And ignoring the fact that the payroll tax cut hasn't reduced Social Security income by one dollar?

Anyone who suggests ending the temporary 2 % cut will be declared raising taxes on the middle class.

Is the 2 % temporary cut now permanent? It sure looks that way to me, and that's very bad news for social security.

Saying anything to the contrary is simply not true. And no, the payroll tax cut is NOT permanent; in fact, it was pulling teeth just to extend it through the end of the year so as not to raise taxes on working people while the economy is still recovering.

That's a big chunk of social security funding.

They clearly don't know what they are talking about.

From their 2011 Report:
Conclusion
Under the long-range intermediate assumptions, annual cost for the OASDI
program is projected to exceed non-interest income in 2011 and remain
higher throughout the remainder of the long-range period. The combined
OASI and DI Trust Funds are projected to increase through 2022, and then to
decline and become exhausted and unable to pay scheduled benefits in full
on a timely basis in 2036. However, the DI Trust Fund is projected to
become exhausted in 2018, so legislative action will be needed as soon as
possible.


http://www.ssa.gov/oact/tr/2011/tr2011.pdf

And we were all fooled into thinking Harkin was some sort of liberal defending Social Security.

calling for cuts to Social Security and being deceptive about its solvency...

GOP more so than Dems.

The idea should never have made it out of the room it was uttered in. There was a reason it was a separate line item on the pay stub. To keep Congress from using the condition of the General fund from being a factor effecting Social Security. That is no longer the case.

You cannot solve a problem if you refuse to acknowledge it.

said before, I completely disagree: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=322321

Social Security is running a $2.6 trillion surplus.

If the Republicans try to make the case that Social Security is in jeopardy, I hope Democrats counter with logic. Do those who make this argument plan to counter by calling Democrats hypocrites? I see no point in making the Republicans argument for them especially when it has no basis in reality, but relies on speculation about what Republicans will do.

From their 2011 report:

Conclusion
Under the long-range intermediate assumptions, annual cost for the OASDI
program is projected to exceed non-interest income in 2011 and remain
higher throughout the remainder of the long-range period. The combined
OASI and DI Trust Funds are projected to increase through 2022, and then to
decline and become exhausted and unable to pay scheduled benefits in full
on a timely basis in 2036. However, the DI Trust Fund is projected to
become exhausted in 2018, so legislative action will be needed as soon as
possible.

BTW the SS Trustees are all Democrats appointed by President Obama.

http://www.ssa.gov/oact/tr/2011/tr2011.pdf

Look at the posting history.

Do you actually know our President or work for him? I have literally never seen someone so defensive of a politician in my life. You are on literally every DU thread I've ever seen that has any questions or suggestions for this president. We all care about politics, but I've never seen such a rabid defense one one politiCIAN.

Hmmm?

The so called "Payroll Tax Holiday" is nothing more than a Stealth Attack on the most successful social program ever created,
AND a (previous) Cornerstone of the modern Democratic Party,
cleverly disguised as "Progressive" step that helps the Working Class.
Even the terminology used to market this scam would make Frank Luntz proud.
The Republican Framing of FICA Contributions is "Payroll Tax",
and WHO doesn't want a "temporary" Holiday?
Weeeeee!

What this really is, is a PERMANENT reduction in FICA Contributions, the program that FUNDS Social Security and Medicare.
Neither Obama & the "Centrist" Democrats, nor the Republicans are EVER going to say,
"Well, the Holiday is over. Time to Raise taxes."
That is NEVER going to happen,
AND the promoters of this attack on Social Security KNEW that when they first designed this SCAM.


Payroll Tax Holiday Directly Connects Social Security to The Deficit
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x1538388

The Republicans are already whining now about Social Security "Ballooning the Deficit".

The FICA (Federal Insurance Contributions Act) created a separate and independent funding system for Social Security.
It was designed the way FOR A REASON.
FDR & LBJ would NOT approve of connecting Social Security to the General Fund,
and neither would any REAL Democrat.
George Bush would have NEVER gotten away with calling for a reduction in FICA contributions,
but somehow, its NOW all good.

Gawddamm! I miss the Democratic Party I joined 44 years ago!


You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their excuses.
[font size=5 color=green]Solidarity99![/font][font size=2 color=green]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------[/center]

Now they will be able to connect Social Security to deficit that will give them an excuse to make cuts to Social Security later.

