Maybe the editors at the AOL/Huffington Post aren’t quite the Obama shills we think them to be. Now, to be sure the “news” headlines on their main page tend to promote stories favorable to the administration, like this one linked today and critical of conservatives.
That said, their leading story this morning points to one of the many administration failings:
“Social Security,” reports Chuck Saleta, “is in dire financial straits, but that’s nothing new for this long-troubled program“:
Social Security spent $49 billion more in 2010 than it took in as tax collections. By the time 2011 ends, it expects to outspend collections by another $46 billion. At this rate, the program’s much-touted “Trust Fund” is expected to be depleted by 2036; without that fund, benefits are expected to fall to about three-quarters of current promised levels.
. . . .
Even with repeated efforts to shore up the program by raising taxes and cutting benefits, Social Security’s collapse seems virtually inevitable.
Despite the problems of this popular program, the president has not considered any serious reform proposals. Indeed, even members of his own party have faulted him for backing a program (which he has been grandstanding in recent days) which could “undermine Social Security“: “many liberal Democrats. . . have argued for months that cutting the payroll tax will drain Social Security coffers and threaten seniors’ benefits.”
This headline thus reminds people that under Obama’s watch, things have gotten worse for a program that his predecessor tried to reform. And that when it comes to making bold reforms, Obama’s presidential record doesn’t match his campaign rhetoric.