A ‘Race to the Top’ for Social Security
If you’re below a certain age, your annual Social Security statement is accompanied by a fact sheet titled “What young workers should know about Social Security and saving.”
The fact sheet explains that the Social Security Trust Funds are due to go broke by 2037 and that, as things stand now, payroll taxes won’t cover “the full benefit amounts scheduled.”
“However,” it says, “this does not mean that Social Security benefit payments would disappear. Even if modifications to the program are not made, there would still be enough funds in 2037 from taxes … to pay about $760 for every $1,000 in benefits scheduled.”
Benefits won’t “disappear”? Well, that’s reassuring!
The fact sheet presents this potential 24 percent haircut for Americans around my age as a worst-case scenario. Prudent souls will recognize that, with fewer workers and more beneficiaries who live longer, it may be the best case.
I fear the temptation to “fix” Social Security by giving Washington more authority is too great (witness the result of the year-long health-care debate). Pension reform for 300 million-plus people is most likely to result in bigger government, higher taxes, lower benefits.
But what about reform for 5 million, 10 million, even 20 million Americans at a time?
What I mean is a kind of “Race to the Top” for Social Security reform, in which states compete to devise solutions for the program on a smaller scale.
Give state governments two years to draft plans for people younger than a certain age; people above a certain age would remain in Social Security. Actuaries would set the appropriate cut-off, but let’s assume it’d be around age 50.
The feds would allow the best plans, or maybe any plan that’s sound, to move forward. They could be experiments for a federal reform or simply a devolution of power to the states.
Why would a state even want to participate? Because, in the states whose plans were chosen, jobs would be exempted from the federal Social Security payroll tax, a total 12.4 percent for employee and employer.
That would free states to create their own payroll taxes to replace a portion of the federal tax. But states would have every incentive to keep from replacing the entire amount, making themselves as attractive to employers as possible.
Talk about a job-creating stimulus. How would it work?
To gain broad support, I’d leave the ideological direction of the plans to the states themselves. They might be more progressive, perhaps by using means testing or graduated tax rates. But I would expect many states to be more free-market, with true private accounts.
Is it wise to let people invest more of their savings, given the losses sustained by some 401(k) accounts? There are of course risks, which states could address in designing their plans.
But long-term investments that are risk-weighted for the investor’s age and retirement plans can still provide a better return than Social Security has in the past. And given our national finances, there’s also risk in counting on Social Security.
The plans could be only for state residents, open to people in any state (like existing 529 college-tuition savings programs), or designed to draw new residents. They could be designed to take in state employees as a way to transition out of similarly unsustainable public pension plans.
Now, why would citizens want it? For one, it would allow for true reform that enhances personal freedom and limits government, which will be far more difficult to do nationwide.
It might also make government more responsive. In Georgia, a congressman has 14 times as many constituents as a state representative does.
This is, I admit, a radical proposal. But we need to consider ideas that are big in ways other than their price tags.
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
107 comments Add your comment
oldtimer
September 8th, 2010
7:29 pm
Sounds like a good plan…government will never do it….
No More Progressives!
September 8th, 2010
7:37 pm
Social Security – the only Federally sanctioned Ponzi scheme.
Dems lose big
September 8th, 2010
7:44 pm
Not to change the subject but…..HA HA.
Obama’s jobs pitch fails to dazzle Washington
http://money.cnn.com/2010/09/08/news/economy/Jobs_reaction/
Tammy
September 8th, 2010
8:35 pm
September 7, 2010
Parties Tied at 46% in Generic Ballot for CongressLatest weekly update shows more competitive contestby Frank NewportPRINCETON, NJ — Republicans and Democrats are tied at 46% among registered voters in Gallup’s weekly tracking of congressional voting preferences, marking a shift after five consecutive weeks in which the Republicans held the advantage.
HA HA. Republicans were up by 10 points last week. Looks like all they have to do to blow their lead is for John Boehner talk about his “fix” for the economy. Presto, bye-bye lead!
khc
September 8th, 2010
8:42 pm
how could anyone take boehner serious….what a clown; shame the problem so big that no politically real answers exist. but how do you eat an elephant…..
md
September 8th, 2010
8:44 pm
And the argument against privatization is that many may lose their investments.
So, letting the misfits continue to manage it is better how?????
Avery
September 8th, 2010
8:57 pm
Or you could just remove the income cap and the SSI budget problems are pretty much solved….
Le Bourgeois
September 8th, 2010
9:26 pm
I’m all for S.S. pension reform, however, I agree with you Kyle. Until Democrats (and even some big government Republicans) are completely out of the picture in both the Congress and Oval Office, true austerity measures cannot take root. At least you bring forth fresh ideas unlike some of your co-workers that just complain.
I propose a gradual, inch-by-inch style of agenda that the next group of Republicans should introduce. A sweeping change may only turn into the “Obamacare” fiasco and cost us all more down the road. Instead, each individual reform should be brought forth in a clear and concise manner with total pages of a bill not to exceed 10. Example, raise pension age limits then raise the tax cap based on inflation and time then allow for some private investment accounts, etc.
Otherwise, I’m afraid that our Dear Leader and Congress may try to invoke an Argentine-style seizure of private pension accounts for redistribution to balance the books. If tax increases won’t sell, wealth-envy just might if this recession keeps going.
Algonquin j. Calhoun
September 8th, 2010
9:26 pm
Republicans don’t give a damn about fixing Social Security. They’ve been out to destroy it for many a year!
carpetbagger
September 8th, 2010
9:37 pm
An interesting proposal, Kyle, but it won’t happen under either party in all likelihood, since it devolves power to the states. The only type of “Race to the Top” we will ever have is one like we had for education, i.e., which further increases the involvement of the federal government in the affairs of the citizenry.
Peter
September 8th, 2010
9:39 pm
Kyle I have contributed way over 200K in my life time…….don’t I wish it was in MY savings account.
Avery
September 8th, 2010
10:59 pm
Also: These Private “time-weighted” and “risk-weighted” plans have recently been shown to suffer from serious agency problems that conservatives usually only attribute to government.
barking frog
September 8th, 2010
11:27 pm
There has never been anything wrong with Social Security,
except that both Republicans and Democrats have used it
as a hidden tax by treating the “Trust Fund” as a Slush
fund.
