Backed by pollsters, commentators have been busy consigning Texas Gov. Rick Perry to the also-rans in the contest for the Republican presidential nomination. Perry may have shot himself in the foot on his debut by being so eager to criticize Social Security as a "Ponzi scheme." In his 2010 book Fed Up! Our Fight to Save America from Washington, he referred to Social Security as "a crumbling monument to the failure of the New Deal," so it is clear that Perry thinks it needs reform. But how? Clearly he hadn't done his debate homework, as he wasn't able to repulse former Gov. Mitt Romney's questions on how he would unravel the long-established national program or get states to create 50 separate programs, or how a worker could transfer his benefits when moving state to state, or how much the complexity of all this would delay any kind of sensible national reform.
And the Social Security system does need reform. It is very popular with Americans. Indeed, the polls consistently show they accord protecting Social Security a higher priority than reducing the deficit. But, as I've argued before about Medicare, demographics and delay are undermining the long-term viability of desirable social schemes. The Social Security system has reached a tipping point in terms of its long-run viability.
With the baby boomers starting to retire, every year of delay in reconstituting the system makes retirement pensions more insecure. As America struggles to emerge from a recovery that never really was, we face the prospect that the conditions that existed before the Great Recession of 2007-08 may not be adequate to restore the widely shared prosperity of earlier years. If the projections of deficits and debt prove accurate—debt increasing to as much as 200 percent of GDP over the next 30 years—we will have an unsustainable burden on working America. We risk going the way of all once-great nations into an irreversible decline.
Social Security was born amid the harsh times of the Great Depression, a period marked by unemployment, homelessness, even starvation. We then made a deal with the American worker that no one who paid into the Social Security system would retire bereft of support in their retirement years. To this was added Medicare health insurance in the mid-1960s and the protection against inflation in the 1970s. These initiatives changed the economics of old age. Before Social Security, poverty rates among the elderly were three or four times those of the general population. Afterward, they fell below the rates for younger Americans.
To this day, Social Security still means the difference between poverty and economic security for millions of retirees, disabled people, children, and many American workers hurt by our very own Great Recession. Today Social Security is not only the primary source of income for two thirds of older Americans, it is also the single most important anti-poverty program for children, millions of whom live in households supported by disability, survivor, or retiree benefits. It provides basic support to about one in every six people, including disability and survivor protection for many workers and their families. It creates intergenerational benefits, as parents and grandparents can live independently of their working children and often become the childcare providers for those working parents.
Social Security is a "pay as you go" program. The current beneficiary is not receiving the money he or she paid in years ago; those funds were distributed to the system's earlier entrants and are gone. The money in the Social Security check today is coming from new entrants into the system. When young people are plentiful, Social Security produces a surplus. Now, as the overall population is set to age for decades to come, the Social Security deficit will grow to the point where the solvency of the trust fund is an issue. As one former comptroller general of the United States has put it about the trust funds: "You can't trust them [and] they're not funded."