Author Biography

Eric Schurenberg is Editor-in-Chief of BNET.com and Editorial Director of CBS MoneyWatch.com. Previously, Eric was managing editor of MONEY. As managing editor, he expanded the editorial focus to new interests including real estate, family finance, health, retirement, and the workplace. Prior to MONEY, Eric was deputy editor of Business 2.0. He was also the managing editor of goldman.com, a Web site for Goldman Sachs Group’s personal wealth management business, and an assistant managing editor at Fortune magazine. Schurenberg has won a Gerald Loeb Award for distinguished business journalism, a National Magazine Award, and a Page One Award.

In his article “5 Social Security Myths That Have to Go, ” Schurenberg notes:

Social Security isn’t the only cause of America’s fiscal problems, but it is Exhibit A in why it is so hard to fix them. No serious solution to our debt can ignore a program that will tax and spend about 4.8% of GDP this year and account for about 20% of all federal spending-and that within a few decades will count almost a third of the population as beneficiaries. But whenever I write about Social Security here at CBS MoneyWatch, I’m always struck by how much disagreement there is about how the system really works.

A handful of misconceptions tend to crop up repeatedly-often having to do with that fiscal fun-house mirror, the Social Security trust fund. And despite the efforts of writers like Allan Sloan and experts like the Urban Institute’s Eugene Steuerle, the myths won’t die. This column won’t kill them either, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t take a whack. Here goes:

Myth: Social Security is an easy fix

Any policy wonk worth his or her spreadsheet can quickly come up with ways to bring Social Security into long-term actuarial balance. You can conjure up solutions yourself using the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget’s calculator. You’ll find it’s not that hard to wipe out the system’s long-term deficit.

The only problem is, most such solutions regard Social Security as a closed system. They assume that the trust fund is an ATM that gushes cash whenever the trustees demand, and that workers will never balk at stepping up to higher payroll taxes.

Which brings us to what may be the most destructive myth of all: The idea that Social Security is, fiscally speaking, an end in itself. In the real world that Social Security actually operates in, the government and its citizens all have other obligations. As Steuerle puts it:

Social Security as a budget issue revolves not simply around its internal accounting balances and trust funds, but rather how much of the economy it occupies and how much of future growth it absorbs.

The discussion we need to have, then, isn’t simply whether we can pull the levers to bring Social Security into balance. That is easy. Instead, we need to ask a larger, tougher question: In light of all we owe-to our creditors, our children and our future-how much do we want to spend supporting everyone who happens to live past 62? We want to spend something, to be sure, and maybe a lot. But myths and slogans shouldn’t persuade us that we can avoid the question. We can’t.

______________________________________________

Social Security (featuring Ron Paul)

Pat Kondelis is at it again, interviewing folks on the street about the tough issues facing America. And, you guessed it, Ron Paul weighs in with what he thinks about them, too.