Look at the Bush/Obama tax cuts. We heard our candidate tell us for over two years that these "temporary 10-year long" taxes would not continue for a very small wealthy portion of taxpayers. For two years as President he repeated that idea. Did that happen? Will it ever happen? No and no. It's very easy to be santa clause and cut revenue and very hard to be a grinch and increase it. So what if the country falls into ruin - as long as there's money for war and homeland security, all is well.
If employees thought their wages would be raised even a fraction of what the wealthy have seen in income increases it might be sellable to restore the FICA taxes to 2010 rates. Knowing that won't happen, threats of pending doom (no $953 for you) are drummed into peoples mind. It was sold as a temporary tax, but it's not working out to be that.
Congress and the President can and someday probably will do whatever they want with SS. They have the authority, all they need to do to deny benefits is turn us into Nestors.
#####
The fact that workers contribute to the Social Security program's funding through a dedicated payroll tax establishes a unique connection between those tax payments and future benefits. More so than general federal income taxes can be said to establish "rights" to certain government services. This is often expressed in the idea that Social Security benefits are "an earned right." This is true enough in a moral and political sense. But like all federal entitlement programs, Congress can change the rules regarding eligibility--and it has done so many times over the years. The rules can be made more generous, or they can be made more restrictive. Benefits which are granted at one time can be withdrawn, as for example with student benefits, which were substantially scaled-back in the 1983 Amendments.
There has been a temptation throughout the program's history for some people to suppose that their FICA payroll taxes entitle them to a benefit in a legal, contractual sense. That is to say, if a person makes FICA contributions over a number of years, Congress cannot, according to this reasoning, change the rules in such a way that deprives a contributor of a promised future benefit. Under this reasoning, benefits under Social Security could probably only be increased, never decreased, if the Act could be amended at all. Congress clearly had no such limitation in mind when crafting the law. Section 1104 of the 1935 Act, entitled "RESERVATION OF POWER," specifically said: "The right to alter, amend, or repeal any provision of this Act is hereby reserved to the Congress." Even so, some have thought that this reservation was in some way unconstitutional. This is the issue finally settled by Flemming v. Nestor.
In this 1960 Supreme Court decision Nestor's denial of benefits was upheld even though he had contributed to the program for 19 years and was already receiving benefits. Under a 1954 law, Social Security benefits were denied to persons deported for, among other things, having been a member of the Communist party. Accordingly, Mr. Nestor's benefits were terminated. He appealed the termination arguing, among other claims, that promised Social Security benefits were a contract and that Congress could not renege on that contract. In its ruling, the Court rejected this argument and established the principle that entitlement to Social Security benefits is not contractual right.
http://www.ssa.gov/history/nestor.html?du
= new reply since forum marked as read