Reason.com - Free Minds and Free Markets
Reason logo Reason logo
  • Latest
  • Magazine
    • Current Issue
    • Archives
    • Subscribe
    • Crossword
  • Video
  • Podcasts
    • All Shows
    • The Reason Roundtable
    • The Reason Interview With Nick Gillespie
    • The Soho Forum Debates
    • Just Asking Questions
    • The Best of Reason Magazine
    • Why We Can't Have Nice Things
  • Volokh
  • Newsletters
  • Donate
    • Donate Online
    • Donate Crypto
    • Ways To Give To Reason Foundation
    • Torchbearer Society
    • Planned Giving
  • Subscribe
    • Reason Plus Subscription
    • Print Subscription
    • Gift Subscriptions
    • Subscriber Support

Login Form

Create new account
Forgot password

Politics

The New York Times Corrects Rick Perry's Misconceptions About the Social Security Trust Fund

Jacob Sullum | 9.8.2011 3:22 PM

Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL
Media Contact & Reprint Requests

As Shikha Dalmia and Peter Suderman noted yesterday, Rick Perry stood by his description of Social Security as "a Ponzi scheme" during last night's Republican debate. This despite New York Times reporter Michael Shear's recent efforts to set Perry straight:

Touching a potential political minefield, Mr. Perry unleashes a critique against Social Security as "a crumbling monument to the failure of the New Deal" [in his book Fed Up!].

Mr. Perry's assault on the retirement program is not a throwaway line or two. He asserts that the social programs of the New Deal—including Social Security—"never died, and like a bad disease, they have spread." He says the Social Security trust fund is an "elaborate illusion cooked up by government magicians."

Asked about the book recently, Mr. Perry went even further, calling Social Security a "Ponzi scheme for these young people" and a "monstrous lie on this generation."

But his words skim over the financial reality of Social Security. Economists of all stripes agree that the program, while stressed, would exhaust the money in the trust fund by 2037. But even then, taxes would pay for close to 80 percent of the benefits currently promised.

According to Shear, then, Social Security's "financial reality" includes a "trust fund" that "economists of all stripes agree" won't run out of money for another quarter century or so. But as the Times itself occasionally concedes, the trust fund is no more than "an accounting device" that represents how much the government owes itself—or, in other words, how much must be extracted from taxpayers to cover all the surplus Social Security money Congress has squandered over the years. The surpluses themselves are long gone, replaced by Treasury bonds that can be redeemed only through higher taxes or further borrowing (which eventually translates into higher taxes). So the "reality" that Shear is asserting as a matter of verifiable fact in a news story is actually the "elaborate illusion" to which Perry is calling attention. The year of reckoning is not 2037, when the notional trust fund is expected to reach zero, but 2010, when Social Security's benefits began to exceed its annual revenues, meaning that the program has to be subsidized by other sources of money, which contributes to the national debt instead of making it seem smaller.

Start your day with Reason. Get a daily brief of the most important stories and trends every weekday morning when you subscribe to Reason Roundup.

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

NEXT: Andrew Sullivan's Pep Talk for POTUS

Jacob Sullum is a senior editor at Reason.

PoliticsPolicyCampaigns/ElectionsSocial SecurityBudgetFiscal policy
Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL
Media Contact & Reprint Requests

Show Comments (108)

Latest

Mothers Are Losing Custody Over Sketchy Drug Tests

Emma Camp | From the June 2025 issue

Should the
Civilization Video Games Be Fun—or Real?

Jason Russell | From the June 2025 issue

Government Argues It's Too Much To Ask the FBI To Check the Address Before Blowing Up a Home

Billy Binion | 5.9.2025 5:01 PM

The U.K. Trade Deal Screws American Consumers

Eric Boehm | 5.9.2025 4:05 PM

A New Survey Suggests Illicit Opioid Use Is Much More Common Than the Government's Numbers Indicate

Jacob Sullum | 5.9.2025 3:50 PM

Recommended

  • About
  • Browse Topics
  • Events
  • Staff
  • Jobs
  • Donate
  • Advertise
  • Subscribe
  • Contact
  • Media
  • Shop
  • Amazon
Reason Facebook@reason on XReason InstagramReason TikTokReason YoutubeApple PodcastsReason on FlipboardReason RSS

© 2024 Reason Foundation | Accessibility | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

r

Do you care about free minds and free markets? Sign up to get the biggest stories from Reason in your inbox every afternoon.

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

This modal will close in 10

Reason Plus

Special Offer!

  • Full digital edition access
  • No ads
  • Commenting privileges

Just $25 per year

Join Today!