Avery
September 8th, 2010
11:56 pm
Barking frog is correct. It was pay as you go until the early 1980s, when they set up the “trust fund” which both parties immediately used for general funds.
Proud Citizen
September 9th, 2010
3:06 am
Social Security are your membership dues to live in the greatest country on Earth. Are you really too broke to be a part of it?
If the pittance you pay in keeps you from having your own retirement plan, you need more help than you’ll get by commenting on this column.
If you don’t want to belong, move.
newtoncogeo
September 9th, 2010
3:17 am
Why re-invent the wheel?
Thirty years ago the government employees of Galveston County, Texas chose to “opt out” of the Federal Ponzi scheme (Social INsecurity) and switch to (excerpt from link below):
a “….plan, put together by financial experts, …. a ‘banking model’ rather than an ‘investment model.’ ….. To eliminate the risks of the up-and-down stock market, workers’ contributions were put into conservative fixed-rate guaranteed annuities, rather than fluctuating stocks, bonds or mutual funds. ….. results have been impressive: ….. averaged an annual rate of return of about 6.5 percent over 24 years. …. provided substantially better benefits in all three Social Security categories: retirement, survivorship and disability.”
Retiree benefits are almost THREE TIMES the “benefits” paid by Social INsecurity, AND,
unlike Social INsecurity, the worker’s contributions are “….. like a savings account that is passed on to family members upon death.”
http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba514
http://blogs.ajc.com/kyle-wingfield/2010/09/08/a-race-to-the-top-for-social-security/
This is the “secret” which politicians, especially Democrats, don’t want you to know – this is what happens when the retirement system is “privatized”.
All politicians know about this. (Galveston) They just trust to the ignorance of the voters (and the non-voters) to continue to put money into the NON-EXISTANT “Social Security Trust Fund”.
Under a plan like the Galveston County workers have, you would: get more money if you are injured, more money when you retire and the money in your account would go to your spouse/children when you die.
This is very much like the plan which the “evil” George Bush wanted to allow people to do with A PORTION of their Social Security Tax. But Democrats blocked that.
The plan exists – needing only a politician and a political party with backbone and “cajones” to make it happen.
Curious
September 9th, 2010
4:10 am
Kyle,
As I sit here in Afghanistan, I wonder if you served in the Military. If not, why not?
There are a lot of young men and women serving multiple tours that would not be necessary if you “real patriots’ would join.
It’s not too late. You can do it!
No More Progressives!
September 9th, 2010
6:05 am
khc
September 8th, 2010
8:42 pm
how could anyone take boehner serious…
I think you meant seriously.
As for seriously, you’d rather have moonbats like Grayson, Kucinich, Starks and Boxer managing you money?
No More Progressives!
September 9th, 2010
6:08 am
Avery
September 8th, 2010
10:59 pm
Also: These Private “time-weighted” and “risk-weighted” plans have recently been shown to suffer from serious agency problems that conservatives usually only attribute to government.
Well, then, hire an ambulance-shasing barrister to manage you money.
I want a professional, somone with a CFP on thier business card.
No More Progressives!
September 9th, 2010
6:12 am
barking frog
September 8th, 2010
11:27 pm
There has never been anything wrong with Social Security,
except that both Republicans and Democrats have used it
as a hidden tax by treating the “Trust Fund” as a Slush
fund.
http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h1800.html
First, read about Carlos (Charles) Ponzi. Then, stretch yourself and learn about his Security Exchange Company.
Then compare his scams to what the Feds call Social Security.
An amazing likeness, I say!
Ayn Rant
September 9th, 2010
7:29 am
Don’t tamper with Social Security, Kyle! You’re just trying to devise another deceptive “privatization” scheme.
Social Security works just fine because politicians dare not tamper with it. It’s the only thing Americans can count on in their old age, as investments crash and property values fall. The concept is simple and the administration is lean.
Your suggestion that states could do anything innovative and efficient is laughable: states are anachronisms, even more corrupt and contemptible than the federal government.
The underfunding problem is greatly exaggerated and easily fixed. What individual or corporation wouldn’t be delighted to have a trust fund good until 2037? Underfunding can be fixed immediately by eliminating the ceiling on wages subject to the SS tax. High wage earners should pay the same percentage of Social Security tax as low wage earners, and receive proportionally higher benefits. It’s only fair. You like a “fair tax”, don’t you?
A simple administrative change would be prudent: set up Social Security as a public corporation distanced from political influence, and manage the trust fund independent of the federal General Fund. No big deal, just some minor tweaking.
Thanks for a rarity: an article free of the conservative vs. liberal, Republican vs. Democrat pig drool!
carlosgvv
September 9th, 2010
7:33 am
Many of you are young or early middle age, employed and think you will never need social security. By the time you’re 65 and life has used you for a punching bag and the only thing between you and the street is social security, you will sing a different tune.
Kyle'sInFantasyland
September 9th, 2010
7:41 am
Kyle ends the essay with “This is, I admit, a radical proposal. But we need to consider ideas that are big in ways other than their price tags.” Methinks Kyle’s editors originally trashed the entire essay. Kyle later added the last paragraph to save it from the trash pile. Too bad.
JKL2
September 9th, 2010
8:01 am
When a 4% investment would earn you more than the 96% you put into Social Security, I vote for the 4% investment.
I know this concept was too difficult for the Democrats to understand, so they voted it down. It’s more important for them to hold onto your 4% than it is double your retirement income.
JKL2
September 9th, 2010
8:07 am
Curious – There are a lot of young men and women serving multiple tours that would not be necessary if you “real patriots’ would join
The last I checked, the military was overstrength. How are you supposing to fix the Op-tempo when no more positions are available? Maybe the President could focus on Bin Laden and “finish” the war like he promised he would. (Oops. Forgot what the President says while campaigning is just “political talk” and you can’t actually hold him accountable for anything because “that’s the way Washington works”.
Rick
September 9th, 2010
8:12 am
Why do we allow legal immigrants or US citizens who haven’t worked in the system at all or for a very short time to collect SS benefits? These benefits are skewed to pay those who paid less into the system to collect proportionally much more (see the SS web site).
