This ain't Hell, but you can see it from here

Category: “Truth or fiction?”

  • Social Security’s Finances: Follow Up on a Question

    A few days ago, I wrote an article discussing Social Security and its finances.  In the comments, one of TAH’s regular readers (ex-OS2) asked two questions – one of which stumped me royally.

    So I got curious, and decided to poke around a bit and see if I could find an answer.

    While I didn’t find the precise answer, I did find the answer to a couple of similar and related questions.  And the questions seemed to be ones that might be of general interest, so I decided to post the answers here.

    The question I couldn’t answer was, “What fraction of Disability payments are made to those who never contributed?”  That in turn raises a bigger question:  “What fraction of Social Security recipients overall (Disability, Old Age, Survivors) fall into the ‘never contributed’ category?”

    Yes, that’s indeed possible.  Social Security pays benefits to spouses, survivors, and dependents under many circumstances.  Sometimes those beneficiaries in fact never have paid FICA taxes themselves.  But they still qualify based on the worker’s earnings history.

    As I surmised might be the case, Social Security doesn’t make it particularly easy to find this information, and I can’t say with that I found the precise answer to either the question concerning disability or the larger question for Social Security overall.  But I do think I found enough information to answer a closely-related question:  “How many people are receiving benefits based on someone else’s earnings history, and how much do those benefits total?”

    It turns out that Social Security does publish one report monthly that gives useable data here:  their monthly “snapshot” report.  The latest one I could find was for July 2016.  Apparently it takes a bit of time to get the necessary data, because August’s report doesn’t yet seem ready.

    Here are the pertinent numbers in table form.  The snapshot for July 2016 can be downloaded, in PDF format, here.

    July 2016 – Social Security Benefits Paid, Summary  Number of Beneficiaries (x 1,000) Percent of Beneficiaries  Benefits Paid (x $1M) Percent of Benefits Paid Average Monthly Benefit
    Grand Total 60,505 100.0% $74,854 100.0% $1,237
    Old Age/Survivors – Total 49,841 82.4% $63,890 85.4% $1,282
    Retirement Benefits – Total 43,831 72.4% $57,167 76.4% $1,304
    Paid to
         Retired Workers 40,817 67.5% $55,086 73.6% $1,350
         Spouses of Retired Workers 2,369 3.9% $1,660 2.2% $701
         Children of Retired Workers 645 1.1% $421 0.6% $652
    Survivor Benefits – Total 6,010 9.9% $6,722 9.0% $1,119
    Paid to
         Children of deceased workers 1,852 3.1% $1,542 2.1% $833
         Widowed mothers/fathers 134 0.2% $126 0.2% $943
         Nondisabled widow(er)s 3,763 6.2% $4,866 6.5% $1,293
         Disabled widow(er)s 260 0.4% $186 0.2% $717
         Parents of deceased workers 1 <0.002% $1 0.0% $1,142
    Disability Benefits – Total 10,664 17.6% $10,965 14.6% $1,028
    Paid to
         Disabled workers 8,861 14.6% $10,335 13.8% $1,166
         Spouses of deceased workers 138 0.2% $44 0.1% $323
         Children of deceased workers 1,666 2.8% $585 0.8% $351

     

    In looking at the table above, it’s pretty apparent that some of those individuals receiving benefits are receiving those benefits based on another individual’s Social Security record.  For disability, that is benefits paid to spouses and children.  For Old age And Survivors, that would be those benefits paid to spouses and children of retired workers.  By definition, it also includes all forms of survivor’s benefits that Social Security pays regarding deceased retirees.  All of these categories of persons are eligible to receive benefits from Social Security based on the worker’s earnings history under the proper circumstances.

    Doing the math, I came up with an approximate answer to the question for disability.  Social Security paid disability benefits to roughly 10,664,000 persons in July 2016.  Of those, 1,804,000 – or a bit more than 1 in 6 – were NOT disabled workers; the vast majority of that number (1,666,000) were children.  It’s a virtual certainly that they never paid a dime in FICA taxes.  The remaining 138,000 were disability benefits paid by Social Security to selected spouses of disabled workers; these are paid based on the worker’s qualification to receive disability benefits, and thus were due to the disabled worker’s earnings record.  However, it’s possible that some of these spouses indeed worked and paid FICA taxes at some point in their lives – so I can’t say with certainty that they “never paid into” Social Security.

    In dollar terms, these disability payments to spouses and children appear quite modest.  They represent only about 5.7% of Social Security’s total disability outlays.

    The situation is somewhat different for Social Security retirement and survivor benefits.  These payments are both more numerous and proportionally more costly than payments made to children and spouses of disabled workers.

