Obama praises Romney: "I suspect that on Social Security we’ve got a somewhat similar position"

[MannyGoldstein]

That must mean that Romney won't cut a cent from Social Security Benefits, and only wants to raise the wage cap on which Social Security is paid in order to have higher-income folks pay more.

Or maybe ...

Bowlesing Toward Betrayal - Paul Krugman, 10/2/12

So, is my timing good or not? Right after I warn about the risk that Democrats, including the president, might betray the mandate they seem likely to get for preserving the safety net, we learn that Senate leaders are at work on a plan based around, well, you guessed it:

If those efforts failed, another plan would take effect, probably a close derivative of the proposal by President Obama’s fiscal commission led by Erskine B. Bowles, the Clinton White House chief of staff, and former Senator Alan K. Simpson of Wyoming, a Republican. Those recommendations included changes to Social Security, broad cuts in federal programs and actions that would lower tax rates over all but eliminate or pare enough deductions and credits to yield as much as $2 trillion in additional revenue.

Just to say, this would be politically stupid as well as a betrayal of the electorate. If you don’t think Republicans would turn around and accuse Democrats of cutting Social Security — probably even before the ink was dry — you’ve been living under a rock.

Wake up, folks. The Grand Bargain Express is coming, and the 99% are tied to the tracks. Simpson-Bowles voted for a 22% cut in the average Social Security recipient's lifetime benefit.

And the Social Security "crisis"? It's totally cooked up by assuming that the economy won't ever get better again. If we return to anything near the average economy of the last 70 years, Social Security is fully funded.

[ProSense]

1. "That must mean that Romney won't cut a cent from Social Security Benefits"

Only one way to find out.

[MannyGoldstein]

2. Do you think that's what the President meant?

That Romney won't cut Social Security?

[ProSense]

4. Here:

PRESIDENT OBAMA: You know, I suspect that on Social Security, we've got a somewhat similar position. Social Security is structurally sound. It's going to have to be tweaked the way it was by Ronald Reagan and Speaker — Democratic Speaker Tip O'Neill. But it is — the basic structure is sound. But — but I want to talk about the values behind Social Security and Medicare and then talk about Medicare, because that's the big driver —

MR. LEHRER: Sure — it — you bet.

PRESIDENT OBAMA: — of our deficits right now.

You know, my grandmother, some of you know, helped to raise me. My grandparents did. My grandfather died awhile back. My grandmother died three days before I was elected president. And she was fiercely independent. She worked her way up, only had a high school education, started as a secretary, ended up being the vice president of a local bank. And she ended up living alone by choice. And the reason she could be independent was because of Social Security and Medicare. She had worked all her life, put in this money and understood that there was a basic guarantee, a floor under which she could not go.

And that's the perspective I bring when I think about what's called entitlements. You know, the name itself implies some sense of dependency on the part of these folks. These are folks who've worked hard, like my grandmother. And there are millions of people out there who are counting on this.

So my approach is to say, how do we strengthen the system over the long term? And in Medicare, what we did was we said, we are going to have to bring down the costs if we're going to deal with our long- term deficits, but to do that, let's look where some of the money is going. Seven hundred and sixteen billion dollars we were able to save from the Medicare program by no longer overpaying insurance companies, by making sure that we weren't overpaying providers.

And using that money, we were actually able to lower prescription drug costs for seniors by an average of $600, and we were also able to make a — make a significant dent in providing them the kind of preventive care that will ultimately save money through the — throughout the system.

So the way for us to deal with Medicare in particular is to lower health care costs. But when it comes to Social Security, as I said, you don't need a major structural change in order to make sure that Social Security is there for the future.

MR. LEHRER: We'll follow up on this.

First, Governor Romney, you have two minutes on Social Security and entitlements.

MR. ROMNEY: Well, Jim, our seniors depend on these programs. And I know any time we talk about entitlements, people become concerned that something's going to happen that's going to change their life for the worst, and the answer is, neither the president nor I are proposing any changes for any current retirees or near retirees, either to Social Security or Medicare. So if you're 60 or around 60 or older, you don't need to listen any further.

But for younger people, we need to talk about what changes are going to be occurring.

Oh, I just thought about one, and that is in fact I was wrong when I said the president isn't proposing any changes for current retirees. In fact, he is on Medicare. On Social Security, he's not.

But on Medicare, for current retirees he's cutting $716 billion from the program. Now, he says by not overpaying hospitals and providers, actually just going to them and saying we're going to reduce the rates you get paid across the board, everybody's going to get a lower rate. That's not just going after places where there's abuse, that's saying we're cutting the rates. Some 15 percent of hospitals and nursing homes say they won't take anymore Medicare patients under that scenario.

We also have 50 percent of doctors who say they won't take more Medicare patients. This — we have 4 million people on Medicare Advantage that will lose Medicare Advantage because of those $716 billion in cuts. I can't understand how you can cut Medicare $716 billion for current recipients of Medicare.

Now, you point out, well, we're putting some back; we're going to give a better prescription program. That's one — that's $1 for every 15 (dollars) you've cut. They're smart enough to know that's not a good trade.

I want to take that $716 billion you've cut and put it back into Medicare. By the way, we can include a prescription program if we need to improve it, but the idea of cutting $716 billion from Medicare to be able to balance the additional cost of "Obamacare" is, in my opinion, a mistake. And with regards to young people coming along, I've got proposals to make sure Medicare and Social Security are there for them without any question.

MR. LEHRER: Mr. President.

PRESIDENT OBAMA: First of all, I think it's important for Governor Romney to present this plan that he says will only affect folks in the future. And the essence of the plan is that he would turn Medicare into a voucher program. It's called premium support, but it's understood to be a voucher program. His running mate —

MR. LEHRER: And you — and you don't support that?

PRESIDENT OBAMA: I don't. And — and let me explain why.

MR. ROMNEY: Again, that's for future people —

PRESIDENT OBAMA: I understand.

MR. ROMNEY: — right, not for current retirees.

PRESIDENT OBAMA: For — for — so if you're — if you — you're 54 or 55, you might want to listen, because this — this will affect you. The idea, which was originally presented by Congressman Ryan, your running mate, is that we would give a voucher to seniors, and they could go out in the private marketplace and buy their own health insurance. The problem is that because the voucher wouldn't necessarily keep up with health care inflation, it was estimated that this would cost the average senior about $6,000 a year.

- more -

http://www.npr.org/2012/10/03/162258551/transcript-first-obama-romney-presidential-debate

[MannyGoldstein]

10. I don't see any reassurance that SS won't be cut.

Do you?

[Marr]

17. Indeed. 'Tweaked in the way Reagan tweaked it...'

Reagan made a hefty increase to the payroll tax, ostensibly in the name of "saving" Social Security. Reagan and every subsequent administration then spent the increased revenues, and when the time came to actually use the funds gained from the payroll tax hike, they put on their best sad face and announced that the funds just weren't there and we need to make cuts to Social Security, which is where we are today.

The middle class already took a huge tax increase, and it was stolen through via repeated tax cuts for the wealthy. If there's any belt tightening to do, it certainly isn't on the Social Security/middle class side.

[HiPointDem]

12. "tweaked the way it was by Ronald Reagan and Speaker" = having workers pay more than the

cost of maintaining retirees, taxation of benefits, cutting of some benefits, and cost of living adjustment.

iow, cuts.

[MannyGoldstein]

15. There was an actual problem that needed to be solved under Reagan

Planning for Baby Boomer retirements. There's no actual problem now, just a cooked-up problem designed to steal the $2.6 Trillion (and growing) Trust Fund for the wealthiest.

[HiPointDem]

18. The problem that needed to be solved was simply that the trust fund balance had gone nearly

to zero & would run negative according to forecasts. The problem had been created by the recession (as a large part of the present problem has been) & could have been corrected with much less drastic measures. Instead we got actual benefit cuts and 30 years of FICA overpayment, supposedly to prefund the boomers' retirement.

Funny that, per the debate, anyone under 60 (anyone born after 1952) is *still* looking at cuts, despite overpaying for 30 years. So apparently 'the boomers' = 1945-1952. A very small 'generation' indeed.

And it wasn't only boomers paying extra. Anyone who worked 1982 to the present did -- which means pre-boomers, Gen X and everybody else who came after. Plus the retirees paying taxes on their SS.

Then, as now, the PTB used 'the problem' as cover for doing what they wanted to do anyway -- which was make SS much less progressive and much less generous.

[Sheepshank]

3. I think it meant that Romney will run away from a similarity......

...and trip all over himself tying to promote the differences.

Romney's constant avoidance of what will happen to those age 55'ish was screaming for clarification. Romney did not offer anything, but made it clear there ws going to be changes for that group...my age group. Asswipe.

[socialist_n_TN]

5. The Simpson-Bowles Commission report is being touted............

as the "compromise" position by a lot of op/eds in the last few months, so it's being sold as that. Also, as to your last comment about assuming the economy won't get any better again, that's probably correct. TPTBs DON'T expect the American economy to get any better. EVER. Remember the grand plan is to cut everybody's wages to developing country levels, so they can make more money for the big capitalists and increase their rate of profit.

[jsr]

7. The poorer you make them, the more fearful and docile they become

[appal_jack]

8. The deck was stacked by 'our' guy.

Honestly, wtf did Obama expect to happen with that Commission? On the 'shred-the-safety-net side,' he appointed rabid ideologues like Alan Simpson.

Meanwhile on the 'save-the-safety-net side'... Oh wait, that side was barely represented, if at all on that Commission.

Meanwhile on the 'Democratic' side, Obama appoints weaselly-little corporatists like Erskine Bowles. Erskine-goddamn-Bowles stands for no one except Morgan Stanley and Erskine Bowles (and he does the latter badly, as he has been unable to get elected to any office lately; plus his tenure at the helm of the UNC system was utterly without distinction).

The 'Debt Commission' should not even have been constituted during Obama's first year in office. But even if you think it was necessary, it should have contained at least a plurality of pro-Social Security, pro-Safety Net, pro-progressive taxation voices among the Democrats (I know it would be too much to ask to find even one Republican to fit that description). Instead, the 'Debt Commission' was stacked against us from the start. It was bad policy from the outset, so it should be no surprise that the result is some bad politics.

And before someone jumps down my throat for describing Obama as 'our' guy in the subject line ask yourself, did Obama serve the working, payroll-taxed citizenry with this Debt Commission in any way? No, no he did not. I am a Democrat, but I am not a sheep. This Debt Commission is naked robbery disguised in emperor's clothes as policy.

-app

[woo me with science]

16. Thank you.

What angers me the most is the deception and silence of both campaigns with regard to Social Security and the complicity of the media in allowing the candidates to avoid talking about what is actually going to happen to millions of seniors.

Obama/Biden have run this entire campaign on a theme of being the defenders of the 99 percent. To then turn around and sign on to a chained CPI and/or other assaults on our fundamental satfety nets is the most outrageous, cynical, and wholly deliberate betrayal of voters we have seen in recent history.

And the media lets this historic betrayal go by with not a single question or comment, not a single demand for details. It is all taken as par for the course and papered over with the avoidant, disingenuous, minimizing word, "tweaking."

[Oilwellian]

37. Oh now now, Woo

Obama did say Social Security just needed a little tweaking.

[woo me with science]

38. It seems

we are going to need a new Urban Dictionary definition for that word.

[MannyGoldstein]

40. Cutting... but not slashing...

Briefing room word games: What's a 'slash' versus a 'cut' in Social Security?

[Art_from_Ark]

45. The "save-the-safety-net" side had token representation

Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky, D-Illinois. She's one of the good ones

http://schakowsky.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=2781:schakowsky-on-fiscal-commission-report-final-vote&catid=21:2010-press-releases&Itemid=58

[appal_jack]

55. Had she been chair...

You & I may know Schankowsky's name and appreciate her perspective, but even the reasonably aware American will likely only be able to cite 'Simpson-Bowles' as the membership of the Commission. The chairs really did set the acceptable limits of the debate in this case. Since both chairs support the pillaging of Social Security by Wall St. (by different degrees & methods), the deck really was stacked, token progressivism notwithstanding.

Alas.

-app

[Poll_Blind]

6. It's just easier for most folks to push realities like this out of their mind.

Really.

It's not stopping the train that's coming, though. And I think it's probably going to plow into the majority the hardest around 2014.

When it does, they'll just be quacking partisan ingsoc about it here. I doubt there will be much anyone else left.

In the same way that ignorant people used to think a solar eclipse was a spontaneous act of angry gods, the real impact of Austerity will similarly obliterate a confused and uninformed America. Too interested in other things to notice or care about the clockwork behind the biggest reset on the American standard of living to my knowledge.

PB

[woo me with science]

9. We are bought and sold.

It says a lot that the corporate media lets by a historic admission that both parties now plan to attack the fundamental safety nets that millions in this country depend on, without any details or questioning whatsoever.

"Tweaking," my ass.

[kenny blankenship]

11. If you keep voting for it

is it really betrayal?

It's not their fault that their constituencies keep doing the same thing, expecting a different result. Sure they can say "Tough shit - you have nowhere else to go!" But no matter what they say or do you still have free will. The similar positions shared between the tops of the two parties include slashing the New Deal safety net and enriching and shielding the Banksters while ratcheting up the Police State for everyone else, but they begin with the proposition that Suckers deserve to get taken. Repetitively extending trust to such people after repeated "betrayals" is not much of a refutation of that motto, if you ask me, but more like confirmation of their shared elitist disdain for powerless, ordinary, working Americans. It's enabling their abuse of the majority. If that's "betrayal", then it is for the vast majority of us a self-betrayal.

[hfojvt]

13. explain to me, if you can, where the 22% cut in benefits comes from?

Is it from the chained CPI? I am not sure that's a totally bad thing if people really are making those substitutions. Or are they using CPI-W (wage inflation index) now and the proposal is to switch from that? If benefits keep up with prices that seems relevant. I don't see why they need to keep up with wages, nor why they should (even if by not doing so, benefits are in some way "cut&quot

Is it from the change in the bend points? Because that seemed like a good idea to me, as it primarily cuts benefits for higher earners. And especially if the cap is raised, something needs to be done about the bend points.

[MannyGoldstein]

14. It's calculated by the Chief Actuary of Social Security

And it comes from a variety of things.

Here's the letter:

Stephen Goss letter to Deficit Commission.pdf

It'll cut about $50,000 in lifetime benefits per beneficiary. And it's pure fraud.

[HiPointDem]

19. SS will still be able to pay out about 80% of presently scheduled benefits if no changes at all are

made. And that, of course, is if the Trustees' analysis of a flat economy for 75 years bear out. If not, it will be able to pay more.

http://www.cepr.net/index.php/blogs/social-security-monitor/letter-to-sen-toomey-on-misleading-statements-about-social-security

The Bowles 'fix' would ensure that SS pays shit even if the economy recovers.

PS: Everyone realizes that the SS 'deficit' they're talking about is based on 75-year projections, right? Projections about life expectancy, the state of the economy, inflation, etc. And everyone realizes that the further out you project, the more arbitrary the numbers plugged into the forecasts get?

And everyone realizes that if the economy can't support retirees via SS, it can't support them at all?

[abumbyanyothername]

33. Why are we talking about a 75 year horizon?

On a program that is barely 75 years old itself.

In a country that is 236.5 years old.

[HiPointDem]

35. Because that's the way the politicians set it up in 1982 -- on an 'actuarial basis'.

[Occulus]

20. "And it's pure fraud."

The word I'm going to use starts with a 't' and rhymes with bereft.

[hfojvt]

23. how many benefits it cuts depends on income level

your 22% figure then comes from what? - the medium wage from plan 1b in the year 2080? Many of the cuts, for the medium and lower earners, come from the raising the retirement age proposal, which I would oppose. But changing the benefit formula (or the bend points) makes cuts to the higher earning workers, making the system more progressive - and that seems to me like a good thing.

Your last line, though, seems like demagoguery. It averages a lot of high earners with low earners, and uses incendiary language with that f-word. "It'll cut about $50,000 in lifetime benefits per beneficiary. And it's pure fraud." Some of the proposals seem beneficial to me. But they too, could be demagogued.

[MannyGoldstein]

24. "Scaled Medium Earner" from the Chief Actuary's letter

Third quintile - in the middle. It goes up to a 41% cut for the top quintile (highest earners).

So I'm quoting the median, and the effect it would have on the median (in today's dollars).

How would you prefer that it be worded in a way that conveys the essence of the thing in a sentence or two?

[ljm2002]

22. Cost of living is a relative measure...

...so increases should be based on the overall figure, not some bullshit concocted by a 1%-er in a fancy suit who thinks dog food is a fine substitute for meat loaf.

If food prices have gone up 10% overall, then the cost of living has gone up. Saying that someone "could" substitute Item B for Item A is just a clever way of saying, we're not going to represent the actual rise in the cost of living when we calculate your stipend this year.

Social Security benefits are small enough to begin with. Believe me, a lot of folks on Social Security have already made those substitutions. If not dog food for meat loaf, then at least they've switched from steak to hamburger, and other similar things. So if a real cost-of-living increase of 10% has occurred, then hamburger has gone up 10% as well. But now the chained CPI says, nope, only 5%. So what are the pensioners going to do now? What will they substitute for hamburger? I guess they'll start with the 30% fat hamburger, i.e. the least expensive hamburger. But what about next year?

It's just a cruel numbers game, where the rulers give no thought to the realities experienced by their subjects. All the hand-waving and cute names "Chained" Price Index in place of "Consumer" Price Index is a sham, a method to obfuscate and blur the reality. It's a CUT and no amount of blather can change that fact.

[appal_jack]

48. Excellent & true points, n/t.

[ljm2002]

21. I did a double take when I heard that remark...

...and it's another reason I think Obama blew it last night. Why agree with your opponent during a debate? And on a topic like Social Security, no less? Supposedly this debate was to showcase the stark choice represented by the two candidates. Yet there went Obama, throwing away a crucial area of debate in order to appear bipartisan.

That's how I saw that part of the debate.

Obama should have crushed Romney and instead, he let his lies go unanswered and he appeared flat.

Here's hoping his team does put together some good ads showcasing Romney's many lies. And here's really, really hoping that the fighting Obama shows up for the next debate.

[tokenlib]

29. that one quote is DISTURBING- W H comment line here I come !!!

[woo me with science]

25. Kick

[JoePhilly]

26. Any second now.

Yawn.

[stevenleser]

27. And people wonder why I characterize compliments you might give him as backhanded... nt

[Whisp]

28. right on fucking cue...

[NCTraveler]

30. I seriously cringed when he said that. nt

[BarackTheVote]

31. I think it was a rhetorical strategy

He knows SS is popular. Basically, what he was saying was "We have the same views of SS because what kind of sociopath would do away with it?" Obama handed Romney some rope, and Romney wrapped that shit around his neck and Obama went after him with incensed incredulity. It was a win.

[rudycantfail]

34. "...and Obama went after him with incensed incredulity. It was a win."

What?! That's a really odd rationalization imo.

[woo me with science]

32. Write and call your representatives today. Call the White House.

Don't let them get away with a chained CPI, a raised age of eligibility, an increase in the taxable portion of SS, or any other attacks on Social Security benefits.

We need to raise hell about this now, because the media is not talking about it.

[lumberjack_jeff]

36. As I type this, the post above says "What advice would you give the president for the next debate?"

My answer: Stop doing this.

[Luminous Animal]

41. Kick.

[Lasher]

42. Obama's Social Security Answer Leaves Democrats Utterly Baffled

WASHINGTON -- Of all the moments that left Democrats scratching their collective head following President Barack Obama's debate performance Wednesday night, his comment on Social Security appeared to sting the most.

It was not that the president said anything particularly alarming about how he intends to address the program: His broader points were consistent with past statements. It was that, when presented with the opportunity to contrast his vision with that of his opponent, Obama took a pass, going so far as to say he didn't think it was an issue of disagreement.

"I suspect that on Social Security, we've got a somewhat similar position," Obama said. "Social Security is structurally sound. It's going to have to be tweaked the way it was by Ronald Reagan and Speaker -- Democratic Speaker Tip O'Neill. But it is -- the basic structure is sound."

<snip>

"There is a real difference in philosophy," she said. "For Obama to say that he believes he and Romney agree, either Obama has not been straight about his position on Social Security all these years, or he and his campaign haven't looked at Romney's position."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/04/obama-social-security_n_1940755.html?utm_hp_ref=elections-2012

[MannyGoldstein]

43. Obama's been straight about his position since

a few days before his inauguration.

He wants to cut benefits, even though there is no reason to do so.

[DURHAM D]

49. I recall that during the 2008 primary

Obama stated several (or agreed to with the premise) times that both Medicare and SS were going broke. For that reason nothing he has done since has been or should be a surprise.

[tokenlib]

44. It's a lot easier to be the "tweak-er" than the "tweak-ee"--think about it "grand bargainers"...

..and then make sure you sleep well at night...

[woo me with science]

46. Kick. This is important. nt

[woo me with science]

47. Kick

[woo me with science]

50. Kick

[Politicalboi]

51. I can see having to adjust SSI if

The government accepts domestic partners as beneficiaries. Right now I am 51, single, lesbian. If I die, my benefits go to no one. Everyone who contributed to SSI should be able to will their benefits to ANYONE they want. The government has been getting a free ride with the gay community for years. Maybe that is what the tweeking is about. Maybe they will finally recognize us.

[CrispyQ]

52. Austerity is coming regardless of who wins.

Get as healthy as you can, cuz you're not going to have any health care. Pay off your debt so you can live on a $10 an hour job, cuz that's the new American economy.

There is a state in the union, can't recall which, that allows some prisoners to work at no wages in exchange for time off their sentence.

[tokenlib]

53. For the moment this is still a democracy..we don't have to roll over and take the "tweaking." N/T

[tokenlib]

54. Kick in response to Axelrod inferring this needs to be discussed in "quiet rooms" when on Fox News..

[kentuck]

56. After the election, it will be too late to find out...

But surely, the Democratic Party leaders would not let something like that happen?