Democrats challenge Obama on Medicare and Social Security cuts

[alp227]

Source: Washington Post

While Democratic leaders are offering quiet support for Obama’s renewed campaign to strike a grand bargain with Republicans that would include cuts to Social Security and Medicare, a significant number of Democratic lawmakers are digging in their heels and vowing to protest any reduction in promised benefits.

That sentiment was on display Wednesday, as Senate Budget Committee Chairman Patty Murray (D-Wash.) announced a budget blueprint that proposes only minor trims to Medicare and Medicaid — the biggest drivers of government spending — and vows to make the cuts “without harming beneficiaries.”

Meanwhile, a growing number of Democrats have declared their opposition to a proposal that has emerged as Obama’s biggest selling point to Republicans: his offer to apply a less-generous measure of inflation to Social Security, resulting in slightly smaller annual cost-of-living increases.

“I don’t want to break the bad news to you, but the president is not the only elected official in the United States,” said Sen. Bernard Sanders (I-Vt.), a member of the Budget Committee, who pressed Murray to avoid any cuts to social programs in her spending plan. “Some of us believe very strongly that it would be absolutely wrong to cut Social Security benefits.”

Read more: http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/senate-democrats-budget-challenges-obama-on-medicare-social-security-cuts/2013/03/13/b17a39c2-8c12-11e2-b63f-f53fb9f2fcb4_singlePage.html

[msongs]

1. republican beliefs and policies SHOULD be challenged by democrats nt

[eridani]

2. Write your congresscirtters and demand that they get on board with this

Yes, even if they are Repukes.

[cstanleytech]

4. I agree with you, congress should support some of the proposed cuts in the article.

"Republicans oppose Obama’s biggest money-saver, a plan to reduce federal payments to drug companies by $140 billion over the next decade."
I mean come on, surely the drug companies have gouged the american taxpayer enough?

[Doctor_J]

5. Read it more slowly next time

The congressional Dems are contesting benefit cuts. That has nothing to do with your post.

[lark]

15. Chained CPI is a benefits cut

[Doctor_J]

16. exactly. THAT's what congressional Dems are opposed to. Unfortunately cstanleytech

tried to hijack the thread over to something else altogether.

[cstanleytech]

18. Yes, you caught onto my dastardly plan of quoting from within the article itself.

[AnnieK401]

3. I heard the POTUS and Boner address this and admit

that the differences between the two sides might be too great to come to a "grand bargain."

[JoePhilly]

7. Shush ... you'll ruin today's outrage.

[Skittles]

10. why don't you ever answer

WHY HE KEEPS BRINGING IT UP???

[Doctor_J]

12. Shhh. You'll ruin today's obfuscation

He's painting Boner into a corner...just like he did with the tax cut extensions.

[JoePhilly]

14. In the last 4 years, I've responded to that question over and over.

The claim that Obama has the plan to kill SS has been running around DU for that long. It started almost immediately after he took office in Jan 2009. It was imminent then, and its been imminent repeatedly during that time period. And yet, it has not happened.

Why?

Here's the deal. Social Security and Medicare EXIST. The GOP HATES them, and would end both if given the chance. This is known. It also means that these programs are always "on the table".

Now most of us know that the Democrats are not going to cut these benefits. Period. Its not happening.

The President, being President of all America, not just DU, says to the GOP ... "Ok, to try and find common ground, let's say I put chained CPI on the table ... what are you willing to trade for it?"

Now, for some here on DU, this clearly means that Obama PLANS to kill social security. Many of them are the same folks who were ABSOLUTELY sure he was never going to end the Iraq war or end DADT. Oh well.

Anyay, Obama is daring the GOP, particularly the Senate GOP, to declare their true intentions. The GOP House has been doing so, particularly with regard to Medicare, not as much with SS. And like their prior attempts to privatize SS, that will fail miserably.

By being willing to "consider" chained CPI (because that's all he's really done), he dares the GOP to declare their intent publicly ... and they won't do it. They can't. Chained CPI isn't even remotely CLOSE to what the GOP wants.

And let's say that the GOP says "OK, we'll take chained CPI and give you THIS." Obama can simply say, "No, that's not a good enough deal to take benefits from the most vulnerable."

Obama knows that the obstructionist GOP is a "do nothing" entity. This entire discussion dares them to try and "do something". Again, they can't, they are too divided, and honestly, too crazy.

