Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

allenwsmithphd

(6 posts)
125. The 1983 Social Security "Fix"
Wed Apr 25, 2012, 11:59 AM
Apr 2012

Amazingly, most Americans are not even aware of the Social Security Amendments of 1983, and how they laid the foundation for the greatest fraud ever perpetrated against the American people by their own government. In 1982, President Reagan appointed Alan Greenspan to head up a commission to study Social Security and make recommendations for changes. The Greenspan Commission warned that Social Security would face major funding problems when the baby boomers began to retire in 2010. To avoid those problems, the Commission proposed a hefty payroll tax hike that would require the baby boomers to prepay the cost of their own retirement. Prior generations had been responsible only for paying the cost of their parents’ retirement benefits. However, once the Greenspan recommendations were enacted into law in 1983, the baby boomers were required to pay for theirs parents’ benefits, which was customary, plus pay enough additional tax to prepay most of the cost of their own benefits, which was not customary. The net result is that the baby boomers have already paid for their benefits.

The plan was to save the surplus revenue that would be generated by the 1983 tax increase, over the next 30 years and invest it in public-issue marketable U.S. Treasury bonds, which are the safest investment in the world. If that had been done, the trust fund would today hold $2.6 trillion of “good-as-gold” marketable U.S. Treasury Bonds, which could be sold by the Trustees, in the open market, at any time in order to raise cash with which to pay benefits. It was a good plan, but it was not followed. Because the Reagan income-tax cuts were unaffordable, by 1983, the Reagan administration was desperate for a new source of revenue. It would have been politically difficult for Reagan to have called for a repeal of his income tax cuts, so he found another way to solve his revenue problems. He appointed Alan Greenspan to chair a commission on Social Security solvency. Greenspan was very effective in convincing the public, and Congress, that it would be a noble thing to increase the payroll tax in order to build up a large reserve which could be used to fund benefits for the baby boomers. How could anyone oppose such a tax increase? Is it possible that Greenspan’s later appointment to the coveted post of Federal Reserve Chairman was a partial payback for the role Greenspan played in solving Ronald Reagan’s revenue problem?

There is no way to know whether Reagan and Greenspan intentionally planned for things to work out the way they did, or whether the looting of the trust fund just evolved naturally. But what actually happened to the $2.6 trillion in surplus Social Security revenue, generated by the 1983 payroll tax increase, is indisputable. Every dollar of that money was deposited into the general fund and used for general government operating expenses. None of it was saved or invested in anything. The government simply took the money and replaced it with non-marketable government IOUs that are worthless in terms of paying benefits to anyone. Over the past 30 years, the government has misled the public into believing that those IOUs are real bonds, just like the one’s held by the Chinese and others. But they are not real bonds. They are IOU’s that are an accounting record of the spending of $2.6 trillion in Social Security money which was mostly used to fund the Reagan income tax cut. In essence, taxes paid by working Americans through the regressive payroll tax were used to replace the revenue lost by giving income tax cuts to the very rich.

Allen W. Smith, Ph.D.
Professor of Economics, Emeritus
Eastern Illinois University
Email: [email protected]
Phone: 1-800-840-6812
Website: www.thebiglie.net

P.S. If you would like more information on the “great Social Security theft,” please visit my website at www.thebiglie.net where you can download a free copy of my book, “The Looting of Social Security: New release of the book “they” didn’t want you to read.”

