« Suggestions | Main | Thought Experiment Continued »
Wonk Armageddon
Tomorrow is Social Security Trustees Report Day, normally the wonkiest day of the year here in Washington, DC, when the Social Security Trustees Board will release its annual report on the Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance (OASDI) Trust Funds. These documents are deadly dull for normal human beings to puruse, but certain deranged persons such as myself actually sort of enjoy lingering over the tables, assumptions, and scenarios. Sadly, the mass media tends to ignore all that and simply pull out a couple of headline figures like the intermediate scenario's Trust Fund depletion date, and the present-value of the long-term gap between promised benefits and projected revenues. This tends to involve the reporting of at least one whopper where we compare present value figures from different years, neglecting the fact that one, say, 2002 dollar is actually a different amount of money from one 2005 dollar. All-in-all, though, the press forgets about the whole thing in a few days and life goes on.
But this year, the privateers are out in force and both sides' hacks are now fully engaged in all things Social Security. Combine that with the new constant news cycle, and you can expect tomorrow to be dominated by a gotterdammerung-esque clash as contending forces seek to control the headlines in Friday's paper. One thing we can be certain of is that the privateers will be seeking support for the specious claim that doing nothing costs $600 billion per year. We will also want to know if the Trust Fund depletion date grows nearer or further.
Normally, these documents are put together with a reasonable degree of integrity. My take is that the economic and demographic assumptions underlying the intermediate projection are too pessimistic, but this is a consistent year-to-year feature and not the result of some kind of fiddling. But the Trustees are, in fact, a gaggle of Bush appointees. Fiddling is a very real possibility. The stakes have rarely been higher. The White House has zero commitment to honesty, either rhetorical, financial, or intellectual. So fiddling must be expected. But it may also be hard to detect -- there are many, many, many sorts of assumptions buried in these reports. It should be an interesting afternoon. My plan, as of now, is to spend the morning hung over in preparation.
March 23, 2005 | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8345160fd69e200d8343e310b53ef
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Wonk Armageddon:
Comments
Thanks for the heads up.
The 2004 report and a host of other Social Security resources can be found here.
Posted by: Jon | Mar 23, 2005 1:43:50 AM
Max Sawicky plans on live-blogging the press conference. I am sure there will be other good seats from which to watch the game, but Max knows his stuff.
MaxSpeak
Posted by: bob mcmanus | Mar 23, 2005 3:26:31 AM
"The White House has zero commitment to honesty, either rhetorical, financial, or intellectual." True, but too limited.
More generally, politicians -- liberal and conservative, D and R -- have zero commitment to honesty, either rhetorical, financial, or intellectual.
Posted by: ostap | Mar 23, 2005 8:35:39 AM
I've worked on these as a civil servant, and the process is on the up and up. Don't forget that there are two public trustees (one Dem, one Repub) to help keep the process honest. A lot of it is technical, and it's the civil servants who have the expertise. The government trustees don't really contribute to the process, except to sign off on the assumptions. Do you really think Elaine Chao knows anything about mortality projections and long-run productivity growth?
The public trustees _are_ heavily involved; they (currently John Palmer, Tom Saving; the same holds for earlier public trustees) are actually well-versed on the issues.
Posted by: Dave | Mar 23, 2005 10:02:19 AM
Life expectancy will probably increase more than the Trustees predict. I understand they still work with a box model on life expectancy tiered to I think 105.
People are living longer at all ages and I'd expect the 105 year should be extended.
Posted by: Hoo | Mar 23, 2005 10:06:13 AM
The public trustees _are_ heavily involved; they (currently John Palmer, Tom Saving; the same holds for earlier public trustees) are actually well-versed on the issues.
And of course, Mr. Saving has carefully tended his nonpartisan reputation by becoming an advisor and spokesman for a partisan pro-priviatization group, Progress for America. Nothing to worry about, then!
Posted by: mds | Mar 23, 2005 10:58:50 AM
The irony of having Mr. Saving toiling as a public trustee is not lost on all of us.
Posted by: deckko | Mar 23, 2005 11:10:02 AM
In related news, Tom Delay is changing his name to Mr. Niceandsweet.
Posted by: theCoach | Mar 23, 2005 11:14:40 AM
"I've worked on these as a civil servant, and the process is on the up and up."
I second this.
You also have to distinguish between the Trustees and the Office of the Actuary. I know the head actuaries there (Steve Goss et al.), and they are very good people. They are career actuaries, and I trust their integrity. I will be very, very surprised if there is any monkey-business in the Trustees' Report.
By the way, the Report details the year-to-year changes in assumptions, so it's a bit more transparent than you make it out to be. I agree there are many smaller assumptions/parameters that go unmentioned, but the most influential of them are right up front.
Posted by: Mahan Atma | Mar 23, 2005 11:19:43 AM
The books were cooked just enough for the administration to make their case. This has happened at the EPA, CIA, and every other department. The CBO and GAO are the only places to get decent numbers anymore.
Posted by: Marvyt | Mar 23, 2005 12:30:29 PM
The 2005 OASDI Trustees Report
from Atrios who also links to Max.
Posted by: theCoach | Mar 23, 2005 12:39:52 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.