Feb 14, 2014
Obama was rebuked strongly by progressives nationwide last year when he included a plan to cut Social Security benefits as a way to reduce future budget deficits.
As the letter from the 15 senators states, "Social Security has not contributed one penny" to the current deficit. In fact, it continues, the program "has a surplus of more than $2.7 trillion and can pay every single benefit owed to every eligible American for the next 19 years."
In addition to defending both Medicare and Medicaid funding, the letter goes on to say that "these are tough times for our country" but that additional cuts would make life for a struggling middle class and those living in poverty "even more difficult."
"While those on top have more than recovered from the worst recession since the Great Depression," write the senators, "tens of millions of Americans continue to lose ground economically."
The message to Obama is not a new one, but progressive critics of the president have been repeatedly aghast at how willing he has been to include cuts to social programs in his proposals--the same kind of cuts called for by Republicans who have made attacks on the social safety net a cornerstone of their political agenda for more than forty years.
Addressing the conservative push for "entitlement cuts" and the hypocrisy of their position in his Friday New York Times column, economist Paul Krugman wrote:
Modern American conservatives talk a lot about freedom, and deride liberals for advocating a "nanny state." But when it comes to Americans down on their luck, conservatives become insultingly paternalistic, as comfortable congressmen lecture struggling families on the dignity of work. And they also become advocates of highly intrusive government. For example, House Republicans tried to introduce a provision into the farm bill that would have allowed states to mandate drug testing for food stamp recipients. (A commenter on my blog suggested mandatory drug tests for employees of too-big-to-fail financial institutions, which receive large implicit subsidies. Now that would really cause a panic.)
The truth is that if you really care about the dignity and freedom of American workers, you should favor more, not fewer, entitlements, a stronger, not weaker, social safety net.
Read the letter:
________________________________________________
Why Your Ongoing Support Is Essential
Donald Trump’s attacks on democracy, justice, and a free press are escalating — putting everything we stand for at risk. We believe a better world is possible, but we can’t get there without your support. Common Dreams stands apart. We answer only to you — our readers, activists, and changemakers — not to billionaires or corporations. Our independence allows us to cover the vital stories that others won’t, spotlighting movements for peace, equality, and human rights. Right now, our work faces unprecedented challenges. Misinformation is spreading, journalists are under attack, and financial pressures are mounting. As a reader-supported, nonprofit newsroom, your support is crucial to keep this journalism alive. Whatever you can give — $10, $25, or $100 — helps us stay strong and responsive when the world needs us most. Together, we’ll continue to build the independent, courageous journalism our movement relies on. Thank you for being part of this community. |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
Obama was rebuked strongly by progressives nationwide last year when he included a plan to cut Social Security benefits as a way to reduce future budget deficits.
As the letter from the 15 senators states, "Social Security has not contributed one penny" to the current deficit. In fact, it continues, the program "has a surplus of more than $2.7 trillion and can pay every single benefit owed to every eligible American for the next 19 years."
In addition to defending both Medicare and Medicaid funding, the letter goes on to say that "these are tough times for our country" but that additional cuts would make life for a struggling middle class and those living in poverty "even more difficult."
"While those on top have more than recovered from the worst recession since the Great Depression," write the senators, "tens of millions of Americans continue to lose ground economically."
The message to Obama is not a new one, but progressive critics of the president have been repeatedly aghast at how willing he has been to include cuts to social programs in his proposals--the same kind of cuts called for by Republicans who have made attacks on the social safety net a cornerstone of their political agenda for more than forty years.
Addressing the conservative push for "entitlement cuts" and the hypocrisy of their position in his Friday New York Times column, economist Paul Krugman wrote:
Modern American conservatives talk a lot about freedom, and deride liberals for advocating a "nanny state." But when it comes to Americans down on their luck, conservatives become insultingly paternalistic, as comfortable congressmen lecture struggling families on the dignity of work. And they also become advocates of highly intrusive government. For example, House Republicans tried to introduce a provision into the farm bill that would have allowed states to mandate drug testing for food stamp recipients. (A commenter on my blog suggested mandatory drug tests for employees of too-big-to-fail financial institutions, which receive large implicit subsidies. Now that would really cause a panic.)
The truth is that if you really care about the dignity and freedom of American workers, you should favor more, not fewer, entitlements, a stronger, not weaker, social safety net.
Read the letter:
________________________________________________
Obama was rebuked strongly by progressives nationwide last year when he included a plan to cut Social Security benefits as a way to reduce future budget deficits.
As the letter from the 15 senators states, "Social Security has not contributed one penny" to the current deficit. In fact, it continues, the program "has a surplus of more than $2.7 trillion and can pay every single benefit owed to every eligible American for the next 19 years."
In addition to defending both Medicare and Medicaid funding, the letter goes on to say that "these are tough times for our country" but that additional cuts would make life for a struggling middle class and those living in poverty "even more difficult."
"While those on top have more than recovered from the worst recession since the Great Depression," write the senators, "tens of millions of Americans continue to lose ground economically."
The message to Obama is not a new one, but progressive critics of the president have been repeatedly aghast at how willing he has been to include cuts to social programs in his proposals--the same kind of cuts called for by Republicans who have made attacks on the social safety net a cornerstone of their political agenda for more than forty years.
Addressing the conservative push for "entitlement cuts" and the hypocrisy of their position in his Friday New York Times column, economist Paul Krugman wrote:
Modern American conservatives talk a lot about freedom, and deride liberals for advocating a "nanny state." But when it comes to Americans down on their luck, conservatives become insultingly paternalistic, as comfortable congressmen lecture struggling families on the dignity of work. And they also become advocates of highly intrusive government. For example, House Republicans tried to introduce a provision into the farm bill that would have allowed states to mandate drug testing for food stamp recipients. (A commenter on my blog suggested mandatory drug tests for employees of too-big-to-fail financial institutions, which receive large implicit subsidies. Now that would really cause a panic.)
The truth is that if you really care about the dignity and freedom of American workers, you should favor more, not fewer, entitlements, a stronger, not weaker, social safety net.
Read the letter:
________________________________________________
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.