Obama Scorecard - Part 3: Social Security, Medicare: Your Future in Danger
President Obama turned heads immediately upon taking office by appointing Rahm Emanuel as Chief of Staff and then Hilary Clinton as Secretary of State.
Those whiplashed on the left had barely been fitted with neck braces when Obama announced he was letting bygones be bygones with regard to the Bush gang.
It became apparent that Obama was not about to be the liberals' best friend, even if that was how the GOP strategized to brand him.
Yet, Obama still somehow manages to take the breath away.
It should come as little surprise that Social Security is either on the chopping block or about to be privatized at the recommendation of the blue ribbon Deficit Commission appointed by the President.
By proposing to place the burden of deficit reduction on the middle class, it should now be clear to every member of the GOP and the Tea Party that Barrack Obama is no Socialist, or he is an incompetent one.
It is almost guaranteed that the age for receiving full benefits will be raised, probably to 70, and it is also appears likely that baby boomers will not benefit from governmental largesse to nearly the same degree their parents did.
How much benefits will be slashed is still anyone's guess.
This should make Republicans very happy since they have been pushing hard for gutting the program for years.
However, now that many in the Grand 'ol Party are about to reach grand 'ol retirement age, that sentiment may be shifting as reality draws nigh and cuts closer to the bone.
Alan Simpson (R) and Erskine Bowles (D), co-chairs of the President's Federal Deficit Commission, claim that sacrifice is needed on the part of all Americans to reduce the deficit.
Left unsaid is the simple fact that the upper income workers can happily do without governmental assistance, so it is those down the food chain who will sacrifice the most with cuts to Social Security and Medicare.
The problem this presents for Obama is multi-fold.
He has yet again entrusted the solution to a systemic problem to a small commission that is sequestered and tight lipped.
It is not a transparent process, and if any discussion deserves public airing or the cooperation of the full legislative branch, the subject of deficit reduction rates right up there.
The President, true to form, has made overtures to the press about supporting both Medicare and Social Security, while his commission obviously is of another mind on the subject.
You can anticipate another Obama climb-back on this shortly before the commission's report is released in December.
It's the public option déjà vu all over again.
The obvious question to ponder is this: Why does the President, a Democrat with a long history of demonstrated commitment to community organizing, feel that draconian cuts to the only programs providing support to income earners upon retirement take precedence over less Draconian cuts elsewhere, say in military spending? What kind of Democrat is this Republican?
Those whiplashed on the left had barely been fitted with neck braces when Obama announced he was letting bygones be bygones with regard to the Bush gang.
It became apparent that Obama was not about to be the liberals' best friend, even if that was how the GOP strategized to brand him.
Yet, Obama still somehow manages to take the breath away.
It should come as little surprise that Social Security is either on the chopping block or about to be privatized at the recommendation of the blue ribbon Deficit Commission appointed by the President.
By proposing to place the burden of deficit reduction on the middle class, it should now be clear to every member of the GOP and the Tea Party that Barrack Obama is no Socialist, or he is an incompetent one.
It is almost guaranteed that the age for receiving full benefits will be raised, probably to 70, and it is also appears likely that baby boomers will not benefit from governmental largesse to nearly the same degree their parents did.
How much benefits will be slashed is still anyone's guess.
This should make Republicans very happy since they have been pushing hard for gutting the program for years.
However, now that many in the Grand 'ol Party are about to reach grand 'ol retirement age, that sentiment may be shifting as reality draws nigh and cuts closer to the bone.
Alan Simpson (R) and Erskine Bowles (D), co-chairs of the President's Federal Deficit Commission, claim that sacrifice is needed on the part of all Americans to reduce the deficit.
Left unsaid is the simple fact that the upper income workers can happily do without governmental assistance, so it is those down the food chain who will sacrifice the most with cuts to Social Security and Medicare.
The problem this presents for Obama is multi-fold.
He has yet again entrusted the solution to a systemic problem to a small commission that is sequestered and tight lipped.
It is not a transparent process, and if any discussion deserves public airing or the cooperation of the full legislative branch, the subject of deficit reduction rates right up there.
The President, true to form, has made overtures to the press about supporting both Medicare and Social Security, while his commission obviously is of another mind on the subject.
You can anticipate another Obama climb-back on this shortly before the commission's report is released in December.
It's the public option déjà vu all over again.
The obvious question to ponder is this: Why does the President, a Democrat with a long history of demonstrated commitment to community organizing, feel that draconian cuts to the only programs providing support to income earners upon retirement take precedence over less Draconian cuts elsewhere, say in military spending? What kind of Democrat is this Republican?
Source...