Reform healthcare -- and leave Social Security alone - By Joe Conason

[Jim Sagle]

An iron rule governing summit meetings, at least in foreign relations, is that the outcome must be determined before any actual encounter occurs. But no such sensible precondition appears to have been applied to the fiscal responsibility summit called by President Barack Obama to convene at the White House on Feb. 23. Instead, he will host a broad assortment of advocates and interests carrying a heavy freight of studies, prejudices and definitions, each seeking to advance an agenda that may bear little resemblance to the president's own priorities.

While Obama may hope this cacophonous occasion will help educate Americans about the budgetary and tax issues we must confront over the coming decade, the summit risks serious distortion by both mainstream media coverage and right-wing propaganda. Indeed, the summit's stated premise -- concern over the future costs of "entitlement programs" -- is a political mistake that may taint this process before it begins.

<snip>

When the subject of Social Security comes up during the summit, both the president and his budget chief are already on record strongly preferring taxes to cuts in order to achieve solvency. But there is no urgent reason to tinker with Social Security today or tomorrow. And there is every reason to reassure the boomers who will soon start receiving those checks, after paying into the system for the past 40 years or more, that there will be no significant reductions. Any threatened cuts, as economist Dean Baker recently warned, would only discourage spending and reduce confidence at a moment when that is the opposite of what we need most.

To get what he wants from this summit, the president should be prepared to brush back the slashers and privatizers and insist that they talk about the need for a healthcare system that is less expensive and more equitable.

More...

This is a timely warning from a sharp observer who is NOT a knee-jerk critic of Obama.

[exboyfil]

1. Good commentary

One point I would make is that I think S.S. should be applied to all wages and not capped at approximately $100K. Those at the higher level should get the 15% participation rate that those between $50-100K receive. I still do not understand why S.S. is carried on the backs of the $50-100K income group (especially when you have two wage earners that each make $100K - their effective participation rate is 7.5% on their $50-100K portion of income).

I still don't know what to do about papering over the deficit with the "Trust Fund", but I would recommend using the additional revenue to reduce the withholding percentages for everyone.