A few simple questions
by David Atkins
Digby and I have discussed the multitude of media failures in talking about the deficit fetish in general, as well as the demand to cut Social Security specifically. The abnegation of the media's duty in this regard is highlighted by the failure to even ask, much less get an answer to, some simple questions. Questions like:
If the point of the Administration's plan is to ask for revenues in exchange for cuts to government, why not make one of those revenue increases an increase in the payroll cap in order to protect Social Security?
If the point is to secure revenues in exchange for cuts to government spending, why not make those cuts to corporate welfare, big agriculture and oil subsidies, and military spending, instead?
Why go after Social Security of all things, since Social Security is funded longer than many other earned benefit programs?
And if Social Security must be paid for by directly tied payroll revenues, why not ask for them instead of unrelated revenues? Since Social Security doesn't increase the deficit, why make it part of the conversation at all?
No one outside of MSNBC and the progressive blogs have even bothered to ask these questions. Why not?
.