May, 31 2013, 02:33pm EDT

For Immediate Release
Contact:
Nicole Woo, (202) 293-5380 x108
Social Security and Medicare Reports Little Changed from 2012
The 2013 Social Security and Medicare Trustees' reports were little changed from 2012. The Social Security Trustees report showed a slightly larger shortfall over its 75-year planning horizon, with the projected shortfall rising from 2.67 percent of payroll in the 2012 report to 2.73 percent of payroll in the newest report. The reason for this small increase was the change in the 75 years covered with 2087 replacing 2012 in the projection period.
WASHINGTON
The 2013 Social Security and Medicare Trustees' reports were little changed from 2012. The Social Security Trustees report showed a slightly larger shortfall over its 75-year planning horizon, with the projected shortfall rising from 2.67 percent of payroll in the 2012 report to 2.73 percent of payroll in the newest report. The reason for this small increase was the change in the 75 years covered with 2087 replacing 2012 in the projection period.
The projected date of trust fund depletion remained at 2033. After this date the program is projected to be able to pay slightly more than 75 percent of scheduled benefits if no changes are ever made. This ratio changes little over the remaining decades of the projection period.
The Medicare report had some positive news in that the projected shortfall dropped slightly from the 2012 report. In 2012 the projected shortfall was 1.35 percent of payroll. In the 2013 report it was down to 1.14 percent of payroll. The main reason for this decline is a slower rate for the projected growth in health care costs. The 2012 report assumed that per person Medicare expenditures would average $16,530 in 2021. The 2013 report assumes that per person expenses in 2021 will be just $16,276. This projection incorporates some of the slowdown in health care cost growth that we have seen over the last five years.
The improvement in the trustees projections for Medicare over the last five years have been striking. In the 2008 report the trustees projected a shortfall equal to 3.54 percent of payroll. This means that projected shortfall has been reduced by almost 70 percent since 2008. This is in spite of the fact that the change in the projection period would have added at least 0.2 percentage points to the projected shortfall.
One item that is often missed in the discussion of these reports is that projections of higher future costs for these programs is accompanied by projections of higher wages. Both reports include explicit projections of real wage growth in their analysis. Over a long enough time, even modest wage growth will have a large impact on living standards.

The trustees' wage growth assumptions imply that the average real wage in 2045 will be over $68,000 (in 2013 dollars), or 55 percent higher than the $43,800 average real wage in 2013. In addition, because the trustees assume that the average work year will fall modestly through time, workers on average will enjoy the equivalent of four more days of vacation each year than workers today.
If the trustees' assumptions about the cost of these programs prove correct and even if the projected shortfall in the programs were to be met entirely through a 5.12 percentage point increase in the payroll tax (as opposed to alternative sources of revenue or cuts in benefits) then the projection of rising wages would be little affected. Average annual wages, after deducting payroll taxes, would still be more 46 percent higher in 2045 than in 2013 ($59,400 in 2045 compared to $40,500 in 2013).
It is important to emphasize that these numbers refer to average wages. In the last three decades, the vast majority of wage growth has gone to those at the top end of the wage distribution. As a result, workers at most points along the wage distribution have seen little gain in real wages over this period. If this pattern of upward redistribution continues, workers in 2045 will see little, if any, gain in real wages. In that case, the effect of the distribution of wage gains over the next three decades will swamp the impact of any tax increases that may plausibly be implemented to support Social Security and Medicare.
It is also worth noting that even in this scenario, the projected increases in payroll taxes over the next three decades would not be hugely different than over the last three. Since 1980, the Social Security tax rate has increased by 2.24 percentage points (or about 2.8 percentage points when factoring in the higher rate on the self-employed) and the Medicare tax rate has risen by 1.9 percentage points. The total effective increase in the payroll tax since 1980 of 4.7 percentage points is only slightly less than the 5.1 percentage point increase for 2045, assuming no other changes in the programs, that would be implied by the projections in these reports.
The Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR) was established in 1999 to promote democratic debate on the most important economic and social issues that affect people's lives. In order for citizens to effectively exercise their voices in a democracy, they should be informed about the problems and choices that they face. CEPR is committed to presenting issues in an accurate and understandable manner, so that the public is better prepared to choose among the various policy options.
(202) 293-5380LATEST NEWS
War Crime, Murder, or Both? Dems Demand DOJ Probe Into Hegseth Order to Kill Shipwrecked Sailors
"Giving a general order to kill any survivors constitutes a war crime," wrote Reps. Jamie Raskin and Ted Lieu. "Outside of war, the killing of unarmed, helpless men clinging to wreckage in open water is simply murder."
Dec 22, 2025
Making clear that the Trump administration's "entire Caribbean operation," which has killed more than 100 people in boats that the US military has bombed, "appears to be unlawful," two Democrats on a powerful House committee on Monday called on the Department of Justice to investigate one particular attack that's garnered accusations of a war crime—or murder.
House Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) and Rep. Ted Lieu (D-Calif.) wrote to Attorney General Pam Bondi four weeks after it was reported that in the military's first strike on a boat on September 2, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth ordered service members to "kill everybody"—prompting a second "double-tap" strike to kill two survivors of the initial blast.
A retired general, United Nations experts, and former top military legal advisers are among those who have warned that Hegseth and the service members directly involved in the strike—as well as the other attacks on more than two dozen boats in the Caribbean and eastern Pacific—may be liable for war crimes or murder.
Raskin and Lieu raised that concern directly to Bondi, writing: "Deliberately targeting incapacitated individuals constitutes a clear violation of the Department of Defense’s Law of War Manual, which expressly forbids attacks on persons rendered helpless by shipwreck. Such conduct would trigger criminal liability under the War Crimes Act if the administration claims it is engaged in armed conflict, or under the federal murder statute if no such conflict exists."
The administration has insisted it is attacking the boats as part of an effort to stop drug trafficking out of Venezuela, and has claimed the US is in an armed conflict with drug cartels there, though international and domestic intelligence agencies have not identified the country as a significant source any drugs that flow into the US. As President Donald Trump has ordered the boat strikes, the administration has also been escalating tensions with Venezuela by seizing oil tankers, claiming to close its airspace, and demanding that President Nicolás Maduro leave power.
Critics from both sides of the aisle in Congress have questioned the claim that the bombed boats were a threat to the US, and Raskin and Lieu noted that the vessel attacked on September 2 in particular appeared to pose no threat, as it was apparently headed to Suriname, "not the United States, at the time it was destroyed."
"Deliberately targeting incapacitated individuals constitutes a clear violation of the Department of Defense’s Law of War Manual, which expressly forbids attacks on persons rendered helpless by shipwreck."
"Congress has never authorized military force against Venezuela; a boat moving towards Suriname does not pose a clear and present danger to the United States; and the classified legal memoranda the Trump administration has offered us to justify the attacks are entirely unpersuasive," wrote the lawmakers.
Raskin and Lieu emphasized that Hegseth's explanations of the September 2 strike in particular have been "shifting and contradictory."
"Secretary Hegseth has variously claimed that he missed the details of the September 2 strike because of the 'fog of war,' and that he actually left the room before any explicit order was given to kill the survivors," they wrote. "Later reporting suggests that he gave a general order to kill all passengers aboard ahead of the strike but delegated the specific order to kill survivors to a subordinate."
The facts that are known about the strike, as well as Hegseth's muddled claims, warrant a DOJ investigation, the Democrats suggested.
"Giving a general order to kill any survivors constitutes a war crime," they wrote. "Similarly, carrying out such an order also constitutes a war crime, and the Manual for Courts-Martial explicitly provides that 'acting pursuant to orders' is no defense 'if the accused knew the orders to be unlawful.' Outside of war, the killing of unarmed, helpless men clinging to wreckage in open water is simply murder. The federal criminal code makes it a felony to commit murder within the 'special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States,' which is defined to include the 'high seas.' It is also a federal crime to conspire to commit murder."
Raskin and Lieu also emphasized that two memos from the DOJ's Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) "do not—and cannot—provide any legal protection for the secretary’s conduct."
A 2010 OLC memo said the federal murder statute does not apply "when the target of a military strike is an enemy combatant in a congressionally authorized armed conflict," they noted. "In stark contrast, in the case of the Venezuelan boats, Congress has not authorized military force of any kind."
A new classified memo also suggested that “personnel taking part in military strikes on alleged drug trafficking boats in Latin America would not be exposed to future prosecution," and claimed that "the president’s inherent constitutional authority in an undeclared 'armed conflict' will shield the entire chain of command from criminal liability."
The Democrats wrote, "Experts in criminal law, constitutional law, and the law of armed conflict find this sweeping, unsubstantiated claim implausible, at best."
They also noted that even the author of the George W. Bush administration's infamous "Torture Memo," conservative legal scholar John Woo, has said Hegseth's order on September 2 was clearly against the law.
"Attorney General Bondi, even those who condoned and defended torture in the name of America are saying that the Trump administration has violated both federal law and the law of war," wrote Raskin and Lieu. "We urge you to do your duty as this country’s chief law enforcement officer to investigate the secretary’s apparent and serious violations of federal criminal law."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Exactly What We Don't Need': Trump Bashed for Naming New Class of Warships After Himself
The reported move came just days after Trump added his name to the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts.
Dec 22, 2025
The Wall Street Journal on Monday reported that President Donald Trump will announce that the US Navy is building a new class of warship that will be named after him.
According to the Journal, the president is expected to reveal that the Navy is building "a new 'Trump-class' battleship, which will become the centerpiece of the president’s vision for a new 'Golden Fleet.'"
The Journal noted that Trump in the past has complained about the aesthetic look of US warships, which he has described as "terrible-looking." Sources told the Journal that the new ship will "be an upgrade to the Navy’s Arleigh Burke-class destroyers, which are the workhorse of the current fleet and which Trump has compared unfavorably to rival navies."
