February 16, 2007
Is Totalization A Trap? Don’t Ask The Social Security
Administration
Illegals receiving Social Security?
Ditto their dependents and survivors—many of whom
have never lived in the United States?
At first glance, it seems preposterous. A law called
the
Social Security Protection Act of 2004 explicitly
prohibits benefits to "aliens residing in
the United States unlawfully."
But a
loophole in that law exempts illegals from any
country "…that has a social insurance or pension
system under which benefits are paid to eligible U.S.
citizens who reside outside that country..." .
"Totalization"
agreements do that. They are designed to
protect workers who have divided their careers between
the U.S. and a foreign country, but haven’t worked long
enough under either social security system to qualify
for benefits. The agreements allow workers to combine ("totalize")
work credits earned in both countries to meet minimum
eligibility requirements.
With the signing of the
U.S.-Mexico totalization agreement on June 29, 2004,
most of the
10 to 20 million illegal aliens living in the U.S.
became potential Social Security recipients.
We say "potential" because the U.S.-Mexico
agreement has yet to be signed by the President—or even
sent to Congress for review.
Eligibility and
costs will ultimately depend on specific terms and
language of the final agreement.
Indeed, some observers fear Mexican totalization
could metastasize into a de facto guest worker
program, effectively legalizing millions of erstwhile
illegal aliens. [See, for example,
Totalization: Sellout of American Workers, By
Phyllis Schlafly November 17, 2004]
That devil will be in the details of the final
agreement.
But in any event, the Social Security
Administration’s preliminary cost estimates for Mexican
totalization seem absurdly low. In 2003 SSA’s actuaries
projected those costs at $78 million in the first year,
growing to $650 million (constant 2002 dollars) by 2050.
SSA claimed that the agreement would have a
"negligible impact" on the Social Security trust
fund long-range actuarial deficit. (Cold comfort: the
trust fund is
expected to be exhausted, with or without Mexican
totalization, by 2040.)
However, SSA’s projections assume only 50,000 newly
eligible Mexican beneficiaries would be added during the
initial phases of totalization, with that number growing
to 300,000 over time. Amazingly, these are the same
numbers that SSA used to cost out the totalization
agreement with Canada. Illegal aliens from Mexico make
up about 70 percent of all illegals in the U.S. Those
from Canada and the 19 other totalization
countries combined account for less than 3 percent
of all illegals. [Social
Security 'Totalization' | Examining a Lopsided Agreement
with Mexico, CIS Backgrounder, By Marti
Dinerstein, September 2004]
And illegal alien headcounts don’t tell the whole
story. Mexico’s retirement system is rudimentary
compared to those of other totalization countries.
Americans, for example, vest for Social Security
benefits after working for 10 years; Mexicans must work
for 24 years before vesting in their national pension
plan. (Mexican
aliens can vest for Social Security after working
just 18 months in the U.S., and make up the difference
by "claiming" to have worked in Mexico.)
Moreover, under the Mexican system workers receive
back exactly what they paid in, plus interest.
[VDARE.COM NOTE:
If it's not stolen, that
is. The men who paid into the Mexican Government’s
Bracero Program in the
1940's haven't been paid; the
money just disappeared.]
By comparison, Social Security is also an
income-redistribution system, with low-wage workers
receiving benefits far in excess of their contributions.
Another federal agency, the Government Accountability
Office [GAO], has said the
prospect of easy Social Security eligibility could
draw
far more illegal aliens to the U.S. than SSA
actuaries have projected:
"……Although the
actuarial estimate indicates that the agreement would
not generate a measurable impact on the trust funds, an
increase of more than 25 percent in the estimate of
initial, new beneficiaries would generate a measurable
impact. For prior agreements, error rates associated
with estimating the expected number of new beneficiaries
have frequently exceeded 25 percent. Because of the
significant number of unauthorized Mexican workers
in the United States, the estimated cost of the proposed
totalization agreement is even more uncertain than for
the prior agreements." [Barbara D. Bovbjerg,
“Proposed Totalization Agreement with Mexico Presents
Unique Challenges”, GAO, September 2003.
PDF]
Overarching everything, according to GAO, are SSA’s
secretive, albeit sloppy, procedures:
"A lack of transparency
in SSA’s processes, and the limited nature of its review
of Mexico’s program, cause us to question the extent to
which SSA will be positioned to respond to potential
program risks should a totalization agreement with
Mexico take place. SSA officials told us that the
process used to develop the proposed totalization
agreement with Mexico was the same as for prior
agreements with other countries. The process—which is
not specified by law or outlined in written policies and
procedures—is informal, and the steps SSA takes when
entering into agreements are neither transparent nor
well-documented."
Of course, this is all very convenient given the Bush
Administration’s apparent determination to
marry Mexico.
The rest of us might like to see some due diligence.
Edwin S. Rubenstein (email
him) is President of
ESR Research Economic Consultants in Indianapolis.