jackalope
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Jul 16, 2009
- Messages
- 6,494
- Reaction score
- 1,328
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
I don't see how any of this is inconsistent with what I've said. The fact that actual bonds (albeit special, non-marketable ones) are being purchased doesn't change the fact that it's largely an accounting trick. If you owe yourself something, it doesn't really matter what form you pretend to owe it in.There is no pile of money sitting around, waiting for us to start drawing from it - just a stack of non-negotiable and non-marketable securities.
Again, this is an accounting method. On paper, we've promised to pay back that amount and are even keeping track of the interest that we're promising as well. However, it's absolutely undisputed that the excess funds are being spent. Look at any budget from the past 20 years, or hell, listen to Clinton's OMB:
Or a recent director of the CBO:
Or, if you still refuse to listen to that, we can turn to the Social Security Administration itself:
You have quoted an excerpt on the CATO institutes Social Security Privatization case page, and a Republican CBO director who was also a special assistant to Reagan, who earlier in the testimony you quoted stated:
" The thing that the Director and Barry and I probably
disagree about the most is what you can do with trust fund
accounting.
And he then goes on to give a non-standard explanation of trust fund accounting.
If you want to see what the SSA itself says, here you go:
Far from being "worthless IOUs," the investments held by the trust funds are backed by the full faith and credit of the U. S. Government. The government has always repaid Social Security, with interest. The special-issue securities are, therefore, just as safe as U.S. Savings Bonds or other financial instruments of the Federal government.
Trust Fund FAQs
As to your statement that actual bonds being purchased doesn't change the fact that it's largely an accounting a trick is simply false. They are legal debt obligations backed by the full faith and credit of the US Gov't. There is simply no economist or credit agency anywhere that believes that the US Gov't will default on its bonds.
Here is a Paul Krugman post taking apart the SS Privatization fear-mongerers who want the public to think the SSTF is a fiction:
(snip ... )
But the privatizers won’t take yes for an answer when it comes to the sustainability of Social Security. Their answer to the pretty good numbers is to say that the trust fund is meaningless, because it’s invested in U.S. government bonds. They aren’t really saying that government bonds are worthless; their point is that the whole notion of a separate budget for Social Security is a fiction. And if that’s true, the idea that one part of the government can have a positive trust fund while the government as a whole is in debt does become strange.
But there are two problems with their position.
more ...
About the Social Security trust fund - Paul Krugman Blog - NYTimes.com
Last edited: