The NYT says they are. A budget article reports that in bargaining over the budget, "the issues most often mentioned that might entice Democrats to the bargaining table with the administration would be a package to finance future Social Security benefits, possibly combined with a curb on some benefits." If this is true, and we start from the premise that Democrats actually support Social Security, then it implies that the Democrats have no idea whatsoever what they are talking about. The numbers on Social Security are very clear. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the program can pay all scheduled benefits for the next 39 years, with no changes whatsoever. Given the basic soundness of the program, why on earth would a party committed to defending Social Security agree to cuts to Social Security and possibly other concessions, when full funding for the program is already guaranteed under the law for more than 3 and a half decades after President Bush leaves the White House. Of course it's not clear that any Democrats are actually as poorly informed about the finances of Social Security as the article implies, because the article doesn't actually identify any Democratic members of Congress who hold the view it ascribes to the party. In other words, like the WMDs in Iraq, this is another story that depends on people without names (PWN).
--Dean Baker
