About us Login Get email updates
County Fair
Print

AP’s Raum uses falsehood to declare Social Security “pretty much” a “Ponzi scheme”

August 12, 2009 4:32 pm ET by Jeremy Schulman

In February, Wall Street Journal editorial board member Stephen Moore compared Social Security to "a big Ponzi scheme." Today, the AP's Tom Raum agreed, writing that the current Social Security system is "pretty much" a "giant federal Ponzi scheme":

As Congress agonizes over health care, an even more daunting and dangerous challenge is bearing down: how to shore up Social Security to keep it from burying the nation ever deeper in debt.

What to do about mushrooming government payments as millions of baby boomers retire? How about a giant federal Ponzi scheme? That might work for a while.

But wait. That's pretty much the current system. Social Security takes contributions from today's workers and uses them to pay the old-age benefits that were promised to retirees. But there are serious concerns how long that can last.

[...]

Although calling Social Security a Ponzi scheme - think of the huge frauds that sent billionaires Bernard Madoff and R. Allen Stanford to prison - may be a bit of a stretch, there is one clear similarity.

As in a Ponzi scheme, the concept works fine at first. So long as there are more new "investors" pumping money into the system to pay off the earlier ones, everyone is happy. But at some point not enough new money is coming in and the scheme collapses.

Raum then falsely asserted that according to the Social Security trustees, "Social Security will be completely depleted in 2037":

With baby boomers working, Social Security - the biggest social spending program - has produced a surplus that has helped finance the rest of the government for the past quarter century. But that will change within a decade.

Trustees of the system recently said that in 2016 - a year earlier than previously forecast - money paid out in benefits will start exceeding the tax dollars flowing in. With no changes, Social Security will be completely depleted in 2037, the trustees said.

What the trustees actually said in their May 2009 report was that the Social Security trust fund -- not Social Security itself -- will be completely depleted in 2037. And after that happens, according to the trustees, revenue from payroll taxes will be sufficient to pay about three-quarters of scheduled Social Security benefits through 2083:

Under the intermediate assumptions, the OASDI cost rate is projected to increase rapidly and first exceed the income rate in 2016, producing cash-flow deficits thereafter. Redemption of trust fund assets will allow continuation of full benefit payments on a timely basis until 2037, when the trust funds are projected to become exhausted. This redemption process will require a flow of cash from the General Fund of the Treasury. Pressures on the Federal Budget will thus emerge well before 2037. Even if a trust fund's assets are exhausted, however, tax income will continue to flow into the fund. Present tax rates are projected to be sufficient to pay 76 percent of scheduled benefits after trust fund exhaustion in 2037 and 74 percent of scheduled benefits in 2083.

In contrast to Raum, AP economics writer Martin Crutsinger made this clear in a May 13 article:

The trustees report projected that Social Security's annual surpluses would "fall sharply this year," then remain at a reduced level in 2010 and be lower in the following years than last year's projections. The report said that the Social Security annual surplus would be eliminated entirely in 2016, reflecting increased demands from the wave of 78 million baby boomers retiring.

That means Social Security will have to turn to its trust fund to make up the difference between Social Security taxes and the benefits being paid out beginning in 2016. The trustees projected the trust fund would be depleted in 2037, four years earlier than the 2041 date in last year's report.

At that point, the annual Social Security taxes collected would be enough to pay for three-fourths of current benefits through 2083. To tap the trust fund, the government would have to increase borrowing or raise taxes because Social Security bonds exist only as bookkeeping entries.

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by worrierking (August 12, 2009 4:42 pm ET)
         
      Idiots!

      We have the solution to the upcoming Social Security crisis.

      Death Panels.

      Since when does the WSJ not use the Fox talking points?
      Report Abuse
    • Author by pete592 (August 12, 2009 4:52 pm ET)
      3 1
      Stop raiding Social Security to pay for wars.

      Problem solved.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by oscar the grouch (August 12, 2009 7:57 pm ET)
        1 1
        LBJ been dead for some time now.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by ForTheLoveOfEllipsis... (August 12, 2009 10:15 pm ET)
             
          And of course LBJ got un into Iraq...

