Does Ryan Budget “Fast-Track Social Security Cuts”?

Over at the Huffington Post, Daniel Marans of Social Security Works argues that Rep. Paul Ryan's budget plan – which it could be argued effectively ducks Social Security reform – is actually a fast track to benefit cuts. Marans says that

• "Under Ryan's plan, any year Social Security is not in 75-year balance, the president and Congress would have to legislate changes that bring it to solvency through an "expedited process.'"
  
• "In effect, Ryan would free up Social Security for fast-track cuts by turning it into a regular line budget item. Since Social Security is not part of the general budget, has its own revenue stream, and is forbidden by law from borrowing, it has always been dealt with separately from the rest of the budget. In fact, Ryan had to create a new fast-track process to trigger cuts for Social Security alone, because by law, it is excluded from fast-track reconciliation procedures for the general budget."
  
• "Further, projections of Social Security's solvency change every year, which means that Ryan's plan could force big changes to Social Security based on very short-term variations in the program's finances."
  

This, I think, is representative of the general lack of confidence liberals have in their own position, in that they view pretty much any attempts to reform Social Security as tantamount to cuts in Social Security. Now, I think that Social Security will involve benefit cuts, given that a) people aren't keen on paying more into a program which they regard as insecure and not such a great deal; b) middle and high earning households can make up for future benefit cuts by saving more today; and c) it's much harder for individuals to make up for cuts in future Medicare benefits with additional saving, given the structure of that program.

In effect, all the Ryan budget does is amp up a provision that's already on the books. Under current law, if the trust fund balance falls below 20 percent of annual outgoes, the program's Trustees are required to submit a plan to increase Social Security taxes or reduce benefits in order to maintain the trust fund's solvency. Obviously, once the trust fund balance has gotten that low, the changes necessary to keep the system on track will be severe. Ryan's plan effectively would require the Trustees to issue their recommendations for solvency anytime the program is insolvent over the long-term, meaning a 75-year horizon. This is a very different bar for action by the Trustees, but it serves to involve them – and the administration – in the process of getting Social Security reform moving.

My question is why the Left assumes that a provision requiring the Trustees – all but one of whom are appointed by the President, and most of whom are actual members of the administration – would necessarily mean benefit cuts rather than tax increases? Wouldn't this approach favor the tax-increase approach, given who's in power these days? My gut is that, despite their rhetoric that Americans strongly favor tax increases (usually on other people) over benefit cuts, the Left isn't quite sure that political process will play out that way. And if it won't play out that way even with Democrats in power, I think that undermines their general narrative on where Americans stand on Social Security reform in the context of the other fiscal and budgetary issues we face.