I attended the August 30 town hall meet ing with Cong. Barney Frank at the Martha’s Vineyard Hebrew Center and was given the opportunity to ask a question about a comment he made in his opening remarks about the solvency of our Social Security system. His answer left much to be desired, and only served to reinforce my conviction that our elected leaders refuse to admit that Social Security is insolvent, and that drastic steps are needed to repair it.

Mr. Frank stated that Social Security is solvent for at least the next 20 years. This is a statement often repeated by members of Congress because in theory, the Social Security Trust Fund has $2.6 trillion in “assets” consisting of payroll taxes collected in excess of benefits paid out since the inception of Social Security in 1935 (roughly $2 trillion) plus $0.6 trillion of interest earned over the years, and owed by the federal government, on those excess contributions.

Why is the government paying interest? Because the $2 trillion has been spent on various government programs, department budgets, etc., and the law requires that interest be paid on that borrowed money. Both the principal and interest have been spent, not for the purpose for which they were collected, but to reduce the income taxes which you and I would otherwise have paid.

My question to Mr. Frank was, “How can you say that Social Security is solvent when the money that is supposed to be there to pay for future benefits is gone, and starting last year Social Security began paying out more in benefits than it was receiving in contributions?” I added that the only way that retirees would be able to continue to receive their benefits is for the government to tax all of us a second time through increased federal income taxes in order to recover that $2.6 trillion.

Mr. Frank’s response was, “Who told you that the money isn’t there?” He also stated that there is no doubt that benefits will continue to be paid. That may or may not be true, but it begs the question — where will the money come from? Unfortunately, in this type of forum there is no opportunity for the questioner to respond, the congressman always gets the last word, and most folks just assume he knows what he’s talking about, because it is presented eloquently and in Mr. Frank’s case, indisputably.

But facts are stubborn. And the simple fact is, as of last year, Social Security became insolvent, unable to pay all benefits out of current contributions — many years ahead of schedule. The only way benefits can be maintained at current levels is for the government to make good and repay the money it owes the Social Security trust fund, together with interest. And to do so our government can either tax us (a second time) or print money — two unacceptable choices.

Contrary to popular notion, Social Security payroll taxes (6.2 per cent of wages earned, paid by the employee and matched by the employer) are deposited directly into the general revenue fund of the federal government The Supreme Court in two previous cases has ruled that in light of the fact that a mandatory insurance program would be unconstitutional (imagine that; what about mandatory health insurance?), Social Security contributions do not constitute a legal obligation on the part of government to pay benefits — it does so at its discretion. So, all the Social Security trust fund is holding is “assets” (so described in the trustee’s annual report to Congress) consisting of the special issue bonds that the government has placed there, with the promise to pay them off with your tax dollars. Only in the workings of government, and in the minds of politicians, can a liability (a bond requiring repayment) be considered an asset.

But the greatest tragedy of Social Security is the incredibly low, essentially nonexistent return on investment that retirees receive on all those hundreds of thousands of dollars paid in by them and their employers over their working lifetimes. You need only go on the Social Security Web site (ssa.gov) to verify this information. If you enter the workforce today at age 21 earning $30,000 a year and retire at the current normal retirement age of 67, you and your employer will have paid in $171,000 in payroll taxes. Your monthly benefit at retirement will be $1,234 (for simplicity, all numbers are in 2011 dollars, with salary and retirement benefits kept flat in 2011 dollars). Thus, you will have to live until age 79 (essentially current life expectancy) just to get your contributions back one time. No interest on your money, as you would get if you had put your contributions in a bank, CD, or even a typical whole life insurance policy.. No, the government keeps the interest, supposedly to help pay for your future benefits.

And if you think that’s bad, if you earn $60,000 a year, you will pay in twice as much in payroll taxes (i.e., 100 per cent more) and realize a monthly benefit only 58 per cent higher than the $30,000-a-year earner. Apparently, at $60,000 a year, the government thinks you’re rich and should give back some of your contributions, and pay a higher income tax rate on your benefits to boot. And unless you live to age 82, you’ll never get your money back. Beware the current-day politicians who tell you that only the rich will pay more taxes under their various revenue-raising proposals.

What’s the solution to this situation? First, Mr. Frank’s constituents need to send him a letter setting out the above facts and let him know that they are not so dumb as to believe that Social Security is solvent. Second, demand that this problem be resolved immediately by requiring the government to begin repaying the $2.6 trillion it has borrowed and placing these funds in a truly protected account (Al Gore’s famous, nonexistent Social Security “lock box”) and invested in conservative, closely monitored, private sector investments where companies actually earn real money to repay borrowed money. Imagine what a job-creating boon that could be for our economy.

It is not the fault of government that the number of Americans earning retirement benefits has risen dramatically with increasing life expectancy. But Social Security is the clearest and most easily understood example of how government has fraudulently wasted the money we have entrusted to it, and how our elected officials refuse to own up to it.. This must be stopped. And, as Mr. Frank himself said, that process starts with constituents writing to him, and other elected representatives, demanding action. Our future retirement income is absolutely at stake.

Robert. E. Landreth lives in Midland, Tex., and Vineyard Haven.