Great. And if Obama decided he wanted to redeem all those investments tomorrow, how would he? joeglow3 Apr 2012 #1
Your comment makes no sense. TheWraith Apr 2012 #3
You know the point I am making and are intentionally ignoring it. joeglow3 Apr 2012 #46
Apple, meet orange. Scuba Apr 2012 #79
Cop out joeglow3 Apr 2012 #82
No, I'm saying that your point is not a point at all. It's nonsense. TheWraith Apr 2012 #152
The Trustees don't control them Yo_Mama Apr 2012 #128
He doen't appear to be interested in his thread anymore. ronnie624 Apr 2012 #132
I only wish these 'investments' were called debt on the opposite side of the ledger lacrew Apr 2012 #37
"who pays this off? We the people." Not exactly. The money was borrowed from workers, HiPointDem Apr 2012 #39
So this will come from our non-existent income tax surplus? joeglow3 Apr 2012 #47
Interesting how you ignore what I said and change your argument. First it was that "we the people" HiPointDem Apr 2012 #50
I agree liberalmike27 Apr 2012 #64
I just responded to liberalmike27 Apr 2012 #52
The SS trust fund is not in "US treasury bonds". n/t PoliticAverse Apr 2012 #2
Correct - if "is not" means "is". closeupready Apr 2012 #4
Um, yeah, it is. It's required to be by law. TheWraith Apr 2012 #5
Nope. The Social Security trust fund is not in "US Treasury Bonds"... PoliticAverse Apr 2012 #10
They're bonds... issued by the US treasury. TheWraith Apr 2012 #11
The 'legal protecton' issue is a red-herring. Since the securities are an internel-debt obligation PoliticAverse Apr 2012 #13
Congress could of course abolish Social Security. TheWraith Apr 2012 #19
Yep, the real problem is they don't want to pay the money back. bemildred Apr 2012 #6
Are you saying the government will have no financial difficulty redeeming the SS T Bonds? Fumesucker Apr 2012 #7
Assuming that we don't fuck up the debt limit, and/or crash the economy. TheWraith Apr 2012 #15
We can just print it. nt Snake Alchemist Apr 2012 #26
Bingo... sendero Apr 2012 #72
At what point do you foresee the budget being in decent shape? n/t Fumesucker Apr 2012 #51
Exactly, the SS trust fund is secure, now on to the next issue... hughee99 Apr 2012 #8
They still are pushing that meme on the MSM. I just saw one yesterday with the headline Cleita Apr 2012 #9
There's two problems with that headline. TheWraith Apr 2012 #12
Also, according to Bernie Sanders SS will still be able to pay 80% of benefits even Cleita Apr 2012 #14
Something like that. I believe the usual estimated number is 75%. TheWraith Apr 2012 #17
Let's just cut benefits by 25% NOW, then, so that seniors in 2033 can get what's been promised! Romulox Apr 2012 #89
By all means, continue acting silly and creating strawmen. nt TheWraith Apr 2012 #156
You forgot the third problem--the trust fund is SUPPOSED TO disappear eridani Apr 2012 #65
I heard that too and was surprised that it was put out there as fact. The Wielding Truth Apr 2012 #16
*Every penny* of the so-called "Trust Fund" has been spent. It's a fact that can't be ignored. Romulox Apr 2012 #18
I'm sorry, but you're completely wrong. TheWraith Apr 2012 #20
And your logic would land me, a CPA, in prison if I tried to pass that off as "accounting." joeglow3 Apr 2012 #48
Hogwash. Corporations lend between divisions and assets all the time, showing debt on one side HiPointDem Apr 2012 #69
Show me a company that pulls money out of a trust fund for retirees and spends the money. joeglow3 Apr 2012 #70
uh, all corporate retirement funds? HiPointDem Apr 2012 #71
You did not answer joeglow3 Apr 2012 #84
Plenty of pension funds are bondholders for their own company Recursion Apr 2012 #111
BS. The money "borrowed" is in T-Bills. Cleita Apr 2012 #21
That's factually incorrect. They are "special issues", not T-bills. They are not tradeable. nt Romulox Apr 2012 #41
They are very safe. The US government hasn't never, ever not paid up. Also, as another Cleita Apr 2012 #45
OK, but that doesn't contradict a thing I said. I didn't call for SS to be privatized, either. nt Romulox Apr 2012 #49
Not really. Kaleva Apr 2012 #22
No, this is also incorrect. Every dollar spent from the Trust Fund offset other potential borrowing Romulox Apr 2012 #42
Never said it reduces the national debt. Kaleva Apr 2012 #53
Intragovernmental borrowing is ultimately a wash, except for interest payments (which are below HiPointDem Apr 2012 #68
Agreed, but let's not lose sight of the underlying fact: the money has been SPENT. In Iraq. Romulox Apr 2012 #87
All of which are "investments" Recursion Apr 2012 #107
LOL at wars in Iraq, Afghanistan as "investments". Whats the ROI? Romulox Apr 2012 #129
Well, for instance, I was a Navy contractor for some of that time Recursion Apr 2012 #133
