iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
James Roosevelt

James Roosevelt

Posted: August 11, 2010 02:33 PM

The 75th anniversary of the signing of Social Security into law is cause for celebration as it marks a milestone of longevity and signals a promising future for one of America's greatest social policies.

I admit that I have a strong personal connection, having served in the Social Security Administration, and knowing that this policy, which has helped three generations of Americans, is one of my grandfather's proudest legacies.

My celebration is tempered by great concern. There are falsehoods and ill-informed distortions unleashed against Social Security by those who seek political gain. Their goal is to create a climate of fear around the future of Social Security. Repeatedly, they tell us that the program is bankrupting the country, paying out more than it takes in, will be made insolvent by retiring "baby boomers," and thus unavailable to for future generations.

The truth is that Social Security is completely solvent today, and will be into the future because it has a dedicated income stream that covers its costs and consistently generates a surplus, which today is $2.5 trillion. Estimates are that the Social Security surplus will grow to approximately $4.3 trillion in 2023, and that reserves will be sufficient to pay full benefits through the year 2037. After 2037, Social Security would still be able to pay for 78 percent of benefits even with no adjustments to revenues or benefits.

And those "baby boomers" who are going to bust Social Security when the retire? They have been paying into the system for more than 40 years, generating the large surplus the program has accumulated. Much of the money that baby boomers are and will be drawing on from Social Security, is, and will be, their own. That fact is conveniently forgotten by the critics.

Polls show that Social Security is popular with the public. This is not surprising given that it has lifted millions of American out of poverty and saved countless others from destitution born of disability. Moreover, nearly one in five recipients of Social Security benefits are children under the age of 18. Nevertheless, polls also show that the fear tactics are working, and that a majority of Americans do not expect to receive Social Security benefits when they retire.

Understanding that the public will not succumb to a frontal assault on Social Security, Tea Party supporters, Libertarians and other critics advance their radical agenda by creating a "mythology of fear" trotting out themes of a program that is "in crisis," "bankrupt," "broke," and, in the wake of the Madoff scandal, even a "Ponzi scheme." They then position themselves not as wanting to eliminate Social Security but as wanting to "save, "strengthen," and "protect" Social Security by privatizing it.

Social Security does not need to be saved. The fact is, Social Security has been the most successful government program of the past 75 years. Today, 53 million Americans receive Social Security benefits each month. No other program in American history -- has touched more lives and families and brought more financial stability to households -including those of is most ardent critics.

The Social Security Administration should do more to debunk the reprehensible fear campaign against the program. Public figures who support the program - including the president- should add their voices in support and work to calm the rhetoric.

 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 34
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
photo
KAL-EL
Every time I fill out my bio I get banned.
07:32 PM on 08/15/2010
This article has complete fabrications therein.
Be careful what you believe just because it makes you fweel better .
05:12 PM on 08/12/2010
The only dedicated income stream will be the government ability to either borrow more money and/or tax more. The $2.5T "surplus" is funny money - non-negotioable Tresury IOUs that have no intrinsic monetary value. The near-term crisis isn't to SS beneficiaries, but to the general federal budget as it will no longer enjoyed the surplus from payroll taxes that has been hiding our true deficet.
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
oldngrumpy
My micro-bio is no longer empty
03:25 AM on 08/15/2010
If US Treasury Bonds aren't satisfactory security instruments then what would you be happy with? Exactly what is a "non-negotiable Treasury IOU? Do you have a clue about any of this?
photo
KAL-EL
Every time I fill out my bio I get banned.
07:43 PM on 08/15/2010
Exactly what is a "non-negotiable Treasury IOU?
==============================================
A bogus debt masquerading as an asset.
Not unlike you writing yourself a $2,000 IOU every month for money you have already spent. Keeping those IOU's in a specially locked file cabinet for years telling yourself and your bank they are assets to be redeemed at a later date.

Some people will believe anything and apparently you are one of them.
what a farce
05:12 PM on 08/12/2010
Just as lies are spread about Social Security's fiscal fitness, lies have been spread about health care reform. Just as Social Security wasn't perfect when it first was enacted, so too will HCR get better with time. Social Security is one of America's best-loved programs, and I have hope that HCR eventually will be as well. After all, it was the only missed opportunity of Social Security. Richard Kirsch, former director of HCAN, has a very hopeful piece on this today: http://www.newdeal20.org/2010/08/12/what-social-security-can-teach-us-about-the-future-of-health-care-17373/
11:47 AM on 08/12/2010
It appears that Obama couldn't possibly care less about Social Security. He's actively working to destroy it as we speak, and prominent liberals and progressives, AS USUAL, are showing their usual incompetence and/or complicity while the extreme right-wing defines the issue in the media.

