More media bs on "entitlements"

[No Elephants]

By MARCELLA KREITER, United Press International

One thing we can say for sure about reforms to Social Security and Medicare: Future programs won't look like grandma's plans.

As we prepare for the 2013 annual trustees reports for both programs designed to keep the elderly from destitution, it's a sure bet they won't be any more optimistic than last year's, in part because there was a 2 percent cut in payroll withholding that was a tepid attempt to boost the economy.

Republicans for years have been trying to figure out a way to pare entitlement programs, which are gobbling up ever bigger chunks of the federal budget. During the Bush administration, Republicans pushed privatizing Social Security, allowing younger workers to opt for private investments rather than the government program.

Read more: http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2013/01/27/Social-Security-Medicare-in-budget-cross-hairs/UPI-64801359279000/#ixzz2JFgd8OOz


As predicted by so many DUers (and Senator Sanders), decreased income from the cut to the payroll tax is being cited to justify cuts to Social Security.

Also, this article relies on numbers from the Heritage Foundation, aka the Ayn Rand Tribute Band.

Somehow, the numbers on Social Security and Medicare often deal only with the gross costs of those programs, without figuring in the income from OASD insurance premiums, paid via payroll contributions, or Medicare insurance premiums or money stolen from OASDI to pay for illegal and unbooked wars and other things.

This article also attributes the desire to cut "entitlements" to Republicans, when the DLC and other think tanks like it have been pushing cuts for years and Obama tried for them during his first term, including cutting the payroll tax, among many other things.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x5074989 (there have been other reports since I wrote that post, such as that Obama refused deals that involved cuts to defense and asked for cuts to entitlements in revenue deals).

IMO, Jon Stewart got it right a week or so ago on the Daily Show. Speaking of Republicans, he said something like "No one ever got elected demonizing Social Security and Medicare. (brief pause) Well, almost no one. (photo of Obama and Biden)."

However, the bit about the Republicans was lengthy and detailed and the screen shot was fleeting and there was no audio reflecting on Democrats. Very literally, if you blinked, you would have missed his rare point about Obama-Biden and Democrats entirely.

Whatever the merits of voting LOTE (lesser of two evils), I have to really wonder about the public benefit of LOTE political comedy.

Continuing the usual knee jerk response about the opposite major political party just does not mesh with reality anymore.

Ordinary Democrats and Republicans alike (as opposed to politicians and the 1%) really need to get honest with ourselves and each other about the extent to which things like this have become bipartisan, despite all the hype about divisiveness. Otherwise, I don't think the general public will ever have a prayer in hell.

If social safety nets survive the zeal to slash, it will be because neither Party in Congress wants to risk an election with those cuts hung around their respective necks. And that happens only if they are afraid to lose a significant portion of their own respective bases, along with some Indies.

Also because on Social Security, the general public does have a high profile lobbyist, namely the AARP. However flawed it may have become, it is still a large circulation publication that fights cuts to OASDI and Medicare.

[Enthusiast]

1. Starve the beast was ramped by the Bush Administration

with the very purpose of forcing an end to the social security and medicare programs. Aside from enriching their cronies, this was the single reason for the unnecessary wars and the massive tax cuts. There is no possible way to prevent severe changes to these programs because both parties are owned by the same diabolical corporate entities. PNAC said, "There just ain't enough bootstrap pulling action going on around here any more. We need more personal responsibility and initiative. Those lazy seniors."

How can we be sure they're misleading us(aside from the fact that their lips are moving)? Because there is absolutely no alternate position heard on the media. According to the media, "Entitlements" are the single greatest problem ever perpetrated on the nation.

[No Elephants]

2. Speaking of PNAC....

This is one of my favorite factoid scenarios, for a number of reasons.

When the DNC was first formed, it had two and only two full time employees, nominal founder Al From, who was from the deep red state of Indiana, and Will Marshall, a Southerner. (Most of the charter members of the DLC were white male Southerners, notable exceptions being Joe Lieberman and Hillary.)

Anyhoo, in 2003, I think it was, Will Marshall signed the PNAC memo, urging Bush to invade Iraq.

Then, he founded the Progressive Policy Institute, which, I believe, he still heads.

This is one of many reasons that I object when people seem to be using the term "progressive" as a synonym for "liberal."

I love liberals. I don't want a thing to do with progressives.

[Enthusiast]

3. They can call themselves anything they wish,

that doesn't make it true.