Jeremy Kidd makes a good statement. I guess after studying the situation and modeling OASI for 25 years, I think I can answer the question why everyone pounces on a line by line item. First, few have looked at the entire problem. Fewer still actually have an understanding of the problem. Fewer still understand the mathematics behind the benefit formula and yet fewer still can pull of this together.
We have retirement age, life expectancy past 65, inflation, wager growth, a baby bust, a baby boom, war babies, depression babies and WWI war babies, and the list goes on. You would think with all the computer power we have today, a solution would have been found right? What if there is a solution out there and government has known it for some time and just does not want to admit it? There are thousands of smart people out there. There are thousands of smart programers out there. How difficult is it to analyze?
Companies do a fairly decent job of forecasting business, parts, sales, labor, etc. As proof look at the productivity increase in the past ten years. Plant utilization is consistently higher now than what was considered peak just ten years ago. Why is it so hard to find a solution?
The answer is there is NONE! Why do I say this? First, the unfunded liability has grown so large, that no one generation can pay it. Second, we have a generation of retirees who think they have a guarantee to their benefits because they paid into it. Third, we have politicians who now do not know which way to turn. Do they offend the elderly to cater to the young? Do they cater to the elderly and raise the level of discontent of the young? Unlike Chili who was able to privatize, the United States is a mature economy. It just can not be done the same way. Economic growth can not save Social Security because it just makes it worse.
Therefore, the reason for line by line picking is because each solution presented to SAVE OASI is not valid and there is someone out there who knows that bit of the puzzle. When all possible solutions have been tried, only the improbable remains. Kill the beast now!
Face it, the money you have paid is gone.
PS. My program did find one solution, but it not a good one. If wages were to decrease by just over 15.85 each year for thenext 35 to 45 years, there is a good possibility OASI would be solvent without any tax incrase, benefit cut or increase in retirement age. The reason why it works is the following:
First a negative wage growth will reduce future OASI benefits (It will adjust all previous wages based on the value of the wages at age 60)
Second, a negative wage growth will caused deflation. This will caused current OASI benefits to be adjusted by a negative COLA.
Third the current OASI fund would grow each year in relative dollars because of deflation.
Mathematically it works out, but in reality, this is worse than just eliminating the program out right.
