Biden: “There will be no changes in Social Security”

[KoKo]

Last edited Wed Aug 15, 2012, 11:06 AM - Edit history (1)

By: David Dayen Tuesday August 14, 2012 4:22 pm

(photo: Barack Obama / White House)

Vice President Joe Biden told senior patrons at a restaurant today that there would be no changes to Social Security under an Obama-Biden Presidency, a guarantee that may force the top of the ticket to speak on this and other social insurance programs.

“Hey, by the way, let’s talk about Social Security,” Biden said after a diner at The Coffee Break Cafe in Stuart, VA expressed his relief that the Obama campaign wasn’t talking about changing the popular entitlement program.

“Number one, I guarantee you, flat guarantee you, there will be no changes in Social Security,” Biden said, per a pool report. “I flat guarantee you.”

The pool report noted that most of the patrons at the cafe toward whom Biden was directing his remarks were over the age of 60.

When the addition of Paul Ryan to the Republican ticket turned the Presidential race into a competing set of visions for social insurance programs, I thought it could go in two directions. Either the Obama-Biden ticket would straddle the divide and embrace a “bipartisan” deficit reduction plan which pokes at the sacred cows of liberals and conservatives, meaning that the “grand debate” of the campaign would be between a center-right and a far-right vision, leaving the entire idea that social insurance plans ought to be protected, if not expanded, off the table. Or, Obama and Biden would get forced into a corner and make promises on these programs that would conflict with their past attempts to reach a grand bargain that subjected the programs to cuts. Biden has basically done the latter here. It’s the kind of no-wiggle-room guarantee that could be useful after the election.

However. It’s only the Vice President talking. Someone needs to ask the President if he agrees. We’ve seen previously how Biden’s declarative statements have often gotten further out in front of where the Administration wanted to be, leading to either a walkback or, in the case of marriage equality, forcing Obama grudgingly in that direction. Maybe we’ll see the same dynamic here.

In addition, Biden’s declarative was made on Social Security. That’s not exactly the major issue in the campaign at the moment. After flirting with private accounts, Paul Ryan left Social Security untouched in this year’s budget. Mitt Romney has spoken favorably of raising the retirement age and means-testing benefits for well-off beneficiaries in the past, but he has not given a definitive answer on his plan for Social Security. The real fight has been about Medicare, and who cuts what and when. So in addition to pinning down Obama-Biden on Social Security, getting them defined on Medicare – and Medicaid, for that matter – would make sense as well.

A Presidential campaign based on deficit reduction and social insurance in a time of mass unemployment, a campaign aimed at Washington DC instead of Main Street and its struggles, is bad enough. But if Biden stumbles the President into drawing some bright lines on those programs, it could have a salutary effect.

READ MORE AT:

http://news.firedoglake.com/2012/08/14/biden-there-will-be-no-changes-in-social-security/

[TDale313]

1. I got a crush on Joe Biden ;-)

Love his straight talk.

[DonCoquixote]

2. for all the talk of presidential candidates getting flipped

There are times I wish Biden won and Obama was VP. I will happily vote for Joe if he runs in 2016.

[B Calm]

3. That sucks, I was hoping they would drop the

full retirement age.

[woo me with science]

4. But will there be a chained CPI?

We have heard advocates of the chained CPI claim before that it is not a change to Social Security.

No, it does not change the SS PROGRAM.......BUT it lowers projected benefits.

I fervently hope that the administration would not play a misleading word game like that on the American people....We have already seen word games with "slash" versus "cut."

The chained CPI was proposed by President Obama last April.

We need an answer to this question.

[JoePhilly]

5. Biden is clearly part of Obama's conspiracy.

The selection of Ryan was intended to make it easier for Obama to win so that he could protect Social Security from Ryan, and then implement his secret plan to gut it.

Everyone knows that.

[NorthCarolina]

7. Best guess, don't believe ANY of them. nt

[xtraxritical]

9. Really - it's the Congress that sends these bills to the President, it's "advise and consent".

[woo me with science]

11. The President either signs them or does not. nt

[stockholmer]

8. 2011 Flashback: Obama Pushes for Modifications to Medicare & Social Security (Including Chained CPI)

http://fdlaction.firedoglake.com/2011/08/18/obama-pushes-for-modifications-to-medicare-and-social-security/

At a town hall meeting in Illinois, President Obama reaffirmed that he will personally push for Congress to make Medicare and Social Security cuts part of any talk about deficit reduction or job creation. From the White House Transcripts:

When folks tell you that we’ve got a choice between jobs now or dealing with our debt crisis, they’re wrong. They’re wrong. We can’t afford to just do one or the other. We’ve got to do both. And the way to do it is to make some — reform the tax code, close loopholes, make some modest modifications in programs like Medicare and Social Security so they’re there for the next generation, stabilize those systems. And you could actually save so much money that you could actually pay for some of the things like additional infrastructure right now. We can close the deficit and put people to work, but what’s required is that folks work together. That’s the big challenge. That’s the big challenge. (Applause.)

So the main thing is I’m here to enlist you in this fight for America’s future. I need you to send a message to your members of Congress, to your representatives that we’re tired of the games. We’re tired of the posturing. We don’t want more press releases. We want action.

“Modest modification” is classic political newspeak code for cuts. The “modest”change Obama indicates he would support, like raising the Medicare retirement age to 67, would cause very real hardship for some older Americans and make every seniors’ Medicare premiums go up. The new Super Committee doesn’t need to cut our social safety net to reach its deficit reduction targets, but President Obama publicly says he wants to make cuts to Medicare and Social Security part of any deal. The reason Medicare and Social Security are on the table right now is because Obama has chosen to put them on the table. He has the power to take them off the table with a simple veto threat. If Medicare or Social Security get cut in the near future it will because Obama actively worked to make sure the programs are cut. The much promised “pivot to jobs” after the debt ceiling deal seems to be disappointingly focused on keeping the issue of deficit reduction on the front burner.


-------------------------------------------------------
Obama Lets Slip Plans for Chained CPI

http://news.firedoglake.com/2011/08/19/obama-lets-slip-plans-for-chained-cpi/

Jon Walker already mentioned this push by President Obama for changes to Medicare and Social Security in his town hall meetings in rural areas this week. It’s actually worse than that. Walker highlighted comments from the stump speech. Look closer at the question and answer session. Twice this week, the President was asked specifically about Social Security, in particular the COLA adjustment. The last two years, recipients were denied a COLA, because it’s based on an inflation index that didn’t show any rise in inflation. The President explained this pretty ably on Wednesday at a town hall in Illinois.

THE PRESIDENT: Well, let me talk to you about Social Security. It is very likely that she will see a COLA, a cost-of-living increase next year, because inflation actually rose this year. The reason that there were a couple of years where she did not get a cost-of-living increase was because even though she probably felt like the cost of food and gas and groceries were going up, the overall inflation index actually did not go up. There was a period there where we actually had what’s called deflation, where the costs were a little bit lower than they had been comparable to the previous year.

So all that is done automatically. It’s not something that I make a decision about each year. And I promise you when folks don’t get their COLA, they all write to me and say, Mr. President, why — you didn’t give us a cost of living, and don’t you care about senior citizens. And I have to write back and explain to them, no, that’s not something I did. These things just happen automatically based on estimates of what inflation is going to be.

Indeed, Social Security recipients are expected to get a 3% increase at the end of the year. And yes, that’s an automatic process. What the President isn’t telling people is that he offered an alteration to that automatic COLA process, by going to chained CPI, that would result in a slower increase in benefits, and a de facto cut. So at the same time the President is explaining that the COLA is not in his control, he is hiding the fact that he wants to change the metric upon which it is based. In fact, he slipped and actually did mention chained CPI, in a roundabout way, at a second town hall in Alpha, Illinois. The President was asked about the payroll tax cap, and he answered that and went right to this “here’s why grandma didn’t get a COLA” talking point that he was obviously instructed to say, but he slipped and included a telling line:

Well, first—this is a very well-informed young man here. (Laughter.) You’re exactly right that the way the Social Security system works, there’s what’s called—there’s basically a cap on your Social Security, which there isn’t, by the way, on Medicare. But Social Security, it only goes up to the first $107,000; and you’re right, somebody who makes—who has net assets of $250 million and are making maybe $5 million a year just on interest or capital gains or something, just a fraction of it’s going to Social Security. I think there’s a way for us to make adjustments on the Social Security tax that would be fairer than the system that we use right now.

I do think, in terms of how we calculate inflation, that’s important as well. By the way, seniors — a bunch of them were upset over the last couple years because some of — because seniors didn’t get a cost-of-living adjustment. I got a lot of letters — “Mr. President, how come I didn’t get a COLA this year for my Social Security?” And I answered this question at the previous town hall; I figured I’d clear something up now. The way the system works is you automatically get a cost-of-living adjustment based on the inflation rate. The President doesn’t make that decision; it’s based on a formula.

[woo me with science]

12. Important links with his own words. Thank you.

We need to demand: No Grand Bargain, ever again. Democrats do not attack safety nets, ever.

[joshcryer]

19. He hasn't mentioned that rhetoric in almost a year.

His current speeches talk about raising the cap (which some here don't like because they defend the top 5-10%).

Chained CPI was a trial balloon and it didn't go over well at all.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

22. Thank you for bringing up the facts and adding the links to the supporting information.

[Kingofalldems]

6. I like this one

[SidDithers]

10. But, but, but Simpson! Bowles!...

Cut! Slash! 22%!!

Sid

[AnotherMcIntosh]

23. How is it going up in Canada?

[SidDithers]

47. ...

Sid

[sabrina 1]

13. And thank you to Manny and woo me with science and all the other great DUers and

Last edited Wed Aug 15, 2012, 06:44 PM - Edit history (1)

Democrats everywhere, who continue to raise this issue DURING an election season. Just as the President 'heard' Occupiers and dropped the Austerity talk, it seems that Joe is hearing the people.

The only way WE can protect the Social Safety Net is to shout down the Corporate Lobbyists who have far more access to our Reps than we do.

Continuing to talk about this is working.

Who were the morons who came up with the strategy that the People should remain silent about issues 'until after the election'??

Thank you Joe, now we want to hear an equally clear statement about the Chained CPI because, contrary to claims by some, that WOULD be a change to SS.



For Democrats, this is a winning issue. Glad to see Biden address it.

[woo me with science]

16. Thank you for staying on this, Sabrina.

No Grand Bargain. No chained CPI. Never again.

It's time to pin down specifically what running on the side of the people really means.

Given that defenders of the chained CPI have repeatedly used the word game of claiming it is not a cut to Social Security, and given President Obama's advocacy of it last year, ruling out this assault on benefits is a simple and necessary clarification we must demand.

[sabrina 1]

17. Chained CPI needs to be addressed, there's no question about that.

It IS a cut to SS. Hiding these cuts in fuzzy language is something Politicians need to know, we are far more aware of now. The people won't be fooled by this tactic.

I like the fact that Biden has made this public statement and there is nothing wrong in continuing to pressure them to clarify their position on all the 'confusing' statements that have been made.

The very fact that there is so much dissension on this side of the aisle only emphasizes the need for the kind of clear statements made by eg, Bernie Sanders. No one could argue over what he means when he speaks about SS. There is no reason why people should feel the need to try to 'explain' the President's statements the way we've seen them do. Just clear it up and we move on.

They do listen when the people speak loudly enough. It works.

[joshcryer]

27. It sounds like Biden has addressed it.

It sounds like the innuendos come from the talking heads wanting to drive hits to their websites and the MSM wanting to get viewers.

[Summer Hathaway]

21. Yes, because if Joe

hadn't read Manny and Woo's DU posts, he would have made his previously-planned speech about slashing SS!

Thank god these two guys were able to turn things around for all of us by speaking up on a political discussion board!

[joshcryer]

28. Yes, they deserve all the credit in the world for making sure this happens.

All that hard work paid off.

[Summer Hathaway]

35. And what could be harder work

than posting on DU that this administration is about to do X, then ranting about how they should do Y, then taking credit when the administration does Y - despite the fact that it was never going to do X in the first place (except in said poster's mind).

The pattern is always the same. Predictable every time.

[joshcryer]

36. Oh it's worse than that.

My two favorites are:

Bush got us out of Iraq.

Republicans repealed DADT.

[Summer Hathaway]

38. I must correct you on the repeal of DADT

Despite the fact that Obama was for repealing DADT all along, a certain contingent - right here on DU! - insisted that he only caved at the last minute and repealed it due to their efforts.

[joshcryer]

39. Oh yes.

I remember that very well. It cracked me up, to be sure.

[sabrina 1]

43. Why do you read FR then? You wouldn't have to see nonsense like that if you simply

avoided sites like that.

[joshcryer]

44. I saw that on DU.

(I can provide the proof if you want. I already provided one link.)

[sabrina 1]

41. Joe is hearing plenty from all of us, including sending articles like those published by

these DUers and others, to let him know that the people want SS protected, and they won't be buying anything that is not clearly stated. He has been told to check out Sen. Sanders on SS to see how to go about being crystal clear on their intentions regarding these programs.

If his speech was prepared, he had already heard from thousands of Americans and will continue to hear from them. No one is going to take any chances after the way SS was put on the table last year. This is still, despite Ryan's claim, the third rail of politics, and Dems need to be out their making sure the people know that they have not deviated from their Party's platform on SS as many are wondering.

And we will be continuing to let our Reps know what the people are thinking and sending OPs from various political forums helps give them an idea of what people are talking about.

I'm surprised by your negative response on this issue. Are you opposed to us doing everything we can to preserve this most successful of Democratic programs?

[Summer Hathaway]

42. Am I opposed to Democratic programs?

No.

What I am opposed to is people taking credit for this Administration doing what it intended to do all along - by pretending that the opposite position was ever on the table in the first instance.

But by all means, I hope people like Manny and Woo will continue to keep democracy safe by posting on DU (which, no doubt, Obama and Biden watch like hawks), and pat themselves on the back for having coerced this administration into not doing the things it never said it would do in the first place.

[suffragette]

40. + 1,000 Sabrina

[stupidicus]

14. It's well past time

that comment shoulda been made by BHO and him long ago.

Imo, it's testimony to the fact that he's fully aware that prior remarks by BHO, etc, have led many to legitimately and reasonably believe otherwise in the past, or there'd be no need for assurances now. Why would they even ask the question of him if not for their knowledge of things said in the past?

I guess that kinda blows a hole in and highlights the egregiousness of the hateful rhetoric so many "purists" around here have spewed at their fellow DUers, sometimes going so far as to charge them with "not being dems", or trying to "undermine his reelection chances" for simply having concerns that non-dem looking to undermine their reelection chances asked about.

It's no small wonder many have wondered, no? https://www.google.com/search?q=Obama+on+SS+and+medicare&rls=com.microsoft:en-us:IE-SearchBox&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&sourceid=ie7&rlz=1I7GGHP_en

[woo me with science]

15. We still need a promise that the chained CPI is off the table.

The despicable chained CPI lowers projected benefits by changing the formula used to calculate SS benefits. It does not change the SS program itself, but it is viciously harmful to seniors, because it cuts projected benefits increasingly severely over time and is BUILT on the assumption that money can be saved by forcing seniors to accept lower quality substitutes on their grocery lists.

Defenders of the chained CPI have often defended it by using a word game....arguing that it is not a change to Social Security. But it is an indirect assault on BENEFITS.

Obama proposed the chained CPI last year and has defended it strongly. http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=1136433

Promising that the Social Security program itself will not be changed, as Biden did today, is not enough. We also need assurances that indirect assaults on SS benefits, like the chained CPI, are off the table.

[stupidicus]

18. I completely agree

the blanket declaration leaves room for things like that, so those concerns need to be alleviated as well.

This issue has been a pet peeve of mine since BHO first promoted the Catfood Commission, and imo, the lack of effective communication on this issue before the 2010 election was precisely what helped the repugs convince the gray vote that secured their half-win in the house, that it was the dems that were gonna cut things, not them as they are attempting to do again now.

This is what the "purists" have been too shortsighted about -- not just the dampened enthusiasm for those BHO/dem supporters wondering if they will or won't cut those entitlements in unacceptable ways, but also the mitigating effect that the rightwingnuts can use to exploit their shameless ownership of such in a "both sides are gonna do it" way.

Right now they're trying to pin that tail on BHO over the 716B medicare cuts to providers, etc, but without BHO clarifying what he will or won't do, they'll use that to raise the spectre he intends to do something bad. It would also justify in their minds as well, a lack of him doing so that is, their current refusal to provide details/specifics on their tax/budget, etc, plans as well, on the same "both sides do it" grounds.

The end of this muddling and pinning the tail on the pachyderm shoulda been done long ago, which is why I think you make a great point -- there must be something that has impeded it, since BHO ain't no dummy.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

25. What " 'purists' have been too shortsighted" Were these people other than the Blue-Dog Democrats

who caused a loss of the House of Representatives?

Were these people other than those who caused a loss of the House of Representatives by being capitulators and Republican-wannabes?

If you want Republican-lite, all you have to do is vote for them.

If you are not aware of it, your criticism of Democrats and independents who wanted to vote for those who would uphold traditional Democratic values but could not find candidates that would act in a manner consistent with such values, is not going to increase the turnout of such voters. Of course, you probably already know that.

[stupidicus]

50. none of the above

if you read the posts in their entirety, you'd know the "purists" I referred to are DU members.

and if you read my journal entries, you'll find it full of criticisms of them and their hateful rhetoric that I've asserted is self-defeating for much the same reason you noted here. Calling those critical of things like potential unpalatable changes to SS or a ANY issue upon which reasonable people can disagree, non-dems, traitors, or charging them with actively trying to undermine BHO's reeelection chances, is EXACTLY the kinda stuff that could make the diff between them entering the voting booth or not.

Why would they wanna join hands with those who'd silence them, and belittle them and their legitimate concerns?

methinks you have me and what prompted those posts, all wrong.

[joshcryer]

20. *ALL* reforms to SS can be considered cuts.

We have people here on this very forum arguing that raising the cap is a cut to the top 10% because they will have to pay (marginally) higher taxes!

Chained CPI and raising the retirement age are real cuts. And Obama hasn't mentioned Chained CPI (one time, during a speech, talking about adjusting for inflation) in almost a year.

[TheKentuckian]

37. Raising the cap is fine by most, very few are crying about the top 20% paying a little extra here.

There are some but who cares. The only big flaw in raising the cap is having no way to sequester the money so that it isn't turned into stupid tax cuts, brainless wars, and loading the pockets of robberbarons via various scams, extortions, and corporate welfare.

The real problems are flat wages and and cycles of fairly long term unemployment. The system is built with the assumption that wages would rise with growth and that stopped being the case a generation ago and there are no "viable" intentions to do a damn thing about it, ever. I think that is what drives the panic even for more decent politicians. No matter how realistic the overall growth is, the expectation is for distribution of resources to be too meager to actually make it work.

We have a solid program but it wasn't designed to hold up to insane burning of the proceeds almost impossibly avoiding any substantive investment which would cause value based growth and create jobs which in turn pay in and then spend and ever allowing the gilded age type income disparity with loads of fit for duty folks looking for anything.

Take away some off the meter shenanigans that folks fresh off the Depression wouldn't account for because they probably would expect the government to fall before there could be any such pass, and I bet both Social Security and the overall government would be looking pretty flush as far as the eye could see if we could control medical cost and the related inflation.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

24. That, and another trick needs to be taken off the table.

Prior to Reagan, all Social Security benefits were tax exempt.

In 1983, Reagan reduced Social Security benefits for some recipients by making 50% of their benefits subject to federal taxation.

In 1983, Clinton further reduced Social Security benefits for some recipients by making 85% of their benefits subject to federal taxation.

After the election, a president who is inclined to do so can further reduce Social Security benefits with Congress by making 100% of Social Security benefits taxable or some percentage above the current 85%.

We have to be aware of this trick when there is a purported effort to "simplify" taxes. When Reagan cut Social Security benefits under this approach, the MSM ignored it and otherwise promoted spokesmen who repeatedly claimed that Reagan lowered taxes. Likewise, when Clinton reduced benefits under this approach, the MSM focused on other things.

[MannyGoldstein]

26. President Obama rejected his commision's call for military cuts

Simpson-Bowles, that is.

He could also reject their call for a 22% cut in the average SS recipient's benefits, and we'd be in a much better place.

[joshcryer]

29. His 2013 budget freezes military spending and doesn't cut a dime from SS.

[MannyGoldstein]

30. And he's rejected the 22% cut for the average recipient? nt

[joshcryer]

31. Yes.

[MannyGoldstein]

32. Please link to a quote

It will definitely be a very happy thing for me to see.

[joshcryer]

33. I don't do quotes, rhetoric is cheap, here is his actual proposal:

oops, wrong link: http://www.ontheissues.org/economic/barack_obama_social_security.htm

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/04/19/us-usa-obama-socialsecurity-idUSTRE73I46920110419

http://news.firedoglake.com/2011/04/19/obama-reaffirms-desire-to-lift-social-security-payroll-cap/

Raising the cap. Hated by some of the more ardent DUers. I'm sure you can find a reason to hate it.

BTW, Simpson-Bowles proposed raising the cap, as well, which is why the knee jerk reaction to the term "Simpson-Bowles" is kind of silly.

[MannyGoldstein]

45. They proposed raising the cap, and cutting average benefit by 22%

What do you think a 22% cut in benefits would do to the average recipient?

[joshcryer]

46. Not "and" but "or."

Simpson-Bowles resulted in several possibilities, not one single possibility. That's the whole point of "commissions."

[MannyGoldstein]

48. They voted for specific recommendations, no?

Some were rejected by the President. Some were not.

[numnumnum]

34. Spam deleted by DURHAM D (MIR Team)

[Demeter]

49. That's the way to win an election--Biden for President!

His accidental slips of the tongue are so much better than the usual bullshit from others...