Greenspan Warns on Baby Boomer Benefits

[RedEarth]

JACKSON, Wyo. - Federal Reserve (news - web sites) Chairman Alan Greenspan (news - web sites) said Friday that the country will face "abrupt and painful" choices if Congress does not move quickly to trim the Social Security (news - web sites) and Medicare benefits that have been promised to the baby boom generation.


Returning to a politically explosive issue that he has addressed a number of times this year, Greenspan said that it was wrong for the government to hold out the promise of more retirement benefits than it is capable of providing.


He said this issue was particularly critical given the impending retirement of 77 million baby boomers born in the two decades after World War II.


"As a nation, we owe it to our retirees to promise only the benefits that can be delivered," Greenspan said in opening remarks to a two-day conference sponsored by the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City on the challenges posed by aging populations.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&ncid=716&e=1&u=/ap/20040827/ap_on_bi_ge/greenspan

[BlueEyedSon]

1. Maybe they can give each retiree 40 acres in Iraq.

Afterall, they paid for it.

[oneighty]

2. Death to the old people!

Oh! Wait! I am the old people.

180

[Sagan]

3. Oh, NOW the zombie speaks up...

Where was he when Chimpy was squandering the surplus with his reckless tax cuts for the rich and deficit spending? Wouldn't it have been a better idea to provide for this crisis, given we have known for decades that it's coming?

Thanks, Alan. You are freaking useless.

[RedEarth]

11. It's all part of their plan, isn't it... '"starve the beast"

Paul Krugman and Bill Moyer's "This is the Fight of Our Lives"(link below) both refer the the radical rights plan to "starve the beast"......very scary to think what will happen if bush is in office for another four years.

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0616-09.htm

[demigoddess]

19. I think they have a second phase, and that is to starve all of us

I honestly have thought that the reason they do not care about children living in poverty and going to bed hungry is the fact that they want to "reduce the surplus population". There has to be some reason they are out to reduce overtime pay, social security, and all those things that keep society from falling into chaos. All of their starvation tactics are not aimed at government alone.

[SoCalDem]

4. That SON OF A BITCH

:grr:

How 'bout we TRIM some benefits & salaries of the robber barons who run the show:grr:

[cthrumatrix]

52. it's bullshit and lies from our govt....catching up to them

they lie and put off reality and have us focus on bullshit issues all day and then SLAM US

[reprobate]

54. Looking at your gif. OMG that must have hurt!

I hope that wasn't you or yours. Is he out of the hospital yet?

[indepat]

57. I would have prefaced "mother-Cheneying" for he helped craft much

higher, highly regressive, subject to income taxes, payroll taxes to build that mythical trust fund to fund the baby-boomer benefits which are now out the window in part because he supported W's tax cuts. A GDMFSOB is much too polite a moniker, IMHO.

[SpiralHawk]

5. By the time BushCo gets through with your benefits,

they will be AWOL, just like the chump-in-chief*

Here's what you will get in return for all those payroll deductions over all those years: Doodley Squat.

Thanks a pantload, Mr. Bush.

[Tommy_Douglas]

26. Not diddly squat!

Your social security cash went to arms manufacturers to drop bombs on Iraqi kids. All in the name of your freedom. Ain't it great?

[ozone_man]

6. Make congress to stop spending SS money.

This is the problem. Social Security is fully funded, it's the criminals in congress who are deficit spending with our money.

[theophilus]

7. Uhhhh, couldn't he suggest that the government stop spending

trillions on useless wars and other neo-con programs so that we could
actually provide the PROMISED benefits and maybe even do better? Nawwww,I guess that thought never crossed his mind. Let's see.....American policy equals.......broken promises???????

[Endangered Specie]

8. OK, Alan, lets start with YOURS!

[tapper]

9. Yeah ... so much for promises!

Social Security taxes were hiked in the '80s specifically to increase the trust funds in ancipation of our generation's retirement, and now that the repukes have thrown away the money on unnecessary wars, inflated defense spending, and giveaways and kickbacks to the wealthy and corporations, Greenspan thinks it's okay to renege on that promise?!

Cheney him!

And, of course, what I almost never see anyone mention, is that if productivity gains went more to wages, than to fattening a bottom line, then maybe there wouldn't be a problem!

