Trust Fund, Baby: On Paris Hilton and Social Security
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.

Glenn Francis/
PacificProDigital.com
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:
[...]
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.

Salon.com
Comments
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.
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.
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.