General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Why the arguments of Obama's defenders leave many cold. [View all]shellgame26
(1,169 posts)From Think Progress
"The latest argument to emerge from the GOP has been that extending the payroll tax cut would undermine Social Security, since payroll tax revenue goes directly into the Social Security Trust Fund. Multiple Congressional Republicans have adopted that theory of late, including South Carolina Sen. Jim DeMint (R), who put it to use on CNBC last night:
DEMINT: Republicans are always ready to cut taxes, as you know. We dont think its a good idea to do it by raiding Social Security.
Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul (R) made the same argument on Fox News earlier in the day:
PAUL: Well, you know, Social Security is $6 trillion short of money. So the president is advocating reducing the amount of funding to Social Security when theyre already $6 trillion short. So it doesnt really make any sense and it really argues that hes going to bankrupt Social Security even quicker by reducing its funding.
That argument, which has been adopted by members of both parties and perpetuated by news outlets like NPR, has one problem: its not true. Each of the plans under consideration is fully paid for, replacing revenue the Social Security Trust Fund would have lost from lower payroll tax receipts with money made up from either alternative revenue sources or spending cuts. The earlier payroll tax holiday, set to expire this month, was also fully-funded, and the program has thus far been held harmless from the holiday, as Reuters noted today.
And while the opposition from Republicans may seem like an impassioned defense of a vital and popular program, a look at their history with the program shows it is not. DeMint has supported privatizing the program while Paul is a proponent of means testing solutions that are both bad policy and unnecessary. Despite Pauls $6 trillion assertion, Social Security actually has a $2.6 trillion surplus and is solvent through at least 2037".