and we won't have a problem.
But as usual, people don't excited as long as they get their monthly check. Now it is being threatened
we will throw out Clinton and select Obama and letthing him know to get that program back on its
feet and put back the money this admin stole from it.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:18 AM on 03/26/2008

Bull. And if it is, who authorized it?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:29 AM on 03/26/2008

More lies from Bushco. The SS Trust Fund surplus runs out in 2041. So what? That surplus accumulated because Reagan bumped up FICA taxes in 1983 to cushion the baby boomer bulge. By 2041, the boomer retirement bulge should be over, meaning no surplus should be necessary, assuming any reasonable future income forecast. But Bushco always picks the most pessimistic available forecast of future incomes, so "the sky is falling" on SS in 2041. The most important figure given this year is that unless we act, 2041 receipts will enable paying only 78% of projected benefits, up from last year's 75%. A 3% increase in just one year! Let's see---if that trend continues, projected 2041 receipts will rise to over 100% of projected payments in less than eight years, and the shortfall disappears. Crisis over! It wasn't too long ago that the surplus was ominously predicted to peak in 2012, now it's 2017, so as time goes by, it moves farther out into the future. In short, everything Bushco says about SS is a total scam and a lie intended to stampede people into doing away with a beloved and fiscally sound program. Medicare is a different and more complicated story, best answered by HR 676. For more, see http://whatsnotso.blogs.com/

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:12 AM on 03/26/2008

Spot on post, ThomH. I doubt every last "boomer" will live to the age of 95.
This "insolvency" lie is a typical neocon fear tactic.
They just want to loot what's left of our SS fund.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:48 PM on 03/26/2008

There is no "trust fund". The government is spending it to fund the budget deficits. The "trust fund" is a series of IOUs payable by the Federal government. That means that when the system goes into deficit, it needs to start getting paid back by the Federal government. This means that a $400 billion deficit also has to add a few more billion to pay back the trust fund.

What the SS Fund is saying is that tax hikes are coming to pay for the deficit spending of the past few decades. Since Baby Boomers are retiring, they won't be paying for those deficits that they ran up since the 1980s.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:40 AM on 03/26/2008

How else are the republicans going to pay for a war with tax cuts? Since Reagan, those slimeballs have had a hardon for all the money in the SS fund.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:40 AM on 03/26/2008

SS Act was meant to help the workers when they were disabled or when they retired with adequate pensions for a healthy life style. Removing the Cap of $90, 000 and limiting the pension to a reasonable means test is logical and fair and would pay for national one payer health insurance for all Americans but only if the drug companies, foreign and domestic were able to compete in a free market with regulated monopolies like Cheneys Pharmaceutical conglamerate.