The Washington Post ran the editorial Social Security Disability Insurance needs major reform on September 21, 2013. There are two fundamental issues with this editorial.
One this editorial, in isolation, may not seem like much of a story; but it is one of many such stories. As one example, the growth in food stamps. USA Today reports: "In 2001, the program served 17 million people at a cost of just
over $15 billion. By 2012, there were 46 million people enrolled in the
program at a cost of a little under $75 billion." Another example: Ever-increasing tax breaks for U.S. families eclipse benefits for special interests.
Secondly, Obama was elected to manage the government. Since Obama won the election it becomes his responsibility to fix issues, especially those that indicate rising corruption. Instead of explicitly pointing-the-finger of blame at Obama, the Washington Post Editorial Board lamely points to abstract concepts such as: "They found that technical and demographic factors such as those cited by
defenders of SSDI explained no more than 56 percent of the program’s
growth, suggesting that a substantial portion — at least 44 percent — is
because of the kind of structural defects and perverse incentives that critics have cited." Well, it is the responsibility of Obama who happens to be President to be acting on this corruption. Obama has been in charge for five (5) years now. The Post Editorial Board should be lambasting Obama for failing to take the initiative to solve the overgrowing Nanny State.
Yes a safety-net is needed. But the Obama administration has apparently refused to take on the issue of defining appropriate levels of "entitlement". It easier just to give more money, even though the US is running massive budget deficits. From the conspiracy angle, these are part of
the "free" gifts that Obama is tossing-out the electorate to solicit votes. All that
Obama sells is populism. Why else would the various entitlement programs
be allowed to "explode" without appropriate oversight.