but because we regarded the future costs as a compelling reason not to cut taxes even if the overall budget was in surplus.

I wonder if Krugman knows that FICA is applied to pretax dollars. In fact, that is one of the reasons many leftists call it unfair.

The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities states that three-fourths of taxpayers pay more in payroll taxes than they do in income taxes.[1] The FICA tax is considered a regressive tax on income (with no standard deduction or personal exemption deduction) and is imposed (for the year 2006) only on the first $94,200 of gross wages. The tax is not imposed on investment income (such as interest and dividends).

So can someone explain what cutting federal income taxes has to do with Social Security?

And then from Big Tent we have:

What Marcus proved of course, is that Krugman was RIGHT to oppose the Bush tax cuts because it is the fiscal irresponisbility of the Bush Administration that COULD put Social Security in danger IF the Social Security trust fund's legal rights are not respected by the Beltway.

So, even though FICA and FIT is not connected, it was irresponsible to cut them because that could..

huh??

If we had some eggs we would have some ham and eggs if we had some ham.

Pardon me while I fall down laughing...

BTW - It is the existing fix that isn't working.

Kinda like in 1983 I put a new set of tires on my car.... years later I cut it in half and made it a stretch limo to carry more people. Guess what.