Paul Krugman, NY Times, on the "health" of Social Security:

Connect the Dots

The introductory summary -- which, unlike the report itself, is mainly a political document -- does its best to make the worst of a good situation. But the bottom line is that the long-run sustainability of Social Security looks better than ever. The staff of the Social Security Administration, using conservative assumptions, now says that the system could operate without any changes at all -- no cuts in benefits, no additional revenue -- until 2041, three years longer than it projected last year.

I hope this satisfies readers who, when I criticize bogus arguments for privatizing Social Security, demand to hear my answer to the crisis. There isn't any crisis: the system looks good for 40 years, and with a bit of extra resources can survive indefinitely.

More specifically: The long-run actuarial shortfall of Social Security is less than half the revenue that will be lost due to last year's tax cut. The common perception that the tax cut was no big deal, but that Social Security faces a terrible crisis, is completely upside down. But the powerful forces that want to dismantle Social Security won't take yes for an answer; they insist that the system is doomed.

Never mind the rhetoric about retirement security; the real reason for the attack on Social Security is ideology....

Yes, it is ideology, the ideology that says tax cuts are bad, that more revenue for the government is inherently good. And yes, sorry, Social Security is still in trouble. Oh, it will remain solvent for an additional three years? Whoopee. The accountants who work the tables for Social Security use a 75 year window; three years in a blink of time on that scale.

I also love the tiny little insertion that "the system looks good for 40 years, and with a bit of extra resources can survive indefinitely." Well, last year it was good for 37 years with the same qualifiers. Still sounds like it's time for a change. Even Chile successfully privatized their retirement system (of course, they had a retirement system before we did, so they've more--and better--experience).