Sometimes Screaming Works

Both Ruth and I, along with many other bloggers, have been pointing out that the last thing President Obama and the 111th Congress needs to do is mess with Social Security. Ruth pointed out yesterday that to refer to Social Security as an "entitlement" is to frame the argument in favor of those conservatives who see the program as a give-away to the ne'er-do-wells who weren't smart enough to save for retirement. It also ignores the fact that people like Ruth and I have been paying into Social Security for over 40 years. We willingly participated in the insurance policy because we knew those premiums would be used to protect the generation before us. We counted on the next generation to do the same for us, and they are.

Social Security is not broken. Even the direst of forecasts shows complete solvency for at least 30 more years, and that's without cutting benefits or raising the cap on payroll payments into the fund. Why is President Obama even thinking about Social Security as a troubled program?

Apparently he is beginning to change his thinking, and that is a hopeful sign.

Mr. Obama considered announcing the formation of a Social Security task force at a White House “fiscal responsibility summit” that he will convene on Monday. But several Democrats said that idea had been shelved, partly because of objections from House and Senate leaders.

The president signaled in his campaign that he would support addressing the retirement system’s looming financing shortfall, in part by applying payroll taxes to incomes above $250,000. But that would ignite intense opposition from Republicans, especially with the economy deep in recession.

Liberal Democrats are already serving notice that they will be equally vehement in opposing any reductions in scheduled benefits for future retirees. But any solution, budget analysts said, must include a mix of both approaches, though current beneficiaries would see no change. ...

Social Security still runs a surplus, and its reserves will not be exhausted until 2041, after which enough payroll taxes will come in to cover 78 percent of benefits, according to the 2008 annual report of the program trustees. Medicare, by contrast, requires big infusions from general revenues each year; its hospital trust fund is already running annual deficits and will be exhausted by 2019. [Emphasis added]

Unnamed budget analysts be damned: there is no reason to cut benefits. There may be a good reason to lift the cap above its current levels at some point down the road, but, again, this program is not broken. I think what worries our congress critters on both sides of the aisle is that program's surplus won't be available to tap into the next time some glorious bit of pork begins to interest them.

That said, however, I do recognize that Medicare and Medicaid programs are in trouble and do need attention, but that attention shouldn't be couched in terms of cutting benefits to those who need and deserve them. Health care costs in general should be a priority for this administration. That is not the same thing as real benefits.

One area that needs some focus is that of Medicare fraud. Ronnie Bennett had an an excellent post on the issue just last week. If the federal authorities went after the fraudsters in durable medical equipment and the cappers who take advantage of gullible elders the way the last administration went after "voter fraud," we could save at least a billion or two annually for the Medicare and Medicaid programs. She cites a 1997 study that found ”…for every dollar spent to investigate and prosecute health care fraud in civil cases, the federal government receives $15 dollars back in return.”

So, enough of this nonsense about "fixing Social Security."

Enough.