If no cuts to Social Security, why must the president include "protections for the vulnerable?"
At the White House website on February 21 there was posted the president's final offer to Boehner on deficit reduction.
A Balanced Plan to Avert the Sequester and Reduce the Deficit
In the middle of all the cuts that are listed is this sentence:
Spending savings from Superlative CPI with protections for vulnerable
From what I have read Superlative CPI is either the president's version of Chained CPI or they are the very same. I have read both.
I have to wonder why the vulnerable need protecting? From what? If there are no cuts intended why is there a need for protection?
Jay Carney told us in December that President Obama included it in the negotiations to find common ground with the Republicans. I find myself resenting that very much.
From the White House transcript:
Why Chained CPI was included by Obama
MR. CARNEY: Well, let’s be clear about one thing: The President didn’t put it on the table. This is something that Republicans want. And it is --
Q But the Republicans --
MR. CARNEY: -- part of his -- if I could please answer Sam’s question, I’d appreciate it. And the President did include it in his counterproposal, his counteroffer, as part of this process, as part of the negotiation process. I would note that this is a technical change -- would be if instated -- to the way that economists calculate inflation, and it would affect every program that has -- that uses the CPI in its calculations. And so it’s not directed at one particular program; it would affect every program that uses CPI. There are also -- as part of the President’s proposals, he would make sure that the most vulnerable were exempted out from this change.
But let’s be clear, this is something that the Republicans have asked for, and as part of an effort to find common ground with the Republicans, the President has agreed to put this in his proposal -- agreed to have this as part of a broad deficit reduction package that includes asking the wealthiest to pay more so that we can achieve the kind of revenue targets that are necessary for a balanced approach to deficit reduction.
Thom Hartmann had sharp words for the use of this CPI.
The pure cruelty of the chained cpi
If Obama goes along with a “chained CPI,” he will be the first Democratic President in the history of the Party to have actually cut Social Security. Even though it doesn’t do a thing – nothing! – to reduce the budget deficit. And, as we saw with Bill Clinton “reforming” welfare, once the Republicans can corner a Democratic president into shooting a Democratic Santa Claus, the Republicans can finish the job through the death of a thousand paper cuts over the next decade and in the states, and everybody just remembers that it was a Democratic President who started it.
Bernie Sanders had equally strong words.
Chained CPI: An economic, moral disaster
The so-called “chained CPI” is Washington shorthand for one of the most-talked-about cuts favored by Republicans and some Democrats.
Unfortunately, few outside the Beltway understand its consequences. It is a devious and underhanded way to wage class warfare against working families.
Wall Street billionaires and other supporters claim that changing the consumer price index is a “minor tweak.” Tell that to the millions of senior citizens trying to survive on just $14,000 a year whose Social Security benefits would be cut overall by $112 billion during the next decade.
Average 65-year-olds would get $650 a year less in benefits when they turn 75 and see a $1,000 a year cut when they turn 85.
It really upsets me that Democrats are putting this on the table. It also upsets me to see so many excusing it for various reasons. They have pounded this austerity, fiscal cliff stuff into our heads until it is part of the language.
I add to that the frustration and anger I personally feel over the casual way people are accepting the privatization of public education, the way so many are in denial that it is happening.
Being the first Democratic president to cut Social Security, being a Democratic president who is finalizing the Bush family plans for education reform.....that is a legacy that needs to be rethought very soon.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Good one.
"Wow, that's the first time I've ever agreed with that fool." Then I read the second response & realized I'd misread it. 
"Collusion with Austerity Will Sink Obama"
http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2013/02/26-5
As the deadline of the so-called "budget sequestration" nears, progressives are warning President Obama that his obsession with giving credence to the "cut the deficit" antics of Republicans is a trap and that if Democrats don't jettison the failed "economics of austerity" immediately, they'll have no one to blame but themselves.
~more at link
The dem party has shifted so far to the right it's like the repub party of the 50s. I trust President Obama to do what's best for the banksters & the elite.
Thanks.
Who says so? President Obama is an elected official. He answers to the electorate. If he wanted to cut Social Security or even Medicare, then he should have said so. He was not elected to office to do so, or he wouldn't be President just like Romney.
He has two sides pulling at him. I think he needs to respect those that put him in office. Right now he has my trust. If the spending cuts we are talking about concerns Providers, then I do see a way to do it. As far as Social Security and the Chained CPI, what are we referring too? Is this what they call the Consumer Price Index? I need to understand this more. Does this have anything to do with inflation? I'm not an economist.
If the Democratic members in Congress do not agree, and their constituents do not agree, the President can do nothing. What I disagree with the OP with, is just focusing a panic button on Obama. Right now this Party is solidly behind the President and we need to stay that way. There is a time for everything.
