The tax deal the White House has cut (sort of) has critics all around. It’s not perfect, sure. But it’s the nagging little things. On Wednesday HuffPost wondered about one of those little things:

WASHINGTON – The tax cut deal that President Obama struck with congressional Republicans contains a provision that could ultimately be the undoing of Social Security, say Senate Democrats and backers of the old-age and disability program.

Obama, as part of the Democratic package, secured a roughly 30 percent cut in the payroll tax, from 6.2 to 4.2 percent. Allowing it to expire in a year will mean that workers will see a nearly 50 percent jump in payroll taxes as the rate reverts back — an event that will surely be described as a tax hike. The cut is estimated to cost $120 billion per year.

Democrats have never allowed the rate to be cut, even temporarily, in the history of the program, because payroll taxes feed the Social Security trust fund and create the political base of support for the program, said Nancy Altman, author of “The Battle For Social Security”, a history of the program, and head of the advocacy group Social Security Works. Republicans have won a long-sought victory, even as President Obama hails it as a win for his party.

On Tuesday, Nancy Altman elaborated on possible implications — the end Social Security — at Firedoglake:

… I find it unfathomable that a more conservative Congress, in two years, in an election year, will increase the payroll tax by 2 percent on the very first dollar, and every other dollar up to the cap, earned by virtually every single worker in the country. Consequently, I think we have to assume that the payroll tax holiday will be extended beyond the two years the president is proposing and quite likely could become permanent.

That means that the federal government will have to continue to transfer $120 billion to the Social Security trust funds each and every year even as it has to transfer more and more interest payments as the trust funds continue to grow and as interest rates return to more normal levels. Unless Congress acts to restore Social Security to solvency, the Treasury bonds held in trust will have to be redeemed, again on top of that new $120 billion transfer from the general fund, starting fifteen years from now, assuming Congress even continues to make the $120 billion every year before that point. These dollars will be competing with dollars for defense, environmental protection, education, school lunches, Food Stamps, Medicare, Medicaid, SSI, Pell grants for low income college students, and every other good and service financed by the federal government.

A permanent two percent cut in Social Security contributions doubles the 75 year projected shortfall. Scrapping the cap (eliminating the $106,800 maximum on earnings), tonally eliminates the shortfall today. If FICA is cut by 2 percent, scrapping the cap gets Social Security only halfway there.

You don’t need a weatherman to know which way that wind blows. The rest (including Social Security?) is history waiting to write itself.

Paul Krugman writes today Obama got “a significant amount of short-term stimulus” that could produce “a noticeable net positive for the economy next year,” but he wonders at what cost. There are significant weaknesses in the deal, not the least of which are political implications for 2012:

You may say that economic policy shouldn’t be affected by partisan considerations. But even if you believe that — how’s the weather on your planet?

One of Krugman’s big concerns? That Obama is paying for the release of some hostages by giving the GOP new ones.

Republicans may try using the prospect of a rise in the payroll tax to undermine Social Security finances.

Republicans would do that? Nah!

Alarmist? Maybe. But then again, we have had plenty of reason for alarm lately.