The 5 Ways Congress Could Weaken Social Security If Trump Becomes President

The Social Security Administration collects payroll taxes and uses the money collected to pay benefits by way of the Social Security Trust Fund (SSTF). When the program runs a surplus, the excess funds increase the value of the SSTF. By law, the SSTF is invested in non-marketable securities issued and guaranteed by the "full faith and credit" of the federal government. These securities earn a “market rate” of interest, determined by the government.

At the end of 2014, the Trust Fund contained $2.79 trillion, up $25 billion from 2013. The government “borrows” this money. Congress continues to spend like drunken sailors on a Saturday night bar crawl. Excess funds are used by the government for non-Social Security purposes, creating “obligations” to the SSTF and thus program recipients.

However, Congress could cut these obligations by altering the law. Trust Fund obligations are considered "intra-governmental" debt, a component of the "public" or "national" debt. As of June 2015, the intra-government debt was $5.1 trillion of the $18.2 trillion national debt.

According to the Social Security Trustees, Social Security benefit payouts exceeded payroll Social Security deductions added to the SSTF for the last six years. However, due to interest (earned at a 3.6% rate in 2014) the program will run a net surplus that increases the total value of the SSTF until 2019. Then the SSTF starts to shrink.

Under current law, the securities in the SSTF represent a legal obligation that the government must honor. When program revenues are no longer sufficient to fully fund benefit payments, where does the money come from to cover that short fall?

Responsible leaders recognize
_that we must privatize Social Security because Congress will not discipline itself to be financially responsible. The current system allows Congress to mask its’ overspending so that the voters do not hold them accountable. Individual contributions need to be tied to individuals, not one collective mass that can be raided without accountability.
_that we must do something to close the gap between what goes into the SSTF and what comes out. If we don’t alter the plan now, the well runs dry sometime around 2034. Those measure include reducing benefits, raising the eligibility age, and decreasing the Cost of Living Allowance (COLA), and means testing.

Bottom Line: If nothing is done to overhaul or replace Social Security, will the Federal government will be able to honor its obligations fully to Social Security recipients?

Typical of HuffPost, this article raises bogus issues in order to smear conservatives. Addressing each of the five points:

1. Republican leaders want to privatize Social Security: First, none of the proposals I've seen mandates individuals to privatize; it is their choice. It is also their choice, if they do choose to privatize, whether or not they want their benefits exposed to the stock market. Asset allocation, to include stocks, bonds, treasuries, munis, fixed accounts, or money markets, is purely up to the individual. In any case, even if participation becomes mandatory, the risk of insovency, along with the public burden, is greatly reduced by privatizing.

2. Republican leaders want to reduce Social Security benefit amounts: This is simply a matter of reality. In my lifetime alone, given a retirement age of 65, the retirement span of the average American has increased by about 8.5 years, with more people making up that population with little increase in the number of those paying in. Another, and bigger, part of the problem is that the SocSec trust fund was decimated by liberals in order to fund social programs. All of these trends can be expected to worsen in the future.

3. Republican leaders want to increase the Social Security retirement age further: Refer to response #2. Greater life expectencies naturally require a corresponding increase in working years. Hey, it's just math, folks.

4. Republican leaders want to reduce Social Security benefit adjustments for inflation: Why shouldn't benefits accurately reflect changes in real dollars?

5. Republican leaders want to “means test” Social Security benefits: This article correctly defines SocSec as "insurance" rather than welfare or an entitlement. First, most types of insurance are most certainly tied to need; and all are actuarial, providing benefits proportionally based on the risk pool and the ability of that pool to be sustained. While many Americans "experience the insured event," the "material damages" caused by that event vary by occurrance, just as in any insured peril. As far as the author's remarks on the estate tax; nothing in our tax system constitutes outright theft more than this.

Another article from the Huffington Post completely based on their personal opinions and not rooted in Fact. The title Trump has nothing to do with the article, and the points in the article are simply wrong. Most Republicans do not want the five points as discussed. This is a blatant attempt at fear mongering using a false or extremely embellished story to create unfounded fear. Low information voters fall for this type of tripe. Go read from actual Republicans if you want to find out what they actually believe. This story is the equivalent of saying Democrats want to overthrow our constitution with communism. Complete crap.