Chicago Democrat. That's about all that needs to be said.

Sounds like something Sarah Palin would say.

have seen an earlier post from me regarding Chicago Democrats. I've worked for Chicago Democrats and they love only themselves. They are gansters that do little for the working people, it even seems to me they hate us.

Can't stand Republicans but I also understand the Democrats are only, barely a tad bit better since they feed at many of the same troughs as the Repugs. Just look at how the Dems in Congress supported Carter, Clinton, and now Obama, i.e. how they threw our Democrat Presidents under the bus.

Chicago is the MOST corrupt city in the country, Illinois is the 3d most corrupt state in the country but I bet you can't extract anything from that. Look at what Rahm is doing in Chicago, look at their ridiculous gun laws. Like the freepers you see only 88 posts and leap to unsupported conclusions, seems Sarah and the teabaggers would have made the same sorts asumptions. Too bad you process information much like they do.

Just looking for a party that has my back.

Makes no sense unless you want to start some trouble.

Process this information: This is the Democratic Underground. It makes no sense why you are here if you do nothing but bash Democrats.

I can't stand the teabagger mentality on the right. So I've voted for and hoped the Democrats have my back but they repeatedly prove they don't. I don't see how posting what I see as truth should be flamed, I would hope others could see it also and maybe demand more from our elected Representatives.

Washington is a bastion of 1%'ers and we just keep sending the same thugs back time after time. The wool has been pulled over our eyes, I just wish the average man could see it. If we don't take the party back or hold them accountable nothing will ever change.

So yes, the king has no clothes.

Obama got into office as a reform candidate in opposition to the Machine. The Machine jumped on Obama's bandwagon after that wagon was already on the road (ditto Rahm).


And for the record, it is impossible for Chicago to be the most corrupt city in the country. The federal investigation into Chicago politics when Republicans were running the city was never officially closed. As a result, the Feds have never stopped investigating this city. No other city in the country is under that kind of scrutiny.

Conversely, a few years back after the trial following an investigation into New York corruption concluded, the New York congress-critters demanded that the DoJ close the investigation. The DoJ is not allowed to go on fishing expeditions when there is no open investigation. So they now need a credible accusation of corruption in New York before they can investigate corruption in New York.

For that matter, if you are from the Chicago area then you HAVE to know that Cicero and Rosemont are far, far more corrupt than Chicago. Those two cities are run by the mafia!

I grew up on a farm in the smallest and least populated county in Indiana. And I can assure you that corruption there was rife. We had the misfortune of the county prosecutor dying in office. The governor, being from the rival party, assigned someone from his party. Half the politicians were in jail before the year was out.

The prize is bigger in Chicago. And it gets far more scrutiny. That is what truly separates Chicago from other locales when it comes to corruption.


Now, as to Illinois ... this is historically a Republican state after all. So it should come as no surprise that, what, four of our last six governors ended up in jail? And Nixon called off his 1960 recount because it found vast more voting irregularity in the Republican strongholds (again, those places *not* under constant scrutiny).

Though the biggest crook of them all, Gov Len Small, was never put away. Gotta love a man who garnished state employee's wages for involuntary political contributions, coined the argument that it could not be illegal if he did it (he beat Nixon to that argument by decades), stacked the State Police with Klansmen, called up the National Guard to defend him from the police, and ultimately got away when his jury was stacked/bought-off/intimidated by one Alphonse Capone.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/15/chicago-most-corrupt-city_n_1278988.html

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0212/72961.html

http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2012/02/14/chicago-called-most-corrupt-city-in-nation/

http://www.inquisitr.com/195190/chicago-named-most-corrupt-u-s-city-in-not-so-shocking-study/

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/46408018/ns/local_news-peoria_il/t/report-chicago-most-corrupt-city-nation/

Not sure about your first question, maybe because he was/is a Chicago Democrat.

Yes we all see corruption everywhere, but Chicago has a special place in the annuls of history. Where do you think all those gansters from the 20-50's went(?). Let me help, they went into politics and we are suffering terribly in this state. Along with corruption we are rated about last or second to last in the US as far as fiscal responsibility and solvency.

