Quote:
Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
If you follow my link, you will see the assertion that Social Security did not run a surplus until 1983, and that the surpluses were small for another decade after that.
|
I think I just misinterpreted your use of the word disregard. I took it to mean that if you exclude the SS surplus the deficit is smaller. you meant it to mean that calling the current deficit not high requires one to ignore the fact that its nominal size is reduced significantly by the ss surplus.
regardless of what was meant, when ss was running a deficit it was off budget. around 1986, after it was clear it would be in surplus, it was put on-budget, so congress could claim smaller deficits.
and we could go on at length about which treatment is appropriate. on one hand is the "off-budget, because it's a separate program that creates future obligations. on the other is "on-budget, because it's a government program overall reflects current spending and taxation, and will continue to do so." While I'm sure budget scoring debates fascinate everyone here, I'll leave my position only as one favoring off budget, because we know now with almost mathematical certainty what each year's future liabilities are under current law, and that the future assets (that is, expected tax revenues), regardless of certainty, are insufficient to meet it. But, I have two checking accounts, one for big purchases, so perhaps I'm wrong
