Social Security benefits may be on table in budget talks

[jtuck004]

By Kevin G. Hall and William Douglas
McClatchy Washington Bureau

Published: Thursday, Nov. 14, 2013 - 3:09 pm

WASHINGTON -- With congressional budget negotiations moving behind closed doors, one item apparently on the table is changing the way cost-of-living adjustments are calculated for seniors, veterans and other recipients of government benefits.
...

In April, Obama’s proposal was viewed as an olive branch to Republicans that was largely rejected. With budget bills passed by the House of Representatives and the Senate now in a conference committee to narrow differences and a mid-January deadline approaching, the issue is back on the table.

That’s why groups representing seniors and veterans were out in front of the White House Thursday afternoon, demanding that the president and Congress back off of the changes. “It’s a benefit cut, a significant benefit cut, $340 billion out of the pockets of current and near retirees, veterans and the disabled over the next 10 years alone,” Joyce Rogers, senior vice president of the powerful AARP lobby for seniors, told the gathered elderly protesters.

...
“We’re here because the elephant in the room is a donkey,” Richtman said in a play on words with political party symbols. “The chained CPI is in the president’s budget.”
...

More: http://www.sacbee.com/2013/11/14/5912608/social-security-benefits-may-be.html#storylink=cpy

Beginning to think if you are a veteran, or over 50, your interests aren't being served by either party. Something to consider in the next elections...

[djean111]

1. “The chained CPI is in the president’s budget.”

Don't they know the prez is just kidding?

[MineralMan]

3. Are you on Social Security?

I am.

[djean111]

6. Yes, I am on Social Security.

Every time someone on DU expresses a concern about chained CPI, they are told that Obama would never ever really do that.
Eleventy dimension chess or whatever.
I am almost hoping I stop getting emails about the effort to increase Social Security - because Obama would never sign anything like that, and even if 100% of America was in favor, the politicians just want to cut.

[newfie11]

11. You nailed it

I feel the same way. We are being screwed by the very person we voted for!

[RC]

2. The Social Security Cost-of-Living Adjustment (COLA) will be 1.5 percent.

You can't tell me that is anywhere near keeping up with inflation. Factor in all the years Social Security COLA either did not increase or fell behind inflation, this is a national scandal. It is not going to be corrected while we have two Right of Center political parties in charge of everything.

[jtuck004]

4. I agree. Maybe the veterans and seniors can get together

and change things up a bit. That's a lot of votes.

[cali]

5. Sherrod Brown is introducing legislation to strengthen Social Security

<snip>

That’s why I’m co-sponsoring the Strengthening Social Security Act of 2013. This legislation would do a number of things to improve Social Security and ensure its solvency.

First, it would change the Social Security benefit formula so that all beneficiaries will get an extra $60-70 a month. Too many seniors have to pick and choose which bills they can afford to pay each month. This extra money would help make sure they don’t have to choose between paying the heating bill or rent.

Second, it provides a cost-of-living adjustment or COLA that actually reflects the rising costs seniors face. The current formula used to calculate COLAs for Social Security recipients actually measures the costs of younger, employed individuals—and simply does not reflect a retiree’s true expenses, which can include high prescription drug bills.

Finally, this legislation would ask the wealthiest Americans to contribute to Social Security the same percentage that working- and middle-class Americans do. This will extend Social Security’s surplus an additional 16 years, from 2033 through 2049.

For millions of seniors, Social Security has meant food on the table and a roof over their head. And for our nation, Social Security has meant a lower poverty rate. Because of Social Security, more seniors are able to enjoy life and spend time with the families. That’s why I’m proud to support this legislation to strengthen and expand Social Security so that it can be there for generations to come.

http://clermontsun.com/2013/11/15/sherrod-brownstrengthening-social-security-for-generations-yet-to-come/

[rhett o rick]

7. What people dont realize is that the President's hands are tied.

He cant touch the defense budget, or the spy agencies' budgets, or the profits of Wall Street. It's just tough shit for our seniors, vets, children, and actually for everyone except Penny Pritzker and the 1%.

[jtuck004]

12. Tied, not leashed. He could stand at the podium and tell the American people that they

are supporting the Rich and Wealthy, major contributors to his party, at the expense of their infrastructure, their jobs, their futures, and that he needs them to get together and stand in the streets, pack the halls of both houses, and end business as we know it, while he concentrates on staffing the FBI with forensic accountants and special prosecutors to staff an investigation of the Wall Street Wizards, make them buy back the homes for the near 10 million families that have been thrown in to the street in the ongoing criminal conspiracy that the Fed is furthering with $85 billion every month, and not to stop until we no longer have 50 million people in poverty and we have a public option for health insurance that doesn't insure the profits of greedy health insurance cos...as opposed to standing in front of the bankers and forcing them to take hundreds of billions of dollars to make themselves wealthier and bigger by saying "My office is the only thing between you and the pitchforks"...

you know, like a community organizer might behave, one that gave a flying rat's ass about the working people, as opposed to, say, making excuses like an employee of Jamie Dimon might come up with.

