Question for people who believe Obama does not want to gut Social Security:

[MannyGoldstein]

Why do you believe he named Alan Simpson and Erskine Bowles to run a commission charged with shaping the future finances of America's government?

Nobody who feels that Obama is being unjustly attacked seems to be able to directly answer this question.

Congress had refused to create the commission on several occasions because it was obviously an attempt to cut Social Security: "both Social Security and Medicare are currently cash negative and headed for insolvency", said its co-sponsors (which is a huge lie, of course). But Obama decided it was a great idea, and formed the commission headed by Bowles and Simpson.

An investment banker by trade, Business Week described Bowles as "Corporate America's friend in the White House" when he was Bill Clinton’s Chief of Staff. In that capacity, Bowles brokered a deal with Newt Gingrich to cut and partially privatize Social Security (fortunately, Congress refused to allow the deal). Bowles currently sits on the boards of General Motors and Morgan Stanley.

Alan Simpson has also been an outspoken critic of Social Security for many years. Most recently, he famously claimed that Social Security is nothing more than a "milk cow with 310 million tits", while Obama stood silent. He’s also variously claimed that Social Security was not originally intended for retirees, that Social Security is losing money already, and many other similar lies.

In all, 10 of the 18 commission members were on record, before being appointed, as stating the Social Security benefits needed to be cut.

Of course, the commission voted 11-8 for a 22% cut in Social Security benefits over time - and further deep tax cuts for America's wealthiest.

So, my question to those who believe that Obama has no plans on grabbing the $2.6 trillion trust fund for the wealthiest: why did he do all of this?