Share on Google Plus Share on Twitter Share on Facebook 1 Share on LinkedIn Share on PInterest Share on Fark! Share on Reddit Share on StumbleUpon Tell A Friend (1 Shares)  
Printer Friendly Page Save As Favorite View Favorites View Article Stats   7 comments

OpEdNews Op Eds

Why *Wouldn't* Obama Cut Social Security and Medicare?

By (about the author)     Permalink       (Page 1 of 3 pages)
Related Topic(s): ; ; ; ; ; ; ; , Add Tags Add to My Group(s)

Supported 3   Well Said 2   Must Read 1  
View Ratings | Rate It Headlined to H2 4/2/13

Two recent news reports indicate that the President is "strongly considering" cuts to Medicare and Social Security in his upcoming budget, which is to be released in less than 10 days.

The question's been asked for four years: Why would Obama want to cut these popular and successful programs, especially when there are better solutions out there (and Social Security doesn't even contribute to the deficit?)

It's time to ask a new question: Why wouldn't he cut them?

Bad News

Last Friday the Wall Street Journal reported that the President's cuts would be "aimed in part at keeping alive bipartisan talks on a major budget deal." No, you're not experiencing deja-vu. We've heard this story before.

The Journal was vague on the President's specific cuts, though it did cite the "chained CPI" cut to Social Security. (The Administration described those cuts as a minor "technical change," although they're technically less accurate than the current and already inadequate formula. They'd come to 6.5 percent of a 75-year-old's benefits and 9.2 percent of a 95-year-old's.)

The New York Times reported that the President and House Republicans "have quietly raised the idea of broad systemic changes" to these programs as part of a broad "fiscal deal." It also provided more detail on the President's newest proposed Medicare cut, which would combine the deductibles for outpatient and hospital Medicare coverage. That would increase annual out-of-pocket costs for 80 percent of Medicare recipients (while typically lowering them for people who are hospitalized during the year.)

The rationale is that it will discourage the use of unnecessary medical care. That's a misguided notion. But the President and his staff have shown a proclivity toward this kind of shallow wonkery in their support for misguided concepts like the excise tax on health insurance plans with higher than average costs. The White House economic team may very well believe that this plan would "discourage people from seeking unneeded treatments" (as the Times puts it).

Bad Policy

Nevertheless, both cuts are bad ideas. The Medicare change is based on a model of health economics which fails to understand how health care decisions are made in the real world and relies on old (and challenged) studies, including one from the RAND Corporation, which claim such cuts reduce the use of unneeded services without reducing the use of necessary care.

As for the "chained CPI," it's already been dissected at length (we included a small compendium of critiques here).

Seniors and near-seniors today are facing a retirement crisis of tragic proportions, which a New York Times' editorial outlines. That underscores the fact that these changes are both unwise and unkind.

Bad Politics

The politics are equally disastrous. The President's early flirtations with these kinds of cuts contributed to a 25-point plunge in support for Democrats on the question of who has better ability to handle Social Security. Polls in 2010 showed that President Obama was even less trusted than George W. Bush on the topic -- even after Bush tried to privatize the program, which would have been disastrous after the 2008 financial crisis.

Polls continue to show that voters across the political spectrum oppose these kinds of cuts -- "hate" isn't too strong a word -- and would even be willing to pay more in taxes to protect Social Security. These cuts might become be the most unpopular domestic policy decision in modern history.

Next Page  1  |  2  |  3

Host of 'The Breakdown,' Writer, and Senior Fellow, Campaign for America's Future

Share on Google Plus Submit to Twitter Add this Page to Facebook! Share on LinkedIn Pin It! Add this Page to Fark! Submit to Reddit Submit to Stumble Upon

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.

Writers Guidelines

Contact Author Contact Editor View Authors' Articles

Most Popular Articles by this Author:     (View All Most Popular Articles by this Author)

How to Fix the Fed: Dismiss Dimon, Boot the Bankers, and Can the Corporations

The Top 12 Political Fallacies of 2012

Pawn: The Real George Zimmerman Story

What America Would Look Like If Libertarians Got Their Way

"F" The Bureaucracy! The White House Can Help Homeowners Right Now

The Price of Evil at JPMorgan Chase


The time limit for entering new comments on this article has expired.

This limit can be removed. Our paid membership program is designed to give you many benefits, such as removing this time limit. To learn more, please click here.

Comments: Expand   Shrink   Hide  
6 people are discussing this page, with 7 comments
To view all comments:
Expand Comments
(Or you can set your preferences to show all comments, always)

I've been saying this since before the 2008 electi... by 911TRUTH on Wednesday, Apr 3, 2013 at 12:32:26 AM
... he's a war criminal and needs to be impeached ... by Tom Madison on Wednesday, Apr 3, 2013 at 6:34:56 AM
But we both know that will never happen.  The... by 911TRUTH on Thursday, Apr 4, 2013 at 12:34:26 AM
He's definitely a Republican. I fell for his line ... by dorothy przystas on Thursday, Apr 4, 2013 at 12:33:20 AM
I have been saying this ever since the first year ... by kappie on Wednesday, Apr 3, 2013 at 9:48:03 AM
More "Issues Oriented BS" & less focus on the ... by Alan MacDonald on Thursday, Apr 4, 2013 at 7:55:19 AM
Obama is more despicable that Bill Clinton. He has... by S. Juniper on Friday, Apr 5, 2013 at 1:00:41 AM