Class and Social Security (Krugman) (Yes. It IS class warfare)

[ProfessionalLeftist]

Digby sounds the warning: a fair number of “centrist” Democrats – probably including the Incredible Shrinking President — seem willing, even eager, to join up with Republicans in cutting Social Security benefits and raising the retirement age. As she says, this is idiotic even in narrow political terms: in the very next election, Republicans will run ads in which they pose as the defenders of Social Security, while Democrats are the meanies who want to take away your retirement.

The question you have to ask is, why are Democrats such suckers on this issue?

The proximate cause is that cutting Social Security is one of those things you’re for if you’re a Very Serious Person. Way back, I wrote that inside the Beltway calling for Social Security cuts is viewed as a “badge of seriousness”, which has nothing to do with the program’s real importance or lack thereof to the budget picture; that column elicited a more or less hysterical reaction, which sort of proved the point. (Looking back at the column, I was surprised to see that it was about the ISP himself; tales of a debacle foretold.)

But why Social Security? There was a telling moment in 2004, during one of the presidential campaign debates. Tim Russert, the moderator, asked eight or nine questions about Social Security, trying to put the candidates on the spot, while asking not once about Medicare, which serious people – as opposed to Serious People – know is the real heart of the story. Why the focus on Social Security?

The answer, I suspect, has to do with class.

MORE...

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/12/04/class-and-social-security/?src=twt&twt=NytimesKrugman

[leftstreet]

1. K&R

Interesting article, great comments section

[MichiganVote]

2. I'm all for eliminating social security for the wealthy/incomes of any sort above $250,000 annually

[ProfessionalLeftist]

3. I could go along with that.

It should go to those who need it most.

[MichiganVote]

4. It should go to all who pay in but we need some kind of scale

[eridani]

6. If your car was totalled, would it be acceptable for the insurance company

--to look and your savings and decide they weren't going to pay because you can afford to buy a replacement from your savings? The benefits formumal already benefits lower income people at the expense of higher income people. That's fine, and the formula could be tweaked further in that direction. This is way different than saying that some people must pay in and never get anything out. Politically, this is a great way to get the program eliminated entirely.

[Odin2005]

7. That would turn it into welfare, which would eventually kill it.

[ProSense]

5. Krugman is not being politically astute here:

As she says, this is idiotic even in narrow political terms: in the very next election, Republicans will run ads in which they pose as the defenders of Social Security, while Democrats are the meanies who want to take away your retirement.

Durbin said he's for raising the retirement age, going back on what he said a few weeks ago.

It's hard to know what the 14 want, but I doubt Republicans can position themselves as defenders of Social Security. They tried the privatization scheme a few years ago and Dems pushed backed hard. Americans have rejected cuts to Social Security.

Democrats are not going to cut Social Security benefits. They simply aren't. I find it surprising that people can claim on one hand that Social Security is the third rail, that the President would be a one-termer if he touched it, and then claim that Democrats are planning to do just that. Well, if they do, we can welcome the Republican Congressional majority.

This is going to continue like the fuss made about the deficit commission. What Krugman and others are ignoring, and should be playing up, are the other great solutions offered in the alternative proposals. Instead, all he's doing is fear mongering.

[Odin2005]

8. LOL, "politically astute" = suck up for corporatist LIES.