          Idiot...
          Report Abuse
          • Author by oscar the grouch (August 12, 2009 10:27 pm ET)
               
            Nope, but he did use SS funds to make the budget look better during the Vietnam fiasco, Beavis's buddy.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by ForTheLoveOfEllipsis... (August 12, 2009 10:58 pm ET)
                 
              Still ignoring Iraq, I see. Yep, got them orders straight from Fox. Yepper...
              Report Abuse
              • Author by oscar the grouch (August 13, 2009 8:26 pm ET)
                1  
                Nope, but it is interesting in looking back that the "life" off SS increased through the gwb years and now appears to be decreasing. SS money has been spent by Congress (where all spending bills originate) since the mid 60s. Spent for Iraq, yep, spent for Vietnam, yep, spent on numerous government programs, yep. SS funds have never been in a lock box, although they were off-budget until the mid 60s. You can blame it all on gwb, if you wish, but there is plenty of blame to go around on this one. Look back, government revenues (no matter the tax rates) have doubled about every 8-10 years, but spending has doubled about every 6-8 years since about 1930. Before that, we had regular balanced budgets with top marginal tax rates around 25% maximum.

                Oh, and you don't have to sign your posts at the bottom, like you did above. I usually read the top of the post also.
                Report Abuse
    • Author by The_Cat (August 12, 2009 5:05 pm ET)
      3 1
      First, Social Security taxes are only payed on the first $100,000 of income each year. That's a place to make a simple change that will affect how much money Social Security brings in.

      As for ponzi schemes, this sounds to me like conservatives trying to draw attention away from the fact that they wanted to privatize social security money by putting it into the hands of Wall Street investors like... Bernie Madhoff! To that end, it would be better if they didn't use the words 'Ponzi scheme', since Bernie is one of the first names that springs to mind.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by Allen W. Smith, Ph.D. (August 12, 2009 6:23 pm ET)
        1
      Don't Blame the Baby Boomers!

      The 1983 payroll tax increase, in response to the 1982 Greenspan Commission report, was supposed to "fix" the Social Security solvency problem. Payroll taxes were raised high enough so that the baby boomers were allegedly prepaying most of the cost of their retirement in addition to paying for the benefits of the generation that preceeded them. The plan was that the surpluses generated during the years 1983 to about 2016 were to be saved and invested in order to build up a large reserve in the trust fund that would be tapped when Social Security began to run deficits in about 2016. That tax increase has generated approximately $2.5 trillion that should be in the trust fund today. That would be enough to continue to pay full Social Security benefits until at least 2037.

      THE PROBLEM IS that the federal government has "borrowed," "embezzled" or "stolen" every dime of the surplus revenue leaving the trust fund empty. This means that in just 7 years, payroll tax revenue will be insufficient to pay full Social Security benefits. Benefits will have to be cut or taxes will have to be raised.

      If have been immersed in researching and writing about Social Security for the past ten years, and my latest book, "THE BIG LIE: How Our Government Hoodwinked the Public, Emptied the S.S. Trust Fund, and caused The Great Economic Collapse," has just been released by Ironwood Publications. Portions of the book can be read on my website at allenwsmith.com.

      Instead of saving and investing the surplus Social Security revenue generated by the 1983, the government has used the surplus as a giant slush fund to pay for tax cuts, wars, and other government programs. This fraud against the American people has been going on under the last four presidents. President Obama still has the opportunity to expose the fraud and bring it to an end.

      Allen W. Smith, Ph.D.
      Professor of Economics, Emeritus
      Eastern Illinois University
      www.allenwsmith.com
      Report Abuse
      • Author by sd_sundevil (August 12, 2009 7:21 pm ET)
        1 1
        Very well put. This is indeed a Ponzi Scheme by definition - taking funds intended for one purpose and diverting them to other purposes with no defined way of paying the money back. Of course, this is government, so if worse comes to worse, they can inflate the problem away by monetizing this debt. In the real world, the government would be guilty of fraud, but we all know Washington isn't subject to the rules that the rest of us live by.

        Social Security is just another liberal construct that fails over the long-term due to corruption. All of these programs sound great (SS, Medicare, Welfare), but collapse under the weight of bad management and fraud. And now we want to add health care - oh boy!
        Report Abuse
        • Author by NiceguyEddie (August 13, 2009 8:13 am ET)
            1
          This is indeed a Ponzi Scheme by definition

          Might I recomend www.dictionary.com?

