What's Wrong With "Welfare"?

Liberals are attacking Bush's Social Security proposal as converting the program into "welfare".

Paul Krugman in the NYTimes makes the point:

"In short, [Bush's proposal] would be a gut punch to the middle class, but a fleabite for the truly wealthy.

Beyond that, it's a good bet that benefits for the poor would eventually be cut, too.

It's an adage that programs for the poor always turn into poor programs. That is, once a program is defined as welfare, it becomes a target for budget cuts.

Mark Schmitt at the Decembrist quotes Stephen Bainbridge quoting Wilbur Cohen as the source for Krugman's adage. (A program only for the poor is ultimately a poor program.) Mark defends SS as a universal program, but starts questioning whether supporting only universal programs wouldn't put liberals behind the eight ball

"There would be real daring, real opportunity to make big changes if liberals went not necessarily for "soak the rich progressivity," but for a clear message that our well-being as a society is measured by how we treat the worst-off, and a moral agenda of targetted, rather than universal, programs. In both his 2004 campaign and in what appears to be the beginnings of its 2008 rerun, John Edwards has been the closest to this potentially liberating insight."

Edward in "ObsidianWings" post picks up on Krugman and Kevin Drum picks up on Edward and says:

[Social Security]"is a modestly progressive social insurance program that's paid for by everyone and that benefits everyone. If it ever stops being that, if it ever stops being universal, it will eventually cease to exist. Don't let anyone fool you into thinking otherwise."

A whole bunch of thoughts spring to mind, some contrarian and some just questions:

1. How'd we ever let conservatives devalue the term "welfare"? It's in the Constitution, isn't it?
2. Yes, "welfare programs" have a bad name, but they've lasted surprisingly well. I remember Reagan and his "welfare queen" in 1964 (based on earlier Reader's Digest article, I think). Should any program be immortal?
3. Targeted programs like EITC, supported by both right and left, survive. How'd that happen?
   
4. Although the roots of the food stamp program go back to the New Deal, the current program dates to JFK. It's been supported by a deal with farmers, urban Congresspeople support farm subsidies, rural ones support food stamps. That may be an artifact of the institutional structure--putting both programs under USDA and the Congressional Ag committees.
5. Is it possible to generate a rationale for SS, either modified per Bush or as it exists?