Tired of the Lies about Social Security? So are we…
National Committee?s Truth Squad Arms Americans with the Facts about Vital Seniors’ Programs and Our National Debt
America?s seniors have a huge stake in the national economic debate. Unfortunately, fiscal hawks have launched a well-publicized misinformation campaign to persuade Washington that Social Security is to blame for our fiscal mess when, in fact, nothing could be further from the truth. Social Security has not contributed one dime to our federal debt; however, it is being targeted to pay the price.To counter the misinformation, the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare has mobilized a Truth Squad to give seniors the facts about Social Security and Medicare and the roles these vital programs play in our budget debate.The Truth Squad campaign includes:
- The ?Whopper of the Week? highlighting the latest false claim plus our myth-busting response
- Myth-busting fact sheet which details the Myths being spread and the Facts to rebut them
- Social Security and Medicare Tool Kits to help activists engage
- Online E-card to send to your members of Congress
- Our Legislative Action Center with sample letters that can be emailed directly to Congressional representatives and your local newspaper
- ?Washington Watch?, providing the latest news on efforts to target Social Security & Medicare for cuts
- Send a postcard to the White House in our ?Cutting Social Security Makes No ?Cents? Campaign?
See more at: https://www.ncpssm.org/Truth_Squad/
Budget Battle Begins – What about Social Security?
?I applaud President Obama for proposing a budget that does not target Social Security beneficiaries to foot the bill for years of deficit spending. This gives those of us who advocate for Social Security, additional time to inform more in Congress that Social Security is not the cause of this budget crisis nor is it the solution. Seniors, who have gone two years without a COLA increase, are also thankful for the $250 one-time economic recovery payment included in this budget.Proposing $1.1 trillion in budget cuts requires some tough choices, however, preserving the guaranteed benefits that American workers have paid for and depend on is the right budget strategy. Older Americans especially continue to suffer in this economy and they are thankful the President did not cut Social Security and Medicare benefits. They know Social Security has not contributed a dime to our deficit crisis and, contrary to claims by fiscal hawks, should not be used to balance our federal books.??Barbara B. Kennelly, President/CEO The National Committee and its millions of members and supporters nationwide have delivered hundreds of thousands of petitions, emails, and phone calls to Congress and the White House reminding our elected leaders that Social Security has not contributed to our national debt.However, well-financed Washington special interests have used our rising debt as a political opportunity to push cuts in Social Security under the guise of deficit reduction. Cutting Social Security benefits should not be used as a litmus test for ?fiscal responsibility?, ?serious debate? or being an ?adult?. We will continue to send that message to Washington as the budget debate continues. The National Committee?s ?Truth Squad? is the heart of our campaign to provide analysis, myth busting and grassroots tools for activists nationwide.
Why “Back to the Future” Budgeting Doesn’t Work
The Center for Budget and Policy Priorities calls the McCaskill-Corker spending bill a ?look Ma no hands? approach to budgeting. We also see it as a dangerous trip ?Back to the Future?. That?s because , rather than making specific budget choices based on 2011 realities, their bill sends us back to the spending levels of the ?80s, only to then impose across-the board cuts when our ?Back to the Future? DeLorean breaks down. The Associated Press describes their budget plan this way:
?The legislation doesn’t actually propose cuts but instead sets spending caps and enforces them with the threat of automatic, across-the-board reductions. The target of 20.6 percent of gross domestic product is the average of federal spending over 1970-2008. A recent Congressional Budget Office report projects spending under current policies reaching 24 percent of GDP in 2021, which would require more than $800 billion in budget cuts in that year alone. That is significantly deeper than the recent proposal by President Barack Obama’s deficit commission, which recommended raising Social Security and Medicare retirement ages, and cutting military pensions, farm subsidies and a variety of other popular programs.?At a time when many families have been forced to tighten their pocketbooks, Congress must also learn to do the same,” McCaskill said. “This bill isn’t just about cutting back this year or next year; it’s about instilling permanent discipline to keep spending at a responsible level.?
There are so many problems with this Congressional budget axe approach and the families? analogy. Consider this; let?s say you need to cut your household spending by 15% to ?tighten your pocketbook?. Does that mean you can just tell your bank, “I?ll be sending you 15% less this year for my mortgage?? Of course not, because you have a financial obligation to pay back the money you borrowed from the bank just as the federal government has an obligation to pay Social Security beneficiaries what was borrowed from the Trust Fund. When families have to clamp down on spending, they make certain to keep paying their debts while looking for other ways to trim expenses. That?s real fiscal discipline. American families don?t have the luxury of backing out of their financial obligations.In its analysis of the McCaskill-Corker plan, the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities more eloquently says:
The proposal from Senators Bob Corker (R-TN) and Claire McCaskill (D-MO) to limit total federal spending to 20.6 percent of gross domestic product (GDP), the average from 1970 to 2008, would force draconian cuts in Social Security, Medicare, and many other programs while making it harder for the nation to recover from recession.That?s because the proposal, which would take effect in 2013 and phase in over 10 years, does not account for fundamental changes in society and government: the aging of the population, substantial increases in health care costs, and new federal responsibilities in areas such as homeland security, veterans? health care, and prescription drug coverage for seniors. These factors make the spending levels of an earlier era inapplicable for today?s discussions about how to reduce looming budget deficits and put the budget on a sustainable path in the coming years
Conservative think-tanks like the Heritage Foundation have pushed these kinds of time-warp budget solutions for years because it?s the easiest way to garner the largest cuts in Social Security and Medicare. No other Democrats have signed on to this plan and Majority Leader Harry Reid says:
“I will do everything that I can in throwing my legislative body in front of any efforts to weaken Social Security,” Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said. “Social Security has not contributed one penny to the debt, and as I’ve said before, people should leave Social Security alone.”
GOP’s Pay China First Plan Puts America’s Retirees Last
New Republican legislation would require the U.S. to send huge amounts of money to our foreign creditors and major financial institutions before paying off its obligations to Social Security beneficiaries and other citizens owed money by the Treasury, if Congress doesn?t raise the debt ceiling. The bills are sponsored by Pennsylvania?s new tea-party backed Senator, Pat Toomey, and Rep. Tom McClintock of California. The reaction has been understandably blunt:
?Senator Toomey certainly has a fascinating perspective on our national priorities ? not to mention his obligations to his constituents- considering the Senator?s proposal would have us pay China before we make monthly payments to the millions whose Social Security check is the only thing standing between their ability to scrape by and falling into complete and utter poverty. Never mind that our current retirees were paying into Social Security long before China became our nation?s bank.? Forbes, 1/31“[T]his idea is unworkable,” said Deputy Treasury Secretary Neal Wolin in a statement. “It would not actually prevent default, since it would seek to protect only principal and interest payments, and not other legal obligations of the U.S., from non-payment. Adopting a policy that payments to investors should take precedence over other U.S. legal obligations would merely be default by another name, since the world would recognize it as a failure by the U.S. to stand behind its commitments.” TPM Cafe
?House Republicans? new proposal to put foreign creditors ? including China ? before American families is deeply troubling and will hurt our economic recovery. There is no question that we must come together as a Congress now to put a long-term plan in place to reduce the deficit. But this country must not put China first, and fail to extend that same full faith and credit to American taxpayers. We must get our fiscal house in order, and at the State of the Union the President laid out ideas to tackle this challenge. But for the new Republican majority to do so at the expense of the economic security of American families and seniors is reckless and irresponsible. Democrats will fight any legislation that doesn?t put American families first.? Rep. Chris Van Hollen(D-MD)
?Hard to believe, but true: members of the new Republican majority have introduced legislation that rips the hard earned Social Security benefits out of the hands of seniors, widows and disabled workers?and hands them over to creditors like China. This ?Pay China First? plan would treat retired American workers as second class citizens in line behind foreign lenders even though Social Security had nothing to do with the nation’s $14 trillion debt. Working Americans want us to focus on cutting wasteful spending?and keep our hands off of their hard earned benefits.? Rep. Xavier Becerra (D-CA) Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on Social Security
One thing remains perfectly clear, Social Security has been targeted by many in Washington to pay the tab for mountains of debt it hasn?t contributed to and years of fiscal irresponsibility it has nothing to do with. The question is, will the American people allow fiscal hawks to get away with putting our retirees last?
