There's a reason Social Security has been called the third rail of politics: It has worked for generations and it's important to people. Think Progress went to a town hall meeting held by Sen. Chuck Grassley's (R-IA) in Carroll and got this video of his constituents reminding him that there are smart ways to keep Social Security strong.
One middle-aged woman, Rosie Partridge, pointedly asked Grassley, “Why can’t we raise the wage cap in order to ensure that Social Security can continue on as it is without talking about cutting it?” (The current payroll tax does not tax income above $106,800.) Partridge, a small business owner, went on to tell her senator that despite the fact her business “would pay more” in payroll taxes, “you know what? No complaints. We want to have Social Security!” Grassley, who helped lead his party’s efforts to privatize Social Security in 2005, backed down, saying, “You have to have everything on the table”:
PARTRIDGE: My husband and I have a business in Carroll County. [...] My question is, why can’t we raise the wage cap in order to ensure that Social Security can continue on as it is without talking about cutting it? [Applause] And if we, as a business, we would have some people that would be giving more to that, actually a family member that’s part ownership of the business. And the business would pay more, too. And you know what? No complaints. We want to have Social Security! [Applause]
GRASSLEY: I think when it comes to Social Security, if anybody’s going to bargain in good faith, you have to have everything on the table. But if your point of view is to solve the Social Security problem just by taking the cap off, that isn’t going to solve it, as the trustees looked at it and said five years.
[...] Later in the town hall, another older woman chastised Grassley and his fellow Republicans for including Social Security in the recent debt ceiling standoff. “We have not caused the debt,” the woman said. “You owe Social Security recipients just like you owe China and anybody else that has treasury bonds.”
Grassley's answer that lifting the cap would only give Social Security five years is, of course, a lie: "SSA actuarial estimates show that eliminating the cap would virtually eliminate the projected 75-year funding shortfall."
TP also points out that Grassley's assurances of "everything on the table," or that he would bargain in good faith, is a trope. Remember how Grassley strung Max Baucus along for months in the health reform negotiations, pretending he was negotiating "in good faith" and then how he led the death panels charge in August 2009 with his infamous "pull the plug on grandma" speech.
Lifting the payroll tax cap would go a long way to securing Social Security's long-term future. It would make what is already the nation's most successful program continue on for generations. Which is precisely why Republicans will fight tooth and nail to keep it from happening. Because the way they win is by destroying everything that makes government work.