Sign me,

:mad:

[Norquist Nemesis]

47. Bingo!

I grew up with an expectation that I'd never see social security with me being at the end of the boom generation. Republicans choose to forget their great hero through the help of a Dem controlled Congress were responsible for the policy/law.

Since Bush first came in, he's been touting the privatization of SS. Dumb, dumb, dumb short-sighted and irresponsible plan!!!

Now it looks like I can forget about it again...thanks to the keep the budget in the red Republicans!

[sadiesworld]

10. Ayn Rand lovin' freak.

:puke:

[leesa]

12. Right. The Bush Crime Family loots the treasury and now there's no money

for us to retire on. ALL of these people need to be on trial for treason.

[autorank]

13. Time for Kerry to take this bastard on!

The Bush tax cuts, which Greenspan supported, are THE cause of his claimed need to 'trim' benefits. Throw in price gouging of Medicare encouraged by Bush and you have a crisis.

Time for Kerry to break the 'sacred agreement' that main stream politicians stay away from attacking the Fed.

If this clown thinks that 77 million people are just going to take this crap from him or anyone else, he's on acid.

PS. The good news for the Gen X & Y ers is that the baby boomer's will not retire in the same numbers that have been seen in the past. Simply won't happen among professionals in particular. There is a coming labor shortage and we boomer's will gladly fill the gaps to offset our vacant lives (LOL).

[iamjoy]

46. Murder/Suicide

that's what it would be for Kerry to take on the fed. Greenspan & his cronies would eviscerate Kerry's economic plan. If Kerry is still elected, they'd hike interest rate sky high.

No, Kerry needs to attack Bush for breaking his promise in 2000 not to gut social security. And he needs to find a way to find a way to make the point that regardless of whether or not he (Kerry) has a solution, Bush deserves to be fired for such a gross dereliction of duty.

[llmart]

55. Hey, speak for yourself!

I'm a baby boomer and my life isn't "vacant" and I don't believe it will be when I "retire" either (I only work part time at a fun job now.) I take exception to how the media in this country are trying to tell us baby boomers how good it will be for us to just keep on working until we drop. And I have news for you regarding professionals, too. If they're corporate white collar professionals these inhumane corporations aren't gonna keep your ass around when you get over 50.

[autorank]

70. Whoa partner

My comment about 'vacant' was meant to be ironic. Sorry for my lack of art in the presentation. I'm a professional and I work for myself. I can do my work until I drop and they'll have to carry me out. My point is that there are a lot of people who really love what they're doing. As they continue to defy the 'age barrier' and others choose to re-enter the work force to fill the certain scarce job market, there may be a natural easing effect on socially security. Of course, we need to fix the stupid, dumb ass (no irony there) tax cuts and get Medicare under control with group negotiations (50% of the health dollar is not spent on drugs; negotiate a 40% discount like the Dept. of VA did and you knock about 30% off total medical costs over the next 12 months).

[thecrow]

14. I'm about ten years out from retirement

How the hell am I supposed to "Adjust"???
My company offers no pension fund.
I've been paying into the SS system for forty years;
and now I'm supposed to "Adjust" to them trimming my benefits?
Social Security is my only way to retire. I started an IRA when I was 42 but it will only support me for a couple years at this point.
What does a worker do????

[SoCalDem]

15. Not funny, but I have a feeling this is what they expect

I, too am 10 yrs away, my husband is 7 away.. we will be poor.. That is all :(

[DeepModem Mom]

18. Your story is THE story, thecrow - wish you could tell it to the world..

This is not fair, not right!

[llmart]

56. Don't feel bad.

My husband and I are 56 and we started an IRA when we were 35 and put the max in every single year. It isn't worth much more than what we put in. But I remember ole' Reagan telling all of us that if we just put into our IRA's we would all be millionaires when we retired. Yeah, right. I suppose their answer would be that we were just too stupid to invest it properly. All I can say is they better keep their friggen' hands off my SS or they'll have plenty of baby boomers in an uproar.

[DeepModem Mom]

16. Why is this not a BIGTIME campaign issue? Bush spent the Boomers' money!

[Bo]

20. Instant KARMA GONNA GET YOU!!!!!

[Uben]

22. Well.....

...no one wants to talk about it. No one has robbed the SSI funds, they are still there. The problem is, SSI is based on a pay as you go basis, and when we retire in 10-15 years, each retiree will only be supported by 3 or four people paying in, so statistically, it will be impossible to fund. When it was set up, each retire had many more people funding his retirement. I'm not certain of the number, but something like 20-30 people per retiree.

What is the answer? Well, really, there isn't one. The only thing that can be done is reduce the benefits, which is a rip-off to those of us who have been paying in for 30 or 40 years. We could raise SSI taxes, but that would only stave off default for a few years. Face it, WE GOT SCREWED! Our parents and grandparents retired at our expense. We will be left to retire on what, if any, they chose to leave us. The storm is coming, and it will leave few survivors!

[SoCalDem]

25. Don't know how old you are, BUT

St. Ronnie of Reagan RAISED SS taxes on the Boomers BIG TIME and the plan was THIS.... By raising them THEN, there would be plenty to continue to raise the standard of living and care for the already and soon-to-be retired (back then he needed their support), we would ASSURE that when WE retired, there would be PLENTY of money without forcing OUR kids to shoulder a huge burden..


Typical republican smoke & mirrors... Lie, cheat and steal republicans

[RedEarth]

31. "No one has robbed the SSI funds, they are still there"...????

I might be wrong, but I think you're mistaken. It has always been my understanding the gov. used the surplus of SS funds to support other programs(hence, not letting the SS funds grow and in turn reducing the amount that would otherwise be in the SS trust fund for future years...ie, compounding).

I just did a quick goggle search and posted the article below. Please note the following ...... "In reality, however, Congress and the White House have for years used these surplus funds to pay for non-related federal programs and to mask the true size of the federal deficit.

Now littered with government IOUs, we must bring this process to an end. "

http://www.house.gov/ryan/speeches_and_editorials/1999speechesandeditorials/LockBoxonSocialSecurityBecomingaReality.html

[Uben]

43. Yes,

By law, the SSI monies can only be used to pay down the debt (by borrowing the money from SSI). So, technically, its still there.
But that is not the problem, at all. The problem is that there are not enough taxpayers to support the baby-boomers. The SSI monies acrue no interest. Like I said, it is a pay as you go deal. The system was doomed from the onset. The only reasonable way to keep any semblance of the program at all is to reduce benefits and raise retirement ages. When the system was set up, the average life expectancy was in the fifties, I believe, so only a percentage of the populace was ever intended to receive benfits. Now that life expectancy is in the 70s and 80s, the system is defunct and will not work.

[llmart]

61. You are wrong.

The average lifespan was not "in the fifties". In reality the lifespan hasn't really changed that much, even though you keep hearing how there are soooo many people living to be 100. It's media hype. The average lifespan is still only around 78. Maybe it's gone up a couple of years, but not substantial.

[bluedog]

17. Kerry should Hammer this........

Us baby boomers are NOT going to take this shit..........we send our hard earned tax money to Iraq......a needless war and they tell us our benefits will not be what we thought!...............Big Campaign Iss

[droidamus]

21. Promises Broken?

"promise only the benefits that can be delivered"? How about delivering the benefits that were promised. When did the good old US of A go from being a "can do" country to "nope can't do that" country? Inquiring minds want to know.

[SOS]

23. "abrupt and painful" choices

The SAME difficult choices that led to the massive payroll tax increase in 1983?

"Greenspan said that it was wrong for the government to hold out the promise of more retirement benefits than it is capable of providing."

It was YOUR promise Greenspan! What a bunch of crooks.

[MisterP]

64. oh, they always say that: the corporatists pretend they lose a lot

of sleep whenever they convert a nation into a giant sweatshop. "Hard choices must be made; it'll work in the long run, and we're giving them money!" Never mind that they have to eliminate all wages, protections, and benefits to "compete" for the multis' Thatcherite empires. But whaddya expect from Ayn Rand's first squeeze?

[havocmom]

24. Getting to be time to eat the rich.

Has happened in the past and the rich don't seem to remember the lesson past a certain number of generations.

[progressivebydesign]

62. Hey.. the ultra rightwingers are blaming abortion for this..

.. I swear! I've read some posts in other forums (NOT freerepublic), that say it's payback for all the abortions the boomers had. Otherwise there would be enough children to support social security.

I wouldn't dare eat those people... I'd get Mad Grinch Disease!

[FormerOstrich]

27. PROMISED US???

You fuckers...I distinctly notice a huge chunck of my pay checks (past and present) going to FICA. Promise? I earned that money. I worked hard for that money.