A Reporter Gets it Right on Social Security…Finally!
Normally we don’t republish other articles in their entirety, but today in Reuters a blog poston Social Security from financial reporter Mark Miller was so well done, we couldn’t resist. Congratulations on receiving our Networthy Award, Mr. Miller. This is an excellent overview of the challenges Social Security will face in 2011.
ReutersObama Lays Down a Marker on Social Security CutsJAN 27, 2011By Mark MillerWould he or wouldn?t he?President Obama?s deficit commission endorsed cutting Social Security benefits last month, and many wondered whether the president would endorse those cuts in his State of the Union message this week. Instead, the president reiterated the traditional Democratic position on Social Security in his address that hestaked out as a candidate in 2008:
?We must [strengthen Social Security] without putting at risk current retirees, the most vulnerable, or people with disabilities; without slashing benefits for future generations; and without subjecting Americans? guaranteed retirement income to the whims of the stock market.?
That rhetoric differs significantly from the ?everything on the table? messages emanating from the White House since the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform issued itsfinal report. Written by commission co-chairmen Alan Simpson and Erskine Bowles, the reportrecommended benefit cuts via a higher retirement age, lower annual cost-of-living adjustments (COLA) and a third, somewhat technical change in the way benefits are calculated.What happened in the weeks since the release of the commission report? A coalition oftraditional Social Security backers andDemocratic lawmakers seem to have convinced the White House to back away from the Simpson-Bowles recommendations.Their case had two main points ? both correct:1. Cutting benefits is bad policy. That?s because Social Security has nothing to do with the federal deficit. The program ran a $2.5 trillion surplus in 2009, a number that will hit $3.8 trillion in 2020, according to the Economic Policy Institute. The surplus has been accumulating since implementation of the last Social Security reform measures in 1983, which were implemented for the purpose of building a cushion to fund the anticipated big wave of baby boomer retirements.Social Security does have a long-term problem, in that the surplus will be depleted around 2035, absent any other changes. But that doesn?t mean the program is careening toward insolvency, as stated often by many pundits and elected officials. Even in 2035, Social Security would be able to fund 76 percent of promised benefits from current revenue.The causes of this long-range imbalance also are misunderstood. Social Security cutters argue that the program can?t support the nation?s rising longevity rates; therefore we should boost the retirement age and work longer. But rising longevity accounts for only about one-fifth of the long-term problem, according to a new analysis by theEconomic Policy Institute:
?The bigger problems are weak wage growth and rising earnings inequality, which account for more than half the projected shortfall that has emerged since the system was last restored to long-term balance in 1983. Earnings inequality has eroded Social Security?s taxable earnings because earnings above a cap are exempt from Social Security taxes. Likewise, slower wage growth increases the costs as a share of taxable earnings. Rising health care costs, which create a growing wedge between compensation and taxable wages, a falling birth rate, and higher disability take-up are also contributing to the projected shortfall.?
Advocates of benefit cuts further state that their changes would be grandfathered in so slowly that no current beneficiaries would feel the pain. But the proposed COLA changes would kick in as early as 2012, reducing the formula used to calculate the adjustment by about 0.3 percent less than it does now. That may not sound like a big change, but compounded over many years it would cut benefits significantly.Social Security benefits are modest ? average annual benefits are a bit under $15,000 per year. A better way to get the program back into long-term balance than cutting benefits is to lift the aforementioned cap on payroll subject to Social Security taxes, currently set at $106,800.2. Cutting benefits is bad politics for Democrats ? and for Republicans.Numerous polls show remarkably strong opposition to cutting Social Security benefits across all political and demographic groups.A poll last year found that 77 percent of all adults agree that Social Security benefits shouldn?t be cut to reduce the federal deficit. The figure was 84 percent among Democrats, 78 percent among independents and 68 percent among Republicans.Supporting Social Security is a near-religious issue for core Democratic constituencies that Obama and Congressional Democrats will need at their side in 2012. Yet aRasmussen poll earlier this month showed that Republicans ?hold a 10-point edge when it comes to voter trust on Social Security-related issues, 46 percent to 36 percent, up from a virtual tie last month.? Those numbers stem from the success Republicans had last year convincing seniors that the healthcare reform law will slash Medicare benefits. (It doesn?t). And it?s a stunning finding, considering that Obama rode into office two years ago being hailed as the heir to thelegacy of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who counted Social Security as a signature domestic achievement.Advocates for protecting Social Security were cautiously optimistic that Obama?s position on Social Security is set following his State of the Union address.?We?re not taking victory laps yet, but the speech was a positive step,? said Eric Kingson, co-director of Strengthen Social Security and a professor of social work at Syracuse University. ?The White House has been under huge pressure from Wall Street, conservatives and deficit hawks to talk about cutting Social Security. The president didn?t do it.?But pressure to cut Social Security hasn?t evaporated. Tough negotiations loom on the federal budget and the need to raise the government?sdebt ceiling. Said Kingson: ?Would the White House accept a deal with Republicans involving benefit cuts in that situation? I?m nervous about it.?Link: http://blogs.reuters.com/prism-money/2011/01/27/obama-lays-down-a-marker-on-social-security-cuts/
Tired of the Lies about Social Security? So are we…
National Committee?s Truth Squad Arms Americans with the Facts about Vital Seniors’ Programs and Our National Debt
America?s seniors have a huge stake in the national economic debate. Unfortunately, fiscal hawks have launched a well-publicized misinformation campaign to persuade Washington that Social Security is to blame for our fiscal mess when, in fact, nothing could be further from the truth. Social Security has not contributed one dime to our federal debt; however, it is being targeted to pay the price.To counter the misinformation, the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare has mobilized a Truth Squad to give seniors the facts about Social Security and Medicare and the roles these vital programs play in our budget debate.The Truth Squad campaign includes:
- The ?Whopper of the Week? highlighting the latest false claim plus our myth-busting response
- Myth-busting fact sheet which details the Myths being spread and the Facts to rebut them
- Social Security and Medicare Tool Kits to help activists engage
- Online E-card to send to your members of Congress
- Our Legislative Action Center with sample letters that can be emailed directly to Congressional representatives and your local newspaper
- ?Washington Watch?, providing the latest news on efforts to target Social Security & Medicare for cuts
- Send a postcard to the White House in our ?Cutting Social Security Makes No ?Cents? Campaign?
See more at: https://www.ncpssm.org/Truth_Squad/
Budget Battle Begins – What about Social Security?
