"No, Mr. Clinton. 'Means Testing' Does Not Make Social Security A More Progressive System" [Corrected/Revised]
After further reading, I felt that I had "mis-conflated" Mr. Clinton's words to refer to the Special Minimum Benefit.
I will address the importance of the 'Special Minimum Benefit' and the 'Hardship Exemption' in a later post. It really should be important to all of us, for several reasons. The foremost reason is that 'we' should collectively care about the most vulnerable members of our society, and this benefit is essential. Secondly, we need to realize that the PtB are "out there" strongly implying that the proposed increase in this benefit, is one reason that it is necessary for the rest of us to "take a haircut." And this is absolute hooey.
Indeed, his reference to 'how his Social Security benefit might be lowered, or done away with,' clearly demonstrates that his intended reference was to the (B-S) Fiscal Commission's recommendation that Social Security benefits be subjected to progressive price indexing, or 'means testing.'
This glaring error demonstrates that 'it is best not to start writing a blog at almost midnight.' ;)
I guess if your measure of progressivity is "that there is less of a gap between what the rich and poor receive in Social Security benefits" (after applying the stringent 'means-testing' recommended by the Commission), his convoluted statement could be considered accurate.
But the real kicker was Mr. Clinton's implication that this cut only applies to those in his economic strata. This is an especially outrageous and egregious statement.
It should worry everyone that the elites are willing to go to this length to sell this reform package. We must do everything possible to educate folks regarding this toxic proposal.
Mr. Clinton's remark tells me that "everything is on the table," when it comes to bamboozling the American People.
“If a dog won’t come to you after having looked you in the face, you should go home and examine your conscience.” -- Woodrow Wilson