Another Obama Apologist Shows Their True Colors
I basically appreciate a great deal of Dr. Baker's work. I've noticed, though, how studiously he stays away from some topics,especially the topic of Social Security reform. And sadly, when he does decide to take it on, he does it in a way that gives both him, and President Obama, cover.
This is especially unfortunate, in light of the fact that Dr. Baker acknowledges that, "Romney has outlined a proposal (which Obama basically agreed with, during the first Presidential Debate--paraphrase of Baker's words, but in his piece, the words are not inserted in this paragraph) on his website that calls for further increases in the retirement age to 69 or 70. It also calls for cuts in benefits for middle-income retirees. Under the Romney proposal, middle-income workers just entering the labor force can expect to see benefits that will be reduced by more than 40 percent compared with currently scheduled levels." and that,
"If anything, it would be reasonable to suggest increasing Social Security benefits, especially for low and moderate income workers."
Then Dean Baker has the gall to end with:
There is a simple explanation for Obama’s refusal to defend Social Security. In elite Washington circles the willingness to cut Social Security is taken as evidence of courage. These people do not depend on Social Security. In fact, as Governor Romney demonstrated at his famous fundraiser speech, they actually have contempt for the people who do depend on Social Security.
If Obama were to take a strong stand defending Social Security he could expect to be attacked harshly by these elites. In news stories and editorial columns, outlets like the Washington Post and National Public Radio would denounce President Obama in harsh terms. Needless to say, his wealthy funders might also have second thoughts.
This fear is likely the reason that President Obama will not defend Social Security. If he loses the election, this fear of the wrath of the elite will clearly be the villain.
Jeeeeeeeeez! Are we supposed to take out "a cryin' towel for Obama?" Is there no one who will hold the President accountable for his actions? How many more "hostage taking" excuses are we supposed to swallow?
Apparently, even "one of the good guys" of the Washington Establishment Elite doesn't get it. [Or pretends not to.]
[Here's the link to Baker's piece at CounterPunch.]