?I applaud President Obama for proposing a budget that does not target Social Security beneficiaries to foot the bill for years of deficit spending. This gives those of us who advocate for Social Security, additional time to inform more in Congress that Social Security is not the cause of this budget crisis nor is it the solution. Seniors, who have gone two years without a COLA increase, are also thankful for the $250 one-time economic recovery payment included in this budget.Proposing $1.1 trillion in budget cuts requires some tough choices, however, preserving the guaranteed benefits that American workers have paid for and depend on is the right budget strategy. Older Americans especially continue to suffer in this economy and they are thankful the President did not cut Social Security and Medicare benefits. They know Social Security has not contributed a dime to our deficit crisis and, contrary to claims by fiscal hawks, should not be used to balance our federal books.??Barbara B. Kennelly, President/CEO The National Committee and its millions of members and supporters nationwide have delivered hundreds of thousands of petitions, emails, and phone calls to Congress and the White House reminding our elected leaders that Social Security has not contributed to our national debt.However, well-financed Washington special interests have used our rising debt as a political opportunity to push cuts in Social Security under the guise of deficit reduction. Cutting Social Security benefits should not be used as a litmus test for ?fiscal responsibility?, ?serious debate? or being an ?adult?. We will continue to send that message to Washington as the budget debate continues. The National Committee?s ?Truth Squad? is the heart of our campaign to provide analysis, myth busting and grassroots tools for activists nationwide.
Why “Back to the Future” Budgeting Doesn’t Work
The Center for Budget and Policy Priorities calls the McCaskill-Corker spending bill a ?look Ma no hands? approach to budgeting. We also see it as a dangerous trip ?Back to the Future?. That?s because , rather than making specific budget choices based on 2011 realities, their bill sends us back to the spending levels of the ?80s, only to then impose across-the board cuts when our ?Back to the Future? DeLorean breaks down. The Associated Press describes their budget plan this way:
?The legislation doesn’t actually propose cuts but instead sets spending caps and enforces them with the threat of automatic, across-the-board reductions. The target of 20.6 percent of gross domestic product is the average of federal spending over 1970-2008. A recent Congressional Budget Office report projects spending under current policies reaching 24 percent of GDP in 2021, which would require more than $800 billion in budget cuts in that year alone. That is significantly deeper than the recent proposal by President Barack Obama’s deficit commission, which recommended raising Social Security and Medicare retirement ages, and cutting military pensions, farm subsidies and a variety of other popular programs.?At a time when many families have been forced to tighten their pocketbooks, Congress must also learn to do the same,” McCaskill said. “This bill isn’t just about cutting back this year or next year; it’s about instilling permanent discipline to keep spending at a responsible level.?
There are so many problems with this Congressional budget axe approach and the families? analogy. Consider this; let?s say you need to cut your household spending by 15% to ?tighten your pocketbook?. Does that mean you can just tell your bank, “I?ll be sending you 15% less this year for my mortgage?? Of course not, because you have a financial obligation to pay back the money you borrowed from the bank just as the federal government has an obligation to pay Social Security beneficiaries what was borrowed from the Trust Fund. When families have to clamp down on spending, they make certain to keep paying their debts while looking for other ways to trim expenses. That?s real fiscal discipline. American families don?t have the luxury of backing out of their financial obligations.In its analysis of the McCaskill-Corker plan, the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities more eloquently says:
The proposal from Senators Bob Corker (R-TN) and Claire McCaskill (D-MO) to limit total federal spending to 20.6 percent of gross domestic product (GDP), the average from 1970 to 2008, would force draconian cuts in Social Security, Medicare, and many other programs while making it harder for the nation to recover from recession.That?s because the proposal, which would take effect in 2013 and phase in over 10 years, does not account for fundamental changes in society and government: the aging of the population, substantial increases in health care costs, and new federal responsibilities in areas such as homeland security, veterans? health care, and prescription drug coverage for seniors. These factors make the spending levels of an earlier era inapplicable for today?s discussions about how to reduce looming budget deficits and put the budget on a sustainable path in the coming years
Conservative think-tanks like the Heritage Foundation have pushed these kinds of time-warp budget solutions for years because it?s the easiest way to garner the largest cuts in Social Security and Medicare. No other Democrats have signed on to this plan and Majority Leader Harry Reid says:
“I will do everything that I can in throwing my legislative body in front of any efforts to weaken Social Security,” Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said. “Social Security has not contributed one penny to the debt, and as I’ve said before, people should leave Social Security alone.”
GOP’s Pay China First Plan Puts America’s Retirees Last
New Republican legislation would require the U.S. to send huge amounts of money to our foreign creditors and major financial institutions before paying off its obligations to Social Security beneficiaries and other citizens owed money by the Treasury, if Congress doesn?t raise the debt ceiling. The bills are sponsored by Pennsylvania?s new tea-party backed Senator, Pat Toomey, and Rep. Tom McClintock of California. The reaction has been understandably blunt:
?Senator Toomey certainly has a fascinating perspective on our national priorities ? not to mention his obligations to his constituents- considering the Senator?s proposal would have us pay China before we make monthly payments to the millions whose Social Security check is the only thing standing between their ability to scrape by and falling into complete and utter poverty. Never mind that our current retirees were paying into Social Security long before China became our nation?s bank.? Forbes, 1/31“[T]his idea is unworkable,” said Deputy Treasury Secretary Neal Wolin in a statement. “It would not actually prevent default, since it would seek to protect only principal and interest payments, and not other legal obligations of the U.S., from non-payment. Adopting a policy that payments to investors should take precedence over other U.S. legal obligations would merely be default by another name, since the world would recognize it as a failure by the U.S. to stand behind its commitments.” TPM Cafe
?House Republicans? new proposal to put foreign creditors ? including China ? before American families is deeply troubling and will hurt our economic recovery. There is no question that we must come together as a Congress now to put a long-term plan in place to reduce the deficit. But this country must not put China first, and fail to extend that same full faith and credit to American taxpayers. We must get our fiscal house in order, and at the State of the Union the President laid out ideas to tackle this challenge. But for the new Republican majority to do so at the expense of the economic security of American families and seniors is reckless and irresponsible. Democrats will fight any legislation that doesn?t put American families first.? Rep. Chris Van Hollen(D-MD)
?Hard to believe, but true: members of the new Republican majority have introduced legislation that rips the hard earned Social Security benefits out of the hands of seniors, widows and disabled workers?and hands them over to creditors like China. This ?Pay China First? plan would treat retired American workers as second class citizens in line behind foreign lenders even though Social Security had nothing to do with the nation’s $14 trillion debt. Working Americans want us to focus on cutting wasteful spending?and keep our hands off of their hard earned benefits.? Rep. Xavier Becerra (D-CA) Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on Social Security
One thing remains perfectly clear, Social Security has been targeted by many in Washington to pay the tab for mountains of debt it hasn?t contributed to and years of fiscal irresponsibility it has nothing to do with. The question is, will the American people allow fiscal hawks to get away with putting our retirees last?
A Reporter Gets it Right on Social Security…Finally!
Normally we don’t republish other articles in their entirety, but today in Reuters a blog poston Social Security from financial reporter Mark Miller was so well done, we couldn’t resist. Congratulations on receiving our Networthy Award, Mr. Miller. This is an excellent overview of the challenges Social Security will face in 2011.
ReutersObama Lays Down a Marker on Social Security CutsJAN 27, 2011By Mark MillerWould he or wouldn?t he?President Obama?s deficit commission endorsed cutting Social Security benefits last month, and many wondered whether the president would endorse those cuts in his State of the Union message this week. Instead, the president reiterated the traditional Democratic position on Social Security in his address that hestaked out as a candidate in 2008:
?We must [strengthen Social Security] without putting at risk current retirees, the most vulnerable, or people with disabilities; without slashing benefits for future generations; and without subjecting Americans? guaranteed retirement income to the whims of the stock market.?