Yeah, that's right it's not fair not to tell us how stupid we are. I am so sick and tired of their bs.

[SheWhoMustBeObeyed]

28. Welcome to the monkey house

As long as they set aside enough money to build those purple-roofed suicide parlors, I'll have a place to go when I retire.

[CBHagman]

29. But they don't want to tax Paris Hilton's inheritance.

Let me see if I have this straight. CEOs are getting $300 million tax cuts (no, that is not a typo), the GOP has made a priority of eliminating (not reducing, not providing a bigger exemption for, but eliminating) the inheritance tax, state taxes and fees are going up, and Greenspan is basically saying it's time to break the bad news to the baby boomers that they will not get the promised benefits?

I read just recently that the inability of the government to pay benefits to the baby boom has been greatly exaggerated. I do know the burden on workers will be greater, what with fewer full-time workers for the number of retirees supported. But now Greenspan is declaring defeat? When is he going to support a progressive tax system?

Folks, these guys openly say that they want to screw the middle and working class within an inch of their lives, and we don't throw the bastards out, including Bush, including Schwarzenegger? Why aren't all these people being burned in effigy in the streets?

Are we so comatose as a nation?

[SoCalDem]

32. Yes we ARE comatose.. They are "entertaining" us to DEATH

We, as a nation, are so well-entertained that we are not likely to take to the streets (or at least the big guys hope so)..We must stay close to TIVO and Mr. VCR so we don;t miss wrestling or Nascar or Paris or Laci or Kobe or some other "important" program :(

[madrchsod]

30. alan-

-----GO FUCK YOURSELF-------- there is plenty of money if ---YOU FUCKING THIEVES KEEP YOUR BLOODY HANDS OFF OF IT--------end of rant,thank you for listening,i will return to normal.....

[UTUSN]

33. Yaas, It's the Shrub Domestic Agenda for Next 4 Yrs, Here:

*******QUOTE*******

http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2004/08/25/bush_second_term/index.html

And you thought his first term was a nightmare
What Bush has planned for America if he wins.
- - - - - - - - - - - -
By Charles Tiefer

Aug. 25, 2004 | .... Under Bush's slogan of an "ownership society," the Republicans intend a long-term effort, using changes in Medicare, Social Security and taxes to pit better-off and worse-off Democrats against each other, offering all-but-irresistible incentives for some to desert the others -- and any progressive national coalition. .... A second-term Bush agenda will constantly impale Democrats on the dilemma of abandoning their poorer, sicker, older and minority groups, or seeing their better-off, healthier and younger members lured off to the other party. If it sounds like a political nightmare for the Democrats, that's because that's what it is planned to be. ....

********UNQUOTE*******

[serryjw]

53. 50% of Americans live almost EXCLUSIVELY on SS

How can someone 'adjust'. There are no jobs. The rethugs stole retirements/pensions from middle class Americans.
I wonder how middle class rethugs are going to feel when they can't retire??
We MUST means test SS. What the hell does a millionaire need another $1000 a month?

[bullimiami]

34. Greenspan has been involved in a long term plan to steal this money.

He was the one of those who engineered increasing the deductions to more than the payout thus creating the trillions of dollars in surplus ostensibly to be used to fund the boomer retirement but then completely raped and stolen. Stolen and spent by BUSH I, Clinton tried to balance the budget and protect the SS money. Gore told you it needed to be put in a lock box. Now BUSH II has completely plundered it and given it away to his BASE (sic) and run up our credit until we have a burden we cant possibly pay for. And now OOOPPS he doesnt have the money anymore to pay the benefits.

This is exactly the same thing that has happened to corporate retirement promises that have turned out to be lies and not worth the paper they were printed on.


F YOU ALAN GREENSPAN.

[RedEarth]

39. You got it......check out this editorial by Krugman...

Maestro of Chutzpah
SYNOPSIS: Greenspan really likes to stick it to the poor and middle class: First, he wants to raise the regressive payroll tax in the 1980s to create Social Security surpluses. Then he promotes the regressive Bush tax cut in 2001 since he thinks those surpluses are too large. Finally, in 2004, he wants to cut Social Security benefits now that the Bush tax cuts will eat up too much of that surplus.

The traditional definition of chutzpah says it's when you murder your parents, then plead for clemency because you're an orphan. Alan Greenspan has chutzpah.