          You're missing a crucial part of the definition. A Ponzi Scheme is a FRAUD. It's a DECEPTION. There's no deception going on here, with SS. Everyone knows how it works. Everyone knows how it doesn't work. People have written books on the subject. At this point there's nothing hidden at all.

          And that's just one reason it's nowhere near a "Ponzi Scheme" by definition. The other is that participation is MANDATORY. Now... You may not LIKE that fact, and that's fine - you're entitled to your opinion. But one of the reasons that Ponzi Schemes fail is that you keep need to dupe new investors into CHOOSING to give you money (bt perpetuating the fraud.) The gov't doesn't have that problem. If they need money, they can just take it. Again - you may not like that (believe it or not, neither do I) but those two things make the words "Ponzi Shceme" a misnomer that can really only be used by the ignorant or as a strategy to confuse the ignorant.

          It's no more a Ponzi Scheme than it is a Perfct System. (And that it's not!)
          Report Abuse
          • Author by randy99 (August 13, 2009 11:38 pm ET)
               
            "You're missing a crucial part of the definition. A Ponzi Scheme is a FRAUD. It's a DECEPTION. There's no deception going on here, with SS. Everyone knows how it works. Everyone knows how it doesn't work. "

            I stand corrected. the mechanism of SS & a Ponzi scheme are similar. the intent obviously is not.
            Report Abuse
      • Author by oscar the grouch (August 12, 2009 8:08 pm ET)
        1 1
        And where would SS have "invested" those funds? Surely not the stock market, probably in Treasuries as they are now, right? The fraud goes back further than 4 Presidents, by the way, LBJ was the first to have the funds rolled into the Federal Budget to "hide" some of the costs of the Vietnam fiasco. And if the adjustment had not been made in 1983, SS would be out of funds today. It's amazing that a program that was set up to be funded by about 4% of first few thousand dollars of a person's yearly income has grown to around 13% of the first $100.000 (and must go higher to stay solvent). One problem is that as those IOUs have to start being redeemed in the next few years, the monies to do that will come from General funds, requiring a cut in programs (highly likely, I'm sure) or across the board tax increases. Add the other unfunded liabilities in governments acorss the spectrum (Federal, State, Local) and the next generation or two will start to see huge tax bills. Enjoy the standard of living that you now enjoy as it likely will not be around in 30-40 years.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by ForTheLoveOfEllipsis... (August 12, 2009 10:17 pm ET)
            1
          And of course Shrub didn't do anything like LBJ at all, did he, such as funneling trillions of dollars into Iraq, and all off the books of course...
          Report Abuse
          • Author by NiceguyEddie (August 13, 2009 8:08 am ET)
              1
            Come on, get with it: Wars are only an issue when they're waged by DEMOCRATS.
            Report Abuse
    • Author by NoNannyNeeded (August 12, 2009 11:32 pm ET)
      1  
      Madoff is a perfect example of what happens when the private sector practices the same activities as government. They go to jail when they swindle a lot of money out of hard working people & promised them a better return & in return are left with empty promises. I would prefer to have had the option to "opt out" like the Galveston County employees did back in the 80's. Note how the option was removed when it was shown to be successful.

      When a private "business" does this we call the evil, greedy, lowest of the low. when government does it we praise them for their care of the elderly or disabled & throw them more money. One of these responses is incorrect.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by randy99 (August 13, 2009 2:14 am ET)
        1
      SS can best be described as a Ponzi scheme - in that current "investors" pay for the current "returns" of past "investors" - that is the ACTUAL definition of a Ponzi scheme. (not using funds for one purpose for another purpose).

      But it works and will continue to work for decades if not centuries to come with very modest adjustments.

      So what's the big deal?

      The only way Ponzi schemes stop working is when people stop putting money into them, which by definition can't happen with SS since people are required to pay into the system.

      Sorry - there's plenty of conservative misinformation regarding SS out their, but calling it a giant Ponzi scheme is about the most accurate thing a conservative has ever said about the system.

      Report Abuse

my.MediaMatters.org

Login  Sign Up

About the Blog

Feed Icon
  • County Fair is a media blog featuring links to progressive media criticism from around the Web as well as original commentary, breaking news and rapid response updates to major media events from Media Matters senior fellows and other staff.