Orbital Matters

Saturn Smith

Saturn Smith

Saturn Smith
Birthday
April 06
Title
Ms.
Company
The Solar System
Bio
Everything posted here, and more random thoughts, are also posted at my web site: http://kepkanation.com.

Editor’s Pick
MAY 12, 2009 9:51PM

Trust Fund, Baby: On Paris Hilton and Social Security

Rate: 9 Flag

Today, the Obama administration's official Bearers of Bad News, fresh off the fun of Swine Flu and Stress Tests, announced that Social Security will deplete its trust fund by 2037, four years earlier than expected.  Scarier than that, in 2017 -- just eight years from now -- Medicare's hospital insurance trust fund will run out of money.  That's the fund that pays for inpatient hospital services, home health, skilled nursing facilities, and hospice care for those over 65.  So, not anything millions of seniors depend on or anything.

Paris Hilton by Glenn Francis

Glenn Francis/
PacificProDigital.com

Government trust funds are the same as "regular" trust funds.  They represent a surplus of income from one party that's designed to support the life of another party.  So, either great-grandpa struck it rich in the hotel business, in which case you start drawing on your ~$30 million trust fund at 18, or great-grandpa paid payroll taxes every month, in which case a trust fund built from that contribution lets Social Security and Medicare provide services after age 65.  Either way, eventually your prescription drugs are covered.  (Mostly).

When a trust fund runs out for a big government program, it's the same as when it runs out for a spoiled rich kid.  You aren't instantly broke or on the street, and 2037 will likely be the end of neither Social Security nor Paris Hilton.  Money will still come in, but expenditures will be limited to income and to what other people will loan out.  So Social Security will still be getting tax income when it runs out of trust fund money, but not enough to cover the number of people expected to be drawing SS in 2037, just as a sudden depletion of available trust fundery (estimated at between $1-$4 million a year) would probably reduce the benefits available in life to Paris Hilton. 

Ms. Hilton could probably make up for the lost income by living on her AmEx Black for a while, just like Medicare and Social Security could probably live on government debt for a while -- but eventually everyone reaches a limit.  Membership has only so many priviledges.

The government has the same options that Paris Hilton does to treat a shortfall: Raise revenue or reduce benefits.  Here's the finding of the Doomsday Club:

The Medicare Report shows that the HI Trust Fund could be brought into actuarial balance over the next 75 years by changes equivalent to an immediate 134 percent increase in the payroll tax (from a rate of 2.9 percent to 6.78 percent), or an immediate 53 percent reduction in program outlays, or some combination of the two. Larger changes would be required to make the program solvent beyond the 75-year horizon.

[...]

Social Security could be brought into actuarial balance over the next 75 years with changes equivalent to an immediate 16 percent increase in the payroll tax (from a rate of 12.4 percent to 14.4 percent) or an immediate reduction in benefits of 13 percent or some combination of the two. Ensuring that the system remains solvent on a sustainable basis beyond the next 75 years would require larger changes because increasing longevity will result in people receiving benefits for ever longer periods of retirement.

A 53 percent cut in benefits for Medicare.  It's much easier to say that Ms. Hilton should spend half as much at Hermès than it is to tell seniors that they should consider skipping six months' worth of medications, or a necessary surgery or, you know, food.  So the government's solution will be the same as Ms. Hilton's, most likely: Raise revenue.  While it'd be nice if the government could make money simply by showing up at a club, right now the only way it's going to get that money is through an increase on taxes.

Now, who is it that has to say yes to raising taxes?  Oh yeah: Congress.  If John Boehner's late-April op-ed in the Washington Times is right, I'd say right now there's about the same chance of a tax increase being passed by the Senate as there is of Paris Hilton being elected to the Senate.  Actually, her chances may be higher.  Stranger things have happened in California.

Really, this is an issue that has to go before Congress, and predictions are some kind of Medicare fix will hit the deck this year or next.  I can't imagine anyone voting to cut Medicare benefits by half, but five years ago I couldn't imagine anyone giving George W. Bush a second term.

