At this point I don't who stops this nonsense as long as Democratic Malevolent 7 are stopped from aiding and abetting the destruction of Social Security.

Social Security is not an entitlement program or a form of welfare;  it is a government owned insurance program and it was legislated as such.  There is an actuarial relationship between what a person pays in and what they receive in benenfits.  In the initial plan and adjustments since, the concept has always been that the average recipient with an average life expectancy should at least break even on what they've paid in.  People who outlive the average life expectancies actually receives more than they paid in and people who die early or even before receiving any benefit... well, that's just the way the cookie crumbles.

The cap has never been based on how much more money the system needed, it's based on cutting off the amount paid in so that it doesn't exceed reasonable expectation of what may be received in benefits.  Since potential montly benefits are limited the cap is adjusted to be on a par with that.

If caps were lifted many, many people would pay huge amounts of money into the system without the ability to receive anywhere near a reasonable return.  I'm not necessarily opposed to the lifting of caps I'm just explaining why the lifting of caps outside the realm of reasonable expectation of return has never gone far before.

It's the same with means testing Social Security.  Means testing makes Social Security an entitlement program instead of an insurance program.  When means testing has been discussed previously congressional counsel on both sides of the aisle have always written legal opinions saying that the original Social Security act would have to be legislatively modified since it was passed as an insurance program based on actuarial assumptions.  Actuarial assumptions that do not hold up with means testing and would not hold up if caps are lifted or lifted to a degree that they bring an unreasonable potential return.

It appears based on previous congressional legal opinion that anything that would stray far from normal acturarial expectations would require that Social Security be re-legislated as a welfare or entitlement program and there seems to be a lot of resistance to this in both parties.

It could be argued that the elimination of caps altogether or the lifting of those caps beyond the point of a fair potential return would cause the effected taxpayers to demand that they be allowed to invest their money elsewhere where they can get a fairer potential return.

If any kind of deal is struck that puts Social Security on Sen. Bill Thomas and Sen. Chuck Grassley's committee calendar, life long Democrats will abandon the party in droves. It would mean the destruction of the Democratic party.

In short, if these Senators are going to strike out on their own in earnest, bypassing their respective party leaders on major issues like SS, they'll need to be able to depend on re-election without the enthusiastic support of their parties. That means they'll need to stay popular. So some, uh, advice on how to accomplish that might be in order.

Bush as drawn a line in the sand and said Private Accounts are a must.  Any deal without them is a victory in our column.

If you do that, the conservatives will be happy,
the dems will be happy and the issue goes
off the table as a mild victory for
Bush (which is ok gosh darn it, he's the president -
what do you want, a lame duck? we pay his salary,
ok, lets let him work!!)

The way I understand it, the tricky part
will be to be careful about benefits
vs. tied to the schedule of inflation ..
if its just a push towards increasing the
age, no sweat.

John Glenn orbited the earth when he was
70. These boomers are totally irresponsible,
wasteful people and I don't have
any qualms at all about making them
work another 10 years to pay us
back for destroying the environment.

There are models that show just eliminating the cap alone would solve make the fund solevent.  So why we would even consider putting that on the table baffles me, if they want to compromise, then put out of system private accounts up for eliminating the cap.

If Democrats make it their mantra and repeat it enough times, people would start to understand that the only problem with social security is that the Republicans won't lift the cap.  This shit works both ways, right?  The goddaman Republicans convince Americans of stuff that isn't even true just by repeating it constantly.  

The reason it can work this time (and not for so many other issues) is because it's so freaking simple.

..."Scrap the Cap"
..."Capping our Future"
..."Take off that Cap"

It's so simple it's practically Republican.  Let's pretend we're wingnuts for a month or two.  Put your fingers in your ears and just start screaming "Scrap the Cap!" at the nearest politician.