Rather than attacking Social Security, attack gov't that borrowed against it 2fund 2wars &massive tax cuts for wealthy #p2 @gop @tcot

from http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2010/12/28/932034/-The-Village-drum-beat-against-Social-Security-goes-on?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+dailykos%2Findex+%28Daily+Kos%29

Social Security is now permanently in the Village's sights, gawd help us all. Here's more conventional wisdom spouting from Fred Hiatt's editorial page, this time from Michael Gerson.

Obama's liberal base contends that the Social Security trust fund is not in immediate trouble. But this argument depends on an elaborate accounting trick. The trust fund is not filled with assets - gold bullion and Apple stock. It is filled with debt issued by the government to itself. The surpluses of the trust fund are in fact liabilities for the government as a whole. And these illusory surpluses are regularly used to subsidize the rest of the budget. The scheme begins to collapse in 2037, when promised benefits for Social Security recipients will suddenly drop by about 25 percent - unless the system is reformed.

Liberals have threatened a serious political revolt if Obama pursues Social Security reform, and that's a genuine risk. But Obama's urgent political need is to polish his image among Independents on spending and debt. And this won't happen by being risk averse.

Social Security restructuring is not the obvious choice for Obama, but it is the smart one. It is achievable. It would invest Republican leaders in a constructive national enterprise. It would reassure global credit markets that America remains capable of governing itself. It would result in a more progressive, sustainable system. And it would make a dramatic, timely political statement: that the president is capable not only of expanding government but of reforming it.

Two wars are larger liabilities than Social Security for the government as a whole. Massive tax breaks for the extremely wealthy and for corporations are a liability for the government as a whole. The insurance system--into which every American worker has paid for three-quarters of a century in order to create secure retirement for everyone--is not a liability, nor is it a scheme. And obviously Gerson is getting his opinion on what the American people want from the American people he talks with at Beltway cocktail parties. Maybe instead he could read a poll or two dozen (there's a really handy one that his own paper conducted just this month) to find out that the majority of Americans--including those all-important Independents--value protecting Social Security more than they hate tax increases.

Rather than attacking Social Security, how about attacking the government that has borrowed against it in order to fund two wars and massive tax cuts for the wealthy? And how about this? Have the government actually ... you know ... pay back what it's "borrowed"? Through raising taxes, maybe, on those who've gotten decades of tax breaks through "borrowing" from it?