Aiding and abetting in the war on Social Security

Early on in primary season, one of the biggest criticisms of Barack Obama was his insistence that Social Security was in perilous shape, something Hilary Clinton, to her credit, disavowed. Obama quickly stopped that kind of talk -- talk that is pleasing to the Beltway Brahmins but anathema to Democratic primary voters.

So this is not encouraging.

WASHINGTON — President-elect Barack Obama said Wednesday that overhauling Social Security and Medicare would be “a central part” of his administration’s efforts to contain federal spending, signaling for the first time that he would wade into the thorny politics of entitlement programs.

As the Congressional Budget Office projected a record $1.2 trillion budget deficit for this year even before the costs of the nearly $800 billion economic stimulus package being taken up by the House and the Senate, Mr. Obama stepped up his effort to reassure lawmakers and the financial markets that he plans a vigorous effort to keep the government’s finances from deteriorating further.

Speaking at a news conference in Washington, he provided no details of his approach to rein in Social Security and Medicare, which are projected to consume a growing share of government spending as the baby boom generation ages into retirement over the next two decades. But he said he would have more to say about the issue when he unveiled a budget next month.

Once again, the Social Security program is well funded at least through 2041. Medicare is certainly a huge problem, but lumping the two together is absurd. Further, Medicare is a symptom of rising health care costs overall, and one of the points of health care reform is to make health care more efficient.

Perhaps these are just more soothing words aimed at Blue Dog Democrats and Republicans' new found fiscal disciplinarians, but SS is immensely popular for a reason. It works. It's paid for. And given what is happening with private retirement funds and pensions, essential.

All that said, Dean Baker thinks the Times story may be misleading. Surely, the paper's claims about SS are.