"And god wept", I believe, is the next verse...
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
oldngrumpy
My micro-bio is no longer empty
03:27 AM on 08/15/2010
Define the debate and define the opposition and you win any election by default. If the Repugs could govern as well as they campaign I would vote for them. Sadly, the Dems have the opposite problem.
09:22 PM on 08/11/2010
Kudos and cheers to you Mr. Roosevelt. I have been sending out links to your speech on C-Span 2 for days now. Your truth, backed with fact after fact after fact has to get out there. The truth you speak has to debunk the lies they, the right and Obama, are using to create fear and make people turn against their own self interest.

Here are links including Mr. Roosevelt's brilliant and powerful speech. Learn the facts. Learn the truth and spread it out there faster than the right and Obama's deficit commission can spread the lies as they try to get their greedy hands on Social Security.

SS has never and is not now and never will be any part of the deficit so it does NOT belong on the table for discussion.

http://semiwnal.firedoglake.com/diary/64561

http://www.c-span.org/Watch/Media/2010/08/06/HP/A/36710/James%20Roosevelt%20Remarks%20on%20the%20Social%20Security.aspx

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dave-johnson/what-social-security-repo_b_672225.html

http://www.democracynow.org/2010/7/19/social_security_under_attack_cuts_proposed

http://www.democracynow.org/blog/2010/7/19/part_ii_social_security_under_attack_cuts_proposed_higher_retirement_age_suggested
08:40 PM on 08/11/2010
Mr. Roosevelt, my mother named my brother after your grandfather. That is how much they thought of him.

I read that they have tried to create a better system than Social Security and have not been able to do so. We were lucky we had your grandfather and his cabinet in office.
06:23 PM on 08/11/2010
Glad to hear the good news. Also, let me add that the privatization of SS advocated by Republicans is no solution at. The shift from defined benefits pension plans to defined contributions plans is a
tragegy. We are made to believe that it is better to gamble with our retirement savings. Sure, let's
all "invest" everything we have at Las Vegas roulette tables and become rich!
(See
Are you better off playing the Stock Market or a Casino? )
Tom Kando
06:16 PM on 08/11/2010
It also doesn't hurt when you take into account that some of us will never get what we thought we would upon retirement. When my husband was about to turn 62 he opted to begin taking his SS benefits. As he spoke to the SS agent, she asked why he had not contributed between 1967 and 1992. He replied that he had been a police officer for 25 years and then worked for an additional 13 years afterward and paying into SS at a very high rate). She then stated that his expected benefits would be only half due the "windfall offset" - his police pension. That certainly makes the future of SS look much rosier, but at a cost to many of us.
08:03 PM on 08/11/2010
My daughter was talking about this the other day. Her husband is in the army and is about to retire. She won't get her full Social Security because of the army retirement.

Most of us work for about 45 years before drawing Social Security. You have to work ten years to draw SS benefits, I think. We aren't allowed to retire until we are 62. The milititary and the police retire a lot earlier.

I believe the tax payers pay into the police retirement fund and the military pensions. We also pay for the government retirements. No one pays into our Social Security except ourselves and our employer.

Things change and I may have been told wrong but that is the way I understand it now about our retirements.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
MrBadger
05:07 PM on 08/11/2010
"The Social Security Administration should do more to debunk the reprehensible fear campaign against the program. Public figures who support the program - including the president- should add their voices in support and work to calm the rhetoric."

Especially the Obama administration. Instead we get a committee "hen house review" - run by the foxes.
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
oldngrumpy
My micro-bio is no longer empty
03:11 AM on 08/15/2010
Name an important issue that Obama has weighed in on before it was settled. There aren't any. This guy (who I campaigned for and voted for) is a sham. He stacked his cabinet with Wall St insiders and shows open disdain for anyone who advocates for the "little people". His approach to politics is the same as the Repugs. Say what you have to to get the votes and then follow the money after you are elected. He had better have a big campaign chest come 2012. He certainly isn't going to have the grass roots support he had in '08.
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
JimR
04:23 PM on 08/11/2010
So the message is "anyone who isn't retiring for another 30 years or so can go to hell, because it's not my problem."

Thanks a lot.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
MrBadger
05:08 PM on 08/11/2010
Read the article. With adjustments it's good to go for the foreseeable future.
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
JimR
06:18 PM on 08/11/2010
Read the news. Anytime anybody suggests actually making those adjustments, those on the left scream bloody murder and we get columns like this saying there's no crisis. Then nothing gets done.
08:06 PM on 08/11/2010
If you are talking about the shortfall in 2037, it is everyone's problem. It will not be that hard to fix. If we pay extra to fix it now, then the government will borrow it, so it would be better to wait until we are farther down the road.

There is no way you should get less than we do and it should be figured like ours.
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
JimR
11:28 PM on 08/11/2010
Politically, it's nearly impossible to fix. Very few lawmakers have the guts to suggest the slightest change to Social Security. That and Medicare are the third rail of politics.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
mikegriffith
Non-partisan Independent
03:46 PM on 08/11/2010
Wow, talk about surreality and Twilight Zone material. Do pray tell, where is that Social Security "surplus" right now? Umm, it's being used to pay other budget items because the SS "lock box" was unlocked long ago. There is no "Social Security surplus." It exists only on paper. There is not one actual dime in the Social Security trust funds, not a penny--just a huge stack of IOUs. How can you not know this?

As a matter of sound business policy and to adapt to modern mortality reality, the SS retirement age should be raised to 70. There should also be a reasonable means test for benefits, one that scaled down the monthly payment for those with a retirement income of over $80K per year--scaled down, but not to the point of elimination.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
MrBadger
05:09 PM on 08/11/2010
The surplus was used in an accounting trick so that Reagan's tax cuts wouldn't look so bad. that surplus still belongs to the participants. Period.
DUSAA-1775
never moon a werewolf
09:48 PM on 08/11/2010
That would have been president Johnson and the mid 1960's democrats.
03:01 PM on 08/11/2010
I recommend everyone pass this link along to friends. The highly funded lie campaign against Social Security has been around for so long that most people have been taken in by it. They're just trying to raid Social Security once again to pay for a continuation of tax cuts for the top1%.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
MrBadger
05:10 PM on 08/11/2010
X2
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
07:40 PM on 08/11/2010
X3
DUSAA-1775
never moon a werewolf
02:53 PM on 08/11/2010
...' The truth is that Social Security is completely solvent today, and will be into the future because it has a dedicated income stream that covers its costs and consistently generates a surplus, which today is $2.5 trillion....'
The author brings up many unsubstantiated opinions. I will be the first to admit that I have been told that SS is a ' pay as you go' program and that there is not a SS trust fund, let alone a trust fund that today is $2.5 trillion.
I wait for some one to tell be which bank is holding that $2.5 trillion for us to use in the future. ... and please...do not tell me that story about the trust fund is backed by US government IOU's.
04:10 PM on 08/11/2010
Indeed, the SS trust fund is NOT backed by US government IOU's. The trust fund is in the form of US government treasury BONDS, which have never failed to be redeemed upon request.

The reason you hear so much about Social Security being in trouble is that Congress (that includes both the Dems and the Reps) have regularly taken the surplus the the trust accumulates each year and earmarked it for other projects, in return issuing more treasury bonds to cover these "loans". One little problem.....these bonds have never been paid for. That is where the misguided idea of "IOU's" comes from.

Now, if the time comes that Social Security needs to liquidate some of these bonds to meet payout requirements, the US government must then borrow the money to satisfy the request, having already spent the funds in the past on unrelated projects (or maybe a pay raise or two for the members of Congress).

So, as stated in the article, there is nothing at all wrong with the trust fund.....just the people we have left in charge of the funds.
DUSAA-1775
never moon a werewolf
09:43 PM on 08/11/2010
I believe that it was president Johnson and the Democrats in the mid 1960's who took the trust fund and blended it in with general revenue.
As you have so eloquently described, the ' SS trust fund' is nothing but a pile of IOU's.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
MrBadger
05:13 PM on 08/11/2010
See OhioHunter's excellent comment. What this comes down to is that they don't want to have to pay SS back for the money they stole to fund tax cuts.