Why not challenge proposed cuts to Social Security?

Ed Hayes, Las Vegas

Wednesday, Feb. 23, 2011 | 2:02 a.m.

I’m confused about the current outcry to cut Social Security benefits to reduce our federal deficit. These attacks on Social Security are never challenged, simply responded to as a protected Democratic mandate.

Isn’t Social Security a self-funded enterprise? The money being paid out has been paid in, and current workers are continually paying into a pool of money yet to be tapped.

The payments should not even be included in the annual federal budget, which is the amount the government intends to spend balanced against the amount of money it expects to obtain within the year in question. Yes, in the future — maybe 20 or so years from now — the amount going out may exceed the money available, but that is another problem that has nothing to do with our current budget deficit.

Why are fully paid entitlements featured as the evil of the federal government borrowing money to sustain its expenditures? Is my understanding somehow mistaken?

Special Treasury notes have been purchased by the Social Security system, both to take advantage of the interest obtained and to make use of the funds until they are needed. Is the threat to cut Social Security benefits being made because we are cashing in some of the T-notes and that money comes from our inadequate general revenue?

Is this why conservatives want to cut Social Security benefits; they want to renege on the government’s obligation to repay the loan that Social Security made to it? If so, why are some Democrats silent? Why do they not condemn the effort to cut Social Security benefits for what it is, an attempt to defraud taxpayers?

If this is not the reason Social Security benefits are threatened, what is? What exactly are the workings of Social Security in connection with the current budget deficit?