…is not typically described as a Ponzi scheme, whatever Rick Perry and Tea Party Republicans want to imagine…

Whether it’s Social Security, whether it’s Medicaid, whether it’s Medicare. You’ve got $115 trillion worth of unfunded liability in those three. They’re bankrupt. They’re a Ponzi scheme. I challenge anybody to stand up and defend the Social Security program that we have today—and particularly defend it to a 27-year-old young man who’s just gotten married and is trying to get his life headed in the right direction economically.

I will gladly defend Social Security to any audience, anywhere, anytime.

To be fair to Perry, Social Security is sometimes sold as a Ponzi scheme. When Americans are told that their FICA payments are analogous to contributions to a high-yield savings account - you make contributions now and they come back to you with interest years later, risk free - Social Security proponents are misleading voters about the true nature of the program.

(CBO infographic)

Social Security is a mandatory old-age, survivors, and disability insurance program funded by intergenerational transfers. Retirement benefits are calculated to be somewhat correlated with lifetime contributions, though there’s an element of redistribution toward low-income seniors, but there’s no guarantee that payouts will be commensurate with contributions. Surviving spouses, the disabled, the poor and the long-lived will receive relatively more than others. That’s what makes it an insurance program, rather than a personal savings account invested in the Wall Street dog track. Young workers like me pay taxes to fund benefits for current benefits. I’m happy to do it.

As for the future solvency of the program, all depends on keeping the likes of Rick Perry away from any position of authority. Social Security is dark blue in this CBO infographic:

My God, the horror! Social Security payments climb from slightly less than 5% of GDP to slightly more than 5% of GDP over a 70-year window. Of course, it’s completely plausible that Congress will choose to abandon its commitment to Social Security in order to make room for other rapidly growing programs, namely healthcare. Plausible, but stupid policy. If the choice is restraining the cost of health spending and cutting Social Security benefits, why would any Congress choose to reduce cash benefits - that can be used for whatever purpose the elderly desire - to preserve benefits that can only be used to purchase healthcare?