Advertisement

Opinion

Opinion

Social Security trust fund solvency is a myth

March 12, 2011

Advertisement

— Everyone knows that the U.S. budget is being devoured by entitlements. Everyone also knows that of the Big Three — Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security — Social Security is the most solvable.

Back-of-an-envelope solvable: Raise the retirement age, tweak the indexing formula (from wage inflation to price inflation) and means-test so that Warren Buffett’s check gets redirected to a senior in need.

The relative ease of the fix is what makes the Obama administration’s Social Security strategy so shocking. The new line from the White House is: no need to fix it because there is no problem. As Office of Management and Budget Director Jack Lew wrote in USA Today just a few weeks ago, the trust fund is solvent until 2037. Therefore, Social Security is now off the table in debt-reduction talks.

This claim is a breathtaking fraud.

The pretense is that a flush trust fund will pay retirees for the next 26 years. Lovely, except for one thing: The Social Security trust fund is a fiction.

If you don’t believe me, listen to the OMB’s own explanation (in the Clinton administration budget for fiscal year 2000 under then-Director Jack Lew, the very same). The OMB explained that these trust fund “balances” are nothing more than a “bookkeeping” device. “They do not consist of real economic assets that can be drawn down in the future to fund benefits.”

In other words, the Social Security trust fund contains — nothing.

Here’s why. When your FICA tax is taken out of your paycheck, it does not get squirreled away in some lockbox in West Virginia where it’s kept until you and your contemporaries retire. Most goes out immediately to pay current retirees, and the rest (say, $100) goes to the U.S. Treasury — and is spent. On roads, bridges, national defense, public television, whatever — spent, gone.

In return for that $100, the Treasury sends the Social Security Administration a piece of paper that says: IOU $100. There are countless such pieces of paper in the lockbox. They are called “special issue” bonds.

Special they are: They are worthless. As the OMB explained, they are nothing more than “claims on the Treasury (i.e., promises) that, when redeemed (when you retire and are awaiting your check), will have to be financed by raising taxes, borrowing from the public, or reducing benefits or other expenditures.” That’s what it means to have a so-called trust fund with no “real economic assets.” When you retire, the “trust fund” will have to go to the Treasury for the money for your Social Security check.

Bottom line? The OMB again: “The existence of large trust fund balances, therefore, does not, by itself, have any impact on the government’s ability to pay benefits.” No impact: The lockbox, the balances, the little pieces of paper, amount to nothing.

So that when Jack Lew tells you that there are trillions in this lockbox that keep the system solvent until 2037, he is perpetrating a fiction certified as such by his own OMB. What happens when you retire? Your Social Security will come out of the taxes and borrowing of that fiscal year.

Why is this a problem? Because as of 2010, the pay-as-you-go Social Security system is in the red. For decades, it had been in the black, taking in more in FICA taxes than it sent out in Social Security benefits. The surplus, scooped up by the Treasury, reduced the federal debt by tens of billions. But demography is destiny. The ratio of workers to retirees is shrinking year by year. Instead of Social Security producing annual surpluses that reduce the federal deficit, it is now producing shortfalls that increase the federal deficit — $37 billion in 2010. It will only get worse as the baby boomers retire.

That’s what makes this administration’s claim that Social Security is solvent so cynical. The Republicans have said that their April budget will contain real entitlement reform. President Obama is preparing the ground to demagogue Social Security right through the 2012 elections. The ad writes itself: Those heartless Republicans don’t just want to throw granny in the snow, they want to throw granny in the snow to solve a problem that doesn’t even exist! Vote Obama.

On Tuesday, Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia denounced Obama for lack of leadership on the debt. It’s worse than that. Obama is showing leadership. With Lew’s preposterous claim that Social Security is solvent for 26 years, Obama is preparing to lead the charge against entitlement reform as his ticket to re-election.

Charles Krauthammer is a columnist for Washington Post Writers Group.

Comments

scott3460 3 years, 9 months ago

Satisfied that their assault on unions is well underway, the right wing mainstream media turns to destruction of social security.

monkeyhawk 3 years, 9 months ago

To quote one of the dignified window raiders from Wi.:

"Why do you think you have a right to your money?"

cato_the_elder 3 years, 9 months ago

Monkeyhawk, that says it all. Great post.

Keith 3 years, 9 months ago

At the risk of being called Merrill, here's a link to the rebuttal to this rant of a column. http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/03/11/hammer-misses-mark

jafs 3 years, 9 months ago

Nice link.

But, something there doesn't make sense - he acknowledges that SS is taking in less than it's paying out, but also says the fund will continue to grow.

If the first part is true, then the fund should start to shrink, I would think, rather than grow.

What am I missing?

boltzmann 3 years, 9 months ago

I believe that it is a question of interest. If I have a $1,000,000 savings account at 2% interest that I put $1000 into every month, but take out $1100 every month, the principal of the account will continue to increase by about $1500 a month even though I am taking out more than I put in every month.

jafs 3 years, 9 months ago

Except as I understand it, the SS trust fund isn't earning interest, in fact, if it's in Treasury bonds, it has to pay interest to holders of them.

Is that wrong?

If not, how does the fund earn anything like interest?

Keith 3 years, 9 months ago

If the funds are invested in Treasury bonds then the SSA is the bondholder, and the party that interest is paid to.

jafs 3 years, 9 months ago

Thanks.

So part of the government is borrowing money from another part of the government?

Instead of simply raising taxes, cutting spending, or increasing the deficit to pay for some spending, we now will have to do that even more in order to pay for the bonds with interest.

boltzmann 3 years, 9 months ago

Currently, of the $14 trillion of national debt, $4.6 trillion is held by government trust funds and the rest by the "public" - individuals, corporations, foreign governments, etc. (A good site for the info is found on www.treasurydirect.gov - there is even a link where you can donate to help pay off the debt by credit card - so if you have an extra couple of trillion lying around...)

monkeyhawk 3 years, 9 months ago

Someone has a problem with reading skills or logic skills (or both) ... but that is clear by this: "It is actually very well run and able to fund itself." Ho, ho.

My quote was referring to what was allegedly said by one of the civilized union supporters, and was written with sarcasm. Last I knew, union dues went largely to support Dems., not "ignorant right wingers" as you so eloquently pointed out. Once again, for the record, I am not, nor have I ever been, a right winger. I am independent and totally support your right to abort and smoke dope.

BTW, I actually do believe that I am entitled to SS. I paid in my entire life and I only hope that you have many, many hard working and healthy days ahead of you to fund it for me. (Since it so well run.)

cowboy 3 years, 9 months ago

Memo to anyone under 60 , you are so screwed . Just get me to retirement before they make me work til 80. I just keep praying that were in that group of " close to retiring " that they will leave alone.

Disappointing to see portions of the American Dream being systematically stripped away from our younger generations. Companies don't last long enough to generate a pension plan . You will probably have to have six different careers . I think most of my generation could count on three different careers due to technology advances , off shoring of manufacturing , and company failures.

Hang on it's going to be a tough ride.

George Lippencott 3 years, 9 months ago

Who are the rich? Warren Buffett and those in his price range are very samll in number. To get any substantial savings you will have to means test at a much lower level.

pace 3 years, 9 months ago

Pay down the debt, cut SSN by 3% cross the board, cut defense 7%, Simplify and equalize the tax code, end the WARS. End corporate welfare.
End marble bathrooms for Koch and gutters for the disabled. Wrap that in a package, i will sign, I will dance. I don't buy either side's story.

George Lippencott 3 years, 9 months ago

How much does that save? My guess is a few hundred billion. Just a down payment on the 2 trillion problem

pace 3 years, 9 months ago

Actually a simple tax code and eliminating the loop holes would shave an incredible amount off the debt. You think decreasing teachers pensions and increasing class size is the smart solution? Look at where the money goes, Cutting defense and simplifying the tax code saves billions, add taxing the corporations and wealthiest is billions more. why don't you look up how much just simplying end equalizing the tax code would save, oh don't be a fox parrot, try hard. i prefer a hard down payment than the social networking against the unemployed and under employed. Get the figures.

Richard Heckler 3 years, 9 months ago

Leave Social Security Insurance alone. What it brings is diversity to a portfolio. It is a best bang for the tax dollar because it is safer than most and CERTAINLY safer than Wall Street.

Some are wanting to tell me and others that Social Security is not a good investment for my money.

It is a damn good use of my money. It is safe. Insider trading and Bush/Cheney fiasco economics does not take the value down.

