That would be one of the most shameful things anyone in Congress to do. Every time we get into a new war against a dictator, they always say, "he's killing his own people." If the government does this, they are no better.

Can the SSA sue Congress for refusing to pay back funds borrowed from SS? I guess the biggger question is can one branch or agency sue another?

http://www.ssa.gov/oact/progdata/fundFAQ.html#a0=6

Those bonds can be paid back differently than normal bonds. Everything the ssa says about the "full faith and credit of the US" applying is true. On the other hand, if the government told the ssa that the interest would be serviced with more bonds and they could only be redeemed for more bonds (rather than $$$) it wouldn't matter as it would matter if the US said that to China.

And the "special-issue securities" are non-marketable (http://www.ssa.gov/oact/trsum/). So the ssa can't just sell their bonds to someone else if the government decides not to redeem them for dollars.

And, the supreme court has said that nobody is entitled to benefits even if they've paid into the system (http://www.ssa.gov/history/nestor.html). The court said congress needs to make the change in benefits, but if the ssa doesn't have the money, you and I probably could not sue the ssa since we have no rights to benefits. And it wouldn't matter since the decision to not make $$ payments and/or to decrease benefits will come from congress.

I'd like to get some of my benefits when I'm (currently) eligible in the 2030's so I hope something changes. If it changes soon, it can be a minor change. The longer they wait the more drastic the change will need to be (compound interest applies)

Government. Any attempt to renege on that promise will destroy the credibility of the US Govt, not just here, to to all its other creditors.

Who said anything about 'selling them'? We don't want to sell them, we want the interest promised, which so far has been paid, and when needed, we want them to honor their promisory notes. If they do not, which they will imho, they will be viewed as dead beats, not an image the US Govt needs when it comes to debt.

You seem to be implying that because they are 'special' bonds they are not obligated to pay them back, or that they have no value.

The ONLY value they have is that they are promise of a repayment of debt.

Do you think that when you sign a an agreement with a Bank, you are not obligated to repay it because the contract itself isn't valuable?

I know the games they have played with people's debts, bundling them, without asking US, and selling them as 'investments' even when they knew they were worthless.

But the US Govt must honor its promises to its creditors or become a bad risk for other potential lenders. China is already cutting back on its loans to the US. All this talk of 'no value' re Bonds can't be very encouraging to other lenders.

You need to understand where politicians are coming from if you want to stop them. The are coming from a view that this is a different class of debt and they will be able to back that up if pressed.

Also, the SSA doesn't just want interest. They are on schedule to deplete the trust fund if nothing changes (in 2 decades or 5 depending on who you believe). They may even redeem the bonds before maturity
Without legislation to restore long-range solvency of the trust funds, redemption of long-term securities prior to maturity would be necessary.
(http://www.ssa.gov/oact/progdata/fundFAQ.html#a0=6)

As far as China is concerned, if we "fixed" our problems with "internal debt" in order to improve our ability to service "external debt" that would be a good thing. SS is "internal debt". It consists of non-marketable bonds that indicate a transfer of money between 2 accounting books that are both owned by the same entity (the US government). The bonds are not in any way the equivalent of external bonds but just a statement that one of the US accounts will return money to the other US account with interest at some point in the future. Both sets of books are controlled by the same entity and that entity can play all sorts of games with those books/bonds without worrying any other entity.

There is ZERO chance of "default" because of the options the US government has for legally manipulating the books while there is a huge chance that SS beneficiaries will be screwed. Using "default" as an argument against cutting benefits is a non-starter.

As soon as it reaches a condition of 'technical insolvency' the law requires that automatic cuts in benefits are made. I believe that the initial cuts are projected at 22%. Those cuts would continue to be levied until the fund reached technical solvency, so it is impossible for the fund to 'deplete'.

It is also not a question of "who to believe".

The SSA law indicates that the trustees base their opinions on the office of the Chief Actuary. He uses standard economic data from the government.

From your quote

the Fund is projected to decrease each year until being fully exhausted in 2033

The law mandates cuts in benefits, that is why it cannot be depleted or fully exhausted.

I believe that the estimate is that without changes the law would trigger an automatic cut of about 22% in the year 2022. There would be additional cuts until revenues were greater than benefit payments.

will be long gone from power, and probably this earth, once the default comes. In other words, the thieves have no reason to care.

again? Will they oppose diluting the Social Security payouts with any method, including a chained CPI?

asking them to vote against any deal with Chained CPI. Said only change I support is raising the cap period.

1) You make it seem that Durbin is making comments out of thin air.

He is simply reporting what the Trustee Report, based on the Chief Actuary, is stating. You can read the full report here:

http://www.ssa.gov/oact/trsum/

The fundamental problem is that people are living a lot longer than before, which is good.

2) When the government 'borrows' from the Social Security Fund they pay interest. Last year SSA earned over $ 100 billion in interest from investing it in federal bonds.

What would you have the trustees do with the money?

Keep it in the federal reserve with no interest?

Invest it in risky private enterprise?

Interest income by purchasing federal bonds is a safe and important income source for SS.

The idea that the government is somehow 'stealing' the money by borrowing it and not paying it back is a RW talking point, and false.

Without changes in the income of the SSA the fund will reach a condition of technical insolvency and unless something is done will face automatic cuts.

When Durbin is talking about making changes to SS he is doing so to prevent the automatic cuts that will happen if something is not done.

We can pretend that the legislation doesn't exist and that proposed changes are meant to damage it, if that makes it easier to sleep at night.

An alternative view is to understand that people are living a lot longer than the original and revised actuarial formulas were based on.

That results in a situation that if nothing is done then huge automatic cuts will take place.

I am for new revenues, here are my ideas

1) lift the cap to $ 500,000
2) Reinstate an inheritance tax

but guess what, unless we have super majorities in the Senate we are not going to get it passed.

We should at least be factual about the current numbers and the current law, something that DU seems to have a problem with when it comes to SS Trust fund.

Republicans, admit the GOP abuses the filibuster endlessly, and do away with it.

Your solutions are reasonable, but why aren't "centrist" Democrats talking about them?

If they are, I would be very glad to be proven wrong.

compromise without that supermajority.

So they can't bitch about obstruction they enable.

With those, it's "Spend now, figure out how to pay later."

Social Security has amassed a surplus, and with modest changes in the tax rate, it could be solvent forever.

If you raised the cap enough or applied it to all kinds of income, you could even lower the rate and still keep it solvent forever.