President Obama to veto Boehner's "Plan B," he should also reject cuts to Social Security benefits

[ProSense]

White House: Obama Would Veto GOP’s Fiscal Cliff ‘Plan B’

White House Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer said in a statement Wednesday that President Obama would veto the GOP's fiscal cliff "Plan B" in the "unlikely event of its passage." Introduced by House Speaker John Boehner, the fiscal cliff "Plan B" would extend the Bush-era tax cuts for families earning $1 million or less a year. Pfeiffer's full statement below:

The American people have been clear that they will not accept an economic approach that places too big of a burden on the middle class, seniors, students and the most vulnerable Americans while asking too little of the wealthiest Americans. The Congressional Republican “Plan B” legislation continues large tax cuts for the very wealthiest individuals - on average, millionaires would see a tax break of $50,000 - while eliminating tax cuts that 25 million students and families struggling to make ends meet depend on and ending critical incentives for our nation’s businesses. It would also cut off a vital lifeline of unemployment assistance to 2 million Americans fighting to find a job just a few days after Christmas, while deeply cutting Medicare. The deficit reduction is minimal, and perversely, given its authors, solely through tax increases with no spending cuts. This approach does not meet the test of balance, and the President would veto the legislation in the unlikely event of its passage.

The President believes this moment presents both sides an opportunity to reach a significant, balanced deal that is good for American families, the economy and for our nation’s future. He has put forward a proposal that meets the Speaker halfway on both taxes and spending, offering to work with Republicans to cut spending by an additional more than one trillion dollars beyond what he has already signed into law. The President urges the Republican leadership to work with us to resolve remaining differences and find a reasonable solution to this situation today instead of engaging in political exercises that increase the possibility that taxes go up on every American. The American people are watching closely and deserve no less.

http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/white-house-obama-would-veto-gops-fiscal-cliff

President Obama, please return to your original proposal: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021905787

Anything less is unacceptable. Anything involving cuts to Social Security benefits is cruel and indefensible.

[1StrongBlackMan]

1. Prosense ...

Please google "Chained CPI-E" or read this:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251264891

[ProSense]

2. Thanks for the link. Here is one of the best

explanations. Dean Baker:

<...>

The current effort has the spirit of using statistics for political ends, for example by refusing to have BLS produce a full elderly CPI so we would actually know the inflation rate experienced by the elderly. There also has been some discussion of leaving some programs, such as Supplemental Security Income, tied to the current CPI so as not to hurt a seriously disadvantaged population.

Congress can decide the benefit formula for these programs as it chooses. The honest way to cut benefits is for Congress to explicitly vote to cut benefits, not to try to hide a cut behind a statistical manipulation. This is the sort of behavior that encourages public contempt for politicians and the political process.

http://www.cepr.net/index.php/blogs/cepr-blog/thoughts-on-the-chained-cpi-social-security-and-the-budget

[1StrongBlackMan]

3. I wonder if ...

any of this will break through the noise?

Why is it so difficult for folks to understand:

The gop wants cuts to "entitlements." They say "No cuts, No deal" every hour of every day.

The current model of chained CPI give them those cuts. They can now say to their base, "We got some cuts to 'entitlements', but we had to raise the tax rates."

Knowing (or not knowing) that a simple legislative act can change the formula that removes the cuts ... what republican (other than ryan) would vote against a bill that would positively effect the elderly?

[ProSense]

4. They need to separate Social Security from these negotiations.

A separate discussion can focus on increasing the cap and a more progressive index.

[1StrongBlackMan]

5. I agree ...

but we are where we are.