That rhetoric differs significantly from the ?everything on the table? messages emanating from the White House since the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform issued itsfinal report. Written by commission co-chairmen Alan Simpson and Erskine Bowles, the reportrecommended benefit cuts via a higher retirement age, lower annual cost-of-living adjustments (COLA) and a third, somewhat technical change in the way benefits are calculated.What happened in the weeks since the release of the commission report? A coalition oftraditional Social Security backers andDemocratic lawmakers seem to have convinced the White House to back away from the Simpson-Bowles recommendations.Their case had two main points ? both correct:1. Cutting benefits is bad policy. That?s because Social Security has nothing to do with the federal deficit. The program ran a $2.5 trillion surplus in 2009, a number that will hit $3.8 trillion in 2020, according to the Economic Policy Institute. The surplus has been accumulating since implementation of the last Social Security reform measures in 1983, which were implemented for the purpose of building a cushion to fund the anticipated big wave of baby boomer retirements.Social Security does have a long-term problem, in that the surplus will be depleted around 2035, absent any other changes. But that doesn?t mean the program is careening toward insolvency, as stated often by many pundits and elected officials. Even in 2035, Social Security would be able to fund 76 percent of promised benefits from current revenue.The causes of this long-range imbalance also are misunderstood. Social Security cutters argue that the program can?t support the nation?s rising longevity rates; therefore we should boost the retirement age and work longer. But rising longevity accounts for only about one-fifth of the long-term problem, according to a new analysis by theEconomic Policy Institute:
?The bigger problems are weak wage growth and rising earnings inequality, which account for more than half the projected shortfall that has emerged since the system was last restored to long-term balance in 1983. Earnings inequality has eroded Social Security?s taxable earnings because earnings above a cap are exempt from Social Security taxes. Likewise, slower wage growth increases the costs as a share of taxable earnings. Rising health care costs, which create a growing wedge between compensation and taxable wages, a falling birth rate, and higher disability take-up are also contributing to the projected shortfall.?
Advocates of benefit cuts further state that their changes would be grandfathered in so slowly that no current beneficiaries would feel the pain. But the proposed COLA changes would kick in as early as 2012, reducing the formula used to calculate the adjustment by about 0.3 percent less than it does now. That may not sound like a big change, but compounded over many years it would cut benefits significantly.Social Security benefits are modest ? average annual benefits are a bit under $15,000 per year. A better way to get the program back into long-term balance than cutting benefits is to lift the aforementioned cap on payroll subject to Social Security taxes, currently set at $106,800.2. Cutting benefits is bad politics for Democrats ? and for Republicans.Numerous polls show remarkably strong opposition to cutting Social Security benefits across all political and demographic groups.A poll last year found that 77 percent of all adults agree that Social Security benefits shouldn?t be cut to reduce the federal deficit. The figure was 84 percent among Democrats, 78 percent among independents and 68 percent among Republicans.Supporting Social Security is a near-religious issue for core Democratic constituencies that Obama and Congressional Democrats will need at their side in 2012. Yet aRasmussen poll earlier this month showed that Republicans ?hold a 10-point edge when it comes to voter trust on Social Security-related issues, 46 percent to 36 percent, up from a virtual tie last month.? Those numbers stem from the success Republicans had last year convincing seniors that the healthcare reform law will slash Medicare benefits. (It doesn?t). And it?s a stunning finding, considering that Obama rode into office two years ago being hailed as the heir to thelegacy of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who counted Social Security as a signature domestic achievement.Advocates for protecting Social Security were cautiously optimistic that Obama?s position on Social Security is set following his State of the Union address.?We?re not taking victory laps yet, but the speech was a positive step,? said Eric Kingson, co-director of Strengthen Social Security and a professor of social work at Syracuse University. ?The White House has been under huge pressure from Wall Street, conservatives and deficit hawks to talk about cutting Social Security. The president didn?t do it.?But pressure to cut Social Security hasn?t evaporated. Tough negotiations loom on the federal budget and the need to raise the government?sdebt ceiling. Said Kingson: ?Would the White House accept a deal with Republicans involving benefit cuts in that situation? I?m nervous about it.?Link: http://blogs.reuters.com/prism-money/2011/01/27/obama-lays-down-a-marker-on-social-security-cuts/