Obama's Bait-and-Switch on Social Security

'Progressives' are getting all gooey over Obama's stern declaration that he will prevent Republicans from privatizing Social Security.

So why am I being so harsh towards Obama? Because this is a sucker play. Given Obama's track record on most issues so far, it's pretty obvious what will happen next:

1) Obama issues a stern declaration about 'protecting Social Security.' Of course, no one was seriously entertaining that idea on the legislative agenda. Until now. Up to this point, the debate (aka the 'Catfood Commission') has centered over future benefits (e.g., what is the age of eligibility for full benefits, and how much will be paid out).

2) Republicans now call for privatization. Obama boldly, fiercely, courageously, heroically, and steadfastly resists this non-starter of a proposal (the Republicans would be slaughtered if this actually passed due to their support).

3) Obama, inflicting post-partisan depression on millions of Democrats, agrees to a Grand Compromise dictated by Co-Presidents Snowe and Nelson. These will probably include: raising the minimum age for eligibility, slashing benefits (not too likely, at least in the short term), or cutting benefits for the upper-middle class (and higher). This lack of universality will undercut popular support for the program and weaken it.

4) Declare victory and bash amateur Democrats for their opposition to a stupid policy.

I realize that, during the campaign, Obama said he would raise the payroll tax on incomes above $250,000 (he might get that anyway) to close the gap. Maybe that's what he'll end up doing.

Of course, Obama said he would do a lot of things, and, not only hasn't he delivered, in some cases, he's done the opposite.

Once again, this reminds us why the Coalition of the Sane should never follow the political advice of 'progressives' (or their ethical advice, either).

Not feeling hopey or changey.

More like this

Someone tell me how Ian Welsh's assessment of Obama is incorrect (italics mine): Nor is he a Nixonian or Eisenhower Republican, that would put him massively to the left of where he is and to the left of the majority of the Democratic party. Instead his a Reaganite, something he told people…
Apparently, Matt Stoller, like the Mad Biologist, wants to hear a dog whistle from Obama too (italics mine): 74% of young caucus goers self-identified as Democrats, and 73% self-identified is liberals. Yeah, that's some post-partisan and post-ideological generation coming through the ranks. This is…
...about President Obama. Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) seems to be one of the few politicians in the Democratic caucus (not party, though) who understands just how dire the Democrats' prospects are: In my view, the Democrats--including the president--have absurdly continued to stumble along the…
I generally agree with Kevin Drum, but he periodically says things that make me think he lives in an alternative universe. For instance, here's what he thinks would happen if we implemented recommendations of a commission to "save" Social Security: Even Republicans agree that privatization is off…

Doesn't anyone understand the Constitution? The President is NOT empowered to control spending. ONLY The Congress controls spending. The President is a butler; read his approx 10 powers and think about it. Everything else believed about the President's authority is a lie, brainwashed into your minds. Will the President exercise powers that are not lawfully his? Probably because Americans are gutless. They elected him and we will get what we deserve for either doing so or allowing such to happen. If Obama fails to faithfully execute the laws (passed by Congress), he commits an impeachable offense.