Without touching the "third rail"?
Is it possible to discuss a "third rail" without touching it?
What constitutes "touching" the "third rail"?
Has anyone agreed upon these parameters?
Is it important to agree upon these parameters?
Is debate healthy for a Democratic society?
How would we accomplish an honest debate on the topic of "The Third Rail"?
Does having a GOP controlled branch of the legislature make cuts to SS ("The Third Rail") more or less likely?
Would the GOP debate the topic honestly?
Would the GOP even broach the debate?
Do you think a debate about the sanctity of SS is a good thing or a bad thing in the run up to the mid-term elections?
Should we have left it up to the GOP to start that debate?
Should we have left it up to them to set the terms of the debate?
Do you think it is a good thing to set the terms of a debate?
Do you think discussing SS in the run up to the mid-terms has potential to be a net gain for Dems?
Just askin'.
Something to keep in mind and added per Onomastic's suggestion:
The Social Security Disability Insurance (DI) program provides modest but vital benefits to workers who become unable to perform substantial work on account of a serious medical impairment. Although some critics charge that spending for the program is “out of control,” the bulk of the rise in federal disability rolls stems from demographic factors: the aging of the U.S. population, the growth in women’s employment, and Social Security’s rising retirement age. Other factors — including the economic downturn — also have contributed to the program’s growth, but its costs and caseloads are generally in step with past projections. There is little evidence that DI benefits are going to people who could support themselves by working.
The Social Security trustees project that the DI trust fund — which is legally separate from the Old-Age and Survivors Insurance (OASI) trust fund for the retirement and survivors’ programs — will become insolvent in 2016; the Congressional Budget Office concurs. If policymakers take no action to bolster the fund, beneficiaries’ checks will have to be cut by about one-fifth after that. But the fund’s anticipated insolvency should come as no surprise; when policymakers last changed the allocation of taxes between DI and OASI in 1994, they expected the DI fund to run dry in 2016.
http://www.cbpp.org/...