Several Democrats in labor I've worked with (for the state) have dropped their precinct committeemen posts because of the way these thugs from Chicago govern. When I say they hate labor, I've experienced it and I mean it. They use labor, oh yes and even occasonally thow us a bone, much like the Republicans occasionally throw the religious zealots a bone. But, we are only voting fodder to them, they own us but don't like us and we have no other choices in the political world. I understand this is the same problem across the whole political spectrum. We continue to elect the 1%'ers, there is no other valid option.

Let me make an analogy. While growing up a person lives with horrible parents. They rent this child out for prostitution and to all manner of of evil things. But this child endures, they are his or her parents, they provide a home of sorts clothing and some food. What is the child to do, he has no place to go and knows no other life and the child's parents have constantly warned the child of repercussions if he/she were to go to the authirities. That child represents the residents of Illinois. The Democratic party is the closest we have to what we believe, we can't vote Republican and a vote for any other party is a wasted vote. So we go to the polls to vote against Republians, not necessarily for these Democrats.

I am just disgusted with all politicains at this point, the Repugs because they are crazy as loons, the Democrats becasue they continue to disappoint to the nth degree. Like I said, I just want a party that has MY back and Chicago Democrats like most other politicians do not. Yes both sides are corrupt in this state, Three Dems and one Rep governors have gone to prison, and one other Republican could have, that's like 80% of our Governors over the last thirty years! But I believe it is the standard of corruption in Chicago that have driven it. My problem in this state is just the way they govern and what they do against us, better than Republicans but.........

Pick any city at random. Let it be the only city being permanently investigated by the feds. That city will be rated the most corrupt city in the nation because it will be the only city that is under investigation 24x7x365.

It so happens there is one and only city in the entire United States that is under permanent investigation. That happens to be Chicago.

Hire a roof inspector who finds a minor problem. Your foundation could be about to collapse, but "the most damaged portion of your house" is the roof. Because that is where you investigated. If you do not investigate, you are not going to find anything.


During the "open city" era in which mobsters ruled Chicago there was not a single elected Democrat in Chicago. Certainly, Dems have had their share of pols in cahoots with the mob. But this was always on an individual basis. The Party as a whole has never had the kind of ties that the Repubs had with the mafia. When Gov Len Small called out the National Guard to protect himself from arrest, Al Capone told him to send the Guard home cause the mob would take care of the problem. And they did.

When Chicagoans had enough, they finally elected their first Democratic mayor since the Civil War. Most historians believe the mob assassinated him though officially it is still listed as an assassination attempt on the President with the Mayor being accidentally shot by the killer who missed his intended target while standing a couple feet away from them. Eventually, the Dems ran Capone and company out of the city. They fled to Cicero which is still mob controlled to this day. Later, Rosemont was founded as a mob controlled city. Actually, more than a few of your Republican suburbs have heavy mob influence. The 'burbs is where the mob calls home.


Most people take "Chicago Democrat" to mean a member of the Democrat Machine in Chicago. I assumed you meant "Chicago Democrat" as a disparaging remark. After all, Quinn is a Democrat from Chicago and as squeaky clean as a politician gets. He is the Democratic version of Jim Edgar (minus the holier-than-thou bullshit). He, like Obama and Rahm, are not Machine Democrats.

In fact, with Obama then Rahm eclipsing them, I have to wonder if the Machine is dead. The fact that Daley betrayed everything the Machine stood for, I wouldn't be surprised.

Payroll Tax Cut: Tom Harkin Slams President, Democrats For Risking Social Security
By Michael McAuliff
February 17, 2012

"This Congress will be making a grave mistake -- a grave mistake -- and reinforcing a dangerous precedent," Harkin said in a dramatic Senate floor speech late Thursday. "And I’m dismayed that Democrats, including a Democratic president and a Democratic vice president, have proposed this, and are willing to sign off on a deal that could begin the unraveling of Social Security."

Harkin argued that Social Security had always been strong and protected because it was funded by its own dedicated tax stream that ensured every American would be guaranteed a basic income in their retirements, and that the program added not "even one dime to the deficits or the national debt." "With this bill, we can no longer say that. We can no longer say that Social Security doesn't contribute to the deficit," Harkin said.

He argued that a far better plan would have been to simply grant working Americans rebates on their income taxes, the way Presidents Obama and George W. Bush had done in recent years.

