Senator Simpson's Quick Budget Quiz
Monday 30 August 2010
by: Dean Baker, t r u t h o u t | Op-Ed

(Image: Jared Rodriguez / t r u t h o u t; Adapted: Leo Reynolds, Casey Serin)
President Obama is apparently content to have an abrasive and abusive senator's son sit as co-chairman of his deficit commission. We can assume that these traits were a direct result of Sen. Alan Simpson's privileged upbringing and he is not going to change now that he is in his late 70s.
However, even if the senator is not prepared to embrace norms of civility, it is reasonable to expect that he will do his homework. In order to help him in this process, here is a quick list of study questions on Social Security for Simpson as he carries through his assignment to co-chair President Obama's deficit commission. Reporters and editors at major news outlets may also want to review these questions, since it seems that they could also use some additional background knowledge on the program.
1) How much higher are real wages projected to be in 2040 than today? In other words, how much richer do we expect the average worker to be 30 years from now?
2) How did the 2010 Trustees Report change the projections for 2040 wages compared with the 2009 report?
3) If we solve the projected shortfall in Social Security entirely by raising the payroll tax, what percent of the gain in real wages over the next 30 years would have to go to pay the tax?
4) What percent of real wage gains over the last 30 years was absorbed by the increase in Social Security payroll taxes?
5) What percent of the projected long-term budget shortfall is due to the inefficiencies of the US health care system?
6) How much wealth should we expect near retirees to have to support themselves in retirement?
7) What percent of older workers have jobs in which they can reasonably be expected to work at into their late 60s?
Certainly anyone on the deficit commission should be able to answer these questions off the top of their heads, as should any of the people reporting on Social Security or deficits in the media. But for those readers who do not fit these descriptions, here are the answers.
1) According to the Social Security Trustees Report, the average real wage is projected to be 48.7 percent higher in 2040 than it is today. In other words, if our kids work 30-hour weeks on average, they would take home about 10 percent more than we do today working 40-hour weeks. Senator Simpson has been known to quip about how our children and grandchildren will be living in chicken coops, but he's just kidding, right?
As a practical matter, most workers have not seen much in the way of wage gains over the last three decades because such a large portion of wage growth has gone to those at the top: people like Senator Simpson and his co-chairman Erskine Bowles. This upward redistribution of income of this period, and the possibility that it could continue, is the reason that most people who are concerned about the well-being of future generations focus on the distribution of income. The impact of any potential increases in Social Security taxes on the typical worker's income is trivial compared to the impact of a continued upward redistribution of income.
Do you like this? Click here to get Truthout stories sent to your inbox every day - free.
2) The 2010 Trustees Report had good news on the wage front. It assumed that health care reform would slow the rate of growth of employer provided health care benefits. This means that wages are now projected to grow more rapidly since Social Security money will be diverted to cover rising health care costs. In 2009, the trustees projected that the average wages would only rise by 37.2 percent between 2010 and 2040.
This means that the changes between the 2009 and 2010 Trustees Report imply that wages will be nearly 10 percent higher in 2040 than we previously believed. Everyone saw or heard the lead item in The Washington Post and on National Public Radio: "New Trustees Report Shows Our Children Will be Much Richer." O.K., maybe they managed to overlook this part of the story, but Senator Simpson knows it.
3) Number 3 is somewhat of a trick question, since it depends on exactly the formula we use. The Trustees Report tells us that if we raise the tax tomorrow by 0.96 percentage points on both the employee and employer (1.92 percent in total), then the program will be fully solvent through its 75-year projection period. If we went this route, then it would mean that the tax increase would take up 5.9 percent of the projected wage growth over the next three decades.
But we may not want to impose a tax increase like this tomorrow. There is a huge amount of uncertainty about these projections, and the program faces no imminent shortfall. Suppose we raised both side of the payroll tax by 0.07 percentage points annually beginning in 2020 and continuing at least to 2040. Then by 2040, the rate would have risen by 1.47 percentage points on both the worker and employer. This would take up 12.0 percent of the projected wage growth over this period, leaving our children on an after-tax basis just 42.8 percent richer than we are. This doesn't quite sound like Senator Simpson's story about our kids living in chicken coops.
4) The Social Security tax increases of the last 30 years took 6.8 percent of average wage growth. This is in the same range as the portion of projected future wage growth that may have to go to higher Social Security taxes. The big problem in the story is that people have been living longer through time. If we want to enjoy a growing portion of our lives in retirement, then it will cost somewhat more money. This means that after-tax wages will grow Social Security more rapidly than would otherwise be the case.
It is worth noting that the gains in life expectancy also have not been distributed evenly. Most of the gains went to those in the top two quintiles of the income distribution.
5) The United States has by far the most inefficient health care system on the planet. We pay more than twice as much per person as people in other wealthy countries with very little to show for it in terms of health outcomes. If we had the same per-person health care costs as any other country in the world, the long-term budget projections would show huge surpluses rather than deficit.
6) Senator Simpson has repeatedly held up the image of affluent elderly getting Social Security checks. He talks of seniors driving up to their gated communities in their Lexuses. While this may describe Senator Simpson's friends, it is not an accurate description of the vast majority of seniors, most of whom rely on Social Security for the majority of their income.
This is likely to be even more true of the baby boom generation that is at the edge of retirement. Few have traditional defined benefit pensions. They have seen much of the wealth they were able to accumulate destroyed by the collapse of the housing bubble and the subsequent plunge in the stock market.
7) Senator Simpson is still working into his late 70s as is, no doubt, the case with many of his friends also. These leads many deficit hawk types to think all workers should be expected to work until 70 or even older.
However, this is not likely to be as easy for most workers as it is for Senator Simpson. Forty-five percent of workers over age 58 work at jobs that are physically demanding or have difficult work conditions.
So, there you have it: seven key facts about Social Security, the budget and the well-being of workers and retirees. Senator Simpson should know this information inside out.
But does he? Try asking him. If he can restrain his curses and insults long enough, maybe we can find out if he is qualified for the position he holds. At this point, we only know that he has a poor understanding of the anatomy of barnyard animals.

This work by Truthout is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 3.0 United States License.



Comments
This forum is moderated by software. Please allow up to 15 minutes for your comments to go live and avoid posting the same comment multiple times.
Since Simpson thinks we are
Mon, 08/30/2010 - 09:26 — sharonsj (not verified)Since Simpson thinks we are the "lesser people," I don't expect him to care much about our plight. And I fault Obama for picking this nasty piece of crap to decide the future of the elderly and disabled. Perhaps the powers that be have decided we are expendable.
Simpson is a professional
Mon, 08/30/2010 - 09:37 — Anonymous (not verified)Simpson is a professional liar, a politician. I can see him saying something like "I don't have time for facts". Obama won't send him home either. Apparently his decorum, and prostitution meets with the approval of the Republican Administration.
Social Security is our
Mon, 08/30/2010 - 09:44 — Linda (not verified)Social Security is our nation's retirement system. What other pension has a retirement age of 70, as proposed by Senator Simpson for this program? If age 70 is to be the "new normal," why not start with the pampered white collar crowd, instead of Social Security? I propose that we raise the benefit age for Congressional pensions to age 70. After all, working as a gasbag does not take as much energy as most blue-collar jobs. The politicians certainly don't need to be retired and sucking off the taxpayer tit at any age below 70.
No doubt these are the same
Mon, 08/30/2010 - 10:07 — Vic Anderson (not verified)No doubt these are the same facts imparted to the SIMP by the OWL lady before eliciting his irrational, misogynistic e-repudiation. BushCObummer'd better prepare for a Catfood-fight of CATACLYSMIC proportions for having committed the sin of commissioning this clown and his Corporate COLLABORATORS!
Raising the SS eligibility
Mon, 08/30/2010 - 10:19 — Anonymous (not verified)Raising the SS eligibility age is a bad idea. People still get old, even if they live longer. Far better to raise taxes a little as Dean Baker suggests to cover the extra years. Raising the eligibility age, it seems to me, merely allows the gov't. to use more SS money for war and other non-essential spending, while continuing the trend of redistributing wealth upward, which is already at crisis levels. America can't take much more of this crap.
Why on earth Obama would
Mon, 08/30/2010 - 10:33 — Anonymous (not verified)Why on earth Obama would want to choose an atrabilious windbag who has no idea what he's doing to head up a commission which will have a serious consequences for millions of struggling retirees only the Lord, and Obama himself know. How many more serious errors of judgment will this man make? And I ask this seriously, how can we retirees stand up as a critical mass and get rid of this fool Simpson. He is way out of his depth; he has the compassion and the humanity that we have come to expect of Republicans who believe in God AND in tenets of Social Darwinism at the same time. Apart from all its other shortcomings, Republicanism is, at root, incoherent. That's why Republicans offer NOTHING except the status quo. Simpson is only another loud-mouthed instrument of that incoherence. We should force him, politely but firmly, to seek another line of work. And Obama should wake up.
I don't mean to rain on
Mon, 08/30/2010 - 10:37 — Anonymous (not verified)I don't mean to rain on anyone's parade, but...no one is listening, we are talking to the wind...it's time to get out your tin cup and a handful of pencils.
Come now - all comments are
Mon, 08/30/2010 - 11:13 — Anonymous (not verified)Come now - all comments are stored, processed, and datamined, Information 'taint free you know. Apparently our time is. Just think , new drugs are on the horizon!
Interesting that this Social
Mon, 08/30/2010 - 11:28 — Sayward (not verified)Interesting that this Social Security decision is taking place as we observe the fifth anniversary of Katrina and remember the hundreds of thousands of displaced and forgotten New Orleanians now scattered to the winds. That's ALL of us "lesser folks", now.
Are all of us writing our Congress critters? Writing to Obama? Signing petitions? Seems as though we should give them peaceful notice before we start raising hell. Oh. Are we prepared to raise hell? Or will we continue to sit on our asses as we did through two stolen elections and the invasion of Iraq? Does Social Security hit close enough to home for us to actually commit to making our voices heard? Exactly how bad does it have to get before we take to the streets, or go out on a national strike?
"President Obama is
Mon, 08/30/2010 - 11:31 — Liced-christ (not verified)"President Obama is apparently content to have an abrasive and abusive senator's son sit as co-chairman of his deficit commission."
Yes, now, isn't this an ultimately important question? Yes it is.
Could it be because HE WANTS HIM THERE?
Could it be that Obama, positioned legislatively as a very conservative Republican, wearing the Democratic Badge, is one of the biggest liars and hoaxes to ever sit in the Oval Office?
Could it be that Obama knows how to play the RIGHT against the LEFT with such adeptness that this man will "fool" the entire nation into believing that this government is being PULLED TO the right against his will?
We've got a Master Manipulator President in office, ladies and gents!
The real deficit problem is
Mon, 08/30/2010 - 11:31 — Anonymous (not verified)The real deficit problem is not social security or even medical costs. The military/security/intelligence budget is the deficit and then some. Cut that $1.4 trillion per year to what we need and there will be plenty of money. Over 50% of the income tax - both personal and corporate - feeds inflated US security. Add to that - the average $1 million or more income person pays a lower percentage of taxes on their income than does the average middle class family. If you fix that too, you can have a tax reduction on the middle class while raising SSN tax, and still pay down the massive conservative deficit that Ron Reagan and Bush squared left us.
Since wages have declined
Mon, 08/30/2010 - 11:40 — Carl (not verified)Since wages have declined for a decade, why does anyone think they will suddenly rise for the next three decades?
We need to cut social security, but only for the wealthy working elderly. Someone making more than the national average of $38,000 a year who wants to keep working does not deserve a "retirement" check after age 65. We have millions of unemployed young people who need jobs, so they should retire. If they'd rather keep working, okay, but no government retirement check to boost their income.
For example, Senator McCain and half of Congress get a social security check, even though they already get a $140,000 a year from the government.
Why Simpson? Part of Obama's
Mon, 08/30/2010 - 11:43 — Anonymous (not verified)Why Simpson?
Part of Obama's "bipartisan"act that allows him to embrace a conservative agenda. Empty suit.
False dichotomy. Wage
Mon, 08/30/2010 - 12:28 — Anonymous (not verified)False dichotomy. Wage increases don't have anything to do with Social Security, 0% contribution does, or looting from it. Both of which must be "cut".
