by Art Kelly

Desperate Democrats, facing the increasing likelihood of defeats in the 2010 elections, have tried to strike back with claims that Republicans want to weaken or even eliminate Social Security.

Washington Post political analyst Chris Cillizza writes:

"Democrats, faced with a worsening national political climate and daunting historical midterm election trends, are turning to Social Security as an issue where they believe they can score political points and set the stakes of what a Republican-controlled Congress would look like.

"At least a half-dozen Democratic House candidates as well as several Democratic Senators in tight re-election races have featured claims that the GOP wants to either privatize or eliminate the retirement plan entirely in new television ads, and party strategists promise there are far more commercials to come."

Among the Democrats who are trying to use Social Security as an issue against Republicans include President Obama, Senators Harry Reid (NV) and Michael Bennet (CO), and Representatives Gabrielle Giffords (AZ), Ben Chandler (KY), Allen Boyd (FL), Earl Pomery (ND), and Joe Donnelly (IN).

In the next two months, many other Democrats are likely to also use this tactic.

The independent FactCheck.org website flat out called these Democratic statements "not true."

An example of how irresponsible liberals can be on Social Security is an article in Politico by Senator Bernie Sanders (VT), an independent socialist who caucuses with the Democrats, which stated in part:

"The truth is that the Social Security Trust Fund has run surpluses for the last quarter century. Today's $2.5 trillion cushion is projected to grow to $4 trillion in 2023. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO), experts in this area, say Social Security will be able to pay every nickel owed to every eligible beneficiary until 2039.

"Got that? In case you don't, let me repeat it. The people who have studied this issue most thoroughly and have no political bias report that Social Security will be able to pay out all benefits to every eligible beneficiary for the next 29 years."

The facts are exactly opposite of what Sanders claims.

As reported in a recent issue of this newsletter, for many years, Social Security surpluses have been used to finance the general operations of the federal government.  In return, the Trust Fund was given non-negotiable IOUs. 

The CBO clearly states the IOUs in the Trust Fund "are mainly accounting mechanisms and contain no economic resources."

And the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) explains, "The holdings of the trust funds are not assets of the Government as a whole that can be drawn down in the future to fund benefits. Instead, they are claims on the Treasury…The existence of large trust fund balances, therefore, does not, by itself, increase the Government's ability to pay benefits."

The payroll tax will not produce enough revenue to pay full Social Security benefits this fiscal year and next year, and then permanently after 2015.  At that time, according to the Social Security Trustees Annual Report, the amount owed the Trust Fund will be between $3.143 Trillion and $3.487 Trillion, depending on the economy (in current dollars). 

Liberals have defended the use of Social Security surpluses for NON-Social Security purposes.  Conservatives have advocated that Social Security surpluses be saved, not spent.  

Two bills have been introduced to stop the raid on the Trust Fund: 

The Social Security Preservation Act, HR 219, by Congressman Ron Paul (TX) and 18 cosponsors, to require the Trust Fund to contain real assets, such as certificates of deposit in FDIC-insured institutions.

The Savings for Seniors Act, HR 1712, by Congresswoman Marsha Blackburn (TN) and 22 cosponsors, to require Social Security surpluses to be saved in a special account and not spent on the general operations of federal government.

All of the sponsors and cosponsors of these important bills are Republicans.