I wonder if a reluctance to change fundamental government programs, or congresspersons feeling beholden to their constituents has obstructed these things in the past? If you have the richest man in the world willing to run ragged over. Well everything, does that change the calculus? If you're not worried about the normal politics from ending social security, then why not end social security?
congresspersons feeling beholden to their constituents
Isn't that what they should feel? Aren't the folks in Congress supposed to look after the needs and wants of those that voted them into office?
If you're not worried about the normal politics from ending social security, then why not end social security?
Because SS is what people want:
Support for Social Security is strong across all age groups, with more than 90 percent of respondents feeling that either too little or the right amount is spent on the program. Even among those 18 to 29, less than 10 percent feel we spend too much.
And it prevent a lot of people from sinking into poverty:
Without Social Security benefits, nearly 4 in 10 adults aged 65 and older would have incomes below the official poverty line, all else being equal, according to our estimates based on the U.S. Census Bureau’s March 2023 Current Population Survey. Social Security benefits lift more than 16.5 million older adults above the official poverty line, these estimates show.
DOGE isn't the first attempt to reduce 'waste' in government ("Private Sector Survey on Cost Control"):
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grace_Commission
* https://www.reaganlibrary.gov/archives/topic-guide/president...
* https://www.gao.gov/products/123531
* https://www.pgpf.org/programs-and-projects/convening-experts...
These sorts of things happen every few years.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brownlow_Committee
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoover_Commission
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Partnership_for_Rei...
I wonder if a reluctance to change fundamental government programs, or congresspersons feeling beholden to their constituents has obstructed these things in the past? If you have the richest man in the world willing to run ragged over. Well everything, does that change the calculus? If you're not worried about the normal politics from ending social security, then why not end social security?
Isn't that what they should feel? Aren't the folks in Congress supposed to look after the needs and wants of those that voted them into office?
Because SS is what people want:
* https://blog.aarp.org/thinking-policy/social-security-high-p...
And it prevent a lot of people from sinking into poverty:
* https://www.cbpp.org/research/social-security/top-ten-facts-...
... and instead he tripled the deficit.
Of all the various delusions people have about the debt, the idea of Reagan as the great government cutter is perhaps the most deranged.