" ... there used to be 35 workers for every retiree. There’s soon to be two workers for every retiree. "

Here are the facts:

• President Franklin Roosevelt signed the Social Security legislation in 1935. link
• In 1945, a decade after Social Security was implemented we had 40 workers for every retiree. link
• In 1950, there were 16 workers for every retiree. link
• In 1960, there were 5.1 workers per retiree. link
• In 1970, there were 3.5 workers for every retiree. link
• In 1980, there were 3.2 workers for every retiree. link
• In 1995, there were 3.3 workers per retiree. link
• The ratio in 1998 is slightly more than three workers per retiree. link
• By the year 2030, there will be fewer than two workers contributing to Social Security for each retiree. link

By Russert's logic, we should have had a crisis in 1950, 1960, 1970, 1980, 1995 - 'cause there were a whole hell of a lot fewer workers than 35 per retiree.

Obviously, when a pay-as-you-go program is first started, the ratio of pay-in's to pay-out's is going to be very large. However, Russert tosses around 35:1 as if that's the ratio for a settled, steady-state system. And another thing. We've heard about how much more productive U.S. workers have become over the last 50 years. You know, more output per unit worker. That's true, and a reason why over time, fewer workers are needed to build a car, publish a book, or support a retiree.

Now, there are real issues having to do with the Baby Boomer demographics which require building up a surplus to tap into later, and certain other adjustments. But when people like Russert talk about 35 workers per retiree - and contrast that with an expected 2 per retiree, that's shorthand for implying that the system is hoplessly broken.

And that's a lie.