Reply #40: Dean Baker nails it [View All]

[ProSense]

Baker:

<...>

Readers can assume, based on these comments, that the Hill does not like Social Security and wants to see benefits cut. Usually this sort of editorializing is left to the opinion pages but apparently the Hill could not contain its animosity towards the program.

The Hill ariticle reads like it's determined to give the impression that a Presidential decision not to cut Social Security will be a political one, not economic. The article reeks of RW spin:

But Obama’s political team, led by David Axelrod, David Plouffe and Jim Messina, are urging the president to understand that backing benefit cuts could prove disastrous to his 2012 reelection hopes, sources say.

“The political people would prefer not to be accused of being the party that cuts Social Security in those ways. Some political people would like to see the president out there defending the program and making the case that it has nothing to do with the deficit.”

A second Democratic source, who has pushed to reform Social Security by increasing the flow of revenues to the trust fund and reducing benefits, said, “Geithner’s been the most forward-leaning.”

Geithner told the Ways and Means Committee in February that Congress must shore up the trust fund. He said the president would work with lawmakers but would not accept drastic cuts.

Utter bullshit.

Reuters (February):

(Reuters) - Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner said on Tuesday the United States needs to shore up its massive pension program without slashing Social Security benefits or subjecting them to the "whims" of the stock market.

<...>

Jack Lew on Social Security