His hands are completely free to pound that fucking podium, if he wanted to.

[rhett o rick]

15. Trust that I dont disagree that I would love him to "pound the fucking podium" and proclaim freedom

for the 99%. But I believe that if he did that, he would suffer consequences. He sold his soul to the devil.

[jtuck004]

16. Proclaiming freedom and telling them that if they demand it he won't continue

to turn his back on them are two very different things

But 100 million people are feeling the consequences today, have been for a few years, and probably will for the next decade or longer unless they die first.

And if he stood with them, instead of with his back to them protecting the bankers from the pitchforks, maybe the consequences wouldn't be as bad as some think.

[rhett o rick]

17. When Obama accepted Penny Pritzker's help to get elected he must have

known the price.

[madfloridian]

26. "His hands are completely free to pound that fucking podium, if he wanted to."

[Enthusiast]

18. Come on. We must eat our peas.

[WinkyDink]

8. Disgraceful. But the corporate masters must be appeased. The M-I C maw must be fed.

[hobbit709]

9. Who couldn't see that one coming?

[bvar22]

10. This Candidate for President promised NOT to cut Social Security,

...AND to Raise-the-Cap on FICA deductions.

Whatever happened to that guy?
He would have made a good President.


You will know them by their [font size=3]WORKS,[/font]
not by their promises or excuses.

[840high]

13. +1

[Bluenorthwest]

20. Hey, that's the guy who said he'd never sign a bill without a strong public option!

Also he said the individual mandate was an attempt to pick our pockets to profit the insurance companies. What happened to that guy, he had great ideas and he seemed so confident.

[woo me with science]

25. Hey, that's the guy who promised transparency

and is now trying to hide and fast-track the TPP.

[L0oniX]

14. So the Dem party is no longer the party for the poor, elderly, vets and children?

[JoePhilly]

19. This is it, here it comes .... any second!!!!

[Bluenorthwest]

21. "Any bill I sign must contain a strong public option".

So sure, people are just crazy when they think Obama's words are not always his bond.

[JoePhilly]

23. First, not getting you something that you want is very

different from taking away something that you already have.

Or does that difference escape you? I'm betting it does.

See ...

You did not have a PO, and you still don't. You had SS, and, well, you still have it.

But hey, let's freak out AGAIN because Obama is absolutely, definitely, positively going to cut Social Security this time.

Right?

[bvar22]

28. And THAT is why they will use the "Death of a Thousend Cuts" to kill Social Security.

Like the increased radiation from Fukushima, the first cuts will be below the lethal dose,
and the defenders will say that it is too small to get upset about and throw a Hissy Fit.

Once the precedent for cuts is established, they will continue,
and the original defenders will not be found anywhere.

In the last 5 years, we have seen NEW Precedents set by the Obama Administration:

*The once inviolate taboo of even talking about cutting Social Security, the fatal 3rd Rail, has been removed.
Social Security has now been reduced to just another chip on the table,
with the approving support of some DUers.

*Deceitfully connecting Social Security to the Deficit is now common.
That was NEVER done before,
as demonstrated by this video:

#t=26

*Since Social Security has a separate and distinct funding source and is in NO WAY related to The Deficit, before NOW it was NEVER in play during "Budget Negotiations".
NOW.. it IS on-the-table,
and WILL be on-the-table in all future "Budget Negotiations".


Any fool can see where this is headed.
Those whining
"but it hasn't happened YET so it will never happen" are not honest players in this crucial policy debate.

[JoePhilly]

29. So a cut that happened under Reagan proves that Obama is going to cut

Social Security this time?

There is a big difference between claiming that the President it going to cut Social Security, and fighting against a GOP that has been trying to do exactly that going back to Reagan.

If President Obama wanted to cut Social Security, he could have done so EASILY during the collapse.

All he had to say was that it was NECESSARY to help stop a 2nd great Depression. The American people would have given it away.

But that did not happen. And its not going to happen.

Not that the speculative outrage pointed in the wrong direction will end anytime soon.

[bemildred]

22. When the question is guns or butter, DC always chooses the guns. nt

[grahamhgreen]

24. So much for the 11 dimensional chess gambit.

[polichick]

27. One party that serves 1% - two faces. This is reality. Let's face it so we can change it.

[1StrongBlackMan]

30. But Wait …

Isn’t Bernie Sanders on the negotiation team? Doesn’t that give ANYONE pause to consider the end result?

I suspect if there is/will be a CCPI, the formula will exempt the vulnerable groups.

I would gladly accept a CCPI that exempts the everyone with incomes under $200,000/year (which would leave me subject to the formulation), in exchange for a boosting to recipient benefits, a lifting of the pay-roll cap, the closing of tax loop-holes and a proposal to treat carry-forward as ordinary earned income.

Wouldn’t you? Or is just the mention of “SS being on the table” enough to short-circuit the normal thinking process?