It seems whatever government program we speak about, it is always about taking more from those who make more and in theory at least the ones that have worked harder to get educations and good jobs.
Seems like the HS dropout who didn’t attend classes and smoked weed are the ones government programs are seeking to provide the most benefits.
When will personal responsibility for one’s own actions start to get traction here in the US?
Solving the unsolvable insolvency of Social Security
September 9th, 2010
8:28 am
Social Security should only be for the insolvent over 70 years of age. No one, whose income is over 35K per year at age seventy should get social security. It’s ridiculous that Social Security is seen as an entitlement.
It’s not. It’s a safety net for the down and out. It should only be given in the form of rent vouchers and food stamps, and maybe a little cash. It’s to keep old people off the streets only.
Healthcare for the elderly? Why? They’re just going to croak anyway. Lets make our society one large 300-million member death panel. If you manage to survive past 70 years of age: TOO BAD FOR YOU. We have to do this, people.
If not, we’re finished.
The Aristocrat
September 9th, 2010
8:34 am
The SS system could easily be fixed (or removed) by making participation voluntary.
JackLeg
September 9th, 2010
9:00 am
The problem with khc, and most liberals is that they are just plain ignorant. When liberals keep saying that the GOP has no ideas seem to forget how Washington works. Since Pelosi is the speaker not one of the 1100 GOP bills have been brought up to the floor for any kind of vote. Why is that khc? Could it be that the speaker of the house gets to decide what get brought to the floor, so when the dimacrats tell you that they have no solutions that is simply a lie. When they tell you that the GOP is the party of “No” they are describing themselves, they have said “NO” to ANY GOP bill since they took control in 2006. Funny how liberals like to create a situation then blame everybody else for what they did…. Losers…
Disgusted
September 9th, 2010
9:09 am
Face the fact that no retirement system will ever be perfect for everybody. Yes, SS is skewed to provide a higher benefit to low income people relative to contributions. No, SS is not a retirement savings plan, nor do its benefits even come close to funding a full retirement. It is an insurance plan, one designed to provide subsistence benefits to workers, to the disabled, and to the dependents of workers.
I fear the consequences of allowing individual states to design alternative plans, for I have seen what political ideology can do to systems. Want an example? Take the most recent Georgia income tax cut, which essentially exempted incredibly wealthy people with exceptionally generous retirement plans from any income tax obligation whatsoever. I’ve seen what political idealogues can do to poorer people.
I once felt the same way about SS as young Kyle does. I paid in over $200,000 of my earned income to the system, matched by my employers’ contributions. I concluded many decades ago that the benefits would not be there for me. I yearned for exemption from the system.
And now, on the fourth Wednesday of every month, I see an SS deposit in my checking account. It’s as faithful as the sun’s rising every day. It will continue till I die. Is that deposit as much as I could have earned by using an alternative investment? No, but personally I don’t mind seeing people less fortunate than I getting help once they get too old to work. If you’re so selfish that you can’t stand the thought of some of your money’s going to help somebody less fortunate, then by all means move to a country with lots of jungle, where you can be a true Darwinist.
I dismiss many of the arguments put forth by Kyle and other conservatives. As one blogger has already noted, Republicans have fought Social Security since its enactment, and they will continue to do so. They handily dismiss the notion that SS deposits have been used to fund wars, general appropriations, and tax cuts—in short, for almost everything but payment of benefits. Now that the bill is coming due, they want the system radically altered or abolished. There’s nothing wrong with the current system that simply lifting the cap on earned income eligible for SS taxation won’t repair.
Curious
September 9th, 2010
9:09 am
JKL2
The military could find room for a smart person like you. The military is full due to huge enlistment bonuses and poor economic conditions.
Just Think! During Vietnam, when I first joined, being in the military was a sacrifice. Now, it’s another profession. Do your part and help reduce costs.
Bosch
September 9th, 2010
9:17 am
Um, leave it up to our State goons to handle this? No thanks.
JackLeg
September 9th, 2010
9:17 am
Opps 100 bills have NOT been brought to the floor… sorry
Dems lose big
September 9th, 2010
9:34 am
“Republicans don’t give a damn about fixing Social Security. They’ve been out to destroy it for many a year!”
SQUIRREL!
fitzgerald
September 9th, 2010
9:34 am
My sympathy is heavy for the folks that have only social security to live on when they retire. I paid social security between the ages of 12 and 34. I consider myself very fortunate because, at the age of 34, I went to work for a city that had opted out of social security. My monthly retirement is far greater than it would be if I received social security. Perhaps all taxes should go to the individual states in which a person lives and to hell with the federal government………….
Dems lose big
September 9th, 2010
9:40 am
Sinking With Obama, Dems Plan Political Triage
When you spot the word “triage” in a political news story, you know someone is in trouble.
Triage is the procedure by which medical personnel screening people injured in combat or disasters separate those who can be saved from those who can’t. The first group is given immediate surgery in hopes of recovery. The second is given painkillers to make the end bearable.
So it was startling to read last weekend in The New York Times that House Democratic leaders “are preparing a brutal triage of their own members in hopes of saving enough seats to keep a slim grip on the majority.”
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2010/09/09/sinking_with_obama_democrats_plan_political_triage_107079.html
The Aristocrat
September 9th, 2010
9:46 am
For those that have planned ahead for retirement, SS is nothing more than 6% wasted income. The Aristocrat’s generation is unlikely to see any of the money currently being robbed, as he will be ineligible to collect until close to 2050 assuming the eligibility age stays put. So, The Aristocrat is forced to put even more of his current earnings into long term investments and clamp down on his lifestyle habits today.
Q: How will his financial responsibility be rewarded? A: Higher taxes.
What a Joke
September 9th, 2010
10:09 am
ROLF, allow the state idiots to devise a new social security plan….ha ha ha, have you seen state pension plan deficits? How about the city of atlanta pension plan deficits? I would not trust the state thieves, why RoyTheCrook would just luv to git its hands on ~13% of our taxable income each and every year, in addition to the 6% state income tax, and all the other smaller taxes the lying, thieving scum in state and local guv currently steal from us.
Jefferson
September 9th, 2010
10:14 am
Seems to me if you can take the risk out of capitalism, via bailing out greedy banks and poor bankers, you can surely take care of the American workers who are the blood and guts of our nation.
barking frog
September 9th, 2010
10:25 am
Social Security is not like a ponzi scheme. Ponzi
did not have the ability to tax.
Hillbilly Deluxe
September 9th, 2010
10:26 am
Maybe it’d have been a good idea not to have taken money out of the SS trust fund, all these years, and used it for other things. That horse is out of the barn, though.
Seems to me if you can take the risk out of capitalism, via bailing out greedy banks and poor bankers, you can surely take care of the American workers who are the blood and guts of our nation.
You’d think so but how many of us can call our Senator or Representative and actually get to talk to him, any time we want?
Algonquin j. Calhoun
September 9th, 2010
10:28 am
Dems lose big
September 9th, 2010
9:34 am
“Republicans don’t give a damn about fixing Social Security. They’ve been out to destroy it for many a year!”
SQUIRREL!
Boy, that hurt! That’s the most intelligent comment I’ve heard from a Republinazi in ten minutes or so. Your defining of the word triage was fascinating in its slavish recapitulation of the definition given in the dictionary. Your reference to an article in the New York Times came from a Republinazi web site, probably Hannity, and should not be construed as evidence that you have the intellect and taste to read the Times!
DawgDad
September 9th, 2010
10:46 am
I hope our young workers are smart enough to realize unfunded benefit promises are like paper bags full of politician’s hot air, and vote in their self interest this November instead of voting for more leftist Government seizure of our hard-earned freedoms. Alas, I know they are not.
I am absolutely convinced if the Dems manage to hang onto power in Washington this November they are immediately coming after our trillions in 401K investments – they need the money to finance their spending programs and they’ve already discussed this ad nauseum (have you been paying attention?).
Kyle, your proposals have serious merit – thus, they are doomed to the rubbish heap. If there’s nothing of substance for the Washington politicians to pocket or control, how do you ever expect this to come to pass? We serve them, they don’t serve us. If you don’t believe that, just take measure of the Washington politicians’ response to the Tea Party. Even the Republican establishment is having a difficult time coming to grips with the concept of responsible government serving the interests of its citizens, and not vice versa.
wallbanger
September 9th, 2010
10:53 am
I know that social security goes to many who have not paid into it, and goes to illegals as well. Why is it that I who have paid the maximum every year I have worked, but have also saved for my retirement, am not the target for those who would say, the payouts are only for the indigent? What was I doing? Mandatorily saving for some bum down the street who never got off his butt? If that is the case, then everyone ought to stop paying their ss tax immediately in a nationwide revolt. Cause that is slavery.
wallbanger
September 9th, 2010
10:54 am
should have read “am NOW the target”
DawgDad
September 9th, 2010
10:56 am
“And now, on the fourth Wednesday of every month, I see an SS deposit in my checking account. It’s as faithful as the sun’s rising every day. It will continue till I die.”
The Government has a vested financial interest in you dying ASAP, and they’re doing everything they can to gain complete control of your health care. So nice to hear you’ve thrown in the towel on standing up for principles. If you’re so interested in helping the less fortunate PLEASE give back your benefits, and stop asking others to do your bidding. Hypocrite.
JKL2
September 9th, 2010
11:06 am
Curious-
I’m at the bigger end of the pay scale, so I’m not saving anyone money. The Defense Department is just a small piece of the fraud, waste, and abuse scale. Government needs to get it’s act together, then we can talk.
I do know tons of overpaid officers I’d like to see go away.
Open Letter to Mike Luckovich
September 9th, 2010
11:12 am
Mike- since you never open your cartoons to comments, and your email is not in service at the ajc… I am sending this here. I respect that you have your own views, and you are certainly entitled to that. Every other editorialist on the ajc staff, however, opens their articles to comments except you. You are undoubtedly talented at what you do, or you wouldn’t have won a Pulitzer. But I would complain that your cartoons reflect the radical left viewpoint a vast majority of the time, and that doesn’t represent your readership. The president has shoved every policy down our throats for nearly two years even though the majority doesn’t support those policies (see http://www.realclearpolitics.com), he’s gonna raise taxes on the people who are most likely to offer jobs to us (but justify it by simply calling them wealthy), while every stimulus he has thrown at us hasn’t worked and now our debt is not just high… it’s totally over our heads. The Democratic Party has had and continues to have TOTAL POWER in our government… and are we better off? Doesn’t appear to be the case at all. Meanwhile, not all Muslims are terrorists, but ALL TERRORISTS are Muslim. The Imam of the Victory Mosque wants sharia law in America and will not denounce Hamas or Hezbollah even though they fire rockets into Israel aimlessly every day killing civilians. None of your cartoons ever represent these viewpoints. If you are only going to represent your own views, you should at least open your articles to comments. Just a viewpoint from the peanut gallery. Nevertheless, I always read your cartoons. Thanks.
md
September 9th, 2010
11:31 am
“If you’re so selfish that you can’t stand the thought of some of your money’s going to help somebody less fortunate, then by all means move to a country with lots of jungle, where you can be a true Darwinist.”
The “selfish” card – kin to the race card.
Not all “less fortunate” are in their predicament because they are simply less fortunate. Choices have consequences.
Should a student that chooses to study 24/7 and chooses to do no partying and makes all A’s have to share those A’s with a student that chooses to party 24/7 and do no studying and makes D’s and F’s?????
Who is the selfish one???????????
Dr. Pangloss
September 9th, 2010
11:37 am
The fact sheet explains that the Social Security Trust Funds are due to go broke by 2037 and that, as things stand now, payroll taxes won’t cover “the full benefit amounts scheduled.”
And in the next paragraph we learn that SS is not going broke at all.
According to the Senate Special Committee on Aging, we only need a few simple fixes to SS, and it will be in good shape–no cuts in benefits–until 2085. And they would be modest changes, not painful ones. And who knows what life will be like in 2085?
