How is lifting the cap "on the backs of middle class families and seniors", anyway? I thought the cap was on income above $200,000? Surely that puts you out of the middle class, and excludes most seniors except the ones like J. Howard Marshall?

I think the "cap" they're talking about is the current 97K cap, that raises slightly on an annual basis. That is, we only pay SS taxes on the first 97K regardless of the income level.

I think the discussion is along the lines of, if you increase the cap to 120, 150, 200K, you are still impacting the bottom disproportionately.

Under current conditions, I support the flat 6-7% SS tax on ALL income, not the one only imposed on the bottom. I don't understand why we SHOULD cap it.

I think the "cap" they're talking about is the current 97K cap, that raises slightly on an annual basis. That is, we only pay SS taxes on the first 97K regardless of the income level.

Correct.

I think the discussion is along the lines of, if you increase the cap to 120, 150, 200K, you are still impacting the bottom disproportionately.

Only 6% of wage earners make more than the capped amount, so it would only affect them.

I support the flat 6-7% SS tax on ALL income, not the one only imposed on the bottom. I don't understand why we SHOULD cap it.

The original rationale was that capping it makes it politically more like an earned pension, and less like welfare. (It's true that if the cap were raised, people making lots of money would both pay more in taxes and then get higher benefits. But the benefit formula is progressive, and they wouldn't get THAT much more in benefits.)

It's also the case that raising the cap too high would create large incentives for businesses to find ways to classify this compensation as non-wage.

are we not allowed to talk about pension collapse, equity collapse, debt instead of savings, health care costs, or progressive funding for baseline elder/disability income? why all this focus on whether or not the non–livable wage is stable?

are we not allowed to talk about pension collapse, equity collapse, debt instead of savings, health care costs, or progressive funding for baseline elder/disability income?

Nope, sorry. We're only allowed to discuss the terrible crisis faced by Social Security. Oh, and also Saddam's terrifying WMD.

*hapa looks forward to a future of fighting to keep head above water

I think I get the part about Russert and Broder getting super cosy with Obama once he accepts the impending catastrophe that is SS. Some kind of secret code to be admitted to the club. Fine.
But I don't see why raising the cap is part of the secret code. Wouldn't asking Halliburton to run SS be more like it?

Oh I get it! First your raise the cap. THEN you ask Halliburton to take over!!

While I agree that both are playing with fire, my guess is that Obama's real game is to get Hillary to defend the cap so he can claim she's out of touch with what the middle class is.

If so, he effectively did that.

I'm not defending his choice of weapons though, because that's how blowback can quickly make you forget the temporary gain that could be achieved in other ways.

Only 6% of wage earners make more than the capped amount, so it would only effect them.

Well, I absolutely agree (based on numbers being correct, although I think this administration is cooking the books on growth, employment, etc). I think Obama's retort to Clinton was fairly correct in your video.

The problem is that we need a sea change in the way we (the citizen electorate) view prosperity.

In our culture individual prosperity is mostly ascribed to drive, motivation, education, merit. I find that class structure and externalities are shifted invisibly and handwaved off. This is one of the main reasons that I find both of the parties untenable -- they don't address pervasive class structure or historical cost shifting due to externalities realistically, and nothing in their platforms leads me to think they will. The conditions for that may come only when the center shifts further left.

Kevin: You make a good point. But I wonder if Obama is taking account this curious phenomenon that has been documented over and over again that Americans making 50K/ year feel directly concerned by any policy targeting the 100K+ crowd. Maybe some incurable optimism (the same that makes much more than half of all Americans believe that they are above the median income bracket).

In which case, there could be serious blowback for Obama.

Social Security Cap in hand.

it seems that the two leading contenders for the democratic presidential nomination are BOTH playing into the "leninist" cato institute strategy to destroy social security

http://www.dissidentvoice.org/2007/11/shock-therapy-ideas-that-are-lying-around/

I've read Obama's writing and he talks quite a bit about strategic thinking, i.e., accomplishing multiple goals with one stroke. Following the logic of his writings, here's what I think his thought process may be. The Republicans will never give up trying to destroy Social Security. It has been described by some of them as the soft underbelly of the welfare state, thus the prime target of entitlement programs. Everyone on both sides of the fence knows the program needs to be tweaked. With a Democratic majority in Congress we can be assured that "tweaking" is all that happens. So the time to fix it is actually now, not later, and continually assuring everyone we can backburner the issue actually plays into the hands of Republicans. They'd love for us to leave the issue alone until they take over Congress again. Then we'll be whining about them dismantling the program when we had a chance to protect it permanently now. If the program is made permanently solvent now, Republicans cannot realistically try to destroy it down the line. Obama is simulataneously using the issue against Clinton because he knows he has to do something to cut into her lead, and win some consideration from swing voters (who overwhelmingly believe the Republican hype that the program is doomed). While his tactics do rather cravenly play on people's fears, he figures why try to convince people there is no problem when their belief that there is presents an opportunity? Personally, I think that this is a faulty and possibly dangerous strategy, but there you go. Again, this is just my impression from having read his writing. I prefer honest discourse between politicians and the public, but I support anyone who wants to repair this great program without destroying it. And for the reasons stated above, I believe it is correct to make it a front burner issue.

