Kyl 's cap

This from Senator John Kyl (R-AZ)on increasing the wage cap past $90,000:

Thus, increasing or eliminating the wage cap forces a painful follow-up choice: either eliminate the wage cap but pay wealthy retirees significantly more in benefits (which leaves us back where we started), or turn Social Security into welfare for senior citizens. Wealthy Americans don't need the government to force them to save for a comfortable retirement. And there is a great fear that going the welfare route would inevitably undermine public support for the program.

Let me put Kyl's fears to rest:

Americans think the wealthy should help bolster Social Security, a CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll released Tuesday suggests.

More than two-thirds of 1,010 adults contacted from Friday to Sunday said it would be a good idea to limit benefits for wealthier retirees and for higher income workers to pay Social Security taxes on all their wages.

Currently, the cap on wages taxed for Social Security is set at $90,000.

Other options to change Social Security fell far behind -- 40 percent of respondents said reducing benefits for early retirement is a good idea; 37 percent said increasing the tax for all workers would be a good idea; 35 percent said the government should increase the age at which people could receive full benefits; and 29 percent said reducing benefits for people under 55 was acceptable.

That aside, raising the tax cap is not "welfare." You see, John, many in your party argue that the money people pay into Social Security is their money. And the fearmongering from your side is that when people retire, their money won't be there.
So raising the ceiling simply insures that the money they have put into the system is there when it's time for them to take it out. So it's not "welfare" at all, John. It's people getting what they have earned.