Last week Mr. Greenspan warned of the dangers posed by budget deficits. But even though the main cause of deficits is plunging revenue — the federal government's tax take is now at its lowest level as a share of the economy since 1950 — he opposes any effort to restore recent revenue losses. Instead, he supports the Bush administration's plan to make its tax cuts permanent, and calls for cuts in Social Security benefits.

http://www.pkarchive.org/column/030204.html

First, "starving the beast" is no longer a hypothetical scenario — it's happening as we speak. For decades, conservatives have sought tax cuts, not because they're affordable, but because they aren't. Tax cuts lead to budget deficits, and deficits offer an excuse to squeeze government spending.

Second, squeezing spending doesn't mean cutting back on wasteful programs nobody wants. Social Security and Medicare are the targets because that's where the money is. We might add that ideologues on the right have never given up on their hope of doing away with Social Security altogether. If Mr. Bush wins in November, we can be sure that they will move forward on privatization — the creation of personal retirement accounts. These will be sold as a way to "save" Social Security (from a nonexistent crisis), but will, in fact, undermine its finances. And that, of course, is the point

[Skidmore]

35. To do list for new Kerry administration:

1. Appoint cabinet
2. Fire Greenspan

[amandabeech]

36. Deleted

[KayLaw]

37. About Reagan

I've read he did raise our deductions to prevent this, but I wonder if he ever thought there would be all this outsourcing. Won't that make the situation much worse? Those people in India and China won't be paying into the system, right?

[Jeff in Cincinnati]

38. Time to Call It....

10:30 a.m. on Friday, August 27th. Bush officially lost the election.

Independent voters may think one thing about Vietnam and another thing about abortion and something else altogether about gay marriage. But when they learn that their retirement benefits are being slashed in order to pay for the Bush Tax Cut, voting him out of office will be the least that they'll do.

[bullimiami]

49. not just independent voters

everyone that pays into SS has to expect to get their due when they retire.
Even the stupid red-state bush lovers have to be upset when they see part of their lifelong savings being stolen.

[alilenas]

69. They will never realize it

The warning that this would happen came when the government sent out the last SS statement of benefits which warned that the amounts given might will be reduced. No one responded and no one will respond to this. The American people are not highly intelligent. They don't read well, nor are they capable of comprehending what they read. It is easy to take things away from people such as this. It is unlikely that people will realize that this has happened until a Democratic president is in office. Then it will be explained to them in talking points by the media and Republican strategists 24 hours a day, and blamed on the Democrats.

If the Kerry/Edwards team fails to belabor points such as this: "Your retirement is gone", "the environment is tanking", "gas will be $5 a gallon", "the education system is destroyed", "we are in an illegal war", then they will lose and America will be a dead nation by 2008.

[Yavin4]

40. Wasn't This The A@@hole Who Said Surpluses Were A Bad Thing

Anyone remember this during the run-up to the first Bush tax cut where he said that surpluses were a bad thing?

[RedEarth]

41. Yes he did...Krugman points it out in this article...

it's all part of their starve the beast plan....

"Yet three years ago Mr. Greenspan urged Congress to cut taxes, warning that otherwise the federal government would run excessive surpluses. He assured Congress that those tax cuts would not endanger future Social Security benefits. And last year he declined to stand in the way of another round of deficit-creating tax cuts."

http://www.pkarchive.org/column/030204.html

[JPZenger]

42. Where Did Our Social Security Trust Fund Go?

www.costofwar.com

[Nickster]

63. Yup

I remember that distinctly. Where ya been Alan? Can JK send this stooge packing as well?

[tranche]

44. Seems like just yesterday we were running huge surpluses.

Kinda proves there is a difference between the parties. Democrats = party of the fiscally responsible.

[GoBlue]

45. The funds were paid into a trust and then 'borrowed' by the govt..

Which Alan now concedes, albeit indirectly, the government cannot afford to pay back. So much for the full faith and credit of our government.

[mumon]

48. Greenspan should take a vow of poverty...

give away all his stuff- including Andrea Mitchell- and get back to us.

[LiberalBushFan]

50. You'll get your wish, you dumb fart

Congress will be happy to oblige, but they're busy with a few other things right now, so the movement will have to wait a bit, probably until around Nov. 3.

