This part of the article got it wrong. SS money is spent, it is not invested. The SS Trust Fund gets an IOU but there's no asset backing it. That's different from a Treasury bond, which is a real financial asset that is tradeable and marketable.

Also, the US wasn't really running a true surplus, it was still borrowing from SS during this period. The feds use SS to mask the true size of the deficit, and it was only by this phony accounting that the budget was "balanced".

Didn't I read recently that treasury or someone similar basically admitted that Social Security isn't asset backed? That it's a case of funds-in, funds-out?

I know the republican guy got hounded for his 'ponzi scheme' comment but there is an element of truth in that hyperbole. Without new workers contributing SS payments, the recipients wouldn't have anything coming in. So it's not a ponzi scheme as such, but it's certainly not an investment fund either.

That's correct. The Social Security "trust fund" is really just an accounting fiction. Most of the money paid in SS taxes always went right back out to recipients. For awhile the government was collecting more than it was paying out (for demographic reasons) and the surplus was borrowed by the government. But I believe at this point the program has a negative cash flow, so the government will have to issue new bonds to pay off the bonds in the "trust fund".

It's really a lot like your right pocket borrowing from your left pocket.