Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) appeared on MSNBC last night, where he strongly rejected the idea that Social Security cuts should be on the table during current budget talks. “I’ve said clearly and as many times as I can, leave Social Security alone. Social Security has not added a single penny, not a dime, a nickel, a dollar to the budget problems we have. Never has. And for the next 30 years, it won’t do that,” Reid said. “Two decades from now, I am willing to take a look at it. I am not willing to take a look at it now.”

House Republicans, meanwhile, have stated their intention to suggest “bold reforms” for Social Security in their 2012 budget, which House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-WI) plans to release during the first week of April. At Politico’s “Playbook Breakfast” today, which Wonk Room attended, Ryan was asked about Reid’s position. Ryan said that Reid’s stance “just boggles my mind,” before later admitting that Social Security is “not a driver of our debt”:

I’m boggled. That just boggles my mind…I would argue, even though, it’s not really a driver of our debt, it’s not a significant part of our debt problems, it would build great confidence, fixing Social Security on a bipartisan basis, because it would tell not only the credit markets that Americans are getting their act together, it would buy us more time and space with them, it would show that our government’s not broken.

Watch it:

So, in Ryan’s mind, one of the most popular and vital social programs in the country’s history needs to be tweaked not because it’s driving the debt, but because it would reassure the markets. But remember, if nothing is done to Social Security, it will still pay full benefits until the year 2037. After that, the program is projected to pay out 75 percent of benefits until 2084, which is close to full benefits once inflation is accounted for. There are certainly progressive changes that could be made to bolster Social Security and provide more support for those at the bottom end of the income chain, but Ryan’s desperate quest to take an axe to the program is entirely unwarranted.

Of course, Ryan’s ultimate goal, as explained in his Roadmap for America’s Future, is to simply privatize Social Security, even though such a move wouldn’t put Social Security onto a path to solvency, as money would have to be diverted to the costs of setting up private accounts. Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) has said that the Republicans’ 2012 budget would contain “cost containment goals” for Social Security, but without any explanation for how to achieve them.

Potential Republican 2012 presidential candidate Haley Barbour (MS) has been rolling out his economic vision this week, with his stated desire to “change the damaging policies that pose an even greater threat to our economic future.” One of the cornerstones of his economic plan is a huge cut in the corporate tax rate:

There is a global battle for capital, and right now, American companies are sitting on more than $1 trillion locked overseas because of our mistaken tax code. We need to unlock that capital so it can be invested in new plants, new equipment and new jobs here in America, not overseas. While we’re at it, let’s finally cut our corporate income tax rate as nearly every one of our competitors has done over the last decade.

Barbour envisions cutting the current corporate income tax, which stands at 35 percent, in half. “We need to cut the corporate income tax in half like the rest of the world,” he said.

Already, corporate tax revenue in the U.S. is at one of its lowest points in history, and the U.S. raises less in corporate tax revenue than many of its main trading partners. And the reason for this is simple: there are myriad loopholes, credits, and outright giveaways in the tax code that allow many corporation to pay little or no corporate income tax. Major corporations such as Boeing, Bank of America, and General Electric have paid nothing into the Treasury in recent years.

The Congressional Budget Office has found that a cut in the corporate tax rate is an ineffective job creation measure, saying that such a move “does not create an incentive for [corporations] to spend more on labor” and “is not a particularly cost-effective method of stimulating business spending.” But Barbour may have another motivation for gifting a tax break to the corporate world.

After all, Barbour spent years as a D.C. lobbyist, during which time he represented some of the largest multinational corporations. Barbour’s clients have included Microsoft, Bellsouth, Lockheed Martin, Nestle, United Health Group, “and a bevy of energy, pharmaceutical and tobacco companies.”

As governor of Mississippi, Barbour currently presides over a state with a 10.1 percent unemployment rate. He also has a history of implementing regressive tax hikes, while Mississippi has been mired at the bottom of national rankings when it comes to education, quality of life, and business climate. But as we showed in this report yesterday, Barbour is hardly alone amongst conservative governors in believing that corporations need lower taxes while the working class should pay more.