    Spouses and children of retired workers receiving benefits from Social Security on the basis of the retired workers earnings histories totaled 3,041,000; benefits were also paid to 6,010,000 survivors of deceased workers.  The total of these categories – 9,024,000 – represents 20.6% of those receiving Old Age and Survivor’s benefits from Social Security – or just over 1 in 5.  These payments constitute approximately 15.4% of all Social Security Old Age and Survivors benefits paid.

    Summing both categories (Disability and Old Age/Survivors), it turns out that a bit less than 18% (17.9%) of those receiving benefits from Social Security are receiving benefits on the basis of another individual’s work history.  Those benefits represent 12.6% of all Social Security benefits paid.

    A caveat:  many of these spouses receiving benefits on the basis of a spousal work history indeed may have paid FICA taxes themselves.  A person can qualify for Social Security based on both their own work history and that of their spouse.  They’re allowed to choose to receive whichever benefit that is more advantageous financially.  So in many cases, the individuals would be entitled to a benefit – but a smaller one – based on their own work history.

    I hope someone besides me finds this information interesting or of use.

  • Immigration Fraud? DHS: “Not necessarily.”

    We already knew that DHS has some real problems managing immigration.  Just look at some of the issues found with in connection with the foreign-born spouse involved in the San Bernardino shooting (here and here and here and here), along with issues relating to Syrian “refugee” immigration (here and here and here and here).

    But you’d think they could get at least the “common stuff” right. Like run-of-the-mill, everyday immigration.

    Unfortunately, you’d be wrong.  From a recent news report (emphasis added):

    The U.S. government has mistakenly granted citizenship to at least 858 immigrants from countries of concern to national security or with high rates of immigration fraud who had pending deportation orders, according to an internal Homeland Security audit released Monday.

    The Homeland Security Department’s inspector general found that the immigrants used different names or birth dates to apply for citizenship with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services and such discrepancies weren’t caught because their fingerprints were missing from government databases.

    DHS said in an emailed statement that an initial review of these cases suggest that some of the individuals may have ultimately qualified for citizenship, and that the lack of digital fingerprint records does not necessarily mean they committed fraud.

    The report does not identify any of the immigrants by name, but Inspector General John Roth’s auditors said they were all from “special interest countries” — those that present a national security concern for the United States — or neighboring countries with high rates of immigration fraud. The report did not identify those countries.

    Yeah, no need to worry.  The DHS IG says that even though the individuals used an alias or other false data during application, that that “does not necessarily mean they committed fraud”.

    Really, Mr. IG?  Can I come visit the planet on which you’re living?

    So, ICE is going after these folks – right?  They’re being tracked down and prosecuted for fraud, then stripped of their ill-gotten US citizenship – right?

    Hardly.  Two have been.  Prosecutors declined to prosecute another 26.  32 remain under investigation by ICE; they’ve closed 90 investigations.  The status of the remaining, oh, 700+?  Damned if I know.

    Oh, and this might be just the tip of the iceberg with respect to the problem.  The DHS report that found the above issue indicates that digital fingerprints are missing from Federal databases for 315,000 immigrants having final deportation orders on file.  I’m guessing some of those either have or will “slip through the cracks” soon.

    Yahoo News has an article on the subject; it’s worth a read.  Don’t read it if you’re already angry or having a crappy day.

    Unfortunately, I’m guessing if you read it and weren’t already having a crappy day . . . you’ll be having one afterwards.

    Trump’s gotten a lot of grief on various issues, including immigration.  And I can’t say I necessarily like all of his positions or public statements.

    But his recent calls for increased scrutiny of those asking to immigrate to the US certainly seem to me to be on the mark.

  • “Nothing to See Here. Move Along”

    Looks like a couple of other “non-terrorist events” happened yesterday.

    Jonn’s already mentioned one of them – that “intentional” explosion in NYC, along with the discovery of a possible pressure-cooker bomb 4 streets north – that NYC’s mayor says isn’t related to either terrorism or the New Jersey bombing earlier that day.  So I’ll discuss the other.

    In Minnesota yesterday, a guy with a knife sliced and diced eight people at a shopping mall.  (All but one of his victims have been treated and released by medical authorities, and all are expected to survive.)  He was wearing a private security company uniform at the time of the attack.

    The incident ended when the low-life bastard perp was shot and killed by an off-duty cop from a different legal jurisdiction who by chance was in the mall at the time.  That off-duty cop was authorized to carry concealed, and was indeed carrying at the time of the incident.

    The low-life bastard reportedly asked at least one of his victims if they were Muslim.  He was also reportedly heard referencing Allah during his attack.

    Local authorities have so far “declined to call the attacks an act of terrorism, saying the suspect’s motive isn’t known yet.”   Gee, that seems mighty . . . nice of them.  I guess that means there’s no reason to be concerned.

    “Nothing to see here, sheeple.  Move along.”

    Yeah, I’m thinking my leg feels wet again.  And it hasn’t been raining.

  • Social Security’s Finances: Can You Say, “House of Cards?”

    There are a plethora of misconceptions out there regarding Social Security.  Some of the more common ones:

    1. I have a retirement account with Social Security.
    2. Social Security has plenty of money.
    3. I paid into the system, so I own something and am guaranteed payments.

    Plus many, many more other mistaken ideas.

    The truth is far different.  Regardless of how many people have claimed otherwise, Social Security is in effect the biggest Ponzi scheme ever run.  It has the false appearance of a retirement plan by design – indeed, that was only one of the lies told to get the US public to accept it.  But it’s not a retirement plan in any way.  If it were done by private industry, it would almost certainly be illegal.

    However, until recently I didn’t know that much about the details of Social Security financing.  Yes, I knew it had something called  “Trust Funds” (more on why the quotes are there later in this article).  But I realized I didn’t know much at all about how they worked.  So I decided to see what I could find.

    What follows is the result of that research.  This one’s rather long – so if you’re going to read it, keep that in mind.

    Overview.

    Here’s a brief overview of how Social Security operates.  It’s not complete, and is lacking some details.  But it hits the main points. It was also compiled from various documents on the Social Security Administration web site.

    1.  Social Security is funded from multiple sources; those will be further identified below, but are generally identified in footnotes and/or explanatory text here and here. Those funding inputs are mingled and “laundered” through two so-called Social Security “trust funds” – which in reality are general purpose “slush funds” that receive every dollar that Social Security takes in, and from which all Social Security expenses get paid.  Thus, everything Social Security receives goes into one of two such “pots”:  one called “Old Age and Survivors,” and a second called “Disability”.  Everything Social Security must pay out is paid from one of those two common “pots”.   Anything left over at the end of the year “rolls over” and remains in the applicable “trust fund”.

    2.  Those Social Security   slush funds    “trust funds” buy “special” Treasury securities not available to the public. These “special securities” are always redeemable at face value.  They also accrue interest annually.  (Being government debts, the interest of course comes out of other Federal tax revenues or from borrowing by Uncle Sam.)

    The Social Security      slush funds     “Trust Funds” buy these special securities on a daily basis. All Social Security expenses are paid by redeeming some of those “special” securities.

    Since the same fund is used to receive current income and pay current expenses, this means that the “trust funds” are not investment funds.  Rather, they’re merely temporary buffers – just like an interest-bearing checking account (if you can still find one of those these days).   Benefits are still primarily paid from incoming tax receipts, but because these “trust funds” have a nonzero balance there’s a time lag between receipt of taxes and outlay of those same dollars due to the “trust fund’s” providing a buffer.  The length of this time lag has varied over time and depends both on the fund’s balance and the average benefits dispersed monthly.  Currently the Old Age and Survivors     slush fund      Trust Fund has a “buffer length” of somewhat over 3 years.  The Disability      slush fund      “Trust Fund” has much less of a reserve on hand; it’s in serious trouble.

    3.  The Federal Government – not retirees – owns these “trust funds”. Technically, they are financial accounts belonging to the US Treasury.  All benefits are paid to qualifying individuals from these “trust funds”, as are other program expenses.  As noted above, it does this by redeeming those “special” Treasury securities you or I can’t buy.

    4.  Individuals receiving benefits actually own nothing. Since Social Security is a government benefit and not something you own, Congress can change qualification requirements, benefit amounts, or even cancel the program outright if it so desires.  Don’t believe me?  Well, then you might want to read the SCOTUS case Fleming v. Nestor (1960).  There’s a link to that case later in the article.

    5.  Social Security is primarily (at present, around 88% – and dropping) funded by payroll taxes on income below a certain level. These payments are not “retirement contributions”; they are taxes that are legally mandatory.  You do not have a “Social Security Account” with a calculable balance; all you have is an earning history.  That earning history is used – in a rather convoluted manner, which by design grossly favors career low-income wage earners at the expense of those earning a large income – to calculate the amount of the benefit the law deems you deserve.

    6.  Benefits are paid, as defined by law, to those who qualify to receive them. Federal law defines who qualifies and what must be done to qualify.  Qualification requires two things:  meeting an age or disability threshold, and having enough “qualifying quarters” of work under Social Security for which you’ve paid your Social Security taxes.  Currently, one calendar quarter of coverage credit is given for each $1,260 earned in a calendar year; earn $5,040 in a year, and you’ve got a year’s coverage.   That number was lower in the past.

    7.  Under current Federal law, 40 quarters of coverage over your entire working lifetime – in other words, 10 years – are all that is required to be “fully covered” and receive a benefit when you retire. Benefits based solely on age can be received as early as age 62 if not for disability, and earlier for disability.  Nonworking spouses receive benefits based on their spouse’s earning history.  These benefits continue should their spouse predecease them.

