Today's NY Times has the most confusing article on the Social Security surplus that I've ever seen. It's "Budget's Reliance on Social Security Is Under Scrutiny" by Richard Stevenson, pg 1. Let me quote the start:
Republican leaders began today to explore publicly ways
to end the long-standing practice of using Social Security
money for other purposes -- but not necessarily right away.
But Social Security money is completely off budget now, and by Congress's own laws, CANNOT be used for other purposes.
So, what on earth do the Republicans mean?
And "not necessarily right away." That sounds like St. Augustine wanting to be chaste, but not just yet.
Here's the next paragraph:
Needing money to pay for tax cuts and additional spending,
House and Senate leaders discussed allowing Congress to
dip into Social Security funds for the next several years
but then walling off the retirement system's money from
the rest of the Federal budget.
But, but, but the money *is* presently walled off from the rest of the Federal budget. So, this sounds like a proposal to ignore the wall and raid the funds! And this is from the Republican leadership. It quotes Armey:
[The proposal would be] a remarkable accomplishment,
certainly far superior [to past efforts to keep Congress
from mingling Social Security's money with general
revenue.]
Remarkable is right. As I read it, it is a bald proposal to take Social Security's money for other purposes, while calling it "saving" Social Security's money.
There isn't a single critical comment by Stevenson, as if he is rehashing the press release as gospel truth.
Please, somebody else read the article and tell me if I'm wrong.
-- Man kann nicht zwei Tänze mit ein Popo tanzen.