Cross posted at slothropia.com.
The New York Times (paper of record that never gets a story wrong) reports that Democratic leaders in both the House and Senate are resisting any possible ripoff of Social Security.
Mr. Obama considered announcing the formation of a Social Security task force at a White House "fiscal responsibility summit" that he will convene on Monday. But several Democrats said that idea had been shelved, partly because of objections from House and Senate leaders.
Not to mention the explosion of anger and opposition that would come from Democratic Party grassroots and the net roots if the administration ever makes any moves toward weakening Social Security.
Sadly, within this story the Grey Lady (specifically reporter Jackie Calmes) contradicts herself and confuses the reader with vague and contradictory journalism. On the one hand, Calmes reports that
Liberal Democrats are already serving notice that they will be equally vehement in opposing any reductions in scheduled benefits for future retirees. But any solution, budget analysts said, must include a mix of both approaches, though current beneficiaries would see no change.
First note the absence of a definition of the "looming crisis". Also note that the budget analysts referred to are anonymous and no consideration is given to the possibility that there are other budget analysts and Social Security experts with any alternative analysis of the issue.
Yet later in the same story, the reporter gets it right
Social Security still runs a surplus, and its reserves will not be exhausted until 2041, after which enough payroll taxes will come in to cover 78 percent of benefits, according to the 2008 annual report of the program trustees.
So in 32 years, we might have a problem if we don't raise payroll taxes, or raise the income level of those who are subject to them.
Medicare and Medicaid are of more immediate concern, and as Calmes reports
Those who oppose action said Mr. Obama must focus on his bigger priority — health care legislation to expand access to insurance and reduce the costs of care. They argue that success there would help control the unsustainable growth of Medicare and Medicaid, the government’s other major benefit programs, which together pose a far greater fiscal problem.
The good news in all of this is that the White House has received a very clear message that it attacks Social Security at its political peril. Obama is more than smart enough to know that one clear path to a one term presidency is to alienate his base.