That's kinda the point Joe

From Joe Scarborough's weekly column in Politico:

"White House watchers believe the president will not touch Social Security until he is safely ensconced in his second term."

This is seemingly passing comment in the column is unfortunately the problem for as long as politics has existed in the human community. When unpopular decisions need to be made, political leaders don't make them because it reduces their chances of getting re-elected. It's not necessarily a sign of cowardice. That political leader believes he or she is doing the right thing for his or her town, city, state, and country and can only continue doing so while in office and not out of it.

That's part of the reason presidents don't attempt any real reform until their second term, such as Reagan's 1986 Tax Hike. Obama addressing Social Security now would be akin to George H.W. Bush breaking his "read my lips, no new taxes" pledge. Presidents make controversial decisions in their second term because they don't have a re-election to worry about. As a two-term president, your place in history will be determined by how much you accomplish, not just if you're a two-termer. Unfortunately the fickle voting public will never re-elect you to a second term if you do something unpopular in your first term no matter how beneficial it is to the greater good.

Why is that a problem? Because the loss is usually due to the unpopular decision and, more often than not, the challenger will have run on a platform to get rid of whatever good yet unpopular thing the incumbent did, setting the whole country back.

So isn't the issue equally divided between the politicians in charge as well as the naivete of the voting public?