"Saving" Social Security? Not That Hard

Here's another point about the annual report on Social Security and Medicare, the one that said Medicare is in much worse shape (ignore that, says Bush) and that some of the warning dates for SS have moved up a year (meaningless when you're projecting decades ahead, say most experts).

One item in the New York Times:

"To pay all scheduled benefits over the next 75 years, the government would have to raise an additional $4 trillion in today's dollars, $300 billion higher than the figure projected last year."

You mean, if we simply chose not to make permanent those tax cuts for the super rich -- the ones Bush enacted because he insisted we would have such a massive surplus in our budget it would be downright dangerous -- that this ALONE would provide enough money to shore up SS for the next 75 years without ANY other changes? With money to spare? Gee, choosing between an unnecessary windfall for people making $300,000 a year and more versus ensuring that old people don't go hungry is a really tough choice.

I guess when Greenspan said fixing SS really wasn't that hard, he knew what he was talking about. Mind you, I don't think spiking those windfalls for the super rich is all that should be done -- modest changes in SS are perfectly reasonable adjustments to make (such as raising the retirement age when full benefits kick in two years since people live so much longer).

And of course some of that money is needed for Medicare. But let's pick our priorities. Very recent windfalls for the super-rich of focusing on the health and minimal needs of the elderly? Gee, what would Jesus do?