And they're going to stay that way.

This exact scenario has now played out over and over and over in the past 4 years.

And each time, the same folks flip out in rage and predict that "This time, Obama is going to CAVE and gut SS!!!"

The threads are packed with lamentations of this event that is absolutely, positively, definitely, about to happen.

And then, nothing happens.

And the cycle repeats.

[Skittles]

19. not the fucking chess game bullshit

it is INSULTING

[Babel_17]

25. So the administration never makes the argument that SS should be cut?

Not just that they would consider cuts by way of the chained CPI?

The administration never argues the case that cutting SS is part of a shared sacrifice we must consider?

Because here's the thing, your average long time poster here understands outwitting ones opponent. And they also understand that if important Democrats keep echoing long standing Republican talking points then that tactic could take on a life of its own. Before long "everyone will know" SS is part of a bigger problem.

I think I understand the political gains to be made by the administration. I just hope the administration understands the cost. So many people's stomachs are in knots, just for starters.

[JoePhilly]

28. A few thoughts ...

The GOP has been selling, with the help of the media, that Social Security is the problem as long as I have been alive. Its constant. The knot in the stomach feeling should not be a new phenomenon. And its been there every minute since Reagan was President, if not earlier.

I recall, in the early 80s, being absolutely sure that Social Security would be GONE by the year 2000. Ironically, that caused me to become very focus on funding my own retirement, but that is a different story.

I won't be eligible for SS for about 17 years, and I've been tracking this fight for decades.

Since the 80s, the GOP has been trying to create sufficient financial deficit such that the American people would decide they had to give up SS to save America. Personally, I think that was Bush #2's goal. Unfunded wars, huge tax breaks, increase government waste and abuse, all to get the economy on the brink of collapse. Then get the American people to vote for a Romney type who would undercut these programs in a manner that would cause them to collapse.

It failed.

A recent article suggested that Obama is killing the GOP and the theory of trickle down. Part of that trickle down theory includes ending SS and Medicare. The job creators need that money to create jobs, blah blah blah. The American people did not fall for it.

Bernie Sanders gets lots of play here on DU, and for good reason. Last night he was on MSNBC and when asked if he'd support a "grand bargain" type deal, he said it would depend on the "specifics".

I doubt anyone on DU will be mentioning that statement by Bernie today because it doesn't fit the outrage narrative. Bernie is supposed to be unwilling to consider any changes to these programs, and a statement of "needing to see the specifics" suggests that he might be willing to accept cuts. He's not of course. But the statement was ambiguous enough to leave room. Bernie went on to bash the GOP's budget for trying to destroy Medicare and reduce the deficit on the back of the most vulnerable. And he praised Obama for trying to find common sense approaches. You won't hear mention of that either.

I point this out because if Obama, or an unnamed administration official says the same thing, on DU, its proof that Obama WANTS to cut these programs. Its his PLAN. His DESIRE. His GOAL.

If the words REFORM, IMPROVE, STRENGTHEN, are used by the administration, they clearly mean GUT / SLASH / KILL ... at least here on DU.

So what was Bernie doing? Why be ambiguous? The Dems need Obama to seem open to alternatives, so that they can directly bash the GOP's actual proposals, and the American people can see that for themselves.

Those who think we have to take those programs "off the table" are naive. The media will keep those programs on the table anyway. And the only groups talking would be the media, and the GOP if that's the case. And they will sell the idea that we MUST slash those programs, even end them, use vouchers, and more people will fall for it.

Better to put some specifics out in front of people. The GOP can't win on the specifics. They can't hide behind bullshit phrases like "Premium Support". They have to talk nuts and bolts. And they know they can't sell those. If they try to do it, its very likely to damage their party even more.

The predictions that Obama is about to actually cut these programs have been endless. Lots of sound and furry.

He's had plenty of chances to do it. But it has not happened. Its not happening.

But DU will burst into flames again and again until he leaves office.

[Babel_17]

31. A great response, thanks

Though while I didn't see Senator Sanders on that show I think it safe to say that is sort of sounds like he was asked "Care to make a liberal, knee-jerk, response to what amounts to a pack of rumors" and he then politely declined to provide rhetoric that could be fodder for some other segment on TV.

Unlike