Mark Montgomery, a retired rear admiral who currently serves as a senior director at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, dumped on Trump's "Golden Fleet" plans in an interview with the Journal, describing the ships as "exactly what we don’t need" and accusing Trump's underlings of being "focused on the president’s visual that a battleship is a cool-looking ship."
New York Times columnist Jamelle Bouie echoed Montgomery's criticisms of the project, which he speculated was being done for entirely frivolous reasons.
"This just has me thinking about how so much of this government and the movement around it is purely a matter of aesthetics," he wrote on Bluesky. "Is there a strategic reason for produce a new warship? Maybe. But my hunch is that this is happening because the president thinks it will look cool."
CNBC's Carl Quintanilla observed that the Trump-branded warships were just the latest thing that the president has slapped his name on, as in recent months he has also announced the creation of the "TrumpRx" prescription drug website and the "Trump Gold Card," while also adding his name to the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts.
Democratic political strategist Jim Manley reacted with horror to Trump naming American military equipment after himself.
"My God," he wrote on Bluesky. "Well, that seals the deal. If House and Senate appropriators agree to this—burn it all down."
Keep ReadingShow Less
House Dems Call Out Israel's 'Near-Daily Violations' of Gaza Ceasefire
In a letter demanding action from the White House, US lawmakers noted "continued bombardment against civilians, destruction of property, and insufficient delivery of humanitarian aid."
Dec 22, 2025
Dozens of congressional Democrats wrote to the White House on Monday to highlight "the long-standing relationship between the US and Israel," and urge President Donald Trump "to exert maximum diplomatic pressure" to end the Israeli government's violations of a ceasefire deal with Hamas that took effect in the Gaza Strip on October 10.
As of Monday, Gaza's Government Media Office accused Israeli forces of 875 ceasefire violations, which have killed 411 Palestinians and injured 1,112 others. The official death toll in the strip since October 7, 2023 is at least 70,937 Palestinians, with another 171,192 wounded, though global experts warn the true figures are likely far higher.
In the letter, Democratic Reps. Mark Pocan (Wis.) and Madeleine Dean (Pa.), along with 45 of their House colleagues, pointed to Israel's "continued bombardment against civilians, destruction of property, and insufficient delivery of humanitarian aid."
"It's imperative that we hold the Israeli government accountable for its actions," they wrote. "It's also vital that we hold Hamas accountable for the violent crackdown it has pursued against any potential competitors in Gaza in violation of its commitment as part of the ceasefire to step back from governing the Gaza Strip."
Under both the Biden and Trump administrations, the US has given Israel more than $20 billion in military aid since it began retaliating for Hamas' attack over two years ago. The lawmakers on Monday called for Trump to take whatever action needed, "including leveraging US assistance, to ensure full compliance with the terms of the framework and an end to the continued acts of violence and destruction that undermine this fragile agreement and threaten the prospect of lasting peace in the region."
"We recognize that both Hamas and Israel have committed ceasefire violations... However, we are deeply concerned that the Israeli response to violations by Hamas have been severe and disproportionate, resulting in massive loss of life," they wrote. For example, "on November 29, the Israeli military killed two brothers, aged 8 and 10, in a drone strike after they crossed into an Israel-controlled area of Gaza, referring to the children as 'suspects' in a statement that failed to acknowledge they were children."
In addition to "attacks by air, artillery, and direct shootings," the House Democrats highlighted, "since the beginning of the ceasefire, Israeli forces have reportedly destroyed more than 1,500 buildings, many of which did not appear to be damaged prior to being destroyed... These include homes, entire neighborhoods, gardens, and small orchards."
"We also are gravely concerned that the Israeli government is not allowing sufficient levels of humanitarian aid to enter Gaza. The ceasefire agreement calls for 600 trucks per day to enter Gaza, but recent reports indicate that far fewer trucks are actually getting through," they continued. While the global initiative that tracks hunger crises concluded last week that Gaza is no longer facing "famine," it also stressed that "the situation remains critical" for 1.6 million Palestinians.
The mass starvation of Palestinians in Gaza has been a factor in the ongoing genocide case against Israel at the International Court of Justice as well as the International Criminal Court's arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant, which the Trump administration has retaliated against with sanctions targeting ICC judges.
"Mr. President, this ceasefire agreement is supposed to represent an opportunity for permanent, lasting peace in the region," the Democrats said Monday. "While the agreement is not perfect, and the proposed peace plan faces many obstacles, we are hopeful that this moment is one that can be met with the conviction needed to end the cycle of bloodshed that has plagued the region for so long."
"Unfortunately, the near-daily violations of the ceasefire threaten to plunge the region back into full-scale war," they warned. "It is imperative that your administration exerts maximum diplomatic pressure on the Israeli government, including by leveraging US assistance, to bring an end to the near-daily attacks on civilians, including children, destruction of civilian property, and insufficient delivery of desperately needed humanitarian aid."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular


