Top Obama Economic Aide: Social Security Reform Not A Part Of Discussion On Fiscal Future

WASHINGTON -- Lost amid the budget battles in Congress and the anti-union legislation being considered in several states has been the White House's deliberate decision to take the topic of Social Security reform off the deficit debate menu.

The latest move in that direction came on Tuesday, when Jason Furman, deputy director of the President Barack Obama's National Economic Council, insisted that talk of Social Security reform "is not one you care about" if "you are worried about our long-run fiscal future."

"The reason you care about it is because you want to strengthen Social Security," Furman added in a speech at the progressive nonprofit group NDN. "It is such a critical part of our social insurance, the bedrock of retirement security for senior citizens, one of the leading anti-poverty programs for children, critical support for people with disabilities. And for all those reasons and the fact that its solvency ... is another 26 years, till 2037, the real motivation is strengthening the program."

Those remarks are a strong reflection of growing defensiveness on the White House's part in response to calls to reform the longstanding entitlement program. During this year's State of the Union address, Obama said he would "speak out against" plans to "target" Social Security should they materialize in Congress. Top adviser David Plouffe likewise said the president would neither slash nor reduce benefits while in office.

Furman's comments are more assertive in their framing. Rather than merely ruling out drastic changes to the entitlement program, he is arguing that Social Security has no place in a debate over the deficit -- a position directly at odds with the conclusions reached by the chair's of president's own deficit commission.

Earlier on Tuesday, another Obama administration official made a similar case. In an op-ed in USA Today, Office of Management and Budget Director Jacob Lew wrote that "Social Security does not cause our deficits" and that the program's "benefits are entirely self-financing."

"Strengthening Social Security is an important, but parallel, issue that needs to be addressed as quickly as possible," Lew wrote. "But let's not confuse it as either the cause of or a solution to our short-term fiscal problems."

Comments

[SisterAnn]

12:37 PM on 02/27/2011

Kent Conrad was on CNN today and he said that they would not target Social Security to solve the deficit.

That is probably a good idea since it is the workers retirement money they have paid out of their paychecks.
The government owes the program over 2.6 trillion plus interest.

Conrad is a corporate money democrat. He acted sneaky on the show today. No telling what the corporate money democrats have up their sleeve.

[dsws]

06:17 AM on 02/24/2011

I think everyone can admit that if China decided to unload a trillion dollars' worth of US bonds, it would have an impact on our ability to continue borrowing at low rates. But the Social Security Trust Fund is going to be unloading two or three trillion over the coming years. That's money the general fund will have to make up, either by taxing more or borrowing it from somewhere else.

[ThatsTheTheWayItIs]

09:05 PM on 02/23/2011

Obama never considered cutting SS, he hoped Repubs were fool enough to suggest it.

[Max7761]

05:57 PM on 02/23/2011

Prior to 1983, the Social Security tax ceiling was 90 percent (now at 84%), the ceiling on income subject to the Social Security tax would need to be raised to $180,000 -- Do that and Social Security's long-term problem is solved. It is the simplest solution, yet there is no stomach for even that ...? Obama needs to embarrass the Reps into doing the right thing...like he should have done for ending the tax cuts to the wealthy in Jan 11. Even If Reps don't agree and the issue dies, regardless, embarrassment after embarrassment will show the true colors of the Reps and ensure they don't get voted in at next election. Instead -- we see the opposite happening - Obama eats crow again and again with no significant changes happening... each time lowering his chances for re-election. It does not seem like a difficult game to figure out.

[AndrewDover]

12:52 PM on 02/24/2011

Moving to a 90% cap is a good start, but only solves half of the problem according to
http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/solvency/provisions/charts/chart_run268.html

If you add this, it does solve the long term problem:
http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/solvency/provisions/charts/chart_run472.html 1

Or add these three and it is solved:
http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/solvency/provisions/charts/chart_run183.html .5
http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/solvency/provisions/charts/chart_run163.html .25
http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/solvency/provisions/charts/chart_run129.html .29

[Itsbushesfault]

05:28 PM on 02/23/2011

This reminds me of when Blarny Frank said that Franny and Freddie were solvent.

[ThatsTheTheWayItIs]

09:08 PM on 02/23/2011

More solvent than Lehman, Bear Sterns and every other private-sector institution on Wall St, if taxpayers hadn't bailed them out. The private sector caused the meltdown, the public sector bailed them out, sort of. Wall St is only solvent now because F&F and taxpayers got stuck with their bad mortgages. Fortunately F&F is suing for them to take most back, and will win.

Totallly a private sector meltdown, caused by capitalism, just like in 1929.

[ApolloniaCreed]

04:28 PM on 02/23/2011

That is not a claim... that is a fact.

[marignymitch]

03:50 PM on 02/23/2011

This assurance has been long-time a coming. Still can we trust the Obama admin to keep its word?

[Darryl Clayton]

03:40 PM on 02/23/2011

Hey Righties,

Keep your tax cutting, rodent hands off of Social Security! If you want to cut something, cut Michele Bachmann's mic, Scott Walker's hair, Sarah Palin's assault on the English language, or Rush Limbaugh's access to Old Country Buffet.

Leave this non-starter alone!

[Coyote50]

02:56 PM on 02/23/2011

Good. Now can we talk about removing the subsidies for oil companies which have made record profits for years now while the price of gasoline just goes up and up? And can we talk about putting that money into alternative energy JOBS?

[marignymitch]

03:51 PM on 02/23/2011

Probably not. Faved.

[liberalandloveit]

02:54 PM on 02/23/2011

Uh oh. If the O man says social security is safe, beware. He'll be "compromising" it away any day now.

[ThePeacemakers]

02:44 PM on 02/23/2011

Let's wait and see the effects of that tax cut package from late 2010 on Social Security in the future - especially if it is continually renewed.

[deborahc]

12:47 PM on 02/23/2011

Heaving heavy sigh of relief. It's good to know he's (supposedly) taking a strong position, at least on this one, critical issue.

(Now, if only everyone stop calling it an entitlement program. It's a social insurance program that we all pay "premiums" for.)

[Linda from Pahrump]

05:10 PM on 02/23/2011

The only ones calling it an entitlement are those who want to get rid of it. The rest of US know what is.

[peaceandfreedom]

12:41 PM on 02/23/2011

Sam, love your work but why do you choose to use this inaccurate phrasing?--

"Those remarks are a strong reflection of growing defensiveness on the White House's part in response to calls to reform the longstanding entitlement program.""

SS is not an entitlement. I pay into it, I take out of it. That's how Insurance works. An entitlement would be the bank bailouts!

[nkurland]

12:34 PM on 02/23/2011

The privatization of Social Security would be the last great transfer of wealth upward. Investors would now have trillions to gamble with to reinflate stock prices for insider's and speculators.

[tangelan]

12:20 PM on 02/23/2011

If anything, SS should be audited and paid back for the 50 years its funds have been stolen.

[peaceandfreedom]

12:41 PM on 02/23/2011

X2!

[Linda from Pahrump]

05:11 PM on 02/23/2011

No argument there.