I think that you may have meant "fully" solvent instead of "sully" solvent.

I recently became aware of your blog. It seems to be very informative. [thanks - DB]

Nothing less than class warfare by the owners of Parade Magazine against their readership.

These people are disgusting.

Any wonder the additions of benefits for their dependents, survivors of deceased workers, the disabled worker, aid to the blind, supplemental income, cost of living adjustments, un-employment compensation and hospital insurance to the elderly shifted the balance between money coming in from taxes and benefits going out of the fund? Suddenly, the social and cultural rights that were once indispensable for our dignity have become nothing more than entitlements destined for reduction and postponement. Had we left what began as a program guarantying social support for all U.S. citizens who were economically vulnerable during the Great Depression well enough alone, perhaps the strife of eternal modification and inclusiveness would not have dumbfounded a nation. Instead, lawmakers tinkered with superannuation of the aged, altering it with more than twenty amendments resulting in their continuous admonition of insolvency, singling out the baby boomers as the chief culprit.

Of all the many additions and subtractions these amendments represent, the 1983 National Commission on Social Security Reform, chaired by Alan Greenspan, turned out to be most oppressive to younger Americans and failed to solve Social Security’s long-term problems. In addition to taxing Social Security benefits for the first time, Greenspan convinced lawmakers to overtax the American worker to create a surplus in the Social Security Trust Fund. For over 23 years we have overpaid-in-advance our FICA (Federal Insurance Contributions Act) dedicated payroll taxes for the avowed purpose of fortifying the pension requirements of the baby boomer generation commencing in 2010. Over $1.5 trillion extra taxes collected later, the trust fund has no surplus cash. Where is the public outcry for an accounting from public agents as to how they have discharged the public trust? Astonishing as this is, today’s leaders are re-fueling the notion the fund is bankrupt, setting the same generation up again today, for the urgency of tax reform. Their arguments are exactly the same as they were in 80’s; the Social Security Trust Fund would not have enough money to provide benefits for the boomer- retirees.

Both democrats and republicans like the fraud that SS is a retirement program that can go broke. In fact it is a welfare program funded by a tax far less progressive than the income tax. It is backed by the full faith and credit of US government an entity that can print money and so could NEVER go broke! And BTW no SS money is invested. But the democrats attached a fraud to the program make it stronger politically.

SS Trust Fund money is "invested" - in U.S. government securities. These have done better than the stock market for about the last 10 years.

We bailed out AIG and Goldman Sachs with billions. The question one should ask our Congress (who reportedly see the need for Social Security reform) is why taxes are more wisely spent on Goldman Sachs and AIG than on Social Security.

The FICA tax should be extended to cover the stratospheric salaries AND bonuses paid by corporations. Congress should act immediately to claw back a portion of the $12.9 billion that received from the AIG bailout. The $16.7 billion bonus pool is an obvious target for a FICA tax assessment and would claw back a portion of the bailout mouney.

Sharkie,

I don't know of anyone, let alone "the nation," that is dumbfounded by changes to social security over the years. Many people may be 'dumbfounded' by the ludicrous claims of the Right that the program is in financial crisis [analogous to the many Americans who, influenced by the Right, demand that government "stay out of" [the government-run] Medicare. Dean's comment is spot on.

Also, regarding some of the facts you allege: "hospital insurance" was enacted 30 years after social security, and is not paid for from social security's trust funds; and "aid to the blind" and [the forerunners to] "supplemental income" were first enacted several years BEFORE social security.

Floccina,

Could you explain your allegation that "the Democrats" "attached a fraud" to sicial security. Honestly, I don't know what you're talking about.

Controlling the agenda through

Fear... Fear...Fear ...

Social Security: Here today, still here tomorrow
By Alexander Hertel-Fernandez
http://www.epi.org/publications/entry/ib246/

Once again Pete Peterson wants to raise your taxes and cut your benefits

so that the United States government can give him more undeserved benefits.

http://www.wilypython.net/Tell%20Your%20Senators%20%20NO%20.html

Parade's claim that people are opposed to raising taxes to support social security is simply false. It might fit one cherry picked poll, but in many polls a majority supports raising the social security tax so long as the tax increase is progressive.

The debate has gone cold and the polls are old, but back in the day (2005) many many polls showed a solid majority in favor of raising the FICA

http://www.pollingreport.com/social.htm
(search for tax)

More generally Gallup has shown a consistent solid to overwhelming majority of US adults think that upper-income people pay too little in taxes

http://www.pollingreport.com/budget.htm

(search for upper).

This simple fact about public opinion is systematically denied and not just by Parade. Most adults in the US want to soak the rich. This fact must be hidden.

Evidently, the view of most American adults is un-American or something.

AbqMike,
The fraud is that SS is not a welfare program but akin to a private retirement program. This leads to much wrong thinking like:

The rich should get more out because they paid in more.

The program could go broke or run out of money.

The poor need to contribute.

Income above some level should be exempt from the tax.

