That has been expected since the last time Social Security was "reformed" in the early 1980s. Notice I did NOT say when Social Security goes back to congress and say "You know all that surplus Social Security Taxes we collected from 1983 till 2018 and gave to you? Sorry we NO LONGER HAVE A SURPLUS, so you have to borrow the money from someone else."
Please note 2018 is the current expected date for this to occur, in earlier decades 2012 was used. The reason for the difference is 2012 was based on a "Conservative" model for the economy, not what really happened.
When economist look into the future, they tend to develop three models. First is the "High" model, high income, low expenditures. Second is the "low" or "Conservative" model, low income, high expenditures. This is called the "Conservative" model for the economy is expected to do it OR better, while the "high" model is on the overly optimistic end of what will happen. In the middle is the "Middle Model" drawn half-way between the "high" and "low" models.
The problem is the economy tends to go along the lines of the middle model NOT the two extremes. Thus as we near the date when expenditures exceed income, we see that the best model was the middle model not the "high" or "low" models (i.e. the economy did BETTER than the "conservative" model). The main affect of always citing the "Conservative" model, when the economy tend to go to the middle model is that the "Date of Reckoning" is always being pushed back. Thus in the 1980s, the year where Social Security Expenditures exceeded income looked like it would be 2012, but today it looks like it will be 2018. I suspect it will be further pushed into the future as we near 2018, I believe the middle model says 2025 for the year Expenditures exceed Income from Social Security Taxes, but people are still using the "Conservative" model, updated and thus 2018 is cited TODAY as the "Date of Reckoning".
While the Day of Reckoning has been pushed back, Social Security expenditures have been increasing while Social Security income had been decreasing since at least 2000. This has just added to the deficient built up under Bush as he was (and is) President.
Note, 2018 is NOT when Social Security goes back to Congress and say "You know all that money we collected and gave to you, we need it now please pay us back?" That is in the more distant future (Conservative estimate about 2025, middle estimate 2040). The problem is Congress and the President has to come up with some other source of income to off-set the fact Social Security has been collecting roughly the same as it did in 2000, but with increase outputs, so less money for the Treasury.
Right now 2025 is the year Congress will have to raise Income taxes to pay back Social Security taxes spent on Reagan's military buildup of the 1980s and other things since 1980, 2018 is the year Congress has to raise Taxes to offset the complete loss of Social Security Surplus. Furthermore as we near 2010, Congress may have to raise Taxes to offset the DROP in Social Security surplus the Treasury is getting (and this is the big fear of the GOP, for in 2010 Bush's tax cut to the rich ENDS and has to be renewed to be made permanent, but the DROP in Social Security Surplus will make that increasingly unlikely as we get nearer 2010).
Basically Moody is looking at a drop in Revenue for the US Government AND no political will to undo that damage. I suspect Moody is looking at Chinese option of NOT buying US Treasury bonds, which has been a huge source of Revenue for Bush and Company. What will Bush and Company do to offset the drop in Social Security surplus? The same thing he had done in the past, nothing and Moody seeing that has to re-view the Federal Government's ability to pay back its debts (and maybe even REDUCE its rating).
AARP On the problem:
http://www.aarpmagazine.org/money/Articles/myths_and_truths_about_social_security.htmlSSA own site on the Surplus:
http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/TRSUM/trsummary.htmlThis site say 2017, and SS is gone by 2041, but that is considered worse case scenario and unlikely to happen by most observers of SS:
http://www.house.gov/ryan/issuepapers/socialsecurityissuepaper.html