Supposedly, Democrats are the bulwark protecting the elderly from predatory Republicans who are out to destroy Social Security and kick them to the curb.

The protection – even the expansion – of Social Security is a major plank in the presidential campaign of Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, the self-described democratic socialist who thunders regularly in his speeches about how its benefits can be increased, not reduced, if we just raise taxes on the “millionaires and billionaires” who have rigged the system against everybody else.

Don’t believe everything you hear.

Buried in a budget bill signed by President Obama last fall are changes to Social Security law that, according to financial experts, will reduce potential benefits for seniors or their family members by anywhere from $50,000 to more than $130,000.

The change, which will take effect May 1, eliminates three provisions in the Social Security law affecting married or divorced (as long as they were married for at least 10 years) couples. The most significant two are called “file and suspend” and “restricted applications.”

File and suspend, in place since 2000, allows a person at full retirement age (now 66) to file for benefits but then suspend them immediately, which means the amount he or she can eventually collect per month will increase by 8 percent until age 70.

Meanwhile, his or her spouse can file a restricted application to collect spousal benefits (while also suspending regular benefits), which are about half of what the primary earner’s total benefit would be. That benefit, which tends to be in the range of $800 to $1,200 per month, would total between $38,400 and $57,600 if collected for all four years.

Then both the primary earner and the spouse can collect a permanent benefit that increased by 8 percent for the years between 66 and 70.

These provisions, according to its opponents in both parties, are loopholes, even though they were part of a reform package passed by Congress and signed into law by President Bill Clinton. They were intended to be an incentive for people in their 60s to keep working and delay collecting Social Security.

Beyond that, the amount of money involved wasn’t like hitting the lottery. As one commentator put it, “one man’s loophole could be another woman’s dinner.”

I support the changes (one of the rare times I think President Obama has done the right thing.) I think reforms like these are the minimum necessary to make sure the program remains financially solvent for coming generations.

I’ve written before, and I think it bears repeating, that when Social Security was created in the 1930s under President Franklin D. Roosevelt, its sustainability was based in part on life expectancy – the average person would collect benefits for about four years.

Today, the average person will collect for 13 to 15 years – more than three times longer.

That, as ought to be obvious, is not sustainable. If the country were to launch Social Security today and follow the Roosevelt (iconic liberal) model, people wouldn’t qualify until they turned 75.

What I don’t support is the predictable Democratic spin about it – that Obama didn’t really want to do it but was forced into it by Republicans in order to get the budget bill passed.

Don’t believe that, either. As Reuters reported two years ago, Obama and other Democrats were looking to kill these provisions because they believed the wealthy were using them to game the system. In the fiscal 2015 budget (released in March 2014), the Obama administration accused the wealthy of “aggressive” moves to “manipulate” their Social Security benefits.

Apparently, Obama believes that anything wealthy people do that is perfectly legal but also benefits them financially amounts to gaming the system.

Beyond that, it is interesting that rather than launch a public education campaign to make sure everybody, including lower-income people, knew about those options, Democrats joined Republicans in killing them – with Obama’s endorsement.

It is also a stretch to claim that only the wealthy have been using these provisions. The Center for Retirement Research at Boston College found 46 percent of file-and-suspend benefit going to the top 40 percent of households. Yes, that’s a bit skewed, but not extravagantly so. It means that a majority – 54 percent – is going to lower income households.

That is because it is not a highly sophisticated strategy or clever manipulation of the system that requires the help of a financial planner. It is much simpler than filing for unemployment or welfare benefits. For a number of years now, there have been plenty of mainstream media reports about the advantages of file-and-suspend.

A book describing how to do that and other Social Security strategies, written in plain language, costs all of 12 bucks.

In short, this is something well within the reach of people of any income level who qualify for Social Security. It is not something only the rich know about.

Not surprisingly, the Democratic presidential candidates aren’t making much noise about this. Neither the Hillary Clinton nor the Sanders campaign responded to a request for comment on whether the candidates support the change or not.

Once again, these are necessary changes. They are at least a start toward preserving Social Security’s solvency for coming generations.

But keep in mind, especially during this silly season of presidential campaigning: When you hear that Republicans are the only ones who want to cut Social Security benefits, it’s not true.

A Democratic president, with the support of congressional Democrats, just did it.

Taylor Armerding is an independent columnist. Contact him at t.armerding@verizon.net