You have a real hard time with private vs. public debt/benefit. nt Romulox Apr 2012 #161
*Every penny* of your so-called "bank accounts" has been spent. MannyGoldstein Apr 2012 #28
This isn't disagreeing with me...nt Romulox Apr 2012 #40
Correct. girl gone mad Apr 2012 #55
Bank of America's obligations (SHOULD'NT) be on the shoulders on unborn taxpayers. Romulox Apr 2012 #88
But they absolutely are Recursion Apr 2012 #94
No. Private businesses are typically capitalized by investors, not taxpayers. Banks are special, Romulox Apr 2012 #95
I didn't mean literal taxpayers, I meant depositors Recursion Apr 2012 #98
Well, I did *literally mean* taxpayers, since that's what this discussion is about. nt Romulox Apr 2012 #102
We have a sovereign currency. girl gone mad Apr 2012 #56
LOL. Then just give each of us a zillion-trillion-gazillion dollars of this "sovereign currency" Romulox Apr 2012 #85
Of course there would be other complications to drastically increasing the money supply. girl gone mad Apr 2012 #159
The same is true of 401(k) plans Recursion Apr 2012 #76
401ks are really a horrible example of long term fiscal dependability. Probably the worst you Romulox Apr 2012 #86
Any invested asset has been "spent". That's the point of investing it (nt) Recursion Apr 2012 #92
401ks are NOT guaranteed by future tax payers. They have little (or nothing) in common with SS. nt Romulox Apr 2012 #97
SS payments aren't guaranteed by future tax payers, either Recursion Apr 2012 #99
Snark removed: The future stream of payments to SS beneficiaries will be from future taxpayers. Romulox Apr 2012 #100
Well, no, presumably we'll borrow to retire the intragovernmental holdings Recursion Apr 2012 #101
An economic model based on the miracle of fish and loaves, then... Romulox Apr 2012 #103
The same people we borrow from now: it's called "the bond market" Recursion Apr 2012 #104
Um, this thread is about the so-called "Social Security Trust Fund". That's created from payroll Romulox Apr 2012 #105
*facepalm* Recursion Apr 2012 #108
Facepalm backatcha. SS has a structural deficit such that it cannot pay out scheduled benefits. Romulox Apr 2012 #110
How do you see any new debt being added? Recursion Apr 2012 #113
That's right, your arithmetic is too simplistic. You're talking about new borrowing, and Romulox Apr 2012 #120
They talk as if we're not already in debt to the tune of trillions of dollars ronnie624 Apr 2012 #124
In the same sense that every penny of the mortgage money my bank loaned me was spent. lumberjack_jeff Apr 2012 #109
Except banks are private businesses who don't (normally) fund themselves via taxes. Romulox Apr 2012 #112
Different? Undoubtedly. Non sequitur? Absolutely. lumberjack_jeff Apr 2012 #116
LOL at this: "Regardless of how the borrower will come up with the cash..." That's the rub, innit? Romulox Apr 2012 #131
You're essentially saying it's impossible to save money Recursion Apr 2012 #134
Spending money and saving money aren't the same thing. It's a silly argument. nt Romulox Apr 2012 #135
if you save in a bank or investment fund you're lending your money to someone to spend. HiPointDem Apr 2012 #136
"The money"? ALL money is debt. It's irrelevant what the government spent the loan proceeds on. lumberjack_jeff Apr 2012 #145
I remember being surprised when I took a banking class... Recursion Apr 2012 #146
K&R for the truth /nt Dragonfli Apr 2012 #23
Hi, Wraith! bvar22 Apr 2012 #24
An argument to cut SS usually comes in two parts. pa28 Apr 2012 #25
Best coming to a logical conclusion argument that I have seen. Cleita Apr 2012 #31
Relax, this money can just be printed when it is needed to be paid out. nt Snake Alchemist Apr 2012 #27
Wow, got those talking points in twice in one thread Kingofalldems Apr 2012 #32
It's called reality. Ben will just fire up the presses. nt Snake Alchemist Apr 2012 #33
So your believe in a reality that Ben will be firing up the presses 21 years from now? n/t Uncle Joe Apr 2012 #35
LOL, hopefully not. Whoever is at the wheel at that point. nt Snake Alchemist Apr 2012 #36
I imagine many people subscribe to bumper stickers as their reality. LanternWaste Apr 2012 #91
So where do you think the money will come from? Be specific. nt Snake Alchemist Apr 2012 #93
OK, so you're saying Social Security is fine because we can always roll the printing presses Nye Bevan Apr 2012 #60
Kicked and recommended. Uncle Joe Apr 2012 #29
Rec. Right on MannyGoldstein Apr 2012 #30
can the trustee's sell the "US bonds" on the open market? alc Apr 2012 #34
They are included in government debt statistics. They are considered 'Intragovernmental Holdings' PoliticAverse Apr 2012 #38
