Post by lasher on Apr 6, 2008 3:41:59 GMT -6
We're told we'll need to start dipping into the Trust Fund in 2017. By 2041 the Trust Fund will be exhausted, & SS won't be able to pay the benefits they promised.
These are Orwellian times. The first thing you should do, when people try to sell you economic predictions, is to check their figures.
In the case of SS, it's easy to do. All the figures under discussion come from one place - the SS Administration's yearly Trustees' report, & they very helpfully post their reports on the web.
Each year the Trustees make 3 forecasts charting the predicted state of SS financing out 75 years into the future. These forecasts are based on assumptions about future population, longevity, productivity, GDP & so on.
There's the "Low-Cost Forecast". This is the best-case scenario - the best they expect the economy to be able to do.
There's the "Intermediate Forecast." This is supposedly what's most LIKELY to happen, & all the numbers you hear in the media come from this forecast.
Finally, there's the "High-Cost Forecast." This is the worst-case scenario; the worst the economy could do.
So, three forecasts, & the intermediate forecast is used for all public pronouncements on SS. This is where the numbers predicting SS shortfall come from.
OK, so what?
Bruce Webb has been monitoring the Trustees' forecasts for 10 years, & he's discovered a startling fact. Nearly every year, the real numbers hit the LOW-COST FORECAST. That's right. Real economic performance most closely matches the Trustees' BEST-CASE scenario.
And what result does the low-cost forecast give us?
Seventy-five years of fully-funded SS plus a Trust Fund surplus in the trillions.
The table on his web page isn't formatted well, so I'll reproduce the essence here: The Trustees' growth forecasts for the next year under the Intermediate & Low-cost assumptions, then the actual percentage growth of that year:
1997
Int-Cost Forecst 2.5%
Low-cost Forecst 3.2%*
Actual 3.8% (+.6 better than low-cost)
1998
Int-Cost Forecst 2.5
Low-cost Forecst 3.1*
Actual 3.9 (+.8)
1999
Int-Cost Forecst 2.6
Low-cost Forecst 3.4*
Actual 4.0 (+.6)
2000
Int-Cost Forecst 3.5
Low-cost Forecst 3.9*
Actual 5.1 (+1.2)
2001
Int-Cost Forecst 3.1*
Low-cost Forecst 3.5
Actual 1.0 (-2.0 worse than int-cost)
2002
Int-Cost Forecst .7
Low-cost Forecst 1.6*
Actual 2.4 (+.9)
2003
Int-Cost Forecst 2.9*
Low-cost Forecst 3.8
Actual 3.1 (+.2)
2004
Int-Cost Forecst 4.4*
Low-cost Forecst 4.9
Actual 4.4 ()
2005
Int-Cost Forecst 3.6*
Low-cost Forecst 3.9
Actual 3.6 ()
2006
Int-Cost Forecst 3.4
Low-cost Forecst 3.8*
Actual 4.7 (+.9)
2007
Int-Cost Forecst 2.6*
Low-cost Forecst 3.4
Actual 2.2 (Prelim) (-.4)
Average Int-Cost 2.89
Average Low-cost 3.5*
Average Actual 3.47
There you have it. In 6/11 years, the real numbers come in BETTER THAN the low-cost forecast (the supposedly "optimistic" one). On average, the real numbers essentially match the optimistic forecast.
This means fully funded SS 75 years out, & trillions of surplus in the Trust Fund.
So forget the private accounts v. increased payroll tax debate. Instead, ask yourself -
Why isn't the media analyzing the Trustees' reports & bringing you this information? Why do all the news accounts discuss the "shortfall" as if it were set-in-stone gospel, certain to occur?
Why don't they even tell you that these are 75-year economic forecasts, & discuss the likely accuracy of 75-year economic forecasts?
Why hasn't anyone in Congress noticed that the Trustees, on average, can't accurately forecast the NEXT year, let alone the next 75? Don't our reps have staffers whose job it is to follow these things? Why aren't they minding our shop? Why do they all seem to take the existence of the "problem" for granted?
I'll tell you what I think. Eleven years of economic data comes in too suspiciously close to the low-cost forecast. I think the low-cost forecast represents the real forecast, and the intermediate forecast is ratcheted under that to produce the crisis scenario certain actors wish to sell us.
