It is worth noting that Social Security is currently running a large surplus and is projected to continue to run annual surpluses for more than two decades into the future. The Social Security trustees projections show that the fund's trust will be able to support all scheduled benefit payments for nearly forty years into the future. If Social Security benefits are cut, without any corresponding reduction in the tax rate (which is exactly Mr.
Greenspan's recommendation), then this would mean that Social Security taxes are being used to finance the general budget, not Social Security.This point is especially important in this context, since Mr. Greenspan had chaired the 1982 Commission that proposed a set of Social Security tax increases that were designed to build up a large surplus to help defray the costs of the baby boomers' retirement in later years. In other words, Mr. Greenspan's argument was that itwas desirable to raise Social Security taxes above the levels needed to support the program in the eighties, nineties, and zeros, so that the tax rate would be somewhat lower than would otherwise be necessary in the twenties and thirties. If benefits are now cut below the levels that had been scheduled, then it breaks the link between Social Security taxes and Social Security benefits. Social Security taxes were simply used to finance the general budget.
The Social Security tax is highly regressive because it only applies to wage income and it is capped at approximately $85,000, so that wage income above this level is not subject to the tax. It is extremely unlikely Congress ever would have approved such a regressive tax to support the general budget. It would have been appropriate to note, in describing Mr. Greenspan's proposal, thatthe cumulative surplus in the trust fund is now approaching $2 trillion. This would give readers an idea of the extraordinary deception involved in proposing to cut Social Security benefits as a way of reducing the federal budget deficit.