Regardless of IOUs or T-bills... EdinGA Apr 2012 #43
People don't want to lift the income cap, because they don't want benefits means-tested. Romulox Apr 2012 #44
Bullshit. There is already "means testing" in the form of capped payouts eridani Apr 2012 #67
It's not my argument, so don't rail against me. Google previous DU discussions on the subject. Romulox Apr 2012 #90
Sorry--hard to keep the subthreads separate eridani Apr 2012 #153
Benefits are progressive. lumberjack_jeff Apr 2012 #118
I agree with lifting the cap and means testing. Many do not. nt Romulox Apr 2012 #130
I agree with lifting the cap. I do not agree with means testing. lumberjack_jeff Apr 2012 #144
+10000 n/t eridani Apr 2012 #154
If semantics get you there, I'm fine with that. Your suggestion would be right in line Romulox Apr 2012 #158
The Awful Truth About the Social Security Trust Fund allenwsmithphd Apr 2012 #54
"the government does not have the money to repay the money it has "borrowed" or "stolen."" girl gone mad Apr 2012 #57
Technically liberalmike27 Apr 2012 #66
Are you seriously proposing the Federal government open a deposit account somewhere? Recursion Apr 2012 #106
I wrote myself an IOU for $2 million on a piece of paper, which I placed in a safe-deposit box. Nye Bevan Apr 2012 #58
Question: girl gone mad Apr 2012 #62
I understand your point. We can roll the printing presses, so SS will always be fine. Nye Bevan Apr 2012 #63
In my view, we shouldn't bother. girl gone mad Apr 2012 #73
One goes with the other it seems The2ndWheel Apr 2012 #81
I think we can meet our energy demands with proper investment. girl gone mad Apr 2012 #160
And since you have the ability to print your own money and issue your own debt... lumberjack_jeff Apr 2012 #121
Again, that's the "roll the printing presses" argument. Nye Bevan Apr 2012 #123
Why? Because to do so devalues the existing money. lumberjack_jeff Apr 2012 #143
Debt is debt, ronnie624 Apr 2012 #127
No it doesn't. lumberjack_jeff Apr 2012 #142
We could just print the money tomorrow to pay off all US debt. Nye Bevan Apr 2012 #150
Except for the fact that future lenders would take that into account, yes. lumberjack_jeff Apr 2012 #155
Thanks for the interesting article ronnie624 Apr 2012 #163
And as soon as you become a sovereign nation, it will work for you, too. n/t Egalitarian Thug Apr 2012 #147
Because a sovereign nation can simply print the money it needs to pay benefits. Nye Bevan Apr 2012 #149
look at our newspaper this morning. spanone Apr 2012 #59
Thank you. It used to annoy the living shit out of me when I was down coalition_unwilling Apr 2012 #61
The Looting of Social Security allenwsmithphd Apr 2012 #74
Thank you very much. ronnie624 Apr 2012 #77
Well said. It also means... Recursion Apr 2012 #75
Hello! This, exactly. n/t lumberjack_jeff Apr 2012 #122
If most of the current and future taxpayer revenue ronnie624 Apr 2012 #78
It's not a fiction, but there are no assets which the government can use to pay benefits. Yo_Mama Apr 2012 #80
The government can and will use all that money being hoarded by the wealthy right now to pay. bemildred Apr 2012 #83
Government only has one asset: it's full faith and credit. lumberjack_jeff Apr 2012 #114
I dunno. Ours has some pretty cool buildings. And the Interstate Highway system Recursion Apr 2012 #115
Who's going to repo it? n/t lumberjack_jeff Apr 2012 #119
The trillions burned up in Iraq and Afghanistan haven't been "invested" in interest bearing accounts Romulox Apr 2012 #96
Yep. ronnie624 Apr 2012 #117
The 1983 Social Security "Fix" allenwsmithphd Apr 2012 #125
reagan didn't call the g-span commission to "raise money," he called it because the SS TF was HiPointDem Apr 2012 #137
I'm 45 years old. I don't expect to see a dime. Throd Apr 2012 #126
The Looting of Social Security: Pre-taxing the Baby Boomers allenwsmithphd Apr 2012 #138
The trust fund has still never had a year in deficit. I'm so tired of that lie Recursion Apr 2012 #139
Either the government will have to take money from the general budget..." HiPointDem Apr 2012 #140
Err... the whole point of this was that it's easier to borrow Recursion Apr 2012 #148
The money has been squandered on things like the Internet and Pell Grants Recursion Apr 2012 #141
The So-called Trust Fund “Bonds” allenwsmithphd Apr 2012 #151
The first year that benefits are not paid is the first year that "full faith and credit" dies. lumberjack_jeff Apr 2012 #157
The Looting of Social Security: The Code of Silence allenwsmithphd Apr 2012 #162
This message was self-deleted by its author Nye Bevan Sep 2013 #164
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Once again: The Social Se...»Reply #125