Also, when discussing plans to cut Social Security benefits, it would have been appropriate to mention that the Social Security trust fund is projected by the Congressional Budget Office to be fully funded for almost 40 years. Cutting benefits in this context effectively amounts to defaulting on the bonds held by the trust fund. If the government is going to default on bonds designated to fund workers' retirements, then the public may want to consider defaulting on other government bonds as well.

Rivkin continues:

Of course, everyone has to compromise to accomplish a comprehensive Social Security reform. Republicans have to give up diverting existing revenues into private accounts. But they can preserve private accounts on top of Social Security and strengthen incentives for individual retirement savings without going to "privatization."

Hey, that doesn't sound like any compromise at all: the Republicans want a poison pill that subsidizes middle-class voters into turning away from Social Security, and you propose to give one to them. Okay, and now here's how the good guys have to compromise:

Democrats have to accept future benefit cuts, but they need not be drastic and can spare current retirees and lower-income beneficiaries. The package could include future gradual increases in the retirement age and concentrate benefit cuts on higher income people.

Increase the retirement age, again? It's already scheduled to gradually rise to 68. How long do you propose grandpa should have to drive that truck or mop the cafeteria floor? And benefit cuts to higher income people, won't that help turn Social Security into more of a welfare program, and jack up middle-and higher-income anti-Social Security sentiment?

Here's a final bit of Rivkin:

As part of the compromise, both parties must agree to revenue increases, but they, too, can be modest and can spare low-income individuals. For example, the cap on income subject to social security tax can be raised in gradual steps." . . .

Again, as kosnomore points out, the `spare low-income individuals' is part of Rivkin's `turn it into a welfare program instead of pension system' theme:

Cut benefits?  Means test?  Make folks work 8 hour shifts in farms and mines and factories until they're well in their 70's?

In other words, monkey around with THE most successful universally admired welfare state accomplishment of the Democratic Party. Turn a respected pension plan into a means tested welfare program, guaranteeing it will eventually be abandoned by the middle class, smothered and killed.

That has been the goal of the Republicans since the minute Social Security was adopted.

I don't know whether Rivkin is in tight with Obama, but I worry that Rivkin's is the SS 'compromise' the Democratic and Republican parties will attempt to foist on us in 2009.