Not So Casual Observer
September 9th, 2010
11:39 am
Peter,
A taxpayer covered since 1937 and paid the maximum each year would have paid slightly more than $125,000 in Social Security taxes. Just why have you paid “well over $200,000″?
Assuming you were 16 in 1937 you would now be 89 years old.
Not So Casual Observer
September 9th, 2010
11:46 am
The only difference between Madoff and Social Security is the government has the power to send Madoff to jail and “we the people” are unable to send the Congress to jail.
There is no Social Security Trust Fund, all of the receipts go in to the general operating fund of the government – sort of the way Madoff took investors money in to his general operating fund. I believe this was changed during the Presidency of Lyndon Johnson, certainly under a Democrat President.
Dems lose big
September 9th, 2010
12:05 pm
“Boy, that hurt! That’s the most intelligent comment I’ve heard from a Republinazi in ten minutes or so. Your defining of the word triage was fascinating in its slavish recapitulation of the definition given in the dictionary. Your reference to an article in the New York Times came from a Republinazi web site, probably Hannity, and should not be construed as evidence that you have the intellect and taste to read the Times!”
Wow Cowbell, Republinazi? It must truly suck to be you, little girl. Carrot Top can come up with better put downs.
Like I always tell demotards like you. Go sell stupid somewhere else.
Dems lose big
September 9th, 2010
12:07 pm
“Your reference to an article in the New York Times came from a Republinazi web site”
The New York Times, like the AJC, is a failing newspaper full of left wing retards.
Jefferson Jackson
September 9th, 2010
12:20 pm
Dr. Pangloss sounds like Dr. Rose Colored Glasses.
Sandra
September 9th, 2010
1:15 pm
All I can say is for all of you who think you have the answers to EVERYTHING and primarily end up quoting things that are soundbites from Fox News, why don’t you put your money where your mouth is and run for office yourself. Also, please know that name calling is about as stupid as a person can get and that seems to be the primary thing that most of you are good at. I’m still not sure you even know what the definition of ‘liberal’ is other than for what you don’t agree with.
For those of you who won’t even put your name here but use names such as Dems lose big, it tells me just how
Gordon
September 9th, 2010
1:19 pm
“There’s nothing wrong with the current system that simply lifting the cap on earned income eligible for SS taxation won’t repair.”
Other people’s money is such a powerful addiction. The resources are running out, so let’s just take them from people who have more than we do and try to come up with a justification for why that is right. Expect to see more and more of this in the coming few years.
Dems lose big
September 9th, 2010
1:22 pm
“For those of you who won’t even put your name here but use names such as Dems lose big, it tells me just how”
Oh really, Sandra? I love how left wingers like you and others play the “innocent” card yet while you’re scolding others about name calling, you call people stupid. Nice, shows everyone just what a hypocritical hack you really are.
Of course people don’t use their real names. IT’S A BLOG! What’s really funny is the fact that you totally ignore the fact that I was name called by Calhoun before I ever threw out an insult at him/her.
Take your self-righteous attitude somewhere else.
Question Authority
September 9th, 2010
1:24 pm
And just what exactly makes you think you can wear the label “conservative?”
The government has absolutely NO business telling me what I should or should not do with my income! If you were a principled conservative you would know that.
SS is a Ponzi scheme. There is no lockbox, there is no fund. Every dollar that is taken from my paycheck and my employer (or every dollar taken from an independent businessperson) goes into the general fund and is used to pay current recipients. Despite the lie they have been telling everyone since 1934, your money is not yours, it is not somewhere earning interest, nor being saved for your retirement. If they wanted to tomorrow, they could just shut off the payments and say “up yours” to all americans. Frankly, every time they raise the retirement age or cut benefits, they essentially are doing that. YOU ARE NOT ENTITLED TO THE MONEY THEY STOLE FROM YOU. GET OVER THAT LIE. THE GOVERNMENT LIED. THEY CONTINUE TO LIE. THEY WILL ALWAYS LIE.
That being said, there is absolutely nothing the state could do that would improve the situation aside from secceeding from the union and freeing us all from the criminal gang that runs DC.
If we had a sound monetary system (gold and/or silver), a balanced budget, only a handful of people working in government jobs, a responsible foreign policy or non-intervention rather than empire, and other responsible government policies, there would be no inflation and thus no need to invest in risky stocks or other ventures just to stay ahead of government-created inflation.
These are not things the state of GA can fix aside from helping to dissolve the federal government and the union. Then they need to act responsibly as a state (something our current government size, political corruption, and deficit clearly show they need help with).
As far as SS is concerned, responsible congressmen like Ron Paul have already proposed sound measures to address the needs of those currently dependent on the system while allowing millions of other to simply STOP paying into this corrupt system. It is despicable that folks like Bernie Madoff will rot in prison for doing far less of the EXACT SAME THING that career criminals like FDR and every successive president have done to all americans through the Social Security system.
Dr. Pangloss
September 9th, 2010
1:39 pm
Rick
September 9th, 2010
8:12 am
Why do we allow legal immigrants or US citizens who haven’t worked in the system at all or for a very short time to collect SS benefits?
—————–
Rick, we don’t. This is an Internet myth. You can see it debunked at Snopes.com, Factcheck.org, Politifact.org and the SSA’s website. Like so many of the things the Tea Party types are angry about, it’s imaginary.
Jefferson
September 9th, 2010
1:42 pm
Another day in the playpen, how’s everyone today?
Dr. Pangloss
September 9th, 2010
1:50 pm
Oops … it’s Politifact.org.
Blue
September 9th, 2010
2:00 pm
Curious; I for one am deeply appreciative for your service. However, when you ‘call someone out’ just because they did not serve in military, you do yourself an incredible disservice. It is just plain tacky. It’s one thing if you want to say that to someone because they are anti-military, but not just to question someone becaues they were not in the military. Bad on YOU…and hope you get home safe.
Linda
September 9th, 2010
2:06 pm
State pension plans in 31 states will be depleted & are headed for financial disaster by 2030, according to a study at the Kellogg School of Management. There are $3 T in unfunded liabilities & there is no solution. If early retirement deals were eliminated & the retirement age is raised to 74, the unfunded liability for the promises made would still be over $1 T. Taxpayers will eventually bear the burden.
