The Week That Was: The Social Security Edition

In light of President Obama's upcoming State of the Union address next Tuesday, lots of talk about Social Security. Lots of warnings about Social Security. Lots of forewarning about Social Security – as in, don't even think about touching it, Mr. President. Very interesting to see the “lobbying” in action.

A good piece of reporting by Dan Fromkin at HuffingtonPost:

President Barack Obama's apparent willingness to consider cuts in Social Security benefits may be winning him points with Washington elites, but it's killing him with voters, who see the program as inviolate and may start to wonder what the Democratic Party stands for, if not for Social Security.

That's the conclusion of three top progressive pollsters who spoke to reporters Wednesday at a briefing sponsored by the Economic Policy Institute, the Century Foundation and Demos.

For the public, cutting benefits is the problem, not the solution," said Guy Molyneux, a partner at Hart Research Associates.

As a result, the pollsters said that any Democrat seeking elected office in 2012 should be begging Obama not to say anything about Social Security cuts in his State of the Union address later this month.

He goes on to link to the results of a poll done by Celinda Lake's Lake Research Partners. Check out the summary. While the public does not want to see a cut in benefits, Americans trust Republicans in Congress more than Democrats when it comes to Social Security by a margin of 3 percentage points.

And the New York Times picked up on the story:

Yet their preference for spending cuts, even in programs that benefit them, dissolves when they are presented with specific options related to Medicare and Social Security, the programs that directly touch the most people and also are the biggest drivers of the government’s projected long-term debt.

Nearly two-thirds of Americans choose higher payroll taxes for Medicare and Social Security over reduced benefits in either program. And asked to choose among cuts to Medicare, Social Security or the nation’s third-largest spending program — the military — a majority by a large margin said cut the Pentagon.

And over on the radio front – or at least the internet radio front – Sam Seder interviewed economist James Galbraith on possible cuts (or better said, what amounts to cuts) to Social Security. Take a listen. It is a very accessible, easily understandable interview for the layperson. And, Sam Seder is on a self-described “jihad” against any cuts to Social Security.


Dr. Galbraith clearly fears that this administration has already decided to sacrifice Social Security in the name of deficit cutting. And he believes the idea of raising the age at which Americans can collect benefits will be seen through a policy that raises the age at which full benefits can be collected – something he describes as indeed amounting to a cut in benefits to a certain sector of society. The most vulnerable among us, especially those that have worked at particularly taxing jobs for long periods of time, will have to wait to collect full benefits. And of course, these are the folks who have the lowest life expectancy. Hence, cuts in benefits on two ends.

He actually proposes offering a window of opportunity were the minimum age to collect full benefits is lowered, in an attempt to get some older job-seekers out of the job market.  He argues this would help alleviate the unemployment crisis. And, he believes that the cut in payroll tax recently agreed to by both parties is clear evidence that the government does indeed have the ability to put into Social Security, whatever it really wants to.

And lastly on the political front, there’s Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s appearance on NBC’s Meet The Press. David Gregory is unbelievable. And Harry Reid was great – short, simple and to the point.



There is justifiable concern regarding what President Obama will propose at the State of the Union with respect to Social Security. It is completely absurd that the American public trusts Republicans more than Democrats on this issue. But then again, if this Democratic President reduces benefits to either Medicare or Social Security, he will do irreparable harm to his popularity and support for the Democratic Party. The absurdity is actually in the idea that Democrats MIGHT even consider such cuts. So, if a pollster ever calls me and asks who I trust more on this issue, the answer might just have to be “none of the above.”