Comments for WSJ Is Wrong: SS Is Not In the Red at http://www.cepr.net , comment 1 to 6 out of 6 comments http://www.cepr.net Sun, 19 May 2013 10:47:05 +0100 FeedCreator 1.7.3 http://www.cepr.net/index.php/beat-the-press/wsj-is-wrong-ss-is-not-in-the-red/#comment-318 The General Fund has borrowed some $2.5 trillion (so far) from the surplus of the SS Trust Fund. [And that bal. is expected to rise to the $6 trillion range before it begins to decline, decades from now] Since 1983, Workers have paid into this surplus with their FICA taxes, additional money against their future retirement. The GF owes every penny of this back to the SS Trust fund for this very purpose. What can you possibly mean by the phrase "draw against the General Fund?" The SS Trust fund has been propping up the GF while Bush gave away GF revenues to his top-end cronies in the form of tax cuts. Follow the money, for gosh sakes. The idea that Social Security is somehow a burden on the GF shows an utter lack of understanding of fiscal facts and the relationship between the two funds. We have a crisis of the General Fund, not of the Social Security Trust Fund. The GF is in trouble because of such decisions as the Bush tax cuts, two massive unfunded wars, Medicare part D, and the recession. Any actuarial issues with the SS Trust Fund can and should be fixed with fairly minor adjustments to its formulas such as raising the FICA wage cap, modestly extending retirement age (due to improved longevity), etc., just as Congresses have done in every decade beginning in the '50's as conditions have changed. Only in recent times has Congress refused to do the normal housekeeping adjustments to the SS program to maintain the 75-year actuarial balance. Wonder who's been behind that refusal? - Jim Z. Wed, 28 Apr 2010 19:04:37 +0100 http://www.cepr.net/index.php/beat-the-press/wsj-is-wrong-ss-is-not-in-the-red/#comment-291 Yes, by *all means* the important bit of info isn't that the WSJ made a false statement. It's that Dean Baker permanently loses credibilty when he points it out. There's no argiung with that kind of logic, is there? - cemmcs Tue, 27 Apr 2010 08:00:03 +0100 http://www.cepr.net/index.php/beat-the-press/wsj-is-wrong-ss-is-not-in-the-red/#comment-290 Yes, by *all means* the important bit of info isn't that SS has gone cash-flow negative seven years early - and therefore has to draw against the already massively deficit financed general budget - but rather the WSJ has left out a comparatively small element of the Trust Fund, which will extend its internally-financed life by a little over 4 years (maybe). It is thinking (and posturing) like this that has caused the Left to permanently lose credibility with independents. The bottom-line issue is that the fundamental mismanagement/political gaming of the so-called Trust Fund now (or very shortly) will force us (unless there is an increasingly likely tax rebellion) to sacrifice more of the free economy to the DC-NY shitheel nexus... - cas127 Tue, 27 Apr 2010 07:52:13 +0100 http://www.cepr.net/index.php/beat-the-press/wsj-is-wrong-ss-is-not-in-the-red/#comment-284 WSJ editors are not in the habit of "forgetting" anything. They are, however, in the habit of including in their articles only the information that will lend support to their notions of what their readers should believe. In this case that amounts to the message that Social Security is going broke and should immediately be "reorganized" with an eye toward its eventual privatization. - Queen of Sheba Tue, 27 Apr 2010 05:33:10 +0100 http://www.cepr.net/index.php/beat-the-press/wsj-is-wrong-ss-is-not-in-the-red/#comment-275 No, no, no, another errant typo, It's not, not in the red, It's SS is Red, With socialist redistribution, By Ponzi execution, Which requires privatization, By Wall Street emasculation. - izzatzo Tue, 27 Apr 2010 01:35:18 +0100 http://www.cepr.net/index.php/beat-the-press/wsj-is-wrong-ss-is-not-in-the-red/#comment-272 “Stupidity is an accepted phenomenon in politics. I would almost say: to succeed in politics, one needs a measure of stupidity. Voters don’t like politicians who are too intelligent. They make them feel inferior. A foolish politician, on the other hand, appears to be “one of the folks”. : Uri Avnery - Scott ffolliott Mon, 26 Apr 2010 18:35:06 +0100