The hope was to engage Republicans in talks.  But aides decided against putting forward the ideas, sure to be unpopular, without a clear signal from Republicans that they were ready to talk.

By undermining SS's finances, obama undermined the argument that social security won't have any kind of financial problem for at least another 25 years. This is what prevents SS cuts from getting traction. But by moving the "SS isn't paying for itself" date much closer, obama puts some air into the his and the republicans "the sky is falling on SS - we MUST do something" nonsense rhetoric.

How much sense does it make for Obama to propose cuts to a program that provides energy assistance to low-income people, in order to offset breaks for the wealthy and for corporations?  Really?  That's how we're going to "pay for" all the goodies the wealthy think they deserve?  On the backs of the poor?

Don't get me wrong: it's good that Social Security cuts aren't part of what Obama is proposing - this year - but the real question is, why was it ever even in play?  And is it off the table for good, or only until Obama can get the GOP to play along?

Consider this:

The White House last month considered offering specific benefit cuts and tax increases to shore up Social Security's finances, but ultimately decided to back off.

Officials weighed suggesting that Congress raise the ceiling on wages subject to the Social Security payroll tax and allow benefits to rise more slowly than under current law, according to three people familiar with the deliberations. The hope was to engage Republicans in talks.

But aides decided against putting forward the ideas, sure to be unpopular, without a clear signal from Republicans that they were ready to talk.

The rest is behind the subscriber wall, so I don't know the punch line - but, if people aren't appalled that what stopped Obama from proposing cuts was not that it was the wrong thing to do, but that he didn't have the GOP on board, there must be ice water coursing through their veins - or they're in the elite class and Social Security means nothing to them.

Here's a good summary of what's wrong with where Obama is taking us:

Larry Mishel of the Economic Policy Institute says that progressives "are losing the argument at a higher level" about the budget in general, putting all programs and services at risk.

The fundamental problem, Mishel says, is a spending freeze on the discretionary non-security budget, while calling for certain investments within that budget, and giving up on moving the needle on taxes to any degree. "Spending has to be maintained as a share of GDP just to keep up these programs," Mishel said, noting that inflation, wage increases and population growth all enter into that equation. "If you freeze spending, the population and economy has grown, that's a net cut." Mishel surmises that Obama is set to shrink the discretionary budget, through this freeze, by 32% over the next 9 years.

[snip]

Mishel takes issue with the Obama Administration's messaging on the subject, being practically boastful about budget cuts. "He's bragging to the Chamber of Congress about his discretionary budget being at the lowest level since Eisenhower. This is not the country we want to live in. It's awful." He related the Administration's plan for investment in certain areas as akin to the "cut and invest" approach of the DLC in the 1990s. "And they never meant invest," he added.

The entire notion of acknowledging fiscal responsibility before anything else amounts to operating on the ideological turf of the conservative movement, according to Mishel. "You try to pre-empt very awful things by doing awful things," he said. You can see this in the approach of Congressional Democrats, not arguing about the need for budget cuts, but trying to direct those cuts more appropriately.

"I heard Nancy Pelosi last week, saying that everything they support will have to strengthen the middle class, create jobs and cut the deficit. You cannot merge a Blue Dog message with a progressive message and think it's consistent," Mishel said. "Everyone wants to salute being fiscally responsible. They should be saying we're in a recession, and we're never going to balance the budget until we get people back to work." Mishel also highlighted the tax cuts just agreed to on a bipartisan basis. It's impossible to say that the country cannot afford, say, LIHEAP funding, Mishel reasons, when the country just gave away hundreds of billions in tax cuts for the rich and lowering the estate tax. "They should have a graph, money from LIHEAP versus money from the estate tax deal. How do you say we can't afford it?"

We should not have had to sweat out whether Social Security would be compromised.

Interesting that alleged liberal Senator Durbin favored cuts to Social Security.  

I hope everyone realizes we're still not out of the woods on this one.

There's a terrible arrogance among our elected representatives when they propose or are open to cuts to a crucial system that 85% of the American people don't want cut.

produces nothing much but a torrent of paranoid bile recounting, yet again in case anyone missed it the first 84 thousand times, of all the imagined and alleged sins of the president.

so
Obama Budget Won't Include Social Security Cuts

wow.