Social Security a Bigger Scam Than What Bernard Madoff Schemed

Reddit

Since the Madoff scandal broke last year, the press has been filled with names and pictures of his victims. The front page of The San Diego Union Tribune on March 13 showed a large photo of a woman joyfully cheering. The caption read: “Miriam Siegman of New York, who said she lost her retirement money with Bernard Madoff, celebrated yesterday upon leaving a Manhattan courthouse, where Madoff was ordered jailed.”

We celebrate with the victims when a swindler like Madoff is brought to justice. Yet there is a vastly larger fraud being perpetrated on all Americans, and it’s unlikely that any of the perpetrators will ever be jailed for their crime.

Bernard Madoff defrauded a few hundred clients of some $65 billion. Yet his scam pales next to the swindle being perpetrated at this moment on hundreds of millions of Americans who have been told they have accumulated more than $40 trillion in future retirement benefits.

This scam is the Social Security system.

Those who conceived the Social Security swindle promised that it would end the plight of the aged and disabled by guaranteeing them “security” – a steady income in disability and old age. It was promoted as a life raft that would carry everyone safely through to the end of his or her days.

Today, 74 years later, Americans continue to be told that regardless of what happens to the economy, the government will never renege on this promise. As the population has aged, Social Security beneficiaries have become the biggest political lobby in America. To get elected, any political candidate must participate in the swindle. Both as a candidate and now as President, Barack Obama has consistently maintained that the Social Security program’s financing is basically sound, and can be assured far into the future. He’s lying.

I became aware of the technique of the fraud in 1975 when Arthur Andersen & Company published a lengthy report titled “Sound Financial Reporting in the Public Sector.” It disclosed both the magnitude of the crime, and the simple accounting subterfuge used to disguise the fraud.

The report pointed out that the government keeps its books using the “cash basis” method of accounting rather than the “accrual basis.” The cash basis is what you use to balance your checkbook. If you deposit $50,000 in your account for the year and write $49,000 in checks to cover your expenses, your checkbook will show a $1,000 surplus for the year.

However, this does not tell the true story. If you took a vacation in December and ran up $5,000 on your credit card, but the payment didn’t come due until the following year, your true expenses for the year were $55,000. You actually ran a $4,000 deficit which didn’t show up in your checkbook. Every rational business owner knows that to track the true condition of the business he must add in the cost of purchases he made but must pay for in future years. Sound businesses always use the accrual method of accounting.

In its 1975 report, Arthur Andersen reviewed the U.S. federal budgets for fiscal years ending 1973 and 1974, and came up with shocking figures. Using the cash basis of accounting, the government had reported federal deficits of $14.3 billion for 1973 and $3.5 billion for 1974.

Recalculated according to the accrual method and including future Social Security payments and government pensions, the true 1973 deficit jumped from $14.3 billion to a staggering $86.6 billion. The 1974 budget was even worse, jumping from $3.5 billion to just over $95 billion. The government underreported its deficits by more than $160 billion in a two-year period.

Peter G. Petersen, former Chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, began sounding the alarm on this looming financial catastrophe more than a decade ago. In his 1996 book, Gray Dawn: How the Coming Age Wave Will Transform America and the World, he pointed out that if federal law required Congress to fund Social Security the way private pensions must be funded, the annual federal deficit in 1996 would have instantly risen by some $675 billion. Add in lavish and unfunded federal-employee pensions and the deficit would have risen by $800 billion. Add in Medicare and it would have risen by more than $1 trillion.

The cash and accrual deficits that Arthur Anderson discussed in his 1975 report seem trivial compared to last year’s federal deficit of $454 billion, and especially compared to this year’s projected deficit of $1.8 trillion. Decade after decade the total of the swindle has been inexorably rising, until today the estimated shortfall owed Americans is an incredible $40 trillion. Nor has it stopped. The total continues to rise at a rate of $2 to $3 trillion per year.

Bernie Madoff was able to get away with his fraud by using the same technique as Charles Ponzi did in the 1920s. He sold fictitious securities, promised a high return, and paid off old investors out of monies taken in from new investors. It collapsed when new victims could no longer be found to support withdrawals from old victims.

The Social Security swindle has worked exactly the same way. It receives “contributions” in the form of FICA taxes, pretends to place those funds in trust, and pays benefits to current retirees out of taxes collected from current workers. Just as in the case of Madoff, there is no trust, there is no income to the non-existent trust, and the payments are simply made from current collections. Madoff’s scheme lasted 20 years before collapsing. The Social Security swindle is now in its 74th year…the end is near.

It’s clear that Social Security cannot fulfill its promises to future retirees, but the casualties will not be limited to those victims, like Miriam Siegman, who find there is no life raft to carry them safely through retirement. In order to continue the fraud, politicians have no alternative except to issue more promises. Retirement checks will come, but they will be financed by more federal borrowing. Cash basis deficits will rise. Treasury IOUs will be converted by the Federal Reserve into dollars. As the monetary inflation morphs into price inflation, the victim list will swell to include everyone who doesn’t see it coming.

Last year, former Comptroller of the Currency, David Walker, teamed up with Addison Wiggin of Agora Financial to produce an eye-opening movie, I.O.U.S.A., which documented the stunning financial swindle being perpetrated on the nation. This compelling addition to Petersen’s disclosure of the government’s financial fraud is being widely shown, and has just become available on DVD.

Unfortunately, we will never enjoy the sight of the politicians responsible for the Social Security swindle being sent to jail, but we can protect ourselves from their fraud.

It’s time to don your lifejacket.

Best regards,

John Pugsley
for The Daily Reckoning Australia

John Pugsley
John Pugsley is the author of numerous books and reports on economics, investment and politics, and former editor of John Pugsley’s Journal. Mr. Pugsley authored Common Sense Economics, and in 1980 The Alpha Strategy correctly warned that the United States would experience "the largest deficits in the history of the nation in the next five years" and showed investors how to protect themselves.
John Pugsley

Latest posts by John Pugsley (see all)

Reddit

Comments

  1. Gold is about to boooooom!

    Reply
  2. I think it was DR where I first heard the saying “It’s the fat pig that gets slaughtered first”. A long time ago I was given some sagely advice to never invest in something that everybody thinks is a good idea. Superannuation was one of those pigs which got so fat that it became inevitable that it got slaughtered. It’s too tempting.

    My point though is not that “social security” is a bad idea. It, like a lot of things, can be done well. Helping the elderly, the infirm and the poor is a social obligation, but it is primarily a responsibility of children and relatives. If they fail, then someone else has to do it. But you’re right John, governments are not capable of understanding (or carrying out) Charity. They shouldn’t be involved in it.

    Reply
  3. Right on Dan. The best scenario is for relatives and children to care for their own elderly folk. Even for those who are not of their own family ie many would give their elderly neighbours a hand occassionally eg to lift something heavy or dig over their vege garden etc. Also when people allow governments to get so involved in their welfare they are taking a bribe and the final result is always assured. Ultimately you they will lose many liberties. Governments can choose not to be so heavy handed with welfare but citizens also can choose not to depend on it. That choice is eventually removed anyhow.

    Reply
  4. A few days ago I implied that younger people can find better investment vehicles than super. My predicted timing for the government super grab was wrong. I didn’t know that the Government would start its pillage of these (battered) funds on 1 July.

    Redirection of your funds from other business activity to (otherwise unfunded) infrastructure projects cannot create any jobs. This redirection of your miney will distort the market further and reduce GDP. The Return on Investment for the proposed government infrastructure projects will, more than likely, be negative if we enter a high inflation environment.

    Government action to prevent middle income earner from contributing sufficient funds to cover recent super losses clearly flags a future intention of Government to significantly reduce the (presumed) taxation advantages of super.

    Yes, Australia now has its own superannuation ponzi scheme.

    Coffee Addict
    May 18, 2009
    Reply
  5. Coffee Addict: you could say the pillaging of super funds started with the stock market crash/correction, since that is what has wiped the value off people’s retirement plans. The government is late and slow on the uptake.

    As for infrastructure investment, much of which has been neglected for decades now, there are important knock-on effects which go above and beyond direct investment in business activity. Infrastructure as such is often a loss making activity. If you built, for example, a rail network and then made it free to travel, then the whole thing is run at a loss, but the gains are obvious, as every other aspect of economic activity is buoyed, as well as the city/country running more efficiently than would have otherwise occurred with road based transportation.

    In my opinion, cash bonuses are the worst possible form of economic stimulation, but nation building projects the best kind (from the point of view of government), because they change the way a nation works – much good can be achieved. Real things are more reliable than imaginary things.

    Reply
  6. The higher income earners who salary sacrifice to reduce tax.
    Now the tax incentive is not there.
    These people will be looking to negative gear in the property market instead?
    Another well thought idea for the government to funnel cash investments into property.

    Reply
  7. Sorry this is for superannuation

    Reply
  8. Hi Dan. I agree with your view that the $900 give aways were poor policy – although it made some punters feel good at Christmas. The (now) artificially low interest rates have a much bigger medium term stimulous impact (not withstanding the negative impact on retirees with conservative interest based investments).

    I also agree that market can fails adequately fund strategic economic infrastructure requirements. Government action to fund or assist investment in roads, rail, light rail, ports and in the maintenance of a rigorous education system can therefore be justified.

    I am not sure that the infrastructure projects to be funded by our supperanuation will be prioritised and selected on the basis of strategic economic interest. I am happy to pay income tax to support justifiable projects (including the maintenance of existing infrastructure). I am, however, disgusted by the idea that Government hands can dip into my private savings to support to fund many poorly construed and executed projects. I am equally diappointed that I have no superannuation choice and that I can’t take adequate direct steps to protect or grow my savings.

    cheers!

    Coffee Addict
    May 19, 2009
    Reply
  9. This is my supposition, too, Rick. Traditionally I’ve salary-packaged $85K+ per year to super. We’ve decided to cut that to $50K. We’ve allocated around $450K to property annually. That will now rise to $485K p.a. I doubt that the government’s intent was to increase property investment, though. It’s more likely the hope that blokes my age will simply shrug and mumble “FFFF them, I’ll bloody well spend it!” (Thus stimulating the economy…. :)

    Biker Pete
    May 20, 2009
    Reply
  10. Hello there! Fine post! But the website has been loading incredibly slowly.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Letters will be edited for clarity, punctuation, spelling and length. Abusive or off-topic comments will not be posted. We will not post all comments.
If you would prefer to email the editor, you can do so by sending an email to letters@dailyreckoning.com.au