Good idea: cut the Pentagon instead of Social Security and Veterans Benefits

Courtesy Facebook.

As both a senior and a U.S. Air Force veteran, I confess to a somewhat negative bias toward Obama's recent budget proposal, and I can therefore appreciate any sensible alternative to the cleverly labeled "chained CPI" (consumer price index).  For example, Robert Naiman at OpEDNews.com suggests that we cut the Pentagon instead of Social Security and Veterans' Benefits:

The boss organizes the workers, union organizers like to say. 

Say what you want about President Obama's proposal to cut Social Security and veterans' benefits with the "chained CPI." He did accomplish one thing for liberals that they often have a hard time doing on their own.

He united them -- in opposition to his proposal.

Since Friday, the following groups, among others, have contacted me expressing outrage about and pledging to vigorously oppose the president's proposal: the AFL-CIO, MoveOn, Progressive Campaign Change Committee, CREDO Action, Americans for Democratic Action, Democracy for America. Some of these groups are explicitly threatening primary challenges to any Congressional Democrat who supports the president's proposal. 

But that's not all we have to celebrate. If, like most Americans, you prefer to cut what Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel has called the "bloated" Pentagon budget instead of cutting Social Security and veterans' benefits, you have even more reason to rejoice.

Because at this political juncture, everyone in America who says "no cuts to Social Security or veterans' benefits" is effectively saying "cut the bloated Pentagon budget," whether they do so explicitly or not. If the "grand bargain" is killed and Social Security and veterans' benefits are spared -- apparently these are all the same political event -- then the Pentagon budget will be cut instead. 


Read more:

Obama puts cuts to Social Security and Medicare back on the table (video)

I've known cuts to Social Security and Medicare under the Obama Administration were inevitable, so the president's latest offer to the Republicans doesn't surprise me; I am left wondering, though, if this is the change we can believe in that Obama promised in 08:

Robert Reich, Chancellor's Professor of Public Policy, University of California at Berkeley; Author, 'Beyond Outrage', explains what Obama's latest attempt to negotiate with the Republicans means for senior citizens:

The White House and prominent Democrats are talking about reducing future Social Security payments by using a formula for adjusting for inflation that's stingier than the current one. It'scalled the "Chained CPI." I did this video so you can understand it -- and understand why it's so wrongheaded. 

Even Social Security's current inflation adjustment understates the true impact of inflation on the elderly. That's because they spend 20 to 40 percent of their incomes on health care, and health-care costs have been rising faster than inflation. So why adopt a new inflation adjustment that's even stingier than the current one?

Social Security benefits are already meager for most recipients. The median income of Americans over 65 is less than $20,000 a year. Nearly 70 percent of them depend on Social Security for more than half of this. The average Social Security benefit is less than $15,000 a year.

Watch video:



Read more: