Interesting commentary on dependency analysis. Clearly, the only ratio that counts (as a benchmark for steady state solvency) is # of workers per # of Retirees. Who knows if the projections adequately take into account the growing "market share" of public workers in the worker base? What is that projected to look like in 2020, 30, 40? (Using Global Warming extrapolatiom trends is fine.) I believe that all public employees (federal and state) do not pay into SS. At the limit, imagine that tomorrow every new worker was a public employee, even in the funny math of fungible, pay as you go system, the number of SS elegible payers to SS eligible retirees gets worse really fast.

The pressure should be brought to bear on Reid/Dean/Pelosi/Schumer/Dorgan etc. on why so many Federal employees are avoiding the payroll tax (if it is such a great program).

The vast majority of Federal civil service employees fall under FERS (Federal Employee Retirement System) which is basically a 401k type savings plan and pay both Social Security and Medicare taxes. There are still a few old timers who are covered under the old Civil Service system who do not pay into SS or Medicare. I'm not aware of any state employees who would be exempt from Social Security or Medicare taxes.

Teachers in Illinois don't pay in to Social Security. They have a different retirement system.

AOG:
I also saw the article further down that MA state employees don't pay into Social Security either. My bad. I do know that as a federal employee, I pay both Social Security and Medicare taxes.

I wonder if there is something here to further analyze. When we hear about the shrinking ratio we always hear about demographics (working age vs old age). Of course, this is the first order variable in the analysis, but the real important number is the number of workers paying into SS. (Of course, those not paying because they have their own system don't create future liabilities, but in a pay as you go system they are still "transition costs" all the same which create "insolvencies".) By the way, there is another factor that would worsen this ratio: percentage of working age working in the above-ground economy. Try to "solve the problem" by raising taxes and you decrease the propensity to work and/or report!

Agggh!

"dependency analysis"
"market share"
"fungible"
"state solvency"
"projections"
"shrinking ratio"
"demographics"
"first order variable"
"future liabilities"
"insolvencies"
"percentage of working age"

Agggh, again.

I really wish we could get to the point where Social Security (and all the liberty-infringing federal programs) are debated within the simple realm of ideological principle, rather than within the convoluted realm of empiricism.

This is what happens when socialism gets such a foothold that we take it for granted: The language becomes more intricate, because central planning necessarily demands intricacy. To discuss "dependency-analysis-this" and "fungible-that" is to keep the discussion on the left's playing field.

No matter what debate points one might score with a particular set of numbers, they're still numbers, and numbers are the language of central planning. When the argument is about math, the argument has been automatically ceded to the left, no matter whose math "works best."

Conservatives and our libertarian cohorts would be wise to ditch this line of rhetoric and stick with basic right-and-wrong: Does Social Security have a proper moral and legal place in a country devoted to private property and individual rights?

That's the only question we should be asking. President Bush operates in this territory when he talks of "ownership society"; he abandons this territory, and leaps onto the left's turf, when he talks about "solvency" and "demographics" and the like. The reason to abandon Social Security is not that it might become "broken." The reason to abandon it is that it has never been right.

Semolina:

When it was a mere brush on our wallets, just a breath, no one cared about this argument. Now that the Democrats are basically defending highway robbery (both coming and going), eventually the conservative / libertarian side will win. But if President Bush is counting on the "youth" vote, he will have to prove that he can get it. The Democrats never have.

If Bush gets his judges (one way or the other), he will get something on SS. By May or June, we will know.