For those that believe that the payroll tax cut will undermine the popularity of Social Security

[BzaDem]

How do you explain Medicare's popularity?

Medicare is a program such that the benefits one receives (on average) VASTLY exceed the amount put in through the Medicare tax and premiums. In fact, funds from the general fund (not the Medicare payroll tax or premiums) make up about half of Medicare's funding.

Has that resulted in a collapse of Medicare's popularity? Of course not. Medicare is still extremely popular.

For anyone to argue that SS will become more unpopular and harder to sustain politically, because the government decides to temporarily fund 1/3 of SS's funding stream from general revenue instead of the payroll tax, they should really explain why Medicare (which permanently gets around 1/2 of its funding from general revenue) remains so popular.

[JohnnyRingo]

1. Hopefully, the tax cut is a prelude to raising the payroll limit.

Even a modest hike would fund SS for decades, and while it'll never happen under this congress, Washington is an organic breathing law machine. It ebbs and flows, and swings to and fro, but it's a fact that Dems will be in control sometime before SS goes broke.

Keep the faith and never bail out of an airplane until the other engine quits.

[Selatius]

2. I believe the point is that SS is BOTH popular and fiscally sound.

On the other hand, Medicare is running into fiscal problems, and at a certain point, the Congress will have to "bail out" the ailing program.

The absolute biggest concern is that Republicans will politicize the issue when Medicare or Social Security must now depend on help on the General Fund. The key with Social Security is avoiding such a political war for the very funding of SS. Sadly, that may be too late for Medicare.

The tax holiday becoming a political football is not what the left wants. Because then Republicans can introduce fundamental cuts to benefits in the name of keeping deficits low. Republicans would simply argue the program needs "change" if it is popular but fiscally ill and cast it as a pro-people reform. This cannot happen if it is both fiscally sound and popular.

[BzaDem]

3. "This cannot happen if it is both fiscally sound and popular."

Really? Republicans can't and won't try to destroy a program just because it is popular and fiscally sound?

a) Republicans will try to kill popular universal programs REGARDLESS of how fiscally sound the programs are. (See 2005 attempt to privatize Social Security.)
b) The people fortunately will generally not support such attempts REGARDLESS of how fiscally troubled the universal programs are. (See 2011 attempt to privatize Medicare.)

"The key with Social Security is avoiding such a political war for the very funding of SS."

The political war is unavoidable, because Republicans do not accept the premise that the government should be helping seniors. This is true REGARDLESS of whether the program in question runs a trillion dollar surplus or a trillion dollar deficit. (See 2005/2011.) People do not want to kill popular programs to fund more tax breaks for the rich, and they are going to continue not to want that regardless of the funding nuances that only a tiny portion of the public understands.

[Luminous Animal]

4. Popularity? Who said anything about popularity?

[BzaDem]

5. People are saying it will be easier to dismantle SS if it temporarily gets some of its funding from

general revenue.

The Republicans that want to dismantle SS do NOT want to do it because of its funding mechanism. They do not want to "save" SS. They want to ELIMINATE SS. Nothing about funding source changes will alter that desire. And I really don't think very many people here dispute that fact. (See 2005 attempt to privatize SS, even though it got 100% of revenue from the payroll tax at the time.)

So the only way it could become even marginally easier to dismantle or cut SS due to the payroll tax cut is if the public increases support for such dismantling/cutting due to the payroll tax cut.

My entire point is that this will not happen due to a temporary funding source change. Medicare is getting half of its funding from the general revenue, yet it remains so popular that the Republican who ran on the Ryan plan in NY lost one of the safest Republican districts in the country.

[ibegurpard]

6. no one is arguing it's going to make social security less popular

they are stating (quite rightly) that financing it from the general fund makes it contribute to the deficit which gives those who want to cut it an argument for doing so when it contributes NOTHING to the deficit the way it was funded before the payroll tax holiday idiocy

[BzaDem]

7. It does not give them any argument they weren't already using long before the tax cut.

They tried to privatize the entire program in 2005, on the theory that it was going "broke" and would "not be there for future generations." This occurred during a time where there was 100% funding from the payroll tax. Republicans don't change their views based on "arguments." They make them up as they go along, irrespective of the truth.

The only way an "argument" can increase the chances of cuts is if the public buys into the argument. Cuts may happen even if the public doesn't buy the argument, but you can't then argue that the "argument" (that the public rejected) is what led to the cuts. You can't have it both ways.

[Pholus]

8. When the BUSH TAX CUTS finally expire is there credibility in using the word "temporary"

You need to have political will to reverse it, and I doubt that in the current economy (or even considering the projections for the next few years) the President would be willing to spend his political capital on something which "raises taxes" when it ends.

Sorry, there is no track record on any "temporary" measure passed so far. Please try again.