The problems were state officials over promising, causing problems to surface years after they were out of office & guaranteeing funds regardless of the success of the investments.
Part of the divisiveness we are being led into today is Main St. against Wall St. Yet, the truth is that the weaker the stock market, the more taxpayers, residents (homeowners & tenants) & businesses & consumers will pay.
Dr. Pangloss
September 9th, 2010
2:22 pm
There is no Social Security Trust Fund, all of the receipts go in to the general operating fund of the government – sort of the way Madoff took investors money in to his general operating fund.
————–
Nope. Doesn’t. Again, see the SSA’s website.
left wing
September 9th, 2010
2:33 pm
Dr. Pangloss @ 1:39 – Actually, illegals pay into the social security network, through the payroll taxes deducted from their earnings, but because they are not citizens, they don’t receive any benefit. Therefore, they are actually helping support the social security system!
I understand why Kyle would love to undo a system which has worked for over 70 years; conservatives can’t stand anything done by liberals which have worked as well as it has. However, it would be easier to simply adjust the income to the system to correct the problem. My preference would be to remove the “cap” (I believe it’s currently around 108,700). And yes, because my income is creater than $109K/year, I’d be paying more into the system. You want to talk “fair” vs “unfair”? How about everyone who makes less than that amount, being taxed on 100% of their income, versus the truely affluent, who pay a much smaller percentage. Ex; if Kyle’s income was $1,090,000 (he probably makes more) then he’d only be paying payroll tax on 10% of his income.
left wing
September 9th, 2010
2:37 pm
Dr. Pangloss @ 2:22 There’s actually 2 different standards of counting social security. I does have it’s own separate fund. However, because of Reagan’s “tweak” to social security (please no b#tching; I’m not criticising him) “excess” funds have gone into the general operating fund, and the ssn fund got IOU’s.
Because it is a separate fund, this is why they can calculate the 2037 date. Otherwise, if it was funded out of general operating, they could pay benefits indefinitely.
Michael Honohan
September 9th, 2010
3:01 pm
Kyle, you need to return to the Wall Street Journal up there in New York. Down here in the South, they don’t look to kindly on conservatives who make intelligent proposals. Do you not forget you hired to replace Wooten. You have yet to drop to his level of ignorance.
Dr. Pangloss
September 9th, 2010
3:02 pm
left wing, I didn’t think to mention the part about illegals paying in and not drawing out, but in this case the illegals are helping to support us legal folks.
Linda
September 9th, 2010
3:03 pm
Dr. Pangloss @ 2:22, I checked the SSA website & could not find any mention of a funded trust fund. Do you know how much is in it? Do you know specifically where this info is on the site?
According to the US debt clock, there is currently $14.5 T in social security liability + $19.2 T in prescription drug liability + $76.5 T in Medicare liability = $110.3 T total unfunded liabilities, in addition to the $13.3 T in national debt.
http://www.usdebtclock.org/
left wing
September 9th, 2010
3:13 pm
Linda
I tried posting with the full URL, but the blog gods don’t seem to like me (went to ‘awaiting moderation’). I seem to have this problem intermittently. Anyway, you might want to look at:
ssa.gov/OACT/TRSUM/index.html
ssa.gov/OACT/ProgData/fundFAQ.html
Linda
September 9th, 2010
3:22 pm
left wing @ 3:13, I’m the one who taught you how to copy & paste web addresses.
As I stated, I have already been to the SSA website. I do not believe there is a social security fund. I’m awaiting an answer from the Dr.
jconservative
September 9th, 2010
3:33 pm
“This is very much like the plan which the “evil” George Bush wanted to allow people to do with A PORTION of their Social Security Tax. But Democrats blocked that.”
Actually Republicans blocked that. Bush introduced the plan after the 2004 elections and it never made it out of any Republican chaired House or Senate committees. Dead on arrival as they say in the House.
Sorry your hate has been misplaced these last few years.
left wing
September 9th, 2010
3:35 pm
Linda</strong @ 3:22 I’m the one who taught you how to copy & paste web addresses.
Believe it or not, I’m fairly literate with computer technology. Your suggestion as I recall was ‘cut and paste’. Not really inciteful.
Posting with links appears to be hit and miss on these blogs. I’ve never gotten a single one to work on Cynthia’s blog, which is why I was surprised when I found it to work on Kyle’s blog.
You have an inflated idea of your worth.
left wing
September 9th, 2010
3:37 pm
Didn’t mean to post in bold. I must have left off the trailing chars.
jconservative
September 9th, 2010
3:42 pm
Kyle I know I am in on this almost 24 hours after your posting, but I like the idea. This is where I like you, new ideas.
If I have a problem with the states doing this it would be in the area of “the governors brother-n-law” being in charge of investing the funds.
Know what I mean Vern?
The concept is good. We will do a study. The leaders of each party in the House and Senate will each appoint 4 members giving us a 16 member committee with the President appointing the chairman and the tie breaking vote. After two years of hearings the committee will issue a report. Unfortunately, the 8 members of the committee voting NO will issue a minority report. We will then assign the bill to the appropriate House committee where it will never see the light of day again.
Have I got this about right?
Kyle Wingfield
September 9th, 2010
3:51 pm
Thanks, jconservative. You (and others have said this, as well) are probably right about the likelihood of an idea such as this going anywhere…but I thought it was worth putting out there anyway.
As for the problem of the gov’s in-laws…I first thought that the feds should (again, acknowledging the lack of likelihood here) devolve the program completely and leave it to all states to come up with answers. But there is something to be said for requiring a sound, hopefully conflict-free plan before moving ahead. That wouldn’t eliminate all possible problems along these lines, but it would be a start.
And, for the record, “a start” is all I consider this idea to be.
Linda
September 9th, 2010
4:28 pm
left wing @ 3:35, I spent a lot of time one day with you just recently trying to teach you how to post a site. I suggested that you go to one of Kyle’s old blogs to practice.
You can type a site word for word & symbol for symbol, which is prone to errors, or use cut & paste for speed & accuracy.