you can't say this:

The Republicans will never give up trying to destroy Social Security.

and then this:

If the program is made permanently solvent now, Republicans cannot realistically try to destroy it down the line.

followed by this:

And for the reasons stated above, I believe it is correct to make it a front burner issue.

without making heads spin.

fun fact: did you know, after the clinton election in 1992, the GOP briefly considered renaming itself the GMP, or goalpost-moving party?

WHEN YOU GET PAID, does 'someone' show up to collect the SS TAX? Maybe in accounting 'they' cut X% off the top for Sam and SS on pay day??? Well, if 'they' do, then NOTHING is wrong with Socisl Security. (since YOU are paying for it you might want to read that SS Act.)

I am not well versed enough in the details of SS to contribute meaningfully to this thread.

But, i think that the underlying issue here is the politics of fear. It seems that either the American people are not motivated by anything except fear at this point in history or their politicians believe that only fear will motivate them.

I expect the Republican Party to use the tool of fear. They saw that it worked for Joe McCarthy...if he did take it a little too far for his own good. But it seems as though the left has embraced the fear doctrine whole-heartedly too.

The best example i can sight is Al Gore and global warming. No one seriously denies that he is raising an important issue. But the way he raises it pisses me off. Guilt and fear. Most of the problems we face could be framed so that they represent an opportunity, but that is never how they are framed.

The problem as an opportunity model suggests that we can all be a part of the solution and reap the benefits thereof. Whereas when fear is invoked, it leads to someone else solving the problem for us. Obama scares us about SS, implying that he can lead us from fear. Same with Bush/terrorism, Gore/climate change, and Hitler/Jewish question.

Someone once said that we have nothing to fear but fear itself...here, here. I'd only add that we should fear the politicians who use fear as a political tool.

Good point, Jackpine. No matter what the issue, the right-wing approach to it is built on fear. Maybe it's fear of gays (gay marriage bans) fear of immigrants (border wall, immigration raids), or fear of Islam (their entire foreign policy). I don't mean that right-wing politicians personally fear any of these things; just that they know others do, and so they understand that a political base can be built on that fear.

As progressives, we often approach these issues piecemeal, without directly addressing the fear that fuels right-wing politics. And, as much as this country needs an antiwar movement, and an anti-racism movement, and a a gay rights movement, it needs an anti-fear movement. And, just as an antiwar movement begins with "ordinary" people who are willing to say, "We are against war", an anti-fear movement begins with people who are willing to say, "We are not afraid, and we refuse to be manipulated by fear."

Does the left use fear as well? Given its potency as a tool for moving people, it's hard to see why they wouldn't. You suggest Gore as an example of this, and I would add all those pushing the line that "Bush is going to cancel the elections!" or, "They're building internment camps for all of us!"

I draw the line between fear-mongers and those raising legitimate concerns by asking this question: is this person trying to rush me into a decision? Are they trying to use fear to make me suspend my judgment, by claiming something must be done RIGHT NOW? Or are they allowing me sufficient time to really examine the facts and make up my mind?

I'm sure you could find examples of "climate alarmists" who insist we must do everything immediately, but all of the people I know who are working on the climate change issue (and I know quite a few) are careful to say that this is a long-term problem, that requires long-term solutions, and lots of public education and discussion, and, most of all, a large dose of democracy with community involvement in deciding how to address the issue. And they wouldn't be taking that approach if they were trying to manipulate people by rushing them to judgement.

Saying that something is alarming doesn't make one an alarmist. What makes you an alarmist is trying to bully people into immediate action, because you've thought the issue through yourself and so don't see a need for (or don't want) others to go though the same learning process.

Most of the problems we face could be framed so that they represent an opportunity, but that is never how they are framed.

that's how gore talks about climate change.

jackpine, in your list of people and problems, you need to differentiate between "solutions with bad results" and "solutions with good results" -- gore isn't advocating murder. he's likely going to save a lot of lives.