Some in corp USA simply are NOT helping the economy grow significantly which will come back and bite Wall Street in the butt big time once again. Retirement plans will take a hit AGAIN!!!

If I were not a wealthy person who simply loved the challenge of Wall Street white collar crooks my money would go elsewhere and damn fast. There too many factions that can intentionally screw with risky investment games. Insider trading is one that will never go away.

SinoHawk 3 years, 9 months ago

Merrill,

Nothing about your post makes any sense. If you had trusted Wall Street and invested in stocks, you probably would have averaged 6+ percent annual returns over your lifetime. Social Security has a negative expected return and there is NO MONEY in it. The only reason that you can expect any SS is because people my age are forced to pay for you even though there is no way SS will exist for me. Congrats, your generation are successfully leeches on mine.

jafs 3 years, 9 months ago

Except that folks who need to retire have seen their investments plummet.

So, the idea of "long term" investing is a good one, but if your investments happen to be at a low when you need them, you're SOL.

Social Security should be reformed so that it's not a Ponzi scheme, and is sustainable, but simply eliminating it may not be a great idea.

Before the recent meltdown, I argued that I could do much better than Social Security in the stock market, but those events caused me to re-think that position.

George Lippencott 3 years, 9 months ago

As was the generation before me - it has always been that way. Why do you get to break the social contract that has been in force since Mr. Roosevelt?

By the by. Much of the current deficit is not due to SS (it is still predominantly self-funding). The deficit is in the other $800 Billion annual funds for social services and the lord know how much in tax breaks to the rich and the corporations. Virtually none of that was there when I started paying into social security. Last hired first fired per union rules!

Sounds like another greedy 'Me" gen player.

SinoHawk 3 years, 9 months ago

"Why do you get to break the social contract..." Because it doesn't exist. When Roosevelt created SS, only a tiny percentage were expected to draw benefits in their lifetime.

Call me what you want, but the boomers ran huge deficits every year since the 50's (yes--even under Clinton, since SS wasn't adequately accounted for as a liability). Why should I be considered greedy when all I want is to not have my FICA go to pay for your retirement when I will get NOTHING? It is easier for me to work overseas for a non-American company and keep the extra $5-7k a year to invest as I please as opposed to watching your generation retire in comfort on 14% of my salary (SS) + potential Medicare/Medicaid expenses.

Richard Heckler 3 years, 9 months ago

Social Security Insurance is NOT an entitlement. It is insurance that is paid for like Medicare Insurance. Politicians are confused,uninformed and in some cases a great source for misinformation.

EXACTLY what are entitlements?

Consequences that usually goes unmentioned by the local media,city hall and elected officials - local profiteers which are draining our pocketbooks and raising our taxes.

We've subsidized local profiteers at such a basic level for so long, that many people believe the status quo is actually fair and neutral. This is false-what we think of as a level playing field is tilted steeply in favor of local profiteers driving development.

Entitlements: building new and wider roads building schools on the fringe extending sewer and water lines to not necessary development extending emergency services to the fringe * direct pay-outs to developers - for example developers of the new building at 9th and New Hampshire are demanding taxpayers furnish their tenants with parking spaces built with our tax dollars. Why should we taxpayers pick up that tab? Why would a bank approve a loan if a project had no parking for it's tenants?

More ENTITLEMENTS: Tax abatements TIF Tax Increment Financing SECRET sales tax projects ( don't inform the consumers) Bermuda Tax Havens Bailing out Mismanaged Corporations Bailing out Wall Street Banks * USD 497 paying $23,000 per acre for 75 acres of unimproved land (aka bailing out a local investor)

Richard Heckler 3 years, 9 months ago

Every sale of stock on the stock market includes the disclaimer: "the return on this investment is not guaranteed and may be negative"--for good reason.

*During the 20th century, there were several periods lasting more than 10 years where the return on stocks was negative.

*After the Dow Jones stock index went down by over 75% between 1929 and 1933, the Dow did not return to its 1929 level until 1953 = 24 years.

*In claiming that the rate of return on a stock investment is guaranteed to be greater than the return on any other asset is lying. If an investment-firm broker made this claim to his clients, he would be arrested and charged with stock fraud.

How many want to wait until Wall Street is on a profitable binge before they can retire?

Richard Heckler 3 years, 9 months ago

When speaking pf retirement portfolios diversity is mentioned frequently. Social Security Insurance fits that bill. $1,000 per month is user friendly and safe thus far.

