Cutting Social Security Should Not Be on the Table

Posted by Digby, Hullabaloo at 4:31 AM on February 20, 2009.

I agree with Jane on this. When did the "liberal" position become that "modest tax hikes and benefit cuts on social security" are necessary? That's just not true. In fact, according to most progressive economists, social security benefits need to be raised. (And after watching this rather huge loss of retirement wealth in the past year, I would think that it's politically unthinkable to even whisper about lowering benefits at this point.)

I have been saying for some time now that I guessed the administration was going to try to use "entitlement reform" as a way to get to health care. I just don't think they'll succeed. The whole point of the villagers "Grand Bargain" is for liberals to have "skin in the game" and the Blue Dogs and Fiscal Scolds want that skin to be the wrinkled epidermis of the social security retirees. They are committed, with many millions of dollars behind them to the destruction of social security. Buying into their "entitlement" theme in any way is playing with fire.

I wrote yesterday that I think this may be a hangover from the transition before they realized the full extent of the economic meltdown -- or the political opposition. Let's hope they realize now just how out of step this is and rethink the idea of using "entitlement reform" as their frame for health care reform. There are better ways to do it that doesn't put social security on the table as part of the bargain.

Tagged as: progressive, social security, cuts

Digby is the proprietor of Hullabaloo.