Dear John: Your story about the Social Security surplus being lent to the US government was very informative.
Whatever happened to Al Gore’s lockbox?
Wasn’t that going to be the mechanism that would protect Social Security for the generations to come?
It’s laughable to hear every new idea that our politicians come up with when they run for office. If the government really wants to protect Social Security for our children and grandchildren, just raise the retirement age.
Why penalize the rest of the working public by continuously raising the wage ceiling? I am retired now and paid into Social Security for 43 years.
Based on my benefit, I will get my money back in approximately 11 or 12 years. There aren’t enough people going to work today full time to sustain funding for the system going forward. Rather than putting the responsibility on fewer workers, doesn’t it make all the sense in the world to delay benefits for the future generations? H.B.
Dear H.B.: The most logical reason for changing the age for receiving Social Security benefits is longevity. People just live longer these days than they did when Social Security was instituted in 1935.
Look, I understand that people don’t want to work any longer than they have to. But the fact that retirees today can easily collect for 20 years to 25 years is what will eventually bankrupt the system.
But the real problem is the so-called Social Security Trust Fund, which is an oxymoron if ever there was one. The money isn’t in a lockbox or a vault or in some bunker in North Dakota.
That money exists only on the government’s ledger. The Social Security Administration allows the US Treasury to borrow the money under the assumption (and blind faith) that it will get the dough back some day.
And it will — maybe, probably, we hope — if the government doesn’t continue to run enormous deficits forever.
What’s more likely to happen is that the debt to Social Security will simply be eliminated through the stroke of a computer entry — the Treasury will print additional money and pay Social Security back with the new bills.
And it will hope the world doesn’t realize that it just stoked massive inflation.
The other thing I find hilarious — in a warped sort of way — is the idea that people should be allowed to invest their own Social Security funds.
That’s laughable because the money doesn’t really exist.
Now, follow the bouncing ball on this one.
Let’s say I want Social Security to send me $1,000 because I want to invest it myself. In order to get $1,000 to me, Social Security would have to sell $1,000 worth of the government bonds it got in return for my cash.
That means the Treasury — which issued that $1,000 in government bonds to SS in return for my cash — will have to go out into the financial markets and borrow $1,000 to replace the $1,000 it sent me so that I can invest the money “on my own.”
And round and round the money goes until — as in a game of three-card Monte — someone says, “Whoa, what’s going on here?”
I’m glad you will be getting your money back soon.
Some of us, I’m afraid, won’t be so lucky.
Dear John: Forgive me, I was skimming your column and thought you were talking about US currency being a big con — with no inherent value other than people thinking it has value — not bitcoin.
What would make me think that?
It’s not as if the government can just decide to create new greenbacks out of thin air because they want to, or create fake jobs using statistics.
It’s not as though Obama can just make laws without Congress, or that affordable health care would cost twice as much as unaffordable health care.
It’s good to know bitcoin is the only scam going on. Whew! Chris from Brooklyn
Dear Chris from Brooklyn: I’m slapping my knee in hysterics at the way you cleverly changed the subject from bitcoins as a scam to the US dollar.
That’s what happens when you merely skim my column and don’t read it fully. Get that ADD checked right away.
The difference, of course, is that no matter how much our politicians try to destroy the integrity of the dollar, the currency still has actual things backs it up.
Sure, a lot has to do with confidence. But there are also buildings and mineral deposits and Air Force One and Mount Rushmore.
Hell, we could sell Alaska or one of the Hawaiian Islands if we needed to pay off debt.
What do bitcoins have backing them up? Nothing except the gullible belief of enthusiasts.
In fact, I think from now on bitcoins should be called “bitcons” Yep, bitcons it is.