According to data released by the Social Security Administration, the Social Security Disability “Insurance” Fund* operated at a deficit during FY2013 – again. This marks the fifth consecutive year – FY2009 through FY2013 – that the Social Security Disability Fund has run a deficit.
The previous record for consecutive deficit years for this fund was four – FY1962 through FY1965, during the JFK/LBJ Administrations.
In fact, counting FY2013 the Fund has only operated at a current-year deficit for only seventeen years during its 57 year (1957-2013, inclusive) history. Those years were 1962-1965 (4 yrs), 1975-1977 (3 yrs), 1980, 1984, 1987, 1992-1993 (2 yrs), and 2009-1013 (5 years).
In fact, since the Social Security Disability Fund was created, only 3 Presidential Administrations have had zero deficits: those of Eisenhower, Nixon . . . and Bush(43). Every other Administration has had at least one year when the Social Security Disability Fund has operated at a deficit.
However, the Obama Administration is one of only two administrations in US history to have a deficit for each Fiscal Year it has been in power. The only other US Administration to manage that was the Ford Administration – and it only lasted a bit over 2 years, from Aug 1974 to Jan 1977.
Prior to FY 2009, the Social Security Disability “Insurance” Fund operated at a net surplus for fifteen consecutive years – from 1994 through 2008, inclusive. And since FY2008, the Social Security Disability Fund has lost in excess of 53% of its value – in 5 years.
The number of persons receiving Social Security Disability has also skyrocketed in the last 5 years as well – from 7,442,377 at the beginning of FY2009 to 8,936,932 at the beginning of FY2014 (1 Oct 2013). That’s an increase in the number of “disabled” of more than 20% in 5 years.
People simply have not become 20% more susceptible to disability during the last 5 years; neither has the US population grown by 20%. So I submit that something else is happening to cause this massive increase in the number of persons in the US that are “disabled” for Social Security purposes.
My guess is it’s due to something I’d call “jumping on the gravy train”, coupled with a hugely lax and compliant regulatory bureaucracy. But I guess it’s possible I could be wrong.
* – Yeah, the Social Security Administration calls this an “insurance” trust fund – just like it calls the rest of Social Security “insurance”. Bull. Everything they do are tax-supported legally mandatory income transfer programs that transfer money from workers to non-workers. Insurance my . . . eye. (smile)
Don’t believe me? Just keep working but tell Uncle Sam you want to cancel your insurance – then refuse to pay your “premiums”.
