The elephant in the room

Bruce Bartlett at Forbes does a good job of quantifying exactly what it would take to fully fund all of our upcoming Social Security and Medicare liabilities.

The 81% Tax Increase

Most Americans believe that the Social Security trust fund contains a pot of money that is sitting somewhere earning interest to pay their benefits when they retire. On paper this is true; somewhere in a Treasury Department ledger there are $2.4 trillion worth of assets labeled "Social Security trust fund."

The problem is that by law 100% of these "assets" are invested in Treasury securities. Therefore, the trust fund does not have any actual resources with which to pay Social Security benefits. It's as if you wrote an IOU to yourself; no matter how large the IOU is it doesn't increase your net worth.

Consequently, whether there is $2.4 trillion in the Social Security trust fund or $240 trillion has no bearing on the federal government's ability to pay benefits that have been promised. In a very technical sense, it would lose the ability to pay benefits in excess of current tax revenues once the trust fund is exhausted. But long before that date Congress would simply change the law to explicitly allow general revenues to be used to pay Social Security benefits, something it could easily do in a day.

Social Security's actuaries make such a calculation on page 64. It says that Social Security's unfunded liability in perpetuity is $17.5 trillion (treating the trust fund as meaningless). The program would need that much money today in a real trust fund outside the government earning a true return to pay for all the benefits that have been promised over and above future Social Security taxes. In effect, the capital stock of the nation would have to be $17.5 trillion larger than it is right now. Alternatively, the payroll tax rate would have to rise by 4%.

To put it another way, Social Security's unfunded liability equals 1.3% of the gross domestic product. So if we were to fund its deficit with general revenues, income taxes would have to rise by 1.3% of GDP immediately and forever. With the personal income tax raising about 10% of GDP in coming years, according to the Congressional Budget Office, this means that every taxpayer would have to pay 13% more just to make sure that all Social Security benefits currently promised will be paid.

That's just the social security portion--the baby elephant. Let's have a look at the real elephant--Medicare:

As bad as that is, however, Social Security's problems are trivial compared to Medicare's. Its trustees also issued a report this week. On page 69 we see that just part A of that program, which pays for hospital care, has an unfunded liability of $36.4 trillion in perpetuity. The payroll tax rate would have to rise by 6.5% immediately to cover that shortfall or 2.8% of GDP forever. Thus every taxpayer would face a 28% increase in their income taxes if general revenues were used to pay future Medicare part A benefits that have been promised over and above revenues from the Medicare tax.

But this is just the beginning of Medicare's problems, because it also has two other programs: part B, which covers doctor's visits, and part D, which pays for prescription drugs.

The unfunded portion of Medicare part B is already covered by general revenues under current law. The present value of that is $37 trillion or 2.8% of GDP in perpetuity according to the trustees report (p. 111). The unfunded portion of Medicare part D, which was rammed into law by George W. Bush and a Republican Congress in 2003, is also covered by general revenues under current law and has a present value of $15.5 trillion or 1.2% of GDP forever (p. 127).

To summarize, we see that taxpayers are on the hook for Social Security and Medicare by these amounts: Social Security, 1.3% of GDP; Medicare part A, 2.8% of GDP; Medicare part B, 2.8% of GDP; and Medicare part D, 1.2% of GDP. This adds up to 8.1% of GDP. Thus federal income taxes for every taxpayer would have to rise by roughly 81% to pay all of the benefits promised by these programs under current law over and above the payroll tax.

I see three solutions to this problem as it exists today:

A) cut benefits
B) massive tax increase
C) hyperinflation

We're in this mess precisely because government refuses to make hard choices and instead just kicks the can further down the road, so the chances of A) happening are slim to none and slim just walked out the door. Imagine the mass of baby-boomers rolling their walkers up to Capitol Hill after beating their canes into clubs the minute some unfortunate congressional rube dared to suggest a cut in benefits.

Surely B) will be tried, but an 81% tax increase would result in some very unpleasant blow back from anybody still left in this country who produces anything of value. Since Congress has already allowed our monetary base to double from $900bil to $2 tril since last October, C) seems the likely choice. I reckon it won't be long before investors in US government debt begin to demand a risk premium. There's already anecdotal evidence that recent treasury auctions have not gone as smoothly as planned. At that point, "backed by the full faith and credit of the United States" will have about as much meaning as "the check's in the mail."

There are ways to combat hyperinflation, and I may be hyperventilating with hyperbole, but since our government has a proven track record of taking the easiest route possible, what's to stop them from doing it yet again?