Now and then you even hear some retried person blame the demise (as if that were possible) of the program SS disability. It should be more like other welfare programs. IMO it should be something like an insurance deal were you sign up before you know how much you will make in you life and you promise to pay on some progressive schedule and that guarantees a minimum level of income in retirement.

Most Americans almost by definition do not need the program yet those who do not need the program generally get a bigger benefit from the program.

Social Security (FICA) taxes should not be capped. Capping it makes the tax extremely regressive. As workers and contributors to the success of the few, it seems only fair that the few at the top that have gained so much should have to pay a little something in order for the rest of us to retire without fear of becoming destitute. By extending the tax to all salary and bonuses (and, let's face it, dividends, and interest paid on corporate bonds), the overall tax rate could be lowered. By lowering the tax rate on the majority, far more money will be spent in the economy, increasing economic activity, and, ultimately, making those at the top even wealthier. This is the "trickle up" theory, a theory that is better supported by the evidence than "trickle down" ever was.

The belief that Americans do not want to be taxed is a myth. One only need look to the number of times citizens willingly vote for tax increases on themselves for such things as schools, parks, athletic stadiums (whether pro or collegiate), and many other projects. People regularly vote for such things even if they will not benefit directly from them (people without children voting for school referendums, for example). This belief that individuals are afraid of tax increases is a story concocted by the wealthiest who do not believe in the concept of society and benefiting the whole. It is paradoxical that these same people often wrap themselves in the flag and claim to be true patriots while they disregard their neighbors.

Most people (excluding ideologues) don't mind paying taxes when they can see, or otherwise experience, what their taxes are buying. Of course it would be impossible to have a dedicated fund for every government expenditure, but when a program is beneficial to the public, and citizens are made to understand the benefits to them, they would much rather have their taxes raised than to have the government borrow the money to provide the benefits.

The trust fund has no excess money because the Reagan Administration and Alan Greenspan "borrowed" it to pay for tax cuts for the rich.

Now that it is time to pay that back, all they want to do is cut benefits, not tax the persons who received the tax breaks in the first place.

http://www.buzzflash.com/hartmann/05/07/har05007.html

Baker argues against raising the retirement age. I think he is wrong. We live longer and are able to work longer. Why not just split the difference of the increase in longevity since the program's inception.

The hot-sale Ugg Boots are coming now.We offer wide range of colors and styles Ugg Boots UK and Ugg Boots Sale for you.Shopping now for your favorite!

Obviously, neither the author or this column, nor the contributors of the comments portion of this page have ever taken a basic course in either economics or history. Take some time to learn about social endowments and the societies, which promised endowments faired over the course of a single generation. Also, take the time to fully understand, in political science terms what the definition of "liberal", "utopia", and "socialism". I think that many of you will find you have been mislead, lied to, or absolute simpletons who suck the nipple of your failed politicians. I am not advocating either the democratic or republican party as both are abject failures, but I am advocating that you take the time to learn the true history of socialistic/communistic doctrines and learn what the results were.

To quote Foon the Elder "The trust fund has no excess money because the Reagan Administration and Alan Greenspan "borrowed" it to pay for tax cuts for the rich.

Now that it is time to pay that back, all they want to do is cut benefits, not tax the persons who received the tax breaks in the first place."

I don't disagree that the wealthy class certainly enjoy an advantage. HOWEVER, to whom do you think is bestowed the biggest tax burdent on our country to support the poor oppressed working class for entitlements such as medicare, SS and such? It is actually that super rich, which you complaing about and bemoan that subsidize that endowment. I am by no means wealthy as I am a grad student at the time, but I completely disagree with "fleecing the wealthy to give to the poor". Simply put, look at where the poor get their social entitlements!

The top 1% of income earners in America, and of a country that is 300 million persons, they pay over 50% of all income, taxes, etc for your medicare, social security, the tarp fund etc. That equals only 30,000 people paying for over 100 MILLION people's lack of government revenue. So in in a socialistic view, is that fair? NO! If you were a true socialist, you would tax all equally, which means that all would be paying just over 50% taxes on all earned income. So that would mean a man earning only $8,000 a year would pay $4,000 a year in taxes! and the person earning under the poverty line of $12,000 would still pay half his/her wages to contribute. However, that is not the case in the skewed environment. Not only that, those that are wealthy and mis-represented by the media as evil and greedy, FAR out contribute those that claim to be champions of the poor. Those "rich people" that claim to be conservative or at republican have donated over $500 million as a whole to charities, universities and social groups in the past decade. Those that claim they are democrats or liberals have donated......$100 million. Far less than you would expect given their loudmouthed cry for social justice. Look again and learn your history left wingers. I am pretty confident that while you call conservative people hate mongers, racist, exclusivists, elites etc, will find much more of that within your own ranks. BTW, you call the right racist, while they were the only political party that supported abolition, revoked jim crow laws AND the democrats are the only party as of the past 30 YEARS and up to TODAY that has an active KKK member, Sen. BIRD of WV! So when you talk about racism, look in the mirror you artificial pedantics and sycophantic suck ups!