Tucker does not allow links to sites on her blog. Kyle encourages links to sites & minimally requires citation of sources to avoid potential copyright violations, but he prefers only one link per comment.
Not only do you not remember nor appreciate my taking my time to be of help to you, but now you are telling me I’m not “inciteful” (spelled insightful) but rather worthless. Why are you being so rude to me?
jm
September 9th, 2010
5:35 pm
Kyle – not a bad idea. But there’s not really a need. Chile and Univ of Chicago designed a very functional scheme ages ago. There’s not really much confusion over how it would need to work.
The other problem is since lots of people move around this country a lot for work (between different states), people would end up with multiple accounts in each state, which is kind of silly and inefficient. Ergo, a national solution is the best idea, but short of that, your idea isn’t a bad one.
Dr. Pangloss
September 9th, 2010
5:50 pm
Linda, look at Myth #4 at http://www.socialsecurity.gov/history/InternetMyths.html
Not So Casual Observer
September 9th, 2010
6:03 pm
Pangloss,
You are wrong. The SS Trust Fund has received IOU’s but in the true sense of a “Trust Fund” there is no such animal. The references to the trust fund are simply to an imaginary amount of money deposited into the fund represented by the IOU’s. There is no money collecting interest or dividends or any other type of return.
The Democrats established SS under Roosevelt with the promise the system would be voluntary and the money would be left untouched until those who paid in were of retirement age. The Democrats have been changing the rules ever since and made the decision to dump the receipts into the general operating fund of the government.
Obviously the system is no longer voluntary (thank you Democrats), there is no trust fund (again the Dems), and yet the Dems, led by the Liar in Chief, continue to scream the Republicans are trying to destroy SS. Lefties have no shame.
Not So Casual Observer
September 9th, 2010
6:12 pm
Pangloss @ 5:50p,
There is nothing in the reference to indicate there is a trust fund holding the SS taxes collected from individuals. The link simply states the trust fund is being managed as in the past. Just like government and the left to try and play word games rather than simply answer the question.
One of your left allies claimed earlier today he has paid more than $200,000 into SS. A person covered since 1937 who paid the maximum every year would only have paid slightly more than $125,000.
I am curious to know whether ANYONE in the program in 1937 is still paying into SS? I believe that to be highly unlikely since a 16 year old in 1937 would be 89 today. Possible but unlikely.
Linda
September 9th, 2010
6:24 pm
Dr. Pangloss @ 5:50, What this says is that the Social Security Trust Fund, created in 1939, was replaced in 1969 with the “unified budget,” a single budget with every function of the fed. gov. There is no Social Security Trust Fund nor a Medicare Trust Fund.
I quoted a site that sums up exactly what the US debt is for all unfunded liabilities. (The US Debt Clock is in neon lights in NYC.) If you disagree, I will wait for a site from you showing exactly what the amt. is in this separate funded Social Security Trust Fund that you claim exists.
No More Progressives!
September 9th, 2010
7:02 pm
Not So Casual Observer
September 9th, 2010
6:03 pm
Pangloss,
You are wrong. The SS Trust Fund has received IOU’s but in the true sense of a “Trust Fund” there is no such animal.
This is absolutley correct. Monies confiscated from us are sent to the great black hole (Washington, DC) where an IOU (a bond) is placed in the infamous lockbox. You’re banking on the full faith of the federal Gub’mint to make good on that bond when (or if) you retire.
There ain’t no cash in SS. There ain’t. It’s another reason the Feds keep several sets of books.
barking frog
September 9th, 2010
7:18 pm
Linda, No More Progressives, The Social Security Trust
Funds (2) contain paper that is just as good as the Federal
Reserve Note in your pocket, backed by the full faith and
credit of the US Government.
Michael Honohan
September 9th, 2010
7:20 pm
Trolls. One in particular appears here using a different screen name all the time. I do use my real name for the same I use my real name on letters to the editor. I believe in what I say and I am proud to be American who stand for freedom of speech. Anonymity is for trolls and cowards. The reasoning that this is a “blog” and therefore one should be anonymous is part of what we call “Internet stupid.” If could only post if we revealed our names, the level of intelligent discourse might improve around here.
Of course our anonymous “industrial engineer” will likely make another of his attacks, but really, what can you say about a cowardly stooge who is not man enough to confront others as a man?
Dr. Pangloss
September 9th, 2010
8:43 pm
Linda, et al: The SSA’s FAQ says the following:
The Social Security Trust Fund was created in 1939 as part of the Amendments enacted in that year. From its inception, the Trust Fund has always worked the same way. The Social Security Trust Fund has never been “put into the general fund of the government.”
DEWSTARPATH
September 9th, 2010
9:05 pm
Kyle:
– I’m all for controlling and, if possible, reducing the federal debt.
College savings programs are nice, but the REAL solution is twofold:
Americans need to (1) curtail spending so much on imported
goods and (2) reinvigorate the bulk of our manufacturing
base by coming up with better products in terms of efficiency.
Use the accumulated funds for the former to invest in the latter.
Kill two birds with one stone.
Dr. Pangloss
September 9th, 2010
10:05 pm
From the US Senate Special Committee on Aging (which oversees SS):
The Social Security trust fund represents funds dedicated to pay current and future Social Security benefits. However, it is useful to view the trust fund in two ways: (1) as the balance of an internal federal accounting concept, and (2) as the accumulated holdings of the Social Security program.
For internal accounting purposes, certain accounts within the U.S. Treasury are designated by law as trust funds to properly track revenues dedicated to certain purposes (or expenditures). A number of trust funds are in the U.S. Treasury, including those for Social Security, Medicare, unemployment compensation, and federal employee retirement. The monies in the Social Security trust fund in the U.S. Treasury are owned by the U.S. government, which can (by changing the law) raise or lower revenues to the trust fund, or payments from the trust fund.
By law, any positive annual balance (or cash flow surplus) in the Social Security trust fund must be invested in U.S. government obligations. The accumulated holdings of U.S. obligations are often viewed as being similar to assets held by any other trust on behalf of the beneficiaries. However, the holdings of the Social Security trust fund differ from those of private trusts because (1) the types of investments it may hold are limited; and (2) the U.S. government is both the buyer and seller of the investments.
