Robert Kaiser: AAAAAUUUUUGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHH

Robert Kaiser is an associate editor at the Washington Post. He seems to be a smart, honest guy. Nonetheless, like most of his ilk, he appears incapable of (1) providing accurate information on Social Security, and (2) providing it in a way normal humans can understand.

Why? Your guess is as good as mine. Well, unless your guess is that his mind is controlled by a microchip implanted in his brain by aliens from Planet Zarquon. I think my guess is better than that.

Here's an example, from Kaiser's Live Online appearance just after the State of the Union:

Washington, D.C.: I'm glad that the older generations of Americans writing in are so in touch with THEIR concerns, and I certainly understand them. However, for those of just entering the work place for whom lower benefits are a mathematical certainty without some changes do you see a chance for some reform or with it be an all or nothing ideological fight? Do you anticipate the Democrats putting forward a reform plan or simply attacking any plan the President puts forward and continuing to pretend there is no problem?

Robert G. Kaiser: Good question. Remember every time you hear a politician talk about the system's bankruptcy, or crisis, or predicts that it won't be able to pay benefits, that politician is implying that the government will, for the first time in American history, simply default on its obligations. Those obligations are the formal IOU's the Treasury has put in the Social Security trust fund--IOU's that promise to repay the billions in Social Security tax revenues that the government has "borrowed" to pay for its ordinary operating costs for decades.

Avoiding the costs of government is now a reflex for presidents and Congresses. President Bush repeated it last night when he said, "we must not jeopardize our economic strength by increasing payroll taxes," another way of saying, we must not pay for what we owe our seniors if that means adding slightly to the FICA tax (an increase of less than 2 percent would solve the problem, experts say). Would that really "jeopardize our economic strength," or would it be an honest way to pay obligations that Congresses and Presidents have freely incurred over many, many years?

I would hope, as the father of two daughters who are members of your generation, that over the next few years, common sense will prevail, and there will be modest modifications to Social Security that will keep it alive for them, and for you. But this is far from guaranteed, especially in our polarized political environment.

The Washington, D.C. questioner bases his question on misinformation he's been fed. The first thing Kaiser should have done was clear that up. The second thing he should have done was explain the situation clearly. For instance:

Washington, D.C.: I'm glad that the older generations of Americans writing in are so in touch with THEIR concerns, and I certainly understand them. However, for those of just entering the work place for whom lower benefits are a mathematical certainty without some changes do you see a chance for some reform or with it be an all or nothing ideological fight? Do you anticipate the Democrats putting forward a reform plan or simply attacking any plan the President puts forward and continuing to pretend there is no problem?

Imaginary Robert G. Kaiser: Thanks for your question. There are many things to say about it. But first, I'm afraid you've fallen victim to some scaremongering on the part of President Bush.

It's by no means a mathematical certainty that—even with no changes to Social Security— there will be any shortfall in the program's finances. According to one of the projections made last year by the Social Security Trustees, all promised benefits can be paid indefinitely.

However, it's true there could (not will) be a shortfall. For instance, under the main projection by the Social Security Trustees, all promised benefits can be paid with no changes through 2042. After that, if nothing at all is done, only 73% of promised benefits could be paid.

Nevertheless, someone like yourself would still receive higher benefits than retirees today. I realize this is confusing, but here's why:

The promised level of benefits rises over time. Right now an average retiree gets a little less than $15,000 per year. When you retire, your promised benefits will be over $20,000. If nothing is changed, the shortfall would mean you couldn't get the $20,000. But you'd still get more than $15,000. (These numbers are all in 2004 dollars; that is, taking inflation into account, so they're directly comparable.)

So, it's true you'd get "lower" benefits in comparison to what you're promised... but they'd still be higher in real terms than today's.

Secondly, if a shortfall does occur, it doesn't mean promised benefits WILL be cut. Given the history of Social Security, it's more likely there will be changes; that is, payroll taxes (or perhaps other taxes) would be raised, and you'd still get your full benefits. This kind of thing has happened before in the past.

Third, it's hard to make predictions about politics. So I can't say for sure what the Democrats will or won't propose. But at the moment they seem set on a course of saying that this isn't a problem until 2042, if ever, so there's no reason to fix something that isn't broken.