So perhaps it's time to look into a government reality show franchise, before all of our seniors are living very, very simple lives. myspace counters

Your tags:

TIP:

Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
Recipient's email address:
Personal message (optional):

Your email address:

Comments

Type your comment below:
Meanwhile, the military budget increases. 600 billion and no one bats an eye. We have the money. We just choose to spend it irresponsibly on illegal wars and weapon systems we don't need. monkey fingered.
you should have a tv show. great analysis and great analogy!
Medicare will probably be off-loaded one way or another into some from of Universal Healthcare. I can't for the life of me understand why (other than politics) anyone favors forcing another 50 million people to be abused by insurance companies. That's not going to solve the problem of exclusions, undercoverage, or any of the other scams being perpetrated by insurers.

By the way, did you see who's heading the fight against healthcare reform? Rick Scott. If you're not familiar, look him up, believe me that's worth a post.

I've got a piece about Social Security, I think I'll post here.
I agree, there are ways to shift money to make Medicare's trust fund bigger right away, and cuts in defense would be a start -- but Congress would still have to approve shifting that money. They are the block to every plan.

Lulu, I'd totally vote Paris before I'd vote Bachmann, but lucky for me it will never come down to that!

Thanks, bstrangely!

Ughhhh, Rick Scott. In a way, I'm kind of glad he's leading the charge -- who better than the Biggest Villain in the Room.
2037 sounds about right . . . that is when I turn 65 ;0)
Yikes! That's terrible timing, Dorinda, I'm sorry. The good news is that as the economy improves, that date will get moved back as revenue automatically increases.
Medicare in trouble? Who knew. And there are people who believe that single payer Universal Health Care is going to be the answer to everyone else's medical coverage. BOY!! Are you all in for a rude awakening.
Part of the reason why Medicare is so expensive is because it covers elderly people over the age of 65. What we need to do is to expand the pool to include young people. For example- the premium that working employees and employers currently pay into private insurance plans- these could very well be going into Medicare if the government gives them that choice to use Medicare as their health plan. Of course, the right wing will scream 'socialism'- but that's expected of the Party of No Ideas.
Very nice, Icemilkcoffee. "The Party of No Ideas."
I'm with icemilk on this. Practical solution and one that fixes two birds with one splint. (splint cost: $5, because we are no longer plumping up insurer's books)
I do not think that we have the money in a political will sense right now, no offense, bbe, :), and that this is the underlying real problem with the economy right now :the insolvency of the federal government because the political classes could not get the American people to chose between Entitlements and Empire; I have a piece at the Von Mises site on this point.
Absent what Saturn's numbers, which are nice, ;), demosnstrate what would be a politically unsupportable change in Social Security and Medicare benefits, no one will be willing to buy Treasuries in a fairly short time horizon, because investors and especially foreign governments/central banks will look intoto the future and see a political system that has made promises that it knew it could not keep in real/purchasing power economic terms, which means that to avois a default of the U.S. Federal Government there must be a near or acutal hyperinflationary purchase of Treasuries by the Federal Reserve System at some time in the not too distant future.
I believe that this death spiral is now upon us.
I have a post here on the Federal Insovency Crisis,1987-2008, that makes what I think is the key point that the real functionality of the Greenspan Put was to prop up asset prices to blind people here and at least as importantly abroad to the fact of the insovency of the Federal Government, generated by an unwillingness to chose between Entitlements and Empire, which is bbe's point, and that this unsustainable situation is now entering its terminal phase, is totally dynamically unstable, and that the Great Powers understand this, and have fdone so for quite some time, especially the Russians, and are now rapidly ruminating on how to re-order the global system on a non American-centric basis.
Very good point about the costs and cuts needed to restore solvency, or the loss of empire per bbe's point. That is the choice.
We are about to have to chose, I believe, much more quickly than the conventional wisdom has understood because the conventional wisdom does not integrate economics with the Great Power politics of the dollar's role as a reserve currency, which by definition depends on the credible valuation of Treasuries, which is not going to be there absent a total Brazil style crises and/or a massive destabilizing retrocession of U.S. power oversees, because we have had a decadent and decayed power elite for the last thirty years. rated plus for the numbers.