in krugman's op-ed he states that obama is using neocon talking points to "sell" his social security paranoia.

in his same article krugman quotes pundits chris matthews & tim russert stating that social security is a "ponzi scheme." these guys aren't neocon talking heads ... they are from the "liberal media." my point is that it doesn't take a brain surgeon to know that social security ... while not in imminent crisis ... is just like the threat of global warming. we need to take issue before the crisis becomes imminent. it's fiscally sound ... even though it's un popular. i'm too lazy to find quotes of this right now before i go to bed. maybe i will tomorrow.

my main point is this: the reason why bush et al want to scare folks re: soc sec. is because they want to privitize it. they want to privitize it for two reasons: because soc. sec. is fiscally insolvent ... ultimately, unless monies going to defense are routed more appropriately. they are wanting to unload the defined benefit plan (we pay you $x per year at retirement until you die = their risk and investment responsibility) to a defined contribution plan (individual gets $x that they & gov't contributes and keeps it all at retirement = ind has all the risk & responsibility). they want to unload a stale egg. just like every other company in this country ... they all got rid of their pension plans (that is what soc. sec. is) and replaced them with 401(k) plans. pensions cost more, are legally mandated to remain even if the company goes under, and force the company to assume all risks for investment fund performance. actuaries gage how all this works. no big company wants to have a pension plan. bushco also wants this because their wall street pals wold make money off us ... charge us fees to change accounts, maybe even entice us with speculative advice.

obama does not want to privitize ... he wants to ensure the gov't will meet it's obligation. this is a real and valid concern for the post baby-boomers and future generations.

we're getting off topic with all this, but i want to respond to your writing about social security. you wrote:

Social Security is not endanger. It is Medicare and Medicaid that are in danger. ... Most progressives here at Salon would certainly agree with me on that.

if they think that they are wrong. Social Security is just like the surge spin ... there is relative solvency when compared to medicare/medicaid ... but there is a long-term issue for anyone younger than 40. obama is not catering to the right ... this is pundit spin to evoke fear & confuse the issue. obama is saying this about social security to attract younger voters.

the most recent article i can quickly find on the subject is at msn money, written by Liz Pulliam Weston. she writes:

Myth No. 4: Social Security will run out of money in 2041. Social Security will still be receiving payroll taxes from workers in 2041. What may have disappeared by then are the assets in the Social Security trust fund.

Even that isn't cast in stone, however. The Congressional Budget Office in June 2006 projected that the trust fund wouldn't dry up until five years later, in 2046. The CBO used different assumptions than those used by the Social Security Administration, projecting faster growth in worker earnings, higher interest rates and lower inflation.

Here's how the Social Security Administration projects the timeline:

In 2017, Social Security will begin paying out more than it takes in. For the first time, it will have to use the interest being paid on the securities it holds in order to meet its obligations.

In 2027, Social Security would have to start redeeming the securities themselves.

By 2041, Social Security would have cashed in the last security, and the system would have enough revenue to pay out only 75% of promised benefits. That percentage would drop over time if Congress failed to act.

if social security were a private pension, the trustees of this private pension would be in jail. "borrowing against" social security's trust fund would be considered illegal in a private setting.

this is from the NATIONAL CENTER FOR POLICY ANALYSIS:

In the 2003 Trustees Report, the present value of the difference between the system’s revenues and expenditures over the next 75 years is projected to be $4.9 trillion. Including the $1.4 trillion trust fund as an offsetting asset, or dedicated funding source, lowers this unfunded obligation to $3.5 trillion. New this year is an estimate of the infinite horizon unfunded obligation. That number is a whopping $11.9 trillion without the trust fund or $10.5 with the trust fund offset.

with unfunded liability the choices are clear ... just like global warming ... fund the liability now so that the trust fund can grow; stop borrowing against it for other things like paying interest on the nat'l debt ... or address a massive problem in the future. or ... just change the benefit so that all of us who are paying for boomer retirement get less than we paid in to the plan.

addressing this longer term is not a "right wing policy" ... privatizing social security is. privitizing means dissolving the defined benefit and making it a defined contribution plan. making the pension into a 401(k).

obama is not for this. he wants the government to meet it's obligation without screwing over the younger folks. this is a very progressive, liberal attitude, and one that clinton is to the "right" of.