Over at Hotline-On-Call, Marc Ambinder pats Obama on the back for becoming "the first top-tier Democratic presidential candidate to acknowledge that Social Security deficits could not, and would not, be solved without pain." He also links to MSNBC saying "Experts say that to shore up Social Security, you either have to raise the retirement age, raise taxes, cut some benefits, or some combination of the three." Oy.
It's odd how acutely concerned the nation's pundits seem to be with Social Security's finances. Here's what the outlook is like for some of the main drivers of federal spending:
Look at that gentle slope for Social Security! You could do that in Rockports! Mt. Medicare and Medicaid, by contrast, require climbing gear. As the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities explains, "First, Medicare is by far the largest contributor to the overall growth in expenditures through 2050 because it bears the full brunt of both demographic changes and health care cost growth (and because it is a bigger part of the federal budget than Medicaid). Social Security contributes less to the growth in expenditures because it is not a health program — its per person costs do not grow faster than the economy." Seeking to restore fiscal stability by strengthening Social Security is akin to trying to cure cancer by treating nausea. It just ain't the problem. But because it's a cherished Democratic program, the press corps is quick to laud Democratic politicians willing to take it on. It's not the display of fiscal responsibility that excites the press, but the projection of independence. Which is fine, I just wish they were honest about it, rather than all this smoke and mirrors about Social Security.
