• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • Social Security: Can't We Wait Until 2037 to Solve That Problem?

    No. Heritage fellow David John explains:

    Is the Important Year to Consider 2037, 2016, or 2009?

    The year when Social Security begins to spend more than it takes in, 2016, is by far the most important year. From that point on, Social Security will require large and growing amounts of general revenue money in order to pay all of its promised benefits. Even though this money will technically come from cashing in the special issue bonds in the trust fund, the money to repay those bonds will come from other tax collections or borrowing. The billions that go to Social Security each year will make it harder to find money for other government programs or require large and growing tax increases.

    A second important year is 2009–this year. Starting now, the annual Social Security surpluses that Congress has been borrowing and spending on other programs will begin to shrink. In fact, because the recession has both reduced Social Security payroll tax revenues and increased its benefit payments, Congress will have to either find other sources to replace the money that it borrows from Social Security or shrink spending. This year, the surplus will be only about $18 billion, and although it is predicted to grow slightly as the economy recovers, no longer can Social Security surpluses be used to mask the real size of the deficit and finance other spending.

    Compared to these two dates, 2037–the year that the Social Security trust fund runs out of its special issue bonds–has little importance.

    Posted in Economics [slideshow_deploy]

    16 Responses to Social Security: Can't We Wait Until 2037 to Solve That Problem?

    1. Ryan, Louisiana says:

      I am doing my best to prepare for not having Social Security to fall back on.

    2. Randy, Mississippi says:

      I think it's time the government call this program what it really is: "So-So Security". I feel for those who rely on this program to survive for they are the one's who actually footed the bill for these crooks running the country now. They talk about fairness like they would know what that was if it slapped them in the face. Fair is across the board taxation at a rate where everyone pays the same percentage. That is seen as unfair by the politicians because they would be in the boat with everyone else instead of cheating as they do now!

    3. J.C. Hughes, Texas says:

      Here we go again. The majority Demagogue Party chooses to ignore the constitution's preamble regarding the federal government's role. A common defense is all they're to provide. Nothing more! Such security is necessary to promoting the general welfare of the people by allowing free markets to prosper and States to provide needed services. Let your congressional representatives know you've had enough of big government's destructive and overreaching power grab. They are ambassadors for their individual States and not for the Beltway mob.


    4. Pingback: » Financial News Update - 05/13/09 NoisyRoom.net: “Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. Moderation in the face of tyranny is no virtue.” Barry Goldwater

    5. Marsha, Wheeling Wes says:

      You say Social Security is broke in 2037. IT IS ALREADY BROKE it is a ruse that people say 2037. When money comes into the government it goes into the general fund not into a lock box for social security. This unfunded liability is part of the deficit. We are 1.8 Trillion Dollars in debt each year and selling our soles to other countries.

      The following is not a true depiction of figures or values; it is a metaphor of why I think the above statements are a ruse=

      So no matter were the money is coming from it is going into the general fund and is part of our debt. Using double talk and saying the money is coming into my check book (the government) is $100.00 and I (the government) owe $1000.00 to China since I borrowed it from them. They give me a loan with interest. So I pay interest on what I borrowed while I can't pay the principle to the loan so the Chinese will add the interest to my next year loan. Next year I borrow another $1000.00 and I am still in the same boat, but now I have borrowed $2000.00 plus interest. Now how much of this went to the social security to pay to my brother (the 65 year old retired American), He gets $400.00 dollars per month. Oops, I had to borrow$300.00 to pay him I did make $100.00 that may have gone to him or to department of war or to the dept transportation or to the department of education. I know; I am not sure which department it went to since it all went into the same checkbook (the federal government).

      I don't think it is broke in 2037 I think it is broke now. Washington needs to stop this double speak.

    6. Bernard M. Russelman says:

      The government created the economic timebombs of Social Security (1935) and Medicare/Medicaid (1965). These timebombs are about to go off. The country will implode. Planned or not, it will happen.

      See my website:


    7. Fred, Mcdonough GA says:

      I'm still trying to find a way not to pay social security taxes.

    8. Angela, Newport News says:

      In the 1950s Argentina investigated retirement systems. They had many models to emulate: England's, France's, Germany's, United States's. Their politicians selected the USA's social security model. By the way, we copied Germany's. By 1975, projections proved the system would be bankrupt at some time during the 1990s. Argentina's government had the courage to transfer the fund into stocks and bonds. They saved their system. The average payout for an Argentinian retiree today is 3x what an American gets, plus their plan remains solvent.

      Weren't concerned American politicians in the late 1970s also banging the drum about our own ponzi (excuse me, Social Security) scheme running out of money? Yes, I can recall that there were a few lone alarmists. But nobody paid attention to them. In the years since, neither party has had the courage or fortitude to fix this system. And those who have offered suggestions have been ridiculed.

    9. Pingback: Social Security: Can’t We Wait Until 2037 to Solve That Problem? » The Foundry « Eastaustinvoice’s Weblog

    10. Tom McKinney, Dunwoo says:

      We should all support H.R. 219, sponsored by U.S. Rep Ron Paul. It can be reviewed at http://www.loc.gov!

      Tom McKinney

      Dunwoody, Georgia

    11. Roland R., Butte, MT says:

      Old people vote in large percentages relative to their population numbers, that is why Social Security is called the "third rail" of national politics. I will vote against any politician who dares mess with my SS check.

    12. Moose says:

      I get sick everytime I think of how much money I would have in my pocket if I were allowed to invest my own Social Security taxes. As it is, I'll probably have to take a cut from Social Security if they go to means testing. Its bad enough they steal my taxes, now they want to steal my retirement.

    13. Jim Tomes says:

      There will be blood in the streets if the politicians try to cut benefits for 78 million boomers who paid into the system for the last forty years.

    14. Alvin, Washington, D says:

      Since I was seventeen, I have been paying into the Social Security System. I’m surprise to hear that when I turn sixty-five in 2037 that Social Security may possibly not be around to supplement my retirement income. The 401K saving vehicle that majority of employers have was never intended to be used for a primary source for retirement. This money will not be enough when retirees reach the age of 59 ½. But, I hope Social Security will be there to offset their income. I ‘m fortunate to be in the U.S. Armed Forces and can retire in twenty years with a pension from the federal government. However, I’m concern about retirees who depend significantly on Social Security for their retirement. It does not seem fair to pay into a system that may not be around when you retire. Our political leaders need to stop borrowing from the Social Security surplus and look at other methods for balancing the budget. We can no longer continue to rob Peter to pay Paul using the people’s Social Security surplus.

      MAJ Blackmon

      “The views expressed in this “Blog” are those of the author and do not reflect the official policy or position of the Department of the Army, Department of Defense, or the U.S. Government.”

    15. skip-houston says:

      all they have to do is raise social security taxes 2% and walla, problem taken care of, i think bama baby will address this issue next year.

    16. stephanie says:

      how can we wait we cant

    Comments are subject to approval and moderation. We remind everyone that The Heritage Foundation promotes a civil society where ideas and debate flourish. Please be respectful of each other and the subjects of any criticism. While we may not always agree on policy, we should all agree that being appropriately informed is everyone's intention visiting this site. Profanity, lewdness, personal attacks, and other forms of incivility will not be tolerated. Please keep your thoughts brief and avoid ALL CAPS. While we respect your first amendment rights, we are obligated to our readers to maintain these standards. Thanks for joining the conversation.

    Big Government Is NOT the Answer

    Your tax dollars are being spent on programs that we really don't need.

    I Agree I Disagree ×

    Get Heritage In Your Inbox — FREE!

    Heritage Foundation e-mails keep you updated on the ongoing policy battles in Washington and around the country.