Here's the latest case of sloppy misreporting, debunked by economist Dean Baker. (These phony scare stories crop up so often that it's starting to feel like a George Romero movie, where a tiny band is all that's left to fight them. But if they keep coming the whole cast's going to get picked off one by one -- and everyone will get eaten.)
An artificial Washington "center" -- one that's really way to the right of the American people. In fact, their so-called "center," occupied by leaders of both parties, is far to the right of the Tea Party. Self-described Tea Party supporters opposed Social Security cuts by a two-to-one margin in a 2011 poll. (Other polls have shown their opposition to be more than three to one.)
Grinches
Why has this radical-right consensus formed in elite Washington circles? We don't know for sure, but all that "billionaire funded" activity couldn't have hurt. Which gets us to another lump of coal Social Security might be getting in its Christmas stocking this year:
Political "defenders" who'd rather switch than fight. Social Security is one of the Democratic Party's signature accomplishments. After the Republicans' 2005 attempt to privatize it, voters trusted Democrats by a margin of 30 percent (50 percent to the GOP's 20 percent) to manage it well.
But the White House has made a number of misguided attempts to score political points inside the Beltway by forcing an unnecessary "deficit reduction" deal along the lines of the one proposed in the "Simpson Bowles" plan proposed by the co-chairs of a failed Presidential Deficit Commission. By 2011, when the last conclusive polling was done, that lead had disappeared and the Republicans were more trusted than Democrats to protect the program.
What's more, Barack Obama was less trusted than George W. Bush when it came to "trust in the President's ability to handle Social Security vs. the opposition party in Congress."
Earlier this year Sen. Dick Durbin had a joint Meet the Press appearance with Rep. Paul Ryan, who's now the GOP's new VP pick, and said, "I can tell you that Paul and I agree on the basic premise. We are facing serious deficit and debt challenge in this country."
Now they're still working on a December surprise to cut the program. Even Nancy Pelosi's gotten into the act, saying that "If (another bill) were Simpson/Bowles I would have voted for it ... (and) thought it was not even a controversial thing ..."
How's that for trading away one of your party's strongest political arguments? The Democrats' seeming urge to trade away this vital program casts a dark shadow of our birthday celebrant's future.
A "December surprise" that cuts Social Security at Christmastime? That would give the Grinch and Ebenezer Scrooge a run for their money.
I'll just put this on the table with the others ...
That's not to say the program hasn't received some beautiful gifts, too. Sen. Bernie Sanders has given it the gift of a stalwart defense, along with a practical proposal which ensures its long-term ablity to pay 100 percent of its projected bonuses. So has the Congressional Progressive caucus, whose budget proposal provides for responsible long-term deficit reduction without cutting Social Security's benefits.
Right now we're living in a political Bizarro World where the only people speaking for most Tea Party members, not to mention the vast majority of all Americans, are a socialist Senator from Vermont and a Congressional group that's usually called "extreme" and "leftist" by insider politicians and media types.
That means the Socialist and the "lefties" are the real "bipartisans" and the genuine "centrists," while Washington's self-described "bipartisanship" and "centrism" is really much more conservative than the political mainstream. Left is right, right is wrong, Ryan's with Romney ... I tell ya, it's exhausting to drive through a landscape as crazy as this one.
Here. You take the wheel for a while. We're going to take a nap.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
