My head hurts from the absolute stupidity running rampant when it comes to debating economic facts. As in, why would Social Security even be mentioned, other than for political calculations, in the debate around the phony debt and deficit "crisis"? Part of me throws up my hands and thinks this can never be stopped–especially when you have the President of the United States regurgitating nonsense, including his willingness, to even utter the words "Social Security" in the same sentence as "deficits"–even absent any truth to rumors about a deal to cut one of the greatest programs in our country’s history which is entirely solvent. Can we send Nancy Pelosi to the negotiating table instead?

   I’m not uncritical of Nancy Pelosi but she has consistently been a sane voice when it comes to Social Security:

  House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi rejected President Obama’s call for spending cuts in Social Security, saying House Democrats will not support a proposal cutting spending in the popular government program.

    “We do not support cuts in benefits to Social Security or Medicare,” Ms. Pelosi said following Mr. Obama’s meeting with House Republicans at the White House.

    “We all want to think big,” Ms. Pelosi added, noting that Social Security and Medicare should not serve as a “piggy bank” to cut taxes. [emphasis added]

   By the way, I use "sane" as in "logical" and "grounded in the facts".

   I recall, after the 2010 elections, when people were calling for Pelosi’s head and there was a murmur of a challenge to her leadership, I posted and tweeted that she deserves to remain at the head of the party–even though I have many reservations about the direction of the party–simply because she seemed to be the only party leader who was taking a hard line in defense of Social Security. No one–not the president, not Harry Reid, not a single leader in the party–took as strong a stand as Pelosi on Social Security.

   She understands what Dean Baker understands: a cut is a cut. Baker is an economist–not a blogger who likes to write about economics and finance as a hobby, whether s/he understands economics or not. Baker, who, by the way, predicted the mortgage crisis-housing bubble long before everything poppedsays:

There has been considerable discussion of basing the Social Security cost-of-living adjustment (COLA) on the Chained Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (C-CPI-U)  as a “painless” way of generating large budget savings. This view reflects serious confusion about what the switch to the C-CPI-U involves. (The switch would also lead to higher tax revenue by slowing the rise in the bracket cutoffs.)

"While it is often claimed that this switch will make the COLA more accurate, this is not clear. What is certain is that the switch would lower benefits. The research on the C-CPI-U shows that the switch would reduce benefits by roughly 0.3 percentage points a year compared with the baseline. This means that after someone has been retired for 10 years, their benefits would be 3 percent lower. After 20 years of retirement, their benefits would be 6 percent lower and people living into their 90s and collecting benefits for more than 30 years would see a drop in benefits of more than 9 percent. This might be especially difficult since the oldest of the elderly also tend to be the poorest.

"This is a benefit cut that would hit current retirees, most of whom are not especially affluent. More than 90 percent of beneficiaries have non-Social Security incomes of less than $40,000. In addition, the Joint Committee on Taxation recently estimated that by 2021, 69 percent of the higher tax revenue gained from switching to the C-CPI-U would come from taxpayers making less than $100,000.  By contrast, President Obama has set a $250,000 floor on the households whom he would subject to tax increases.

"Near retirees are not likely to fair better. Among older baby boomers (ages 55-64)  median wealth is just $170,000, including home equity. Given that this crisis stems from the failings of the financial sector, it seems peculiar that Congress and President Obama may arrive at a budget deal that imposes a considerable burden on retired workers, but asks nothing from Wall Street.[emphasis added]

   So, let’s send a person who knows how to negotiate to speak for seniors.