Noticing that social security is on the road to bankruptcy, Barack Obama has been suggesting his solution: an increase in taxes, whereby the current $97,500 income cap on Social Security taxes would be lifted. Hillary acknowledged the idea sounded good, but rejected Obama’s proposal, insisting that primary voters vote choose her, so that she may then possibly float more vague ideas of fiscal responsibility and Republican conspiracy that has thus far been her platform.

Hillary’s argument against Obama plan was that, “If you lift the cap completely that would be a $1 trillion tax increase.” Surprising argument, as that would nearly be enough to not only temporarily deal with the monstrosity of Social Security, but would leave room to launch, say, an over-bloated, unconstitutional, health care plan. While her assertions that she would be fiscally responsible without “further burdening [the] middle class” are admirable, such statements ring about as true as her husband’s 1992 repeated campaign pledge not to raise taxes, even as he refused to “promise” not to do so – a scene which evoked images of a 4-year-old who says he won’t eat any more cookies, but won’t promise, because he knows he will be elbow-deep in the cookie jar the moment your back is turned.

Obama continued to challenge Clinton on her lack of answers on this and other issues, stating that “not answering questions because we’re afraid our answer won’t be popular just won’t do.” Hillary reaffirmed her position, boldly declaring that she is “for solving the long-term challenges of…Social Security.” Any specifics? Details? “I think primary voters do know where I am.” Wherever that is, she’s there hoarding a platform amid shrinking leads in the polls.

Comments