Offers Social Activities for Retirees of All Ages
Changes for Making a Home Senior-Friendly
Nuts Is Tied to Lower Risk of Death
Plan Aims to Keep Older Drivers Safe on Road
New Year’s Eve and Day With The Sacramento Walking Sticks
to Healthy Lifestyle More Important Than Weight
Corner: Could New Sport Evolve From Amazon Drone Project?
Look at Some Things Wrong With Social Security
one of my readers criticized some points I made in a column. Among
other things, he complained that
my philosophy (at least
according to his take on my columns) is too upbeat. He said
you see it, everything about Social Security is good.”
Most of the time, I use this space to explain complicated
and oftentimes confusing Social Security rules and regulations.
And I will admit that I must occasionally
use this column to defend the program against all kinds of crazy and misleading
rumors that are spread about Social Security’s history and policies — mostly
via the Internet.
But when I feel that something about the program, or something about the way
the program is administered, deserves to be criticized, I have always done
so. I don’t have the space in today’s column to cover them all, so I
will take on one policy gripe, one program issue and one administrative complaint.
I’ve covered all these subjects in the past, so I ask forgiveness of those
readers who have carefully read my columns. But for those who think I’m
some kind of Social Security apologist, listen up.
My biggest policy complaint has to do with the way the Social Security program
has been financed since the 1980s. When Social Security started in the 1930s,
it was set up with a pay-as-you-go financing scheme. In a nutshell, that meant
the program took in only enough money (taxes) each year to pay its expenses
(monthly benefits), with just a small cushion in reserve funding. That small
the Social Security trust fund, which was invested, by law, in U.S. government
securities. There never was really all that much capital in those trust funds,
only enough to keep the system driving along over rough patches on the economic
highway, like periods of high inflation or high unemployment.
But in 1983, President Reagan set up a National Commission on Social Security
Reform, headed by Alan Greenspan. And they fundamentally changed the program’s
funding structure. By cutting some current and future benefits (e.g. eliminating
student benefits and raising the retirement age) and by slightly increasing the
Social Security payroll tax, they set Social Security on a course to build up
huge reserves in its trust funds. In other words, they moved Social Security
away from its historic pay-as-you-go formula to one of large capital accumulation.
The problem is that capital is U.S. government treasury notes. (Because Social
Security represents about one-sixth of the entire federal budget, the monies
cannot be invested in a diversified portfolio involving private securities.
I don’t think we want the government owning a controlling interest in Apple
Computers or Philip Morris!) Anyway, right now, the system has about $2.8 trillion
dollars in treasury securities, making the Social Security system the second
largest holder of government debt, behind China! Many people, including me, don’t
like that funding structure. But it is what it is.
Think of it this way. If you are the Commissioner of Social Security, you will
look at the Social Security trust fund and say, “I’ve got $2.8 trillion
in assets saved up for my beneficiaries.” But if you are the Secretary
of the Treasury, you will look at that same fund and say: “I’ve got
$2.8 trillion in debt that I owe the Social Security system.” We, as either
past or current taxpayers and as current or future Social Security beneficiaries
have a foot in both camps. It’s like we owe ourselves $2.8 trillion.
Coming at this from a strictly Social Security perspective, that scenario isn’t
great, but it’s workable. The U.S. government will never renege on its
Treasury note obligations, whether it is to individual American investors, or
to foreign governments, or to the Social Security Administration.
But coming at this from the larger economic perspective of the country, this
was no way to run a railroad. In my opinion. Social Security should have been
kept on a pay-as-you-go funding basis, which would have forced politicians
to make occasional and minor adjustments to the program (like very small payroll
tax hikes or benefit cuts). That way we would have been paying for the Social
Security programs we wanted all along, instead of pushing off the payment down
the road. But then, who am I, a retired government bureaucrat and lowly columnist,
to question the veracity and integrity of the likes of Alan Greenspan?
On the program front, I’ve always complained that Social Security needs
to make several changes to its current rules and regulations. For example, I
think the earnings penalty provisions of the law need to be eliminated. If you
are getting Social Security retirement or survivor benefits and are under age
66, there are various income thresholds that beneficiaries must stay under or
face harsh penalties. As I wrote in a recent column, these rules are an absolute
mess to administer. And folks trapped by this system are constantly being overpaid
or underpaid benefits.
I also would eliminate the loophole that currently allows potential retirees
to delay their own benefits until age 70 (and thus, reap a delayed retirement
bonus) while all the time collecting spousal benefits from a husband’s
or wife’s Social Security record. These benefits were always meant to be
paid only to dependent spouses, not to well-to-do retirees.
On the program administration front, I have frequently criticized the Social
Security Administration for the some of the services it offers its customers.
Although some readers will occasionally report a positive experience they have
had dealing with their local Social Security office, I hear far too many complaints
from readers who tell me about long delays when trying to get service — either
on the phone or at a local office. And more troubling, they complain about getting
poor service and misinformation — or they simply do not get a clear enough
explanation of the rules and policies that impact them. If I were running the
agency, among other things, I would change the way new employees are trained.
When I was hired 40 years ago, I got about 3 months of intensive, non-stop, personal
training. Today, SSA employees get half of that, and much of it is computer-generated
training. You simply can’t do a good job of explaining all these complicated
Social Security rules and regulations if you don’t thoroughly understand
TOP | HOME
This page and its contents ©2013
Metropolitan News Company, Inc.