    8.  Those retiring for disability generally do not require as many quarters of “credit” under Social Security, but must have varying amount of Social Security employment “credit” based on their age.

    9.  Not all income is subject to Social Security taxes. Only the first $118,500 of earned income (the amount changes periodically) is subject to Social Security taxes; this is called the Social Security Wage Base.  This is because, regardless of income, there is a maximum possible benefit that can be paid to anyone receiving Social Security Benefits.  That maximum monthly benefit is currently $2,639 for someone retiring at their full retirement age of 66 (this will rise to 67 over the next few years).  Receiving this benefit requires earning at least the Social Security Wage Base for 35 or more years. In contrast, a person working full-time at a minimum wage job for 40 years at age 66 gets a monthly benefit of $924.

    10.  Under some conditions, Social Security benefits are taxable income. When this happens, these income taxes are returned to the applicable Social Security “trust fund” which paid them the benefit, not kept by the Treasury to pay Uncle Sam’s bills.  Don’t ask me why.

    OK, that’s a rather long overview.  Though it hits the major points, it’s missing a fair number of details.  So I think you can see already why there are so many varied misconceptions regarding Social Security.  It’s complex as hell – and we’ve been lied to about it for years.

    What Social Security Is Not.

    1.  Social Security is not a retirement plan. This is the biggest and oldest lie about Social Security – right up there with “3% of your income” being “the most you will ever pay” (see the paragraph here titled “Your Part of the Tax”).  While it was sold as a retirement plan by FDR and his cronies, it is not.  You do not own anything.  Your payments are not “retirement contributions”; they are legally mandatory taxes you must pay to avoid going to jail.  You do not have any kind of “retirement account”, nor are your payroll taxes invested on your behalf.  Rather, they’re used to pay benefits to others – currently, with about a 3 year delay between the time you pay them and the time they’re paid out. (In late 1983, that lag was around 2 months.)

    What Social Security is is an income transfer program, funded by payroll taxes, that transfers income from those who are working to others eligible by law to receive benefits.  Period.

    2.  Social Security is not property; you own nothing. I mentioned this before, but it merits repeating.  Unlike an earned pension, you have no legal property right to receive Social Security benefits because you paid into the system.  The SCOTUS ruled that Social Security was a government benefit, not a pension in which you have ownership rights, in Flemming v. Nestor (1960). (You can read the full SCOTUS opinion here.)  If Congress wants to change the rules, lower benefits, or terminate the whole Social Security program tomorrow, it can – and you’re SOL.  All you did when you paid those FICA taxes was do what was necessary to stay out of jail:  obey current tax laws.

    3.  Your benefits are not guaranteed. Congress can change the rules at any time – and indeed has several times over the life of the program.  Just ask anyone affected by the 1970s “notch” – if you can find anyone still alive who was affected, that is.  Or you can anyone who’s had to delay retirement due to the rise in Social Security retirement age.

    4.  You didn’t “pay into the plan” or “earn it”. What you did was pay your taxes as required by law.  That’s it.  You earned nothing, and there was no “plan” to “pay into”.  You pay taxes because the law says you must.

    5.  Social Security is not “insurance”. Insurance involves paying premiums in exchange for a defined payment in the event a certain event occurs.  Social security involves paying taxes required by law, along with – if you’re lucky – getting whatever benefit Congress deems you deserve when you retire or become disabled.  Big difference.

    6.  The “Trust Funds” contain investments that have real value.  Not really.  As explained above, they’re more like interest bearing checking accounts.  They earn little value – not nearly enough to pay annual benefits.

    Plus, those “trust funds” are “guaranteed” by Uncle Sam, not by real assets.  Uncle Sam is so broke these days that if it cost a quarter to take a dump he’d probably have to upchuck instead if he couldn’t find someone to loan him a nickle.

    7.  Finally, I’ll say it again: Social Security is not a retirement plan.  Bluntly, it’s an intergenerational income transfer program – or in plain language, a means of redistributing income from workers who earn it to others who in general no longer work.  In plain language, it’s a welfare program that by design provides an unearned income to elderly and disabled persons as recipients, and is funded by taxes levied on those currently employed.

    The Social Security “Trust Funds” – What They Are, and How They Work.

    OK, above there’s an overview, followed by a list of some things Social Security is not.  So, how does it work?  How does the money get from taxpayer to beneficiary?  Where does it all come from, and where does it all go?

    In what follows, I won’t be addressing Medicare; that also has a trust fund, but though there are some similarities it’s a different beast and appears to be run somewhat differently.  I also haven’t researched that one in enough detail to be able to write anything about it that would be reasonably accurate.

    The “Trust Funds”.  Social Security has two so-called “trust funds”.  The quotes are there because in reality, these are merely two temporary holding accounts – or, if you prefer, “laundry bins” or “slush funds” – that allow income to be held temporarily (and earn a bit of interest) before it is spent within a relatively short period of time.  These funds are called the “Social Security Old Age and Survivors Trust Fund” and the “Social Security Disability Trust Fund”.  (Though it’s technically in the name, I refuse to include the term “Insurance” in the name of either trust fund – because Social Security IS NOT FREAKING INSURANCE, no matter how many times people have lied through their teeth claiming that it is.  It’s a damned tax-funded government income transfer program mandated by law; neither payments nor participation are voluntary, and taxes are not insurance premiums.)

    While the two funds (Old Age and Survivors, Disability) are distinct, they both operate virtually identically.  So a single discussion of how they operate suffices for both.

    Income.  All income for Social Security is glommed together in the applicable    slush funds    “trust funds”.  It’s held there until it’s needed to pay expenses, at which point it’s spent.

    On receipt, this income is used to buy interest bearing “special” Treasury securities.  These are different Treasury securities than those available to the public.  They generally earn some interest between purchase and redemption.

    These sources of income for Social Security’s “trust funds” come in 3 basic “flavors”.  The first, and largest, income “flavor” is payroll taxes.  This is the 12.4% of all earned income below the Social Security Wage Base (for 2016, that’s $118,500; a history of the Social Security wage base can be found here) that is required to be paid as the OASD portion of the total 15.3% FICA or SECA taxes.  Since 2000, of that 12.4% of payroll income roughly 1.8% has gone to the Social Security Disability fund; the rest  has gone to the Old Age and Survivors fund.

    Yes, I did say 12.4% and 15.3%.  That’s not a mistake.  If you’re working as a payroll employee, you don’t see that much deducted from each paycheck.  However, that’s because payroll employees only pay half of that tax; their employers pay the other half.  Self-employed individuals pay SECA taxes vice FICA taxes; these “lucky” folks get boned royally, because they’re responsible for paying that full 15.3% total out of their earned income.  (The “extra” 2.90% is Medicare taxes – which are not limited to the first $118,500 of annual earned income.  Payroll employees generally only pay half of those as well, with the other half paid by their employer.  Self-employed individuals pay the full amount.)  In 2015, those OASD payroll taxes totaled nearly $795 billion in income for Social Security, divided between the two “trust funds”.

    The Social Security “trust funds” also receive interest from the US Treasury; that’s the second “flavor” of income received by these slush funds.  This is the interest earned by those “special” Treasury securities the “trust funds” buy between the time they’re bought with payroll taxes/other income and the time they’re redeemed to pay benefits or expenses.  In 2015 that amount was also significant, totaling over $93 billion – again, divided between the two “trust funds”.

    The third “flavor” of income for Social Security “trust funds” is payments Social Security receives from the US Treasury’s general fund.  Most years, this consists mainly of the return of income taxes paid on the taxable portion of Social Security benefits; those are transferred by the Treasury to the appropriate Social Security “trust fund” vice retained by the Treasury.  (As I said previously:  do not ask me why this occurs.)  There are a few other reasons why the Treasury would transfer money to Social Security (or, even more rarely, where money would flow in the opposite direction).  However, with the exception of special reimbursements that occurred in 2011 and 2012, these other reimbursements are generally dwarfed by the other types of Social Security “trust fund” income.  (In 2011 and 2012, the Treasury “made up” the 2% temporary reduction in Social Security OASD withholdings by paying the Social Security “trust funds” the difference – which was a huge amount both years.)  For 2015, these Treasury payments were around $32 billion – with returned taxes accounting for nearly 99% of that total.

    OK, that’s where the money comes from.  These “trust funds” thus have their hands in the American taxpayer’s pockets 3 different ways:  direct seizure of income (payroll taxes); interest from the Treasury (which taxpayers pay for as well, through other taxes); and diversion of income taxes paid on taxable Social Security benefits that are returned to the fund vice being kept by the Treasury (which taxpayers again must make up through paying other offsetting taxes).

    So, that’s where the Social Security “trust funds” get their coin.  Where does that money go?  Glad you asked.

    Expenses.  Like income, Social Security has three “flavors” of expenses.  The first is Social Security’s own administrative expenses.  These currently total somewhere around $6 billion annually, and come out of the “trust funds” vice the Treasury’s general fund.  When you’re talking an enterprise that takes in and spends close to $900 billion annually, that’s not really too much in the way of overhead.  It’s around 0.67% or so of income.

    The second “flavor” is reimbursements to the Federal Railroad Retirement program.  By law, Social Security and Part I Railroad Retirement are coordinated, with railroad retirees guaranteed the equivalent of Social Security as their Part I Railroad Retirement benefit. (Part II railroad retirement is funded differently, is optional – and to my understanding is actually backed with some real assets besides Treasury IOUs – just like Social Security should have been funded from day 1.)  What that means is that whenever the Railroad Retirement Old Age and Survivor and/or Disability “trust funds” have insufficient income to pay Part I railroad retirement benefits . . . the Social Security “trust funds” transfers them funds to bail them out.  That has happened every year but two since 1960 for both railroad retirement Old Age and Survivors and Disability benefits (for railroad retirment Old Age and Survivors benefits, it’s happened every year since 1958).  However, this is also a relatively small item; in 2015, that total was less than for admin expenses, coming in at a bit less than $4.7 billion – maybe a bit over 0.5% of income.

    The last “flavor” of expense for the Social Security “trust funds” is the “biggie”:  benefits payments.  In 2015, the combined benefits paid by Social Security for Old Age and Survivors benefits and Disability benefits totaled over $886 billion – exceeding payroll tax receipts by over $91 billion.  Only the other two sources of “trust fund” income (interest payments, returned taxes/other Treasury payments) kept the “trust funds” from collectively losing money for the year.  Indeed, the Disability fund DID lose money last year – bigtime.  In contrast, last year the Old Age and Survivors fund showed a net surplus.

    After all is said and done, anything not spent at the end of the year is retained in the “trust funds”.  The balance rolls over to the next year.  Last year there was a net increase in the OAS fund of around $51 billion.  In contrast, the Social Security Disability fund decreased by nearly $28 billion.

    Unfortunately, the gap I referenced above between payroll tax receipts and benefits paid is getting larger every year.  In the relatively near future, both funds will have more outgo in terms of benefits paid/other expenses than income received from all sources – hell, the Disability fund is already in that state, and has been for several years.  When that happens, the “trust fund” concerned spends down its assets to pay those legally-mandated benefits.  When the fund balance drops to zero, payments then get dramatically reduced – when that happens, then by law payments will be limited to available income  (though it’s unclear if that applies by fund or overall).

    Observations Based on the Data – and the “So What”.

    1.  Many readers may remember the late 1970s/early 1980s “Social Security Crisis”. Yeah, that crisis was real. The Old Age and Survivor’s portion of Social Security damn near went broke.

    In the late 1970s and early 1980s, the Social Security Old Age and Survivor’s “Trust Fund” went into a downward spiral.  At the end of 1983, the Social Security Old Age and Survivor’s “trust fund” was low enough that it was in real terms less than  2% of today’s balance; it had lost almost half its nominal value (and far more in real terms) from a decade before.  It had just over 1 1/2 months of average monthly benefits on hand as a reserve.  Since monthly benefits are paid by redeeming securities (and replacing them by immediately repurchasing new Treasury securities with payroll taxes received), this means that the fund was at risk of being unable to pay full benefits if the economy experienced anything but a trivial slowdown.  Absent those early 1980s reforms, Social Security would have almost certainly gone Tango Uniform (in terms of paying full benefits due) within a few years.  In contrast, at the end of 2015 the Old Age and Survivors “trust fund” had somewhere around 3 years of benefits on balance.  (And no – that does NOT mean everything is “Hunky Dory”.  Read on.)

    2.  The Social Security Old Age and Survivors “trust fund” turns over every 3 years or so. It is, in effect, nothing more than a Ponzi scheme that presently has a largish (3 years or so worth of benefits) “slush fund” acting as a 3-year buffer through which to “launder” incoming payments.  The fund has nowhere near enough interest and other income annually to pay annual benefits; those incoming payments are thus used, after being held for about a 3 year or so period, to pay benefits.  Only what ever is left over after current benefits are paid – today, only a tiny fraction of overall fund income – is retained annually to increase the “trust fund” balance.  That ended years ago for the Disability fund.  For the Old Age and Survivors fund, that necessary condition (fund increasing annually) for continued operations will be coming to an end pronto.

    3.  Today’s Social Security “trust funds” are not in any way, shape, form, or fashion funded by tax payments made decades ago. (Remember:  the Old Age and Survivors fund was nearly gone at the end of 1983 – and the Disability fund is damn near gone today.) Those payroll taxes from long ago were spent decades ago to provide bennies.  Rather, today’s “trust funds” were funded by payroll taxes paid during the past 5 years, give or take – as has historically been the case.  Take away income from payroll taxes and the whole thing comes to a screeching halt in about 3 to 4 years, maybe less.  And benefits payments keep increasing each year.

    4.  The Social Security Disability Fund is a “dead man walking”. It will run out of money (e.g., hit zero balance) within 2 years.  I’m not sure precisely what happens then; my guess is that either the Old Age and Survivors fund gets tapped to make up the difference, or perhaps disability benefits get temporarily limited to funds received – with the shortage “to be made up later” (yeah, right).  Or maybe the Treasury makes up the difference – if it can find anyone to lend it the additional money.  Dunno.

    However, any of those options is seriously “bad juju”.  The Treasury “making up the difference” increases the Federal deficit substantially.  The second option cuts bennies substantially for those receiving SSDI benefits.  The first accelerates dramatically the coming crash of the OAS fund, which is already projected to occur within 20 years (2035) as it is.

    5.  Finally: the “so what”.  Why do we care about these “trust funds” and how they’re run?  How does it affect us?

    Here’s why we should care.  When Social Security’s “trust funds” are depleted Social Security then reverts to “pay as you go” status, or PAYGO.  That means Social Security benefits payments will be limited to that which can be supported by payroll taxes alone.  Barring a change, it’s estimated that when that happens in around 20 years, income will at the time support maybe 75% of the benefits that otherwise would be paid.  That means everyone receiving Social Security benefits gets a very sudden and (for most) extremely painful 25% financial “haircut”.

    “Bad juju,” indeed.  We should have listened to folks trying to privatize the system back in the early 1980s.

    Unfortunately, we did not. And as a result, to paraphrase the words of Apu Nahasapeemapetilon:  “Oh – now (we) are truly screwed!”

  • More Evidence of Clintoon “Pay-for-Play”? Sure Looks Like It.

    I’ve written before about the Clintoon Foundation’s “interesting” financial dealings.  In fact, I’ve observed – on more than one occasion – that appearances indicate there could well be a “pay for play” component to the Clintoon Foundation’s dealings while Clintoon was SECSTATE.

    Well the news today to me seems, as Alice said in Wonderland might have put it, “Curioser and curioser”.

    While Clintoon was SECSTATE, it turns out her chief-of-staff Cheryl Mills was in reasonably frequent contact with top executives at the Clintoon Foundaton.  “Reasonably frequent” here translates to 148 phone messages for Mills from senior Clintoon Foundation executives over a 2 –year period (2010-2012).  State Department phone logs show that no other private individual or concern came anywhere close in terms of the number of contacts with Mills over this period.

    Further, regarding Mills there’s also this:

    Last week, the State Department acknowledged that in June 2012, Mills spent two days traveling to New York to interview job applicants at the foundation. The State Department said Mills “volunteered” to do so, but neither the department nor a spokesman for the Clinton presidential campaign, nor Mills’s attorney, would say whether Mills used annual leave or unpaid days to perform that work – or whether it was done on the taxpayers’ time.

    If that was done while Mills was “on the clock” as a Federal employee, that means it was done on taxpayer’s nickle.  If so, yeah – IMO that’s a serious problem on multiple levels.  Ditto if taxpayers funded Mills’ travel.

    Moreover, some additional and previously unreleased email involving Clintoon confidante and protégé Huma Abedin has also come to light.  What it contains is similarly quite disturbing.

    Specifically, the public interest group Judicial Watch obtained a number of Abedin’s emails recently.  Collectively, these emails show a pattern of high-dollar donors to the Clintoon Foundation receiving expedited access to the SECSTATE.  Abedin appears to have been instrumental in coordinating that expedited access.

    . . . the messages show Clinton aide Huma Abedin “provided influential Clinton Foundation donors special, expedited access to the secretary of state.” The documents include exchanges not previously turned over to the State Department.

    You can view the 725 pages of Abedin email recently released by Judicial Watch here if you like.

    IMO, that’s disturbing as hell.  It appears to bolster the theory that Clintoon was engaging in “quid quo pro” trading of official influence (as SECSTATE) for contributions to the Clintoon foundation.

    And that’s not all, either.  It appears a total of over 150 non-government officials representing private concerns met with Clintoon while she was SECSTATE.  The exact number appears to have been 154.

    So, how many of those private individuals have perchance “donated” to the Clintoon Foundation?  Glad you asked.

    Of those 154 private individuals, 85 – or over 55% of those individuals representing private concerns – also “dontated” to the Clintoon Foundation.  At least 40 of those individuals – or nearly 26% –“donated” in excess of $100k.  And 20 of them – or roughly 13% – “dontated” $1M or more.

    That makes the lower limit for those “dontations” somewhere north of $22M.  It’s estimated that the total “dontated” could be over $150M.

    One extreme case was that of the the Crown Prince of Bahrain, who had previously contributed $32M to the Clintoon Foundation for a “scholarship fund”.  That individual was given virtually immediate access to Clintoon in terms of getting a personal meeting with her after contacting Abedin.

    After seeing all of that, well, it’s kinda hard to avoid the conclusion that there’s a damn good chance that “pay for play” is indeed exactly what was going on.  Circumstantial?  Yeah, it is. But here, the circumstances seem persuasive as hell.

    Even so, Clintoon has her       weak-minded sycophants incapable of facing ugly reality      defenders.     Predictably, both Clintoon and her defenders say that occurrences such as these are “coincidental”.

    Yeah, right.  And Al Capone was just a savvy businessman in Chicago in the 1920s and 1930s, too.

    Clintoon and her cronies might want to remember one thing, though.  Capone didn’t go to jail for racketeering.

    He ended up in prison because investigators “followed the money”.

     

    (Edited to Add:  here’s an article from Yahoo News giving more details.  I don’t recommend you read it immediately after eating.)

     

    Author’s Note:  new or occasional readers may notice the spelling “Clintoon” and assume that is a typographical error.  It is not.  That is intentional.

    In behavior, both famous Clintoons are IMO exemplars of the stereotypical corrupt politician – and are such compelling exemplars that they appear to be near-cartoonish representations of same.  (However, though each is IMO thoroughly corrupted they do appear to be corrupted in different ways.)  Thus, referring to them as “Clintoons” simply seems apropos.

  • The USAF Is Short Pilots and Maintenance Personnel. SECAF Solution? Raise Pilot Bonuses and Pay Them to Drone Drivers.

    Jonn mentioned this in an article earlier today.  But I’ve got a bit of a different take on it than he did.

    Per this report from Fox News, the USAF is short 700 pilots, and the SECAF expects the pilot shortage to increase to 1,000 over the next few years.  The shortage is greatest among fighter pilots.

    The SECAF also indicated the service is short 4,000 mechanics.  Both shortages are causing issues.

    Now, the reason given by the SECAF for the pilot shortage is that the current deployment cycle is causing lowered quality of life among pilots, causing many to leave the service.  She also says that “airlines are forecast to be hiring a lot more” in the near-term future, which will make the problem worse soon.

    The SECAF’s proposed solution?  Increase the USAF pilot bonus to $35k annually – and pay that bonus to drone drivers also.

    Maybe raising the pilot bonus is necessary; maybe not.  At this point, I’m not really convinced  that that’s either necessary or will work.  I’m willing to listen to a good argument – but I haven’t yet heard one.

    And maybe it’s just me, but from what the SECAF’s saying . . . I just don’t “get it”.

    Per the SECAF, the biggest current USAF shortage seems to be among fighter pilots.  I thought airlines generally preferred to try and hire those with multi-engine ratings and experience flying larger aircraft – like C-17s and C-130s.  Maybe I’m wrong.

    Plus, I need an explanation of how paying drone drivers a bonus would help.  Aren’t many of them not rated to fly manned aircraft?  And even if some RPA pilots are qualified to fly manned aircraft, doesn’t my question in the previous paragraph apply?  Do airlines really go after RPA pilots?

    In short – is this bonus proposal by the SECAF something that might actually work?  Or is it a “solution in search of a problem” that will suck up money but will do little or nothing to fix the actual problem at hand?  At this point, I’m just not convinced it will work as advertised.

    If “quality of life issues due to multiple deployments” are driving this, it seems to me that a better solution to the pilot shortage problem might be for the USAF to simply train more pilots – then use some of those additional pilots to “spell” those who have done repeated deployments and/or replace those who choose to depart.  Alternatively, if instead it’s lack of flight time due to ground duty assignments that’s driving experienced pilots to “punch out” and leave the service . . . I’m not sure that a bigger bonus will work particularly well.

    Finally, I also don’t see how increasing the pilot bonus will do a damn thing to cure the shortage in maintenance personnel.  Someone needs to explain that one to me, too.  Last time I checked, you can’t fly an aircraft that’s grounded due to lack of maintenance.

    Well, Madame SECAF?  Could you perhaps enlighten us?  What are we missing?

  • You Ain’t Gonna Believe This Sh . . . .

    Looking for something to watch tomorrow night? Well, if you can’t find anything else you could tune in to Fox at 8PM.

    There you’ll be able to watch a man make a jump from an aircraft.

    From 25,000 feet.

    With no parachute, no reserve – and no wingsuit. He’s going to attempt to land in a net.

    Seriously.

    Yeah, he’s doing it in the Granola State. The location is an old movie “ranch” north of LA.

    I hope the guy makes it. Even if he is a walking example of cojones muy grandes – y un cerebro muy pequeño.

  • That’s Gotta Sting

    Guess who wants to help “Make America Great Again”?

    Obama’s Half-Brother To Vote For Trump

    Malik Obama apparently is registered to vote in Maryland.  He says that he’s planning to return to the US to vote in November.

    He also says that he has “deep disappointment” in his half-brother’s Administration.  He’s particularly bothered by the Clintoon email scandal, saying, “She should have known better as the custodian of classified information.”