This is a Feature Not a Bug

Michael Hiltzik of the Los Angeles Times is noticing that the Social Security tax holiday is putting the program at risk:

The accepted response to the economic deal reached in Congress last week, extending the Social Security payroll tax holiday and unemployment insurance and maintaining reimbursement levels for Medicare doctors, is huzzah!

Finally Congress got something important done with a minimum of brinkmanship and posturing, and more than a few minutes before the deadline. A threat to the embryonic economic recovery was averted, and the extensions even pushed any subsequent fracas over the same issues to the end of this year, safely past the presidential election.

So why should we consider this action cause for despair?

It's because with every extension of the payroll tax holiday, which was first enacted in 2010, the prospect that Congress will ever restore the tax to its statutory 6.2% of covered income recedes a little bit further over the horizon. And that's bad medicine for Social Security.

To be fair, thus far the payroll tax holiday hasn't impaired Social Security's fiscal resources one bit. By law, 100% of the cut must be compensated for by transfers from the general fund; those transfers have come to about $130 billion since 2010, covering the original "temporary" one-year holiday and a two-month extension passed late last year.

The new extension will require a further transfer of about $94 billion, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

Yet because of the unique features of the program's financing, tampering with its revenue stream is playing with fire. The payroll tax is currently set at 12.4% of wages, split equally between employer and employee, up to a maximum of $110,100. The tax holiday cuts the employee's 6.2% share to 4.2%.

Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) put it well when he excoriated President Obama and his fellow congressional Democrats for approving a measure that places Social Security's financial stability on the table. "I never thought I would live to see the day when a Democratic president ... would agree to put Social Security in this kind of jeopardy," he said. "Never did I ever imagine a Democratic president beginning the unraveling of Social Security."

Even conservatives who aren't fans of the program's current structure acknowledge how hard it will be at any point in the foreseeable future to restore the old rate.

………

But the worst aspect of the payroll tax holiday is that it erodes Social Security's standing as a unique government program with its own revenue stream, a tax dedicated to its upkeep alone. Melding its own revenue with that of the federal government at large chips away at its standing, facilitating no one's goals except those who want to see the edifice pulled down.

The more the program has to rely on general income tax revenue, the shakier becomes its claim to being a special case among government expenditures. When program-slashers sharpen their axes in Washington, the line has always been drawn at Social Security because it's funded by a source distinct from the income tax.

Barack Obama has been looking to dismantle Social Security since the start of his Presidential campaign, he stacked the "super-committee" with Social Security foes, and tried to sell the program out in the debt ceiling deal, so this course of action is consistent with past behavior. (Additionally, he tried to do the same to Medicare. where he suggested means testing)

I'm not sure why, it could be his exposure to Chicago School economists, it could be that he feels that this is a way to stroke his "bipartisanship" fetish, or he could simply have a temperament that cannot see beyond the consensus of the "very serious people".

Remember, notwithstanding the alleged benefits for the poor, this replaced "Making Work Pay," which was more generous for people making less than the median household wage.