I believe we're being conned, & that some in the media & in Congress know we're being conned.
www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x3092956#3110541
These are Orwellian times. The first thing you should do, when people try to sell you economic predictions, is to check their figures.
In the case of SS, it's easy to do. All the figures under discussion come from one place - the SS Administration's yearly Trustees' report, & they very helpfully post their reports on the web.
Each year the Trustees make 3 forecasts charting the predicted state of SS financing out 75 years into the future. These forecasts are based on assumptions about future population, longevity, productivity, GDP & so on.
There's the "Low-Cost Forecast". This is the best-case scenario - the best they expect the economy to be able to do.
There's the "Intermediate Forecast." This is supposedly what's most LIKELY to happen, & all the numbers you hear in the media come from this forecast.
Finally, there's the "High-Cost Forecast." This is the worst-case scenario; the worst the economy could do.
So, three forecasts, & the intermediate forecast is used for all public pronouncements on SS. This is where the numbers predicting SS shortfall come from.
OK, so what?
Bruce Webb has been monitoring the Trustees' forecasts for 10 years, & he's discovered a startling fact. Nearly every year, the real numbers hit the LOW-COST FORECAST. That's right. Real economic performance most closely matches the Trustees' BEST-CASE scenario.
And what result does the low-cost forecast give us?
Seventy-five years of fully-funded SS plus a Trust Fund surplus in the trillions.
The table on his web page isn't formatted well, so I'll reproduce the essence here: The Trustees' growth forecasts for the next year under the Intermediate & Low-cost assumptions, then the actual percentage growth of that year:
1997
Int-Cost Forecst 2.5%
Low-cost Forecst 3.2%*
Actual 3.8% (+.6 better than low-cost)
1998
Int-Cost Forecst 2.5
Low-cost Forecst 3.1*
Actual 3.9 (+.8)
1999
Int-Cost Forecst 2.6
Low-cost Forecst 3.4*
Actual 4.0 (+.6)
2000
Int-Cost Forecst 3.5
Low-cost Forecst 3.9*
Actual 5.1 (+1.2)
2001
Int-Cost Forecst 3.1*
Low-cost Forecst 3.5
Actual 1.0 (-2.0 worse than int-cost)
2002
Int-Cost Forecst .7
Low-cost Forecst 1.6*
Actual 2.4 (+.9)
2003
Int-Cost Forecst 2.9*
Low-cost Forecst 3.8
Actual 3.1 (+.2)
2004
Int-Cost Forecst 4.4*
Low-cost Forecst 4.9
Actual 4.4 ()
2005
Int-Cost Forecst 3.6*
Low-cost Forecst 3.9
Actual 3.6 ()
2006
Int-Cost Forecst 3.4
Low-cost Forecst 3.8*
Actual 4.7 (+.9)
2007
Int-Cost Forecst 2.6*
Low-cost Forecst 3.4
Actual 2.2 (Prelim) (-.4)
Average Int-Cost 2.89
Average Low-cost 3.5*
Average Actual 3.47
There you have it. In 6/11 years, the real numbers come in BETTER THAN the low-cost forecast (the supposedly "optimistic" one). On average, the real numbers essentially match the optimistic forecast.
This means fully funded SS 75 years out, & trillions of surplus in the Trust Fund.
So forget the private accounts v. increased payroll tax debate. Instead, ask yourself -
Why isn't the media analyzing the Trustees' reports & bringing you this information? Why do all the news accounts discuss the "shortfall" as if it were set-in-stone gospel, certain to occur?
Why don't they even tell you that these are 75-year economic forecasts, & discuss the likely accuracy of 75-year economic forecasts?
Why hasn't anyone in Congress noticed that the Trustees, on average, can't accurately forecast the NEXT year, let alone the next 75? Don't our reps have staffers whose job it is to follow these things? Why aren't they minding our shop? Why do they all seem to take the existence of the "problem" for granted?
I'll tell you what I think. Eleven years of economic data comes in too suspiciously close to the low-cost forecast. I think the low-cost forecast represents the real forecast, and the intermediate forecast is ratcheted under that to produce the crisis scenario certain actors wish to sell us.
I believe we're being conned, & that some in the media & in Congress know we're being conned.
www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x3092956#3110541