In a piece at CNN, former White House adviser Van Jones argues that the president's base is angry because instead of asking for more from the rich to shore up Social Security, his budget proposal would take more from the middle class and poor.
… Some may call this a knee-jerk response from liberals who would oppose any adjustments to New Deal programs. They are wrong.
Progressives must be willing to reform programs such as Social Security, precisely because they are so important. The question is how? There are better solutions that the president could champion. For example, we could shore up Social Security for decades by raising the cap on taxable income — so that it is not just poor and middle-class folks whose entire paychecks are taxed.
But Obama's plan leaves that cap in place — protecting the wealthiest Americans. Instead of asking more from the rich to shore up Social Security, his proposed budget would take more from the middle class and poor…
By changing the fine print on cost-of-living adjustments, Obama's plan would ensure that benefits rise more slowly than inflation. That would have devastating impacts on ordinary people immediately upon passage, hurt more tomorrow and get worse each year.
Under his plan, as food and medicine gets more expensive, your Social Security check would grow only a tiny bit. This approach may help the government's balance sheet, but it would hurt your pocketbook and your family. It is not cost savings; it is cost-shifting. To people who paid into the program for their entire lives, it is a cut — plain and simple.
Read Van Jones' entire piece at CNN.
The Root aims to foster and advance conversations about issues to the black Diaspora by presenting a variety of opinions from all perspectives, whether or not those opinions are shared by our editorial staff.