Now more food for thought:

More entitlements:

  1. The Reagan/Bush Savings and Loan Heist
  2. Cost taxpayers $1.4 trillion http://rationalrevolution0.tripod.com/war/bush_family_and_the_s.htm

  3. Wall Street Bank Fraud on Consumers http://www.dollarsandsense.org/archives/2009/0709macewan.html

  4. Bush and Henry Paulson blew the $700 billion of bail out money? Only three institutions were truly at risk. http://www.democracynow.org/2009/9/10/good_billions_after_bad_one_year

  5. Social Security Insurance AT Risk for no reason:

  6. would cost taxpayers $4 trillion
  7. add $700 billion to the debt each of the next 20 years *place taxpayers insurance money at risk and wreck the economy http://www.dollarsandsense.org/archives/2005/0505orr.html

  8. Medical Insurance Insurance is COSTING YOU MORE BUT YOU ARE GETTING LESS How much is the sick U.S.A. Medical Insurance industry costing you? An industry supported by trillions of tax dollars http://www.dollarsandsense.org/archives/2008/0508harrison.html

  9. Billions in Over Charges! Why did the medical insurance industry allow their clients to pay what they should have paid? http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/24/AR2009062401636.html

Congress knows of these over charges but to date nothing has been done. Nobody has gotten their money back!!!

Richard Heckler 3 years, 9 months ago

Top 5 Social Security Myths

Myth #1: Social Security is going broke. Reality: There is no Social Security crisis. By 2023, Social Security will have a $4.6 trillion surplus (yes, trillion with a 'T'). It can pay out all scheduled benefits for the next quarter-century with no changes whatsoever.1 After 2037, it'll still be able to pay out 75% of scheduled benefits—and again, that's without any changes. The program started preparing for the Baby Boomers' retirement decades ago.2 Anyone who insists Social Security is broke probably wants to break it themselves.

Myth #2: We have to raise the retirement age because people are living longer. Reality: This is a red-herring to trick you into agreeing to benefit cuts. Retirees are living about the same amount of time as they were in the 1930s. The reason average life expectancy is higher is mostly because many fewer people die as children than they did 70 years ago.3 What's more, what gains there have been are distributed very unevenly—since 1972, life expectancy increased by 6.5 years for workers in the top half of the income brackets, but by less than 2 years for those in the bottom half.4 But those intent on cutting Social Security love this argument because raising the retirement age is the same as an across-the-board benefit cut.

Myth #3: Benefit cuts are the only way to fix Social Security. Reality: Social Security doesn't need to be fixed. But if we want to strengthen it, here's a better way: Make the rich pay their fair share. If the very rich paid taxes on all of their income, Social Security would be sustainable for decades to come.5 Right now, high earners only pay Social Security taxes on the first $106,000 of their income.6 But conservatives insist benefit cuts are the only way because they want to protect the super-rich from paying their fair share.

Myth #4: The Social Security Trust Fund has been raided and is full of IOUs Reality: Not even close to true. The Social Security Trust Fund isn't full of IOUs, it's full of U.S. Treasury Bonds. And those bonds are backed by the full faith and credit of the United States.7 The reason Social Security holds only treasury bonds is the same reason many Americans do: The federal government has never missed a single interest payment on its debts. President Bush wanted to put Social Security funds in the stock market—which would have been disastrous—but luckily, he failed. So the trillions of dollars in the Social Security Trust Fund, which are separate from the regular budget, are as safe as can be.

Myth #5: Social Security adds to the deficit Reality: It's not just wrong—it's impossible! By law, Social Security's funds are separate from the budget, and it must pay its own way. That means that Social Security can't add one penny to the deficit.8

Richard Heckler 3 years, 9 months ago

Charles Krauthammer should do homework instead of taking talking points from his special interests which of course could be the financial institutions wanting those trillions of our tax dollars to make themselves big dollars in profits!!!

George Lippencott 3 years, 9 months ago

I can not believe it - I must be wrong. I find myself agreeing with merrill on a bunch of stuf.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 3 years, 9 months ago

Here's a little secret, Chuckie-- every fund that exists anywhere in the world is a fiction, an abstraction. Whatever connection to reality it has is the one we collectively choose to see in it.

Doesn't matter if it's some poor schlep's SS account, or Warren Buffet's shares of Berkshire Hathaway. No matter how hard you may have worked in your life, whatever retirement benefits or investments you have are really nothing more than an agreement with the next generation of workers that your hard work in life should be rewarded with a portion of the goods and services they are now producing.

But Republicans now want to devalue the hard work of the poor schleps in this country in order to pump up the value of the investments of the wealthiest of the wealthy. And Chuckie is cheering them on.

jafs 3 years, 9 months ago

So all investments are Ponzi schemes?

I'm not at all sure that's true - if you have a pension fund that's been invested, and benefits are paid from that, it's not a Ponzi scheme, is it?

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 3 years, 9 months ago

The point is that "monetized" wealth isn't real-- or perhaps better said, it's only as real as it's perceived at any given moment. The collapse of the housing bubble is the most recent example of that. Is your house really worth 10% less today than it was 4 years ago. Was it really worth 20-30% more in 2007 than it was in 2000? And do the often dramatic fluctuations in the stock market actually reflect changes in real wealth? Clearly, they don't.

All money does is create a method of exchanging real wealth-- which is food, shelter, tools, vehicles, etc. And some of the most important examples of real wealth-- clean water and air, productive farm land, consistent and predictable climate patterns, are almost completely excluded from the monetized model of wealth.

Retirement plans of almost any sort represent a very interesting exchange. It's a younger generation recognizing that the efforts of the older generation laid the basis for the wealth of that younger generation, and money acts as a sort of time machine facilitating that wealth creation-- all of the goods and services that a retired person consumes have to be produced in the present, by someone still active in the workforce, but it's done in exchange for work that was done years and decades previous.

What value does that decades-old work have? What value should it have? That's determined by many factors, but it can be driven by the very conscious actions of politicians and the financial sector. Gutting social security essentially has the effect devaluing that work, and that can be very profitable to some sectors of the economy who can then suck up the units of real wealth by reducing the amount available to retirees.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 3 years, 9 months ago

Correction to one phrase above--

" and money acts as a sort of time machine facilitating the recognition of that wealth creation"

Richard Heckler 3 years, 9 months ago

"Until 1984, the trust fund was "pay-as-you-go," meaning current benefits were paid using current tax revenues. In 1984, Congress raised payroll taxes to prepare for the retirement of the baby boom generation.

As a result, the Social Security trust fund, which holds government bonds as assets, has been growing. When the baby boomers retire, these bonds will be sold to help pay their retirement benefits.

If the trust fund went to zero, Social Security would simply revert to pay-as-you-go. It would continue to pay benefits using (then-current) tax revenues, and in doing so, it would be able to cover about 70% of promised benefit levels. According to analysis by the Center for Economic and Policy Research, a 70% benefit level then would actually be higher than 2005 benefit levels in constant dollars (because of wage adjustments).

In other words, retirees would be taking home more in real terms than today's retirees do. The system won't be bankrupt in any sense. On this point, President Bush is "consciously misrepresenting the truth with the intent to deceive." That is what the dictionary defines as lying. Is it true that the trust fund is just a bunch of government IOUs and therefore worthless?

The trust fund does just contain IOUs, but they're not worthless. If they are, someone should tell that to the very smart and very rich people who bought $475 billion in government bonds during the Bush/Cheney era. And to the central banks of Japan, China, and many other countries that hold a large share of their assets in U.S. government bonds.

When the trust fund was created in 1935, the law stipulated that any excess revenues coming into the Social Security system must be used to purchase federal government bonds. (At the time, the stock market had just lost over 75% of its value and was understood to be unsafe.) Federal bonds are absolutely safe; the government of the United States has never defaulted on any bond obligation."

sr80 3 years, 9 months ago

The government created Repo 105 & Social Security. They seem eerily the same!

irvan moore 3 years, 9 months ago

Reaganomics, took the money from SS and put it in the general fund.

Brent Garner 3 years, 9 months ago

Merrill obviously buys into the belief that there is a lockbox somewhere where all that excess Social Security money sits waiting to be paid out. Oh that such were the case! But, it is not! Even the OMB--government agency, Merrill--says there are nothing but IOUs. The money went into the general fund and was spent! And here we can blame each and every politician who approved a budget that spent more than we took in! To cover the excess the social security funds were added to the pot and spent! Much, if not all, of Clinton's so called surplus was the same accounting gimmick. But even the traitor socialist FDR admitted that social security was unworkable long term. Said so in his own memoirs. Even admitted that the use of the term Social Security Insurance was a gimmick to make people feel better about the program. Social Security was a lie from the beginning and is rapidly becoming a bigger fraud. Just this year the payouts exceed the inflow, so you can't really call it solvent even in 2011.

