It's largely fiscal gimmickry. (It's not that they relish robbing Medicare.) They are appealing to the easily manipulated new prospective class of (new) federal beneficiaries, and are (for now; they'll remedy what they're doing later, I'm sure they're thinking or hoping) robbing existing older program Peter to fund part of exciting new program Paul. It's a variant of the “Beame shuffle” (and the temporary[?]-cannibalization and redirection is also similar to Obama's wanting to shift TARP funds to all kinds of other “good” purposes, notably before next year's elections. Would it be surprising if “temporary” “one-time” spending on health care was one of these new “good” purposes, incidentally?).

Of course, and it's just ridiculous that the Dems actually have their defenders, who believe what they say!

(Oh, well. Bottom tail of the bell curve has to exist, by definition, in any population…)

Well, let's hear them. What are the wise and compassionate methods that Reid plans to use?

What is remarkable though is the extent to which voters follow their lead and can so easily be gamed into the same behavior of switching sides in an argument when it suits their partisan interests.

Politicians, as a group and a whole, don't give a damn either way. What they do care about is the appearance of opposing the other side and getting reelected.

They are a classic monopoly – they are one and the same group of people, constantly trading sides in various arguments and disagreements in a manner that would make George Orwell proud (two GO references in one day!), worried only about keeping all others out, and stealing what they can for themselves.

Eighty percent of Americans are satisfied with the current system, because, let's face it, most of 'em ain't paying the bills. Forty seven percent of Americans don't even pay any federal income tax.

And here is the “other side of the story::

Much of the debate Saturday focused on what Mr. McCain had said as the Republican presidential candidate in 2008. Democrats said it was odd to see Mr. McCain styling himself as a defender of Medicare because, in the past, he had favored deep cuts.

Mr. Baucus, a principal author of the health care bill, noted that his mother was receiving home health care and said he would not do anything to hurt beneficiaries.

“We are reducing overpayments,” Mr. Baucus said. “We are rooting out fraud. We are getting the waste out. The savings go back in Medicare and extend the solvency of the trust fund.”

NYT, Dec. 7

Obama/Pelosi/Reid's claims that people will not lose Medicare benefits they currently enjoy are just plain false. You can't cut billions of dollars out of programs and expect them to function the same.