Are They Serious?!

Somehow there seems to be a major disconnect between their words, reality and their attitudes.

Medicare depletes in 2020, SS depletes in 2041. But there's no crisis, no need for radical change.

After the "trust fund" is exhausted taxes will be sufficient to pay 74% of benefits.

Sorry but there's so much here that bothers me. First of all there is no "trust fund", only IOUs. Second the beneifts currently in place are paultry so I dare say that 74% of those benefits will be near worthless. When inflation is calculated on top of that I'm hearing sirens of crisis in my head.

So why does Reuters, in this article, seem to think there's no major need for an overhaul? Maybe there's some political motivation. It doesn't make sense to me.

=================================
AP news apparently didn't get the talking points:
Social Security Said to Pay Out in 2017
Here's a quote: Social Security (news - web sites) will begin paying out more in benefits than it receives in taxes in 2017, twelve years from now and a year earlier than previously estimated, trustees said Wednesday in a forecast adding fuel to the debate over changes President Bush (news - web sites) wants.

Yet Harry Reid still can say this with a straight face:
"Today's report confirms that the so-called Social Security crisis exists in only one place: the minds of Republicans."

Does anyone take this guy seriously?

Schiavo

House Enters Schiavo Right-To-Die Case

How is this a "Right to die" case? Isn't the battle for Terri's right to life? Her husband wants to remove the feeding tube, he claims that it was her desire, but without any proof, I just don't understand how this legal battle is possible.

And since her parents want to take care of her without help from her ex-husband, what harm is there in allowing it? Wouldn't it be best to err on the side of life?