George Lippencott 3 years, 9 months ago

If we do noting the current SS tax will pay roughly 70% of the expected. The problem is the 30% across the boomer generation. Amounts to a few trillion over a few decades

Be careful with the accounting. That $700 billion of SS counts the 15% tax we currently pay. If we defaulted on SS, the assumption of the right is that we would continue to pay that tax to the general fund to pay for all the other goodies. That approach would substantially reduce our debt. It is also quite regressive - the social security tax caps at about $100K

Beware of "the rich" bearing gifts.

George Lippencott 3 years, 9 months ago

No, you have it wrong. You need to have your picture there.

Richard Heckler 3 years, 9 months ago

Social Security Insurance provides the diversity in a portfolio that is talked about.

Meanwhile people should remain focused on the following:

Myth #1: Social Security is going broke. Reality: There is no Social Security crisis. By 2023, Social Security will have a $4.6 trillion surplus (yes, trillion with a 'T'). It can pay out all scheduled benefits for the next quarter-century with no changes whatsoever.1 After 2037, it'll still be able to pay out 75% of scheduled benefits—and again, that's without any changes. The program started preparing for the Baby Boomers' retirement decades ago.2 Anyone who insists Social Security is broke probably wants to break it themselves.

Myth #2: We have to raise the retirement age because people are living longer. Reality: This is a red-herring to trick you into agreeing to benefit cuts. Retirees are living about the same amount of time as they were in the 1930s. The reason average life expectancy is higher is mostly because many fewer people die as children than they did 70 years ago.3 What's more, what gains there have been are distributed very unevenly—since 1972, life expectancy increased by 6.5 years for workers in the top half of the income brackets, but by less than 2 years for those in the bottom half.4 But those intent on cutting Social Security love this argument because raising the retirement age is the same as an across-the-board benefit cut.

Myth #3: Benefit cuts are the only way to fix Social Security. Reality: Social Security doesn't need to be fixed. But if we want to strengthen it, here's a better way: Make the rich pay their fair share. If the very rich paid taxes on all of their income, Social Security would be sustainable for decades to come.5 Right now, high earners only pay Social Security taxes on the first $106,000 of their income.6 But conservatives insist benefit cuts are the only way because they want to protect the super-rich from paying their fair share.

Myth #4: The Social Security Trust Fund has been raided and is full of IOUs Reality: Not even close to true. The Social Security Trust Fund isn't full of IOUs, it's full of U.S. Treasury Bonds. And those bonds are backed by the full faith and credit of the United States.7 The reason Social Security holds only treasury bonds is the same reason many Americans do: The federal government has never missed a single interest payment on its debts. President Bush wanted to put Social Security funds in the stock market—which would have been disastrous—but luckily, he failed. So the trillions of dollars in the Social Security Trust Fund, which are separate from the regular budget, are as safe as can be.

Myth #5: Social Security adds to the deficit Reality: It's not just wrong—it's impossible! By law, Social Security's funds are separate from the budget, and it must pay its own way. That means that Social Security can't add one penny to the deficit.8

Richard Heckler 3 years, 9 months ago

Moving SSI to private accounts will cost the nation:

  • $4 trillion off the top
  • Adds $700 billion to the debt each of the next 20 years
  • Will place the entire economy at risk
  • None of the above 3 are acceptable

Remember these SSI tax dollars represent trillions of OUR tax dollars. So who wants OUR trillions of tax dollars?

The Wall Street financial institutions are wanting those trillions of OUR tax dollars to make themselves big dollars in profits!!! For the moment no one is making big dollar profits and WHO wants to support big dollar profits going to the reckless Wall Street institutions? SSI consumers DO NOT NEED this expense!

Let's NOT get duped again!!!

George Lippencott 3 years, 9 months ago

MERRILL

THEY want to divert the SS tax to general revenue. Solves most of the deficit problem withour raising tAXES ON THE RICH.

Gete the greedy Me gens all excited thinking they will get to keep the 15% but they will not.

Commenting has been disabled for this item.