It's complicated. Jackson firmly makes the case that Social Security payouts have reached the "tipping point" beyond which the program pays out more than it takes in. But he glosses over the key point, which is that the Social Security program ITSELF is not the cause of this shortfall. The program is required by law to be self-financing, and its trust fund has built up a HUGE surplus over the years. The government has depleted this trust fund to spend the money on OTHER programs. So, yes, Jackson is correct that the government must now borrow money to cover the shortfall, and that does contribute to the deficit. But it's not Social Security that has contributed to the deficit; it's the spending of Social Security money on other programs!

The authors failed to take into account why there is a short fall and borrowing to cover expenses at SS. By doing so they have grossly misled the reader into thinking that SS is NOT self funded. If the politicians would stop treating SS like a slush fund to give welfare to corporations, the fund would be completely solvent forever.

I generally trust FactCheck and the work they do and expected this to be very much true, but the more I read comments and other links, the less I am convinced this is entirely accurate. This article does not do justice to the legal boundaries that make up the fund -- it dismisses that claim in a casual remark: "except in a very narrow, legalistic sense" without engaging the implications. In fact, that legal boundary essentially means all that could happen is that the Government fails to meet is Social Security obligations -- my understanding is that it means that the Government is barred from incurring deficits to pay for them (except possibly my amending the law). An expected (and probably real) deficit in the social ... More »

USA Today has the correct analysis: SS's only problem is that the government has in the past borrowed so much money from it to paper over budget busters (starting with the Vietnam War) that now paying what it owes is daunting. It's like blaming the folks who Madoff scammed because he can't pay them what he owes.

Every once in a while, FactCheck gives up it's objectivity to side with some of it's very Republican founders. This article seems to be of that genre. The article ignores the past history of social security where actuarial taxation rates exceeded payouts, and the excess funds were put into treasury bills to pay for future years when expenditures would exceed collections. It quotes and implicitly blames all Democrats for all perceived problems, though Republicans have been long term opponents of social security. It ignores the relatively minor fixes available to prevent the shortfall foreseen 30 years into the future. It ignores major real causes for the federal deficit which includes wars of choice, huge tax cuts for the ... More »

Excellent report from FactCheck.org, which debunks the claim that Social Security doesn't contribute to the deficit. It exposes misleading statements from a number of Democrats like Sen. Richard Durbin and Sen. Chuck Schumer -- and points to solid factual evidence to back its points. I found this report to be thorough, fair, well-sourced and informative, as is usually the case with work from this publication. A great public service from a fine nonpartisan organization.

Others have explained the major problem with this "FactCheck," namely that it ignores the huge surpluses that have been built up.

Annenberg Public Policy Center produced bad journalism in this instance for the reason that the seeds of its own bad argument are contained in the following text: "Don't be confused by the fact that the trust funds are projected to continue growing for several more years. That's because Treasury must still credit interest payments to the funds on the borrowings from earlier years. But unless taxes are increased or other spending is cut severely, the government will have to borrow from the public to pay the interest that it owes to the trust funds." That is a whole different matter than denying that Social Security itself is running red ink. Social Security pays for itself and the Social Security system is not responsible for ... More »

This is journalism of the worst kind. It's skewed opinion masquerading as factual and impartial. It's positioned as a fact-check piece but in reality cherry picks the facts in order to support its stated premise. The fact is that Social Security still presently has a positive trust fund balance. To assert that Social Security adds to the deficit is to accept a flawed logical argument that would also force the conclusion that any person who deposits money in a bank that then later generates losses shares in the responsibility for said bank's loss with each trivial withdrawal they make. The argument that Social Security is, in any way, responsible for increases in the deficit is obviously fallacious -- Social Security doesn't ... More »

We can split hairs regarding Social Security contributing to the deficit or we can take an unsplit hair and go back to the original legislation which says Social Security will be a self supporting Act. Funded by the withholding of contributions from employees and employers. Secondarily, the surplus funds are invested in Treasury Bills which is where the Federal Government taps into those surplus funds or borrows them. Now , if this adds to the deficit, that is not due to the Social Security Fund being short. Social Security in its many revisions still has assets to pay out to retirees until 2037. Granted there are problems ahead that need to be addressed quickly, but not by demonizing Social Security in stating it ... More »

By cleverly failing to take into account all the money that Social Security has lent to the government over the PAST decades, allowing larger spending in other arenas, the author sets up SS as a mere drain on future budgets. But it's unfair to hold SS accountable for politicians in previous years using its trust fund as a slush fund. Any amounts being paid back to SS because of previous borrowing may add (not majorly) to our current and future fiscal challenges, but it's not a structural problem with SS, rather a problem of past politicians living beyond their means. As much as I appreciate the fact checking in the article, the overall slant is wildly misleading.