[Joanne98]

51. This is why we need to SIEZE the assets of the rich

Taxing them isn't good enough anymore. Sieze the assets of the wealthy and nationalize BIG business. We can start with Greenspans dough. Give it up Alan.

[Career Prole]

58. Tell the truth Greenspan!

The Treasury Secretary cheney got rid of for not being a yes-man was your friend, damn you!
In Paul O'Neill's book "The Price of Loyalty" he tried to convince shrub to set aside part of what was then a huge surplus to reform Social Security painlessly, and bush blew him off...and Greenspan knew about this too. Put the blame for the urgency where it belongs, Greenspan!

"Mr. O'Neill also pushed the president to set aside $1 trillion of the projected surpluses to fund one of Mr. Bush's big ideas during the campaign: the privatization of Social Security. Allowing people to invest Social Security contributions into private retirement accounts would reduce the government's future retirement liabilities, but the government would need to cover obligations to existing retirees without the money coming in from existing workers.

Mr. O'Neill said that both he and Mr. Greenspan had estimated that $1 trillion over the next decade or so would be enough to finance the transition for everybody then under the age of 37.

But Mr. Bush "seemed to shrug it off,'' according to the book.

Today, three years later, the idea is no longer an option."
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/18/business/yourmoney/18view.html?ex=1093752000&en=2379a682366ff343&ei=5070

[TrogL]

59. and so the grand Ponzi scheme collapses

My generation worked all our lives with the understanding those benefits would be there.

If Kerry can show a way for it to be done, he's a shoe-in. Otherwise, somebody better start pointing fingers.

[progressivebydesign]

60. I freaked when I saw the headline.. What is he thinking??

.. Greenspan says we have to cut boomer benefits, or else! Hey Greenspan!!!! We need to CUT THE MASSIVE TAX GIVEAWAY TO THE RICHEST 2% of Americans! NOT Social Security benefits. NOt all of us are multi-millionaires, like you and your friends. For some people, the money they PAID into Social Security is all that keeps them from being on the street. America no longer offers the promise of working hard at a job for decades, and have a pension or savings to live on. It doesn't exist in the Corporate States of America. Now, you work hard, hope not to get laid off.. but you do.. have your pension dissolved, cancelled, or raided, or have to change jobs as each company ships your job overseas. YOu HOPE that your social security will keep you from living on the streets, or hope that your kids like you enough to let you live with them (unless of course they are also nearly living on the street).

Cut the fucking tax cuts first! Sheesh. Greedy old bastard.

[reprobate]

65. Of course there is an answer to the crisis- and it's not Soylent Green

It's the same answer that was used in:

The american colonies in 1776

France in 1789

Russia in 1917.

It happens every time the wealthy think they have the right to all the wealth. The poor far outnumber them, but they are so arrogant that they think they can get away with it forever.

They can't.

They never could.

But they forget each time they take power.

[Geo55]

66. Thanks Al...

Now crawl back up Bus*'s butt an' shut up.

[tedzbear]

67. Hey Alan, why not rescind the dividend tax cut that benefits the rich?

Instead of penalizing the middle-lower classes because of tax cuts that only benefit the top 1% income earners. Sir Alan has initiated a class war IMHO.

[UpInArms]

68. required reading: The Social Security Promise Not Yet Kept

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/newsevents/cite_ss_promise.cfm

SOCIAL Security retirement benefits are going to have to be cut, Alan Greenspan announced last week, because there just is not enough money to pay the promised benefits. President Bush said those already retired or "near retirement age'' should not worry. They will get their promised benefits.

That, in short form, was the story carried on front pages and television news programs across the country.

But there is an element that was forgotten in the rush of news. It dates back 21 years to the events that catapulted Mr. Greenspan into national prominence and led to his becoming chairman of the Federal Reserve.

Since 1983, American workers have been paying more into Social Security than it has paid out in benefits, about $1.8 trillion more so far. This year Americans will pay about 50 percent more in Social Security taxes than the government will pay out in benefits.

Those taxes were imposed at the urging of Mr. Greenspan, who was chairman of a bipartisan commission that in 1983 said that one way to make sure Social Security remains solvent once the baby boomers reached retirement age was to tax them in advance.

On Mr. Greenspan's recommendation Social Security was converted from a pay-as-you-go system to one in which taxes are collected in advance. After Congress adopted the plan, Mr. Greenspan rose to become chairman of the Federal Reserve.

...more...