No More Progressives!
September 10th, 2010
5:48 am
barking frog
September 9th, 2010
7:18 pm
Linda, No More Progressives, The Social Security Trust Funds (2) contain paper that is just as good as the Federal Reserve Note in your pocket, backed by the full faith and credit of the US Government.
Duping people into paying cash under the guise as an asset, then conveting the cash into paper or a bond would be called fraud if done on Wall Street.
The paper you speak of is only usable by the Gub’mint. It is not a marketable security. Therefore, it is worthless on the open market.
The paltry 1.5 to 3% phony interest SS returns is nothing but an accounting ploy, based on others paying into the system.
barking frog
September 10th, 2010
7:10 am
No More Progressives 5:48 Your post is irrefudiatable. Believe
what you will. My check cashes.
No More Progressives!
September 10th, 2010
7:12 am
Two more questions for the high-minded progressives and liberals defending SS:
1) If this is such a good deal, why isn’t Congress required to participate?
2) If this is an asset, why can’t you add your SS account to your net worth statement?
Because it’s not an asset; it’s a liability, that’s why.
No More Progressives!
September 10th, 2010
7:13 am
What check??
No More Progressives!
September 10th, 2010
7:14 am
“irrefudiatable” is not in my dictionary. Speak English, please.
Bush's fault.
September 10th, 2010
7:34 am
Our social security money is being paid to Iraqi Sunnis to play nice with the Shia Sunnis, ( and to build Iraqi infrastructure like electricity and plumbing). Bush’s fault. Iraq is our Watergate and our Waterloo and our Waterworld.
Word for the day: Pyrrhic
barking frog
September 10th, 2010
7:39 am
No More Progressives 7:14 “irrefudiatable” is not in my dictionary. Speak English, please
————————————————–
You are talking to a frog.
No More Progressives!
September 10th, 2010
7:50 am
Yeah……..a progressive frog at that.
Rick
September 10th, 2010
8:38 am
Dr. Pangloss September 9th, 2010 1:39 pm
Rick September 9th, 2010 8:12 am
Why do we allow legal immigrants or US citizens who haven’t worked in the system at all or for a very short time to collect SS benefits?
—————–
Rick, we don’t. This is an Internet myth. You can see it debunked at Snopes.com, Factcheck.org, Politifact.org and the SSA’s website. Like so many of the things the Tea Party types are angry about, it’s imaginary.
===============
I recently read a NY Times article where recent legal immigrants to the US were awarded “disability” benefits through the SS system. These benefits were essentially allowing these recent immigrants to support themselves in the US. Note: these recent immigrants were family members of US citizens who should have been sponsoring their family members and responsible for their care and support. Didn’t happen that way! Not sure why I should be supporting foreign nationals that have recently immigrated to the US when they were elderly and did not work much or at all in the US labor system.
Not So Casual Observer
September 10th, 2010
8:58 am
Pangloss is attempting to defend the indefensible.
Ok Pangloss, I have a deal for you. You give me $100,000 and I will create a “Trust Fund” for you into which I will place a note from me bearing interest at 2%. After 20 years I will begin to send you a monthly check in the amount of $1,000 and will do so for the remainder of your life. When you die the balance in the “Trust Fund” reverts to me. Of course, if I die or become insolvent, the checks will stop.
Gather some of your Left leaning friends and we will meet to consummate the deal – the more the merrier. I really do not see how you can resist.
Not So Casual Observer
September 10th, 2010
9:01 am
Pangloss,
I have one more condition to attach to the earlier offer. I will manage your health care and determine what treatments you will receive based upon your age and value to society. I promise not to allow the “Trust Fund” deal to influence any decision I might make regarding your health.
Not So Casual Observer
September 10th, 2010
9:09 am
Bush’s fault @ 7:34,
Actually, the Shiite and Sunni are two separate sects residing in Iraq. Iran is predominantly a Shiite nation and Saudi Arabia, for one, is predominantly Sunni.
The remainder of your post is as convoluted as your understanding of the differences in the two sects.
Jack
September 10th, 2010
9:29 am
Get rid of the Earned Income Credit and Social Security might have a chance to survive.
Dems lose big
September 10th, 2010
9:37 am
The media types have fallen out of love with Obama and at the same time they lost the tiny ounce of credibility that they had after they jumped on the bandwagon in 08.
The thrill up the leg is gone……
Too Cool For School
“Maybe we fell in love too fast,” my friend said. “You know, we might have zipped right past the road signs.”
Several of us were sitting around over the holiday weekend, enjoying a lovely bottle of wine at sunset … and discussing the condition of our country. Which led us to the president. Which led us to our mutually shared disappointment in him.
We are all liberals, we all supported Obama, and we all remember how emotionally uplifted and hopeful we felt when he was elected.
http://www.newsweek.com/2010/09/09/patti-davis-our-disappointment-with-obama.html
CAIR Bears
September 10th, 2010
9:39 am
On Today: CAIR Spokesman Equates Ground Zero Mosque Protest to Japanese Internment and Slavery
Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/geoffrey-dickens/2010/09/09/today-cair-spokesman-equates-ground-zero-mosque-protest-japanese-i#ixzz0z8Mvp5Yr
CAIR Bears
September 10th, 2010
9:56 am
Cynthia Tucker = The best friend islamic terrorists ever had. YYAYAYAYAYAYAYYAYYAYYAYAYAY
No More Progressives!
September 10th, 2010
7:06 pm
Not So Casual Observer
September 10th, 2010
9:01 am
Observer:
I see a future in politics for you. Can I be your agent?
That scam is brilliant! Oh, wait…………Charlie Ponzi already tried it.
No matter. I’ll still be your agent for a paltry 25%. Whaddaya say?
Dr. Pangloss
September 11th, 2010
12:59 pm
No So Casual Observer, you seem to be PO’ed about an imaginary wrong. I think you’ve been listening to Palin and Bachmann too much.
BTW, the US Senate Special Committee on Aging (which oversee SS) says that the dependent population (kids under 20 and retirees over 65) peaked in 1965 as compared to people of working age. So the disparity between working and not-working people is not becoming all that great.