"This, I believe has been the hallmark and the underpinning of the party that I've been proud to belong to," Harkin said. "Cutting the payroll tax is a bad idea, terrible idea. I'm embarrassed that it's being proposed by a Democratic president and a Democratic vice president."



http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/17/payroll-tax-cut-tom-harkin_n_1284334.html

because its never happened before?
Original Social Security Promises Under FDR's Plan:

1.) That participation in the Program would be Completely voluntary.
Its no longer voluntary.

2.) That the participants would only have to pay 1% of the first $1,400 of their annual income into the program.
It was up to 7.65% at one time. Current rate changed under Obama: 4.2% from the employee and 6.2% from the employer on income up to $110,600 (Democrat)

3.) That the money the participants elected to put into the program would be deductible from their income for tax purposes each year.
It is no longer tax deductible. (democrat)

4.) That the money the participants put into the independent 'Trust Fund' rather than into the general operating fund, and therefore, would only be used to fund the Social Security Retirement Program, and no other Government program.
Under Johnson the money was moved to The General Fund and Spent (Democrat)

5.) That the annuity payments to the retirees would never be taxed as income.
Under Clinton & Gore Up to 85% of your Social Security can be Taxed (Democrat)

So what's your point?

If your comment was intended to refute that statement you'll need to present some factual, documented evidence to back up your position.

That was not done in your comment.

He's not being practical.

He doesn't understand politics.

We'll fix it later.

etc.

etc.

etc.

K/R

....me neither, Senator Harkin, me neither....it makes you think twice, about what being a Democrat actually means these days....

He wants to prove what hypocrites the Republicans are by stealing their ideas and presenting them as his own --thus forcing them to oppose their own ideas in the first place!

THAT, my friend, is 3-D chess!

Reid talked Harkin out of payroll tax filibuster
By MANU RAJU
February 17, 2012

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) persuaded Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) not to filibuster the deal extending the payroll tax cut, but neither man will comment on their special arrangement.

The reason? No one will say.

Reid's spokesman won't respond to inquiries on the matter, and Harkin was mum when asked about it off the floor.

"Certain arrangements and agreements have been made," Harkin said vaguely. "But I’m satisfied now that going forward we’ll be OK.”

Read the full article at:

http://www.politico.com/blogs/on-congress/2012/02/reid-talked-harkin-out-of-payroll-tax-filibuster-114855.html

I suppose one could argue that Obama backed himself into a corner with his inept handling of the original stimulus, and that this was the only way he could use to inject more money into the economy, still, as Senator Harkin so ably points out - a payroll tax cut is "beginning the unraveling of Social Security.”

To see this coming from a Democratic administration is discouraging, to say the least...


--------

I think we all understand that the GOP are a bunch of pro corporate christo fascists, but one really has to ask - what are the Democrats?

Where does this lead?

Obama doing their dirty work, they long to kill the New Deal.

majority of the no votes were Republicans:

House roll call: http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2012/roll072.xml

Senate roll call: http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=112&session=2&vote=00022

Yeas Nays PRES NV
Republican 146 91 4
Democratic 147 41 4
Independent
TOTALS 293 132

...the Dems voted yea, 147, to 41 No

Here's what I said: The majority of the no votes were Republicans, and 91 > 41.

again?

Of course you are correct.

I don't know who is "correct" on the issue, but I know who I trust.

the SS cash flow negative in 2010--after more than 25 years of Republican plunder--not the payroll tax cut.

And it's the newly negative cash flow that connects Social Security to the deficit. Either (A) the three trillion in the trust fund has to be paid back from the general fund or new T-bond issues; or (B) a Republican Congress will cut benefits to "strengthen" the program.

IMO the arrangements made to repay the payroll tax cut from the General Fund help assure that the solution to the problem posed by long-anticipated retirements of 10,000 Boomers a day will be (A) rather then (B).

Senator Harkin seems not even to understand what the Trust Fund IS! Because of demography, there was no 2010 SS surplus to "convert" into Trust Fund Bonds.

See Table 4.A1 at http://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/statcomps/supplement/2011/index.html . By calendar 2008, the flood of positive FICA cash flow into Treasury that started in the 80s had slowed to a trickle. "Net payroll tax contributions" exceeded "Total Old Age and Survivors Insurance Expenditures" by only $59 billion.

The next year, the surplus was only $6 billion. And in 2010 the surplus finally turned negative by $40 billion. Since only $2 billion of that $40 billion negative cash flow was due to the payroll tax holiday, the cash flow would have been negative by $38 billion even without the payroll tax cut.

See also http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/budget/197833-social-security-actuary-blesses-payroll-tax-bill . Social Security Actuary Stephen Goss, whose job it is to protect the financial soundness of Social Security, opined that the payroll tax cut would have a :negligible" effect on OASDI, both in the short run and in the long run.

IMO what Harkin has been doing is simply repeating wrong-headed Republican talking points that attempt to undermine the President.

Thanks for the info and sharing your expertise on Social Security with us.

It's greatly appreciated.

Due to slight of hand accounting tricks implemented decades ago, FICA surpluses made the deficit appear smaller than it was because they were using those surpluses in the deficit calculation. Once those surpluses are gone, the deficit will appear larger because what was being counted as revenue is no longer there. The total federal debt will also appear larger because the SS trust fund was also being used to make the total federal debt appear smaller. So even though SS payouts are effectively coming out of the trust fund, they might as well be coming out of the general fund because the deficit and the debt reporting are going to reflect those changes.

:thud:

But its good that you were there to bring his outrage widget to the market place.

Simple question. How many days.

Secondary to that...

How much money has been taken out of said piggy bank in the meantime?

I don't expect an answer, so think of these as rhetorical questions.

Don't you think someone else in the Senate and Congress would be saying this if it was true? Harkin is the only one saying this. Without him it wouldn't have become an issue, but thanks to him, now the media is running this story about how Obama and the Democrats are unraveling Social Security when it's not true. There were some real problems with the payroll tax cut, which is why a few other Democrats did vote against it, but Harkin is really off the deep end here on his own.

or "off the deep end" as you put it in your opinion.

And do you really think making social security greatly dependent on general tax revenues is a bold progressive step forward to protect the elderly and disabled?

Due to federal accounting rules the previous FICA surplus was offsetting the reported deficit just as the trust fund was offseting what was being reported as the total federal debt. Once SS outlays exceed FICA income, the difference will be reflected in the reported deficit along with proportional increases to the total federal debt.

Politicians will never allow the SS trust fund to be fully utilized. Wait and see. Benefits will be slashed at some point, and probably sooner rather than later. None of this has anything to do with the payroll tax holiday. If this doesn't happen the reported deficit and the reported federal debt will continue to climb by leaps and bounds (which you might as well say the actual deficit and federal debt since nobody thinks of those things without the FICA and SS trust fund offset).

Simply repeating over and over that these two people's words negates any and all relevant information offers nothing substantive to your argument and becomes a bit silly after you've used it several times.

Every progressive public interest group defending social security has said the same thing for a long time now.

And Senator Harkin is not the only member of Congress pointing out the dangers of having social security depend on general tax revenues to fund benefits. That's hardly the case. But it sure would be nice to see a majority of Democratic politicians defending social security and other so-called "entitlement" programs. And I've seen far to many self-described progressives pitching talking points and parroting lame excuses on discussion boards justifying such attacks on our benefits.

Would you like me to post some credible links to pro-social security organizations that you can study?

For the most progressive members of congress, the majority voted FOR the payroll tax holiday. For the ones who voted against it, many (if not most) cited funding as their reasons, not anything to do with "defending social security". So why do you think progressive members of congress like Barney Frank and Dennis Kucinich voted for this if it is so detrimental so SS as you claim?

Basic research...

Congressional Progressive Caucus members who voted for the payroll tax holiday in 2012:

Ed Pastor (AZ-4, Phoenix)
Raúl Grijalva (AZ-7, Tucson) - Co-Chair
George Miller (CA-7, Richmond)
Pete Stark (CA-13, Fremont)
Janice Hahn (CA-36, San Pedro)
Michael Honda (CA-15, San Jose)
Henry Waxman (CA-30, Los Angeles)
Xavier Becerra (CA-31, Los Angeles)
Judy Chu (CA-32, El Monte)
Karen Bass (CA-33, Baldwin Hills)
Lucille Roybal-Allard (CA-34, Los Angeles)
Maxine Waters (CA-35, Inglewood)
Laura Richardson (CA-37, Long Beach)
Linda Sánchez (CA-39, Lakewood)
Jared Polis (CO-02, Boulder)
Rosa DeLauro (CT-3, New Haven)
Corrine Brown (FL-3, Jacksonville)
John Lewis (GA-5, Atlanta)
Mazie Hirono (HI-2, Honolulu)
Bobby Rush (IL-1, Chicago)
Jesse Jackson, Jr. (IL-2, Chicago Heights)
Jan Schakowsky (IL-9, Chicago)
André Carson (IN-7, Indianapolis)
Dave Loebsack (IA-2, Cedar Rapids)
John Olver (MA-1, Amherst)
Jim McGovern (MA-3, Worcester)
Barney Frank (MA-4, Newton)
John Tierney (MA-6, Salem)
Ed Markey (MA-7, Malden)
John Conyers (MI-14, Detroit)
Bennie Thompson (MS-2, Bolton)
Frank Pallone (NJ-06, Long Branch)
Donald Payne (NJ-10, Newark)
Ben R. Luján (NM-3, Santa Fe)
Jerry Nadler (NY-8, Manhattan)
Nydia Velázquez (NY-12, Brooklyn)
Carolyn Maloney (NY-14, Manhattan)
Charles Rangel (NY-15, Harlem)
José Serrano (NY-16, Bronx)
Maurice Hinchey (NY-22, Saugerties)
Louise Slaughter (NY-28, Rochester)
Mel Watt (NC-12, Charlotte)
Marcy Kaptur (OH-9, Toledo)
Dennis Kucinich (OH-10, Cleveland)
Earl Blumenauer (OR-3, Portland)
Bob Brady (PA-1, Philadelphia)
Chaka Fattah (PA-2, Philadelphia)
David Cicilline (RI-1, Providence)
Steve Cohen (TN-9, Memphis)
Sheila Jackson Lee (TX-18, Houston)
Tammy Baldwin (WI-2, Madison)
Gwen Moore (WI-4, Milwaukee)

Voting against...

Mike Capuano (MA-8, Boston)
Yvette Clarke (NY-11, Brooklyn)
William Lacy Clay, Jr. (MO-1, St. Louis)
Emanuel Cleaver (MO-5, Kansas City) - Chairman, Congressional Black Caucus
Elijah Cummings (MD-7, Baltimore)
Danny Davis (IL-7, Chicago)
Peter DeFazio (OR-4, Eugene)
Donna Edwards (MD-4, Fort Washington)
Keith Ellison (MN-5, Minneapolis) - Co-Chair
Sam Farr (CA-17, Monterey)
Bob Filner (CA-51, San Diego)
Marcia Fudge (OH-11, Warrensville Heights)
Luis Gutierrez (IL-4, Chicago)
Alcee Hastings (FL-23, Fort Lauderdale)
Hank Johnson (GA-4, Lithonia)
Eddie Bernice Johnson (TX-30, Dallas)
Barbara Lee (CA-9, Oakland)
Jim McDermott (WA-7, Seattle)
Jim Moran (VA-8, Alexandria)
Chellie Pingree (ME-1, North Haven)
Peter Welch (VT-At Large)
Frederica Wilson (FL-17, Miami)
Lynn Woolsey (CA-6, Santa Rosa)

Why do you think they along voted against it and Democratic "floor whips" if financing social security out of general funds is so progressive?

They certainly refused to cave in to White House and Democratic/Republican political pressure. Those who voted against will of course be accused of favoring higher taxes on working people by their political opponents. Will you also make that charge against them?

And why did 146 Republicans in the House vote for this bill? Oh .... they are all liberals and working class warriors .... of course.

Your comments so far have avoided any discussion or rebuttal of the reasons why progressives opposed the funding of social security with general tax revenues. Do you have any opinion on that matter?

Many (if not most) of those who voted against it didn't like how it was funded. Parts of the law were paid for with an increase in federal employees' contribution to their retirement which many progressive members of congress opposed.

Most progressive members of congress voted FOR the bill. That is a fact that you can't get around and have yet to explain, other than you think they caved. Kucinich and Franks caved? Ridiculous. Republicans voted for it for the same reasons Democrats did. They voted for it because it had the overwhelming support from the public. They voted for it because economists said it was a good idea. They voted for it because the struggling economy needs it. They voted for it because it helps those who need it most.

And your claim that "Every progressive public interest group" was against it is just flat out wrong. The Progressive Policy Institute says that only a minority of progressives opposed it on the grounds you claim...

http://progressivepolicy.org/tag/bowles-simpson

The Center for American Progress, NDN, PPI, and EPI all published several articles that supported the payroll tax holiday.