AP/ January 27, 2011, 10:56 AM

Social Security on Pace to be Drained by 2037

Social Security's finances are getting worse as the economy struggles to recover and millions of baby boomers stand at the brink of retirement.

New congressional projections show Social Security running deficits every year until its trust funds are eventually drained in about 2037.

This year alone, Social Security is projected to collect $45 billion less in payroll taxes than it pays out in retirement, disability and survivor benefits, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said Wednesday. That figure swells to $130 billion when a new one-year cut in payroll taxes is included, though Congress has promised to repay any lost revenue from the tax cut.

The massive retirement program has been feeling the effects of a struggling economy for several years. The program first went into deficit last year, but the CBO said at the time that Social Security would post surpluses for a few more years before permanently slipping into deficits in 2016.

The outlook, however, has grown bleaker as the nation struggles to recover from the worst economic crisis since Social Security was enacted during the Great Depression. In the short term, Social Security is suffering from a weak economy that has payroll taxes lagging and applications for benefits rising. In the long term, Social Security will be strained by the growing number of baby boomers retiring and applying for benefits.

The deficits add a sense of urgency to efforts to improve Social Security's finances. For much of the past 30 years, Social Security has run big surpluses, which the government has borrowed to spend on other programs. Now that Social Security is running deficits, the federal government will have to find money elsewhere to help pay for retirement, disability and survivor benefits.

"It means that Social Security is increasingly adding to our long-term fiscal problem, and it's happening now," said Eugene Steuerle, a former Treasury official who is now a fellow at the Urban Institute think tank.

It's a bad time for the nation to be hit with more financial problems. The federal budget deficit will surge to a record $1.5 trillion flood of red ink this year, congressional budget experts estimated Wednesday, blaming the slow economic recovery and a tax cut law enacted in December.

A debt commission appointed by President Barack Obama has recommended a series of changes to improve Social Security's finances, including a gradual increase in the full retirement age, lower cost-of-living increases and a gradual increase in the threshold on the amount of income subject to the Social Security payroll tax.

Obama, however, has not embraced any of the panel's recommendations. Instead, in his State of the Union speech this week, he called for unspecified bipartisan solutions to strengthen the program while protecting current retirees, future retirees and people with disabilities.

Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky said he is ready to work with Obama on Social Security and other tough issues.

"I take the president at his word when he says he's eager to cooperate with us on doing all of it," McConnell said.

Social Security experts say news of permanent deficits should be a wake-up call for action.

"So long as Social Security was running surpluses, policymakers could put off the need to fix the program," said Andrew Biggs, a former deputy commissioner at the Social Security Administration who is now a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. "Now that the system is running deficits, it simply becomes clear that we need to act on Social Security reform."

More than 54 million people receive retirement, disability or survivor benefits from Social Security. Monthly payments average $1,076.

The program has been supported by a 6.2 percent payroll tax paid by both workers and employers. In December, Congress passed a one-year tax cut for workers, to 4.2 percent. The lost revenue is to be repaid to Social Security from general revenue funds, meaning it will add to the growing national debt.

Social Security has built up a $2.5 trillion surplus since the retirement program was last overhauled in the 1980s. Benefits will be safe until that money runs out. That is projected to happen in 2037 - unless Congress acts in the meantime. At that point, Social Security would collect enough in payroll taxes to pay out about 78 percent of benefits, according to the Social Security Administration.

The $2.5 trillion surplus, however, has been borrowed over the years by the federal government and spent on other programs. In return, the Treasury Department has issued bonds to Social Security, guaranteeing repayment with interest.

Social Security supporters are adamant that the program will be repaid, just as the U.S. government repays others who invest in U.S. Treasury bonds.

"It's an IOU that is backed by Treasury bonds and the faith and credit of the United States government," said Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt. "It is the same faith and credit that enables us to borrow from rich people and from China and from other countries. As you well know, in the history of this country, the United States has never defaulted on one penny owed to a creditor."
© 2011 The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
97 Comments Add a Comment
linkicon reporticon emailicon
caliguy55 says:
Let's see, 2037 is some 26 years from now, which gives us plenty of time to decide what, if any, fixes are necessary to keep the program solvent for those who will become entitled to benefits in 2037 and beyond. Of course, there is one simple way to deal with many of the economic problems facing our country today, Social Security not being one of them, which is to allow the "temporary Bush Tax Cuts" to expire as they were supposed to do. Economist say that this action alone would immediately cut the federal deficit by 1/2 and immediately begin to pay down the federal debt. In fact, this simple action would bring us back to 1996, when the nation started to accumulate a surplus in the federal government's accounts. We all know how Bush took this great economic remedy that was beginning to take place before his first term began and totally destroyed it with his stupid tax cuts. So, for God's sake, let's leave Social Security out of these discussions as we have 26 years to come up with fixes that may not ever be necessary for that program, and let's focus on the immediate cause of our problems, i.e., the "Bush Tax Cuts".
reply
linkicon reporticon emailicon
noloyalisti says:
Forbes magazine, hardly a progressive publication in any sense of the word, is the one who reported how little, if at all, that the giant, rich, multi-national corporations paid in US income tax.

Lying and making facts up HURTS the conservative cause.
reply
linkicon reporticon emailicon
pete8743 says:
Time to Mandatorily REQUIRE every Working American Citizen to PAY into Social Security. Too many Govt and Public Employees an Religious organization employees are Now exempt.

Social Security will be financially healthy IF we include all the Public Union Workers (e.g Teachers & other public union workers) who are getting extravagent Pensions Which are paid by ALL working Americans.
They retire at age 55 while all other working Americans might have to wait until age 68.
They have 28% of their pay put into their retirement funds.
We workers have only 7.5% put away every year into social security.
They work only 9 months out of a year (1,500 hours)
We workers have to work 12 months (2,000 hours)
Social Security IS NOT BROKE------Social Security just is not Universally required by ALL.
reply
forsanity1 replies:
linkicon reporticon emailicon
The government and other workers you mention, that don't pay into Social Security don't collect SS benefits.

Not all government workers only work nine months of the year, teachers who do -- only get PAID for nine months of the year's work.

I am with you on the fact that we must reform the incredibly cushy system a lot of these workers have been able to negotiate. But you can't make this an issue about Social Security, which doesn't pay them the benefits.
linkicon reporticon emailicon
rf35 says:
Oh good. I turn 65 the year before it runs out! Why don't we just end SS right now, put any money it has available into the general fund, end the payroll tax and increase standard income tax, and we'll all work until we die like they do in most other third world countries.




"It's an IOU that is backed by...the faith and credit of the United States government,"

I'd like to see the US government's credit reports, please.
reply
linkicon reporticon emailicon
RedWings_ninety_one says:
Why is this listed as the most discussed story?..The Palin story has a lot more comments than this. If it will be drained by 2037...STOP SPENDING!!
reply
infantryman1968 replies:
linkicon reporticon emailicon
LOL

The National Socialist are obsessed with Palin. They blamer her for for being losers.
Mortarman429 replies:
linkicon reporticon emailicon
NAZI = National Socialist German Workers Party
linkicon reporticon emailicon
infantryman1968 says:
Social Security on Pace to be Drained by 2037


LOL!

What is Social Security?
reply
linkicon reporticon emailicon
luadda22 says:
Skyk, why have I never seen you attack Social Security as racist? According to the Administration on Aging the life expectancy among African American men is 66.1 years. This means that they pay into a system their whole life and they may receive one month of benefits. Where does their remaining money go that they paid into the system? It isn't to their families. Given a choice I would rather take my chances with Wall Street or AIG. At least there may be a small sum left over for my heirs. With Social Security it's gone when I die and my family is left in the cold or is forced to apply for other social benefits just to survive. It's a sad ending.
reply
luadda22 replies:
linkicon reporticon emailicon
Skyk, It's sad that you feel the need to attack with hate and names. If this is what EDUCATION produces, I would rather remain ignorant.
linkicon reporticon emailicon
pasha128 says:
by Mortarman429 January 27, 2011 2:25 PM EST
Conservatives dont want to give welfare or entitlements to anyone! ...

------

Who passed and signed Medicare Part D (Prescription Drugs) almost entirely on the Credit Card in 2003? (Bush the Younger and REPUBLICAN MAJORITIES in both houses of Congress). Not to mention the RETURN OF MEDICARE PART D to the credit card (repeal of health care) by the Tea Party REPUBLICANS just this month.
reply
pasha128 replies:
linkicon reporticon emailicon
PS Medicare Part D is an ESCALATING $1 TRILLION DOLLARS IN DEBT EVERY 10 YEARS under two different REPUBLICAN PASSED proposals in Congress (in 2003 and 2011).
Mortarman429 replies:
linkicon reporticon emailicon
Who passed it? You mean president?

Not a conservative president. We havent had one of those in quite awhile! Not even close!
linkicon reporticon emailicon
crazyname says:
In august or september we were told it woudl be broke by 2016 or 17. Why don't we quit paying into it, put that money into our own savings accounts and we won't need the government to screw us out of our money. It is empty now, not collecting as much as what goes out, so it is basically broke now. IOU's are not money in the bank. Obama can pay us what we paid in instead of giving the stimulous money to banks and unions, and e can invest or spend it as we wish. We will all be living off of chineese food stamps in 5 years anyway at this rate of spending. Maybe we should all be hoping for the end of the world as we know it in 2012. Supposed the Mayans say Obama ruing the US way back then?
reply
Mortarman429 replies:
linkicon reporticon emailicon
Criminal? What have they done that is illegal?
Mortarman429 replies:
linkicon reporticon emailicon
MarineVet, the corporations you listed have been investigate, fined and charged. And some people went to jail. So no issue there.

Now, noloyalisti and his marxist posts lead usto believe that all corporations are doing something illegal.
linkicon reporticon emailicon
Mortarman429 says:
In short, here is the basic idea of the problem:

A conservative wants what is his.

A liberal wants what is not his.
reply
Mortarman429 replies:
linkicon reporticon emailicon
Yes, that is what you engage in Hungry.
See all 97 Comments