Social Security’s attackers claim that they’re concerned about the program’s financial future. But their math doesn’t add up, and their hostility isn’t really about dollars and cents. Instead, it’s about ideology and posturing. And underneath it all is ignorance of or indifference to the realities of life for many Americans.

But neither of these potential problems is a clear and present danger. Social Security has been running surpluses for the last quarter-century, banking those surpluses in a special account, the so-called trust fund. The program won’t have to turn to Congress for help or cut benefits until or unless the trust fund is exhausted, which the program’s actuaries don’t expect to happen until 2037 — and there’s a significant chance, according to their estimates, that that day will never come.

Meanwhile, an aging population will eventually (over the course of the next 20 years) cause the cost of paying Social Security benefits to rise from its current 4.8 percent of G.D.P. to about 6 percent of G.D.P. To give you some perspective, that’s a significantly smaller increase than the rise in defense spending since 2001, which Washington certainly didn’t consider a crisis, or even a reason to rethink some of the Bush tax cuts.

So where do claims of crisis come from? To a large extent they rely on bad-faith accounting. In particular, they rely on an exercise in three-card monte in which the surpluses Social Security has been running for a quarter-century don’t count — because hey, the program doesn’t have any independent existence; it’s just part of the general federal budget — while future Social Security deficits are unacceptable — because hey, the program has to stand on its own.

The SCOTUS has ruled that Social Security is non-contractual.
Congress has the right to alter, amend, or repeal any provision of the SS Act. Congress could vote tomorrow to make your expected SS retirement check a fantasy. Some people think everyone should have a little more financial protection should that happen. Risk is inherent either way.

First, that dedicated funding could prove inadequate, forcing the program either to cut benefits or to turn to Congress for aid. Second, Social Security costs could prove unsupportable for the federal budget as a whole.

Meanwhile, an aging population will eventually (over the course of the next 20 years) cause the cost of paying Social Security benefits to rise from its current 4.8 percent of G.D.P. to about 6 percent of G.D.P. To give you some perspective, that’s a significantly smaller increase than the rise in defense spending since 2001, which Washington certainly didn’t consider a crisis, or even a reason to rethink some of the Bush tax cuts.

Is that your perception or do you have proof of that intent?

And by "Republicans" do you mean ALL Republicans, or are you talking specific Republicans?

As I understand it, this is the Republican position:

1. Workers should be allowed to choose whether to remain entirely in current system or to privately invest a portion of their payroll taxes.

2. No change would impact those receiving or close to receiving SS.

3. Any key changes would require bipartisan support.

4. Reform would not include tax increases.


How does any of that "destroy" SS?

So...does your response mean that you have no proof?

You know, not that I disagree with you in the general context of fairness, but based on legal rulings, the words "need", "repay" and "borrowed" are rather...uhm...moot.