Over at 1787, a new independent political party that purports to be open to any new ideas from its members, and not promoting any particular ideology, has issued a very particularly ideological statement about the federal budget deal between the Obama White House and congressional leaders. The 1787 leadership, who are self-appointed and have given themselves the power to determine the rules of the political party without input from the rank and file, have issued a statement declaring that, “…our leaders have failed us. Instead of using this rare show of bipartisanship to bravely tackle the root causes of our financial Apocalypse – Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid…”
1787 is claiming a few strange things here, including the idea that we’re in the middle of a “financial Apocalypse”, but I want to focus on just one matter for the moment and ask a simple question: In what sense is Social Security a root cause of federal budget difficulties? Social Security is fiscally independent from the federal budget, except to the extent that it has been used as a source of extra money to contribute to the integrity of the federal budget from time to time.
It’s a very odd assertion for 1787 to make, that Social Security is somehow dragging the federal budget into “Apocalypse”.
At about the same time that 1787 issued this statement, the Peter G. Peterson Foundation, which has bankrolled other faux independent political parties, such as Unity08 and Americans Elect, all dedicated to attacking the integrity of the Social Security system, issued its own declaration on the matter of the budget deal: “The fundamental structural problem is this entitlement growth coming in the future and we just have to decide as a nation what level of benefits we want, what ages we want those to kick in, what level of income we want people to receive benefits under, and how we want to pay for it.”
Is it a coincidence that 1787 and the Peter G. Peterson Foundation are making these arguments at the same time?