Obama's Decision Not to Push for Social Security Cuts Has the Beltway Insiders Hopping Mad
http://www.alternet.org/obamas-decision-not-push-social-security-cuts-has-beltway-insiders-hopping-mad
***SNIP
As Dean Baker points out, Hiatt ignores the fact that Medicare the primary driver of entitlement spending, which is usually yoked to Social Security mainly because people want to use Medicare costs to justify a preexisting desire to cut Social Security is already projected to cost much less in the future than it was before Obama came into office, and that Hiatt seems disappointed less in Obamas failure to account for the long-term deficit than he is by Obamas about-face on the desirability of lowering the long-term deficit by the most regressive means possible.
Joining Hiatt in disappointment is National Journal leadership correspondent Ron Fournier, who purports to explain that both parties refuse to admit (though both secretly know) that the debt will spiral out of control in the long-term future (like, 2038) unless we get a Grand Bargain.
One thing that has changed is Obamas politics. With his re-election behind him and mid-term elections looming, Obama can ignore compromise-seeking independent voters and pander to his base. Last week, he dropped from his budget a plan to reduce the cost-of-living adjustment for Social Security recipients. As Brett LoGiurato wrote in Business Insider, Obama felt pressure from the left. Led by Sens. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio), and Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), many Democrats now not only oppose the cuts, but also favor an expansion of Social Security benefits.
Ah, yes, Obama is pandering to his base. Compromise-seeking independent voters, who are definitely not a totally made-up thing that Beltway centrists project their own policy preferences onto, are so much wiser than those base Democrats, who, absurdly, think Social Security should be more generous. The polls that consistently show overwhelming bipartisan majorities in favor of maintaining or expanding Social Security benefits are probably all skewed.