What you are legally obligated to pay SS retirees was written in Law years ago. The Congress and President were not the only signatories to the Deal. When one Party wants to not live up to the written agreement, then I call that default.
Furthermore, especially if one side expected the other Party to live up to the Deal and paid wages into it. So if you really want to look at it in legal terms, that Party should be paid for lost time of wages ever since they paid into the system according to current market rates.
Also, the Party that don't want to pay up, bases their decision on future expectations. They spent money for other purposes, such as giving tax credits and waging Wars, they couldn't afford. Now it is time for the people that paid into the system to receive the benefits, the other Party wants to change the Rules of the agreement. I think Congress better ante up and raise revenues. I see no difference in Wall Street and Congress, or Mitt Romney and Bain's way of doing business. They are all trying to screw the American people. The people that profited need to pay taxes. Another way they can do it is stop hoarding money and create jobs. If they think GDP Growth will do it for them, then they better get busy.
And the correct one, to boot!
Maybe occasionally on MSNBC, like Ed, Rachel, or O'Donnell
I think I may wear the 17 as a badge of honor.
If this goes through I give up. I am very disgusted with both parties. 
"One of the reasons we got creamed in 2010 was the betrayal of Obamacare...and Obama had just finished fucking over everyone who voted for him with Obamacare...Is Romney gonna launch more drones at Americans? Is he gonna appoint more corporate insiders to critical government positions? Is he gonna pass MORE tax cuts for the wealthy? Obviously it would no doubt be worse, but on the other hand if it was Romney doing this BS there would actually be someone speaking out against it -- and how fucking twisted is that to have to say?"
The health care law had nothing to do with 2010. I suppose that a bunch of asshole Republicans winning and destroying the country even more is a great "I told you so," but it's bullshit. I mean, look at your argument: If Romney had won, "there would actually be someone speaking out against it."
What utter drivel. If Romney had won "it would no doubt be worse," but you'd be happier because people would be complaining? What exactly is stopping you from complaining? Ludicrous.
"Obama had just finished fucking over everyone who voted for him with Obamacare"
Pure idiocy.
The health care law was the biggest expansion of the safety net since the inception of Medicare. It is going to bury Republicans in 2014.
And then there were eight (Christie will expand the state's Medicaid program)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022431724
The biggest argument against the sequester is that cutting the deficit doesn't mean destroying social programs. In fact, smart cuts and spending is key to reducing the deficit and debt.
First, these are relevant:
CHART: Remember When Poor People Saw Their Incomes Grow Faster Than Rich People?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022417514
Capital Gains Tax Cuts ‘By Far’ The Biggest Contributor To Growth In Income Inequality, Study Finds
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022407211
President Obama actually did something to address the inequality, raising taxes on the top one percent (higher than the Clinton rate with the health care tax included) and increasing capital gains to its highest level since the mid 90s. The total effect is significant.
Perhaps the best prism through which to see the Democrats’ gains is inequality. In the 2008 campaign, Mr. Obama said that his top priority as president would be to “create bottom-up economic growth” and reduce inequality...In the 2009 stimulus, he insisted on making tax credits “fully refundable,” so that even people who did not make enough to pay much federal tax would benefit. The 2010 health care law overhaul was probably the biggest attack on inequality since it began rising in the 1970s, increasing taxes on businesses and the rich to pay for health insurance largely for the middle class.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/03/us/politics/for-obama-fiscal-deal-is-a-victory-that-also-holds-risks.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/04/opinion/kurgman-battles-of-the-budget.html
That also doesn't take the additional health care tax into account.
Krugman: Obama and Redistribution
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022224304
Obama's Deal From a poor Person's Perspective
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022111266
The deal was a coup because it extended benefits and aid to low-income and unemployed Americans with no spending cuts, and it neutered Republicans.
Not With A Bang But With A Whimper
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022215606
Still, remember that while Republicans are whining, the President has already cut $2.5 trillion over the next decade.
The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities has a graph:
The vertical axis measures the projected ratio of federal debt to GDP. The blue line at the top represents the projected path of that ratio as of early 2011 — that is, before recent agreements on spending cuts and tax increases. This projection showed a rising path for debt as far as the eye could see.
And just about all budget discussion in Washington and the news media is laid out as if that were still the case. But a lot has happened since then. The orange line shows the effects of those spending cuts and tax hikes: As long as the economy recovers, which is an assumption built into all these projections, the debt ratio will more or less stabilize soon.
CBPP goes on to advocate another $1.4 trillion in revenue and/or spending cuts, which would bring the debt ratio at the end of the decade back down to around its current level. But the larger message here is surely that for the next decade, the debt outlook actually doesn’t look all that bad.
<...>
So you heard it here first: while you weren’t looking, and the deficit scolds were doing their scolding, the deficit problem (such as it was) was being mostly solved. Can we now start talking about unemployment?
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/01/10/the-mostly-solved-deficit-problem/
For the record, last year, over President Obama's first four years, the deficit shrunk by about $300 billion. This year, the deficit is projected to be about $600 billion smaller than when the president took office. We are, in reality, currently seeing the fastest deficit reduction in several generations.
http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/_news/2013/02/22/17056939-a-well-kept-fiscal-secret
Then there are the health care savings.
By Jeff Spross
Medicare will spend $511 billion less between now and 2020 than was predicted two and a half years ago, according to the latest number crunching by the Center On Budget and Policy Priorities. More importantly, this drop occurred completely separate from any changes in government policy — rather, it resulted from an overall slowdown in the growth of health care costs.
The last time the Congress and the President actually altered Medicare policy in order to bring down the program’s spending was when they passed health reform in March of 2010. By comparing the Congressional Budget Office’s projections from August of that year with their projections from earlier this month, and by leaving out the the SGR cuts and the Medicare cuts in sequestration, the CBPP was able to isolate how much Medicare’s spending is anticipated to drop due purely to changes in the health care markets. And the drop is considerably larger than the proactive cuts in Medicare spending the Simpson-Bowles plan was calling for back in December of 2010:
According to the CBO itself, its projections for Medicare and Medicaid spending between now and 2022 dropped 3.5 percent since its previous projection in August of 2012.
- more -
http://thinkprogress.org/health/2013/02/21/1623151/medicare-spending-drops/
This helps:
Medicare Fraud: HHS announces record-breaking $4.2 Billion recovered in FY 2012
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022354924
The President's policies also prove that savings do not have to come at the expense of appropriate spending and benefits. The health care law not only expanded benefits for seniors, it's reversing the damage done by Bush, and it strengthened Medicare.
Medicare Improvements
The ACA contains several important improvements to the Medicare program, many of which are already helping seniors today.
1) Closing the donut hole
a. Medicare Part D covers the cost of medications up to a certain point. Between that point, and a catastrophic coverage threshold, the older adult must pay out of pocket for medication (this gap in coverage is often called the Part D “donut hole”). One in four beneficiaries fall in this gap, and end up paying an average of $3,610 out of pocket on drug expenses.
b. The ACA requires drug manufacturers to reduce prices for Medicare enrollees in the donut hole. Beginning in 2011, brand‐name drug manufacturers must provide a 50% discount on brand‐name and biologic drugs for Part D enrollees in the donut hole. By 2013, Medicare will begin to provide an additional discount on brand‐name and biologic drugs for enrollees in the donut hole. By 2020, Part D enrollees will be responsible for only 25% of donut hole drug costs.
c. This is a benefit seniors are getting now, and will continue to get as a result of this decision.
2) Improving senior’s access to preventive medical services
a. Prior to the ACA, Medicare beneficiaries were required to pay a deductible and 20% copay for many preventive health services.
b. The ACA eliminated cost‐sharing for many preventive services and introduced an annual wellness visit for beneficiaries.
c. The ACA also eliminated cost‐sharing for screening services, like mammograms, Pap smears, bone mass measurements, depression screening, diabetes screening, HIV screening and obesity screenings.
d. This is a benefit seniors are getting now, and will continue to get as a result of this decision.
- more -
http://www.ncpssm.org/Portals/0/pdf/aca-analysis.pdf
Medicare’s financial condition is measured in several ways, including the solvency of the Part A Trust Fund, the annual growth in spending, and growth in spending on a per capita basis. Average annual growth in total Medicare spending is projected to be 6.6% between 2010 and 2019, but 3.5% on a per capita basis (assuming no reduction in physician fees).
The Part A Trust Fund is projected to be depleted in 2024— eight years longer than in the absence of the health reform law—at which point Medicare would not have sufficient funds to pay full benefits, even though revenue flows into the Trust Fund each year. Part A Trust Fund solvency is affected by growth in the economy, which directly affects revenue from payroll tax contributions, and by demographic trends: an increasing number of beneficiaries, especially between 2010 and 2030 when the baby boom generation reaches Medicare eligibility age, and a declining ratio of workers per beneficiary making payroll contributions (Figure 4).
http://www.kff.org/medicare/upload/7305-06.pdf
The law gets better as it nears full implementation in 2014.
New Federal Rule Requires Insurers to Offer Mental Health Coverage
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022407451
Here’s one way Obamacare changed today
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251288922
Rules finalized for the good stuff in Obamacare
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022415967
Kathleen Sebelius: Holding Insurance Companies Accountable for High Premium Increases
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022417762
The health care law is still the biggest expansion of the safety net since Medicare
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022159929
