PEEK

Cutting Social Security Should Not Be on the Table

When did the "liberal" position become that "modest tax hikes and benefit cuts on social security" are necessary?
I agree with Jane on this. When did the "liberal" position become that "modest tax hikes and benefit cuts on social security" are necessary? That's just not true. In fact, according to most progressive economists, social security benefits need to be raised. (And after watching this rather huge loss of retirement wealth in the past year, I would think that it's politically unthinkable to even whisper about lowering benefits at this point.)

I have been saying for some time now that I guessed the administration was going to try to use "entitlement reform" as a way to get to health care. I just don't think they'll succeed. The whole point of the villagers "Grand Bargain" is for liberals to have "skin in the game" and the Blue Dogs and Fiscal Scolds want that skin to be the wrinkled epidermis of the social security retirees. They are committed, with many millions of dollars behind them to the destruction of social security. Buying into their "entitlement" theme in any way is playing with fire.
Digby is the proprietor of Hullabaloo.
Stay Ahead of the Rest
Sign Up for AlterNet's Daily Newsletter
+ sign up for additional lists
[x]
Select additional lists by selecting the checkboxes below before clicking Subscribe:
Rights & Liberties
Education
Drugs
Economy
Environment
Labor
Food
World
Politics
Investigation
Personal Health
Water
Media