What the "one person close to the issue" said. Fix it now, while we have a majority, by doughnut-holing in an increase on the cap. Take the piece off the board before the Republicans get back into power and, when they start screaming about tax increases, say "hey, you're the guys who say its a crisis, what do you want to do, put it all in the stock market? Okay, run along while the grown-ups talk and we'll be looking forward to getting your constituients input on that great idea next November."

As Steve said on an earlier thread, the so-called SS crisis is easily solved by raising the annual cap on SS tax.

In fact, that's a good way to recoup a bit of what's been given to the rich:  Lower the SS tax rate but eliminate the cap (not just raise it).

A tax cut for the working class!

Elena - This is nothing more than another effort to create controversy. The reason for the delay in announcing the formation of a SS task force is nothing more than sequence and timing.

President Obama and his advisors have decided that addressing medicare and medicade is more urgent than dealing with a basic math problem (actuarial) with SS.

He will eventually get to SS as he goes through the s*it pile left to him.

As long as they quite jerking around the older Baby Boomers about Social Security cuts/fixes, I'll be happy. The first time Bush talked about cuts for those under 55, I was months away from turning 55. Now I am 3 years older and just as concerned if not more so about any changes for those of us pushing 60.
I have worked my whole adult life and have paid for both my grandparents and parents. They had pretty decent retirments because they had pensions. I do not have a pension.
Too many folks just throw out the idea of cuts without any regard to the real people who are behind those cuts.
Baby Boomers are not going away. If you cut us off, we will be out on the streets.

There is no Social Security crisis. They lay out three scenarios, a high cost scenario, a middle scenario and a low cost one, have done so ever since the reform in the early 1980s that raised the retirement age to 67 for late- and post-Boomers. And almost EVERY YEAR the low cost scenario has proven to be correct, and the high cost one pure fiction.

Social Security has grown during the Bush Administration more slowly than any other major government program, it has very low management overhead, and it just works. Almost every other government program is on less stable footing and is less well run. If you're looking for programs that are really hemorrhaging cash, you need to look at Medicare where they can't keep up with the ballooning and out-of-control costs of providers and insurers, and you need to look at defense and in particular the Air Force where their ability to provide sufficient working weaponry declines as fast as their costs increase.

Decisive moment

Then why do they keep jerking us Baby Boomers around? It is cruel and disgusing.

Medicare is in deeper doo-doo than is SS in general, and it's due to hit the fan decades sooner, according to common projections. It makes total sense to work on Medicare first.

It also fits in nicely with larger health care issues about to be put on the table.

Seems like a smooth move, to me. SS can be fixed in the next two decades. Medicare cannot wait.

btw, I'm not suggesting that SS be ignored for a decade, only that it be put on the back burner for about 6-18 months.