"Cuts" to Social Security and Medicare are not really cuts; as they are being dutifully portrayed in the mainstream media. Just like the sequester was a minuscule decrease in the projected rate of growth in federal spending, the so-called cuts to these entitlement programs are a reduction in growth, and not by much.
The much anticipated President Obama's 2014 budget "won't cut anything from what seniors, veterans, students and others who rely on the programs get," and in fact, as pointed out by Paul Bedard of the Examiner, "one Senate analysis reveals that the Obama 'cut' will lower slightly the growth of Social Security benefits over the next 10 years to 5.9 percent from 6.1 percent." Is this the entitlement reform needed to stop the bleeding? Not even close. One author writes, "This is no grand compromise, it's just new accounting." The shameless way this is being portrayed in the media is as if the president is taking one for the team! He is being portrayed as taking a "political risk" in order to make concessions to the Republicans. What risk? There are no cuts. There is no reform.
White House press secretary Jay Carney lamented, "It's not the president's ideal approach to our budget challenges, but it is a serious compromise proposition that demonstrates that he wants to get things done..." What is the president's "ideal" approach? On top of the "cuts" that are not really cuts, Obama is still asking for more "revenue," which is code for more taxpayer money, particularly from what the eat-the-rich administration perceives as "the wealthy."
If the federal government is interested in meaningful change, a simple reduction in the rate of spending won't cut it; it only delays the inevitable collapse of unsustainable entitlement programs. Entitlement reform, government waste, and ridiculous spending should be the focus.
Photo Source: Fox News