Congress returned from recess this week, during which House Republicans alone held 550 events on Bush's plan to overhaul Social Security. Despite all this talk of privatization accounts, even White House aides are saying that perhaps other reforms should be considered. On April 5th, Chuck Blahous, an economic advisor to Bush and the administration's top aide on Social Security policy, said that raising the $90,000 cap on wages subject to the Social Security payroll tax would delay the onset of the long term Social Security shortfall. Blahous did not rule out White House support for proposals to raise the cap, but many GOP congressmen are opposed to the idea, including House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-TX). Others such as Sen. Graham (R-SC), have been criticized for supporting such an idea. Also yesterday, the President continued his push to "educate" the public on the need for Social Security reform. On his visit to West Virginia, he commented, "There is no 'trust fund,' just IOUs that I saw firsthand, that future generations will pay -- will pay for either in higher taxes, or reduced benefits, or cuts to other critical government programs." The full transcript of his comments can be found here. Comments such as these are unnecessarily misleading about the health of our Social Security system, which can pay 100% of benefits for years to come. It is rather the administration's expensive tax cuts and the general decrease of available national revenue that will cause future generations to pay in terms of reduced social benefits and cuts in critical government programs. In response to Bush's comments, Democratic Congressional leaders Harry Reid (D-NV) and Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), submitted the following comments: "It is simply wrong to suggest that the Social Security Trust Fund does not exist, or that the securities held by the Trust Fund are merely pieces of paper. For a President to even suggest that the federal government might, for the first time, default on a security backed by the full faith and credit of the United States unnecessarily misleads American workers about the health of the Social Security program." For the rest of their comments, click here.

Yesterday President Bush travelled to Iowa to promote his plan to reform social security. Iowa is the 20th state Bush has visited to promote his plan, which the public is receiving with increasing doubt and skepticism. Notably Senator Charles Grassley (R-IA) -- who is also Senate Finance Committee Chairman -- said yesterday that there is room for compromise on the size of private incestment accounts. While President Bush is promoting a plan to divert four percentage points of the payroll tax into a private account, Grassley believes the amount is negotiable, and stated he plans to make compromise an issue when the Finance Committee meets on Social Security this summer. Grassley also noted that even though he is in favor of establishing these accounts, he does not believe they address the problem of social security solvency. He said, "I like personal accounts.... So you have personal accounts as an issue in and of themselves, and then over here, you've got the solvency problem. I want to deal with both of them." The Finance Panel is planning on holding Social Security hearings in April, however no dates have been set yet. For more details on Bush's visit to Iowa and recent Social Security happenings, click here. Also check this Economic Policy Institute briefing paper on how Social Security fits into the Bush budget. The paper, by Max Sawicky, is aptly titled "Collision Course."

The Social Security and Medicare Boards of Trustees released their 2005 annual report which states that "exhaustion" of the trust fund will occur one year earlier than predicted, or in 2041 as opposed to 2042. The report also finds that the amount of tax revenues taken in will fall below the amount the trust fund will pay out starting in 2017. The SSA originally stated this would happen in 2018. Now, they predict that the Social Security program will need to supplement trust fund receipts with general revenues in order to pay be able to pay people full benefits a year earlier. The new report also projects a Social Security shortfall of $4 trillion over the next 75 years. This number is up from the $3.7 trillion figure that economists and politicians have been quoting. Max Sawicky of the Economic Policy Institute notes that the Social Security crisis is not nearly as pressing as the problems being created by our large budget deficits, which were largely due to the administration's tax cuts. These deficits will hinder the government's ability pay for any and all of programs down the road, including Social Security and Medicare. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that in 2042, when the Social Security shortfall will supposedly be 1.37 percent of GDP, the overall budget deficit will be much greater than that --10.7 percent of GDP. Sawicky says, "While the administration tries to fiddle with a relatively small-scale Social Security shortfall, it is creating overall budget deficits that are burning a hole as far as the eye can see. Instead of focusing on a relatively small and distant problem, the administration would better serve the nation by fixing the much bigger and more immediate problem it has created." This is a sentiment echoed widely by economists and policy analysts, many of whom see the large costs of tax cuts and future skyrocketing costs of Medicare as much more serious problems. For more information see this Washington Post article and this report by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. For more from the Social Security Administration, click here.

The National Association for Business Economics (NABE) cunducted one of their biannual surveys from February 28th - March 8th of this year. The survey questioned economists, and results showed that a greater percentage of respondents believe the deficit is a greater short-term threat to Americans than terrorism. In the August 2004 survey, 40 percent of respondents named terrorism as the biggest threat, and 23 percent named the deficit the biggest threat. With 2004 deficit levels hitting a record high ($412 billion) and the President and Congress continuing to try to push through new tax cuts and extend old ones, it appears that many economists now view our deficit as a much more serious matter. In this survey, 27 percent of respondents noted the deficit as the largest threat, and 23 percent noted terrorism. The trade deficit, cited by 15 percent, and energy prices, cited by 11 percent, also rose in importance when compared with results from last August. Interestingly, 70 percent of respondents felt that Social Security had problems that need to be resolved, and the solution which received the highest rating (3.7 on a 5 point scale) was raising the retirement age. Privatization of the system received a rating of only 2.7. The rest of the results can be seen here.