What Obama doesn't say. With
Mon, 08/30/2010 - 13:31 — Mike (not verified)What Obama doesn't say.
With smart people, sometimes the best way to know what they are thinking is by what they don't say.
In the last few months, has Obama said he is against increasing the retirement age? Or against anything that involves cuts? The silence is deafening.
Instead we hear Obama use the same straw-man argument about "privatizing Social Security," which is not even on the bargaining table.
Next he keeps saying he wants to "stabilize it." Why the hell does it need stabilizing? It completely pays for itself. It doesn't contribute one penny to the deficit. And has a savings account of 2.5 trillion dollars!
The only minor tweak the system needs is lifting the cap on which income can be taxed. Simple as that. If they lift the cap on all income, we might have enough money to tweak the current formula, possibly doubling the amount you receive, and or, lowering the retirement age.
But you see, none of that is being discussed because rich people would have to pay more than they do now.
This government is a wholly owned subsidiary of corporations. And these corporations have the moral integrity of a great white shark.
A) With wages basically flat
Mon, 08/30/2010 - 13:39 — Erich von Freemason (not verified)A) With wages basically flat for the last 30 or so years, where is this 48.7% increase going to come from? What do they base this projection on?
B) Any claim to know how long the SS "trust fund"* will last is, by definition, a claim to know what the inflation rate will be in the future, as the fund is nothing more than a huge fixed-rate bond. All indications are that the FED is about to crank up the presses again, as our only two choices are to let the economy crash today or wipe out the value of the dollar and then let the economy crash tomorrow. They will pick the second option.
C) The real problem for SS is manpower, not money. By 2030, there will be 80 million retired people. It will take the economic output of 1.2 people to supply the needs of each retired person. IOW, 96 million workers will be required just to supply the needs of the retired. That won't leave enough people to supply the rest of the population with what it needs.
* - there is no fund and you'd be a fool to trust it.
Well, the Republicans
Mon, 08/30/2010 - 22:41 — Anonymous (not verified)Well, the Republicans couldn't mess with SS. It'll be the Democrats who destroy it. They'll find no opposition with the Repugs, and it is their role afterall to champion the working class while selling them down the river, incrementally one step at a time. Don't you love their bipartisan nature?
How about taxing foundations
Mon, 08/30/2010 - 22:43 — JadeQueen (not verified)How about taxing foundations like the Gates Foundation? This foundation, according to the HuffPost, holds millions in Monsanto stock. It donates millions to Monsanto's own foundation, for research (Vandana Shiva). Maybe we could get billionaire gangs and their cronies to tax themselves on their moated monopoly profits. Maybe we could also get them to pledge not to take SS for themselves, while they do things like saying they are helping poor people with malaria as these people gasp in the shadows of oil-industry pollution. The gangs profit from the oil industry. Boycott and post-card the corps before they buy politicians. After is too late.
Please , Mr. Baker, explain
Tue, 08/31/2010 - 10:15 — Bang (not verified)Please , Mr. Baker, explain why the payroll tax should be increased... as opposed to removing the cap and collecting it at the current tax rate?
Why is there a maximum earned gross income, or upper threshold, on which a wage earner's Social Security tax may be imposed? If I earn $110,000 this year, I'd pay $6,621.60 in Social Security tax. If I earn $110,000,000 (MILLION) this year, I'd still only pay $6,621.60 in Social Security tax. In both cases, the corporation I work for would only have to pay $6,621.60. Corporations really get big breaks with the current scheme. If Social Security is in dire need of funding, then remove the cap and let it be funded by workers AND the companies they work for! Medicare has no wage cap imposed on earnings.... make the programs the same. Maybe then we wouldn't have to go to work with oxygen tanks attached to our walkers.
Are there any commenters on
Tue, 08/31/2010 - 12:37 — Erich von Freemason (not verified)Are there any commenters on this site whose parents taught them that it's wrong to steal?
Shame on your mothers... they didn't raise you right.
hmm...wages may be 48%
Tue, 08/31/2010 - 18:58 — undrgrndgirl (not verified)hmm...wages may be 48% higher in 30 years, but if the last 30 years are any indication, buying power will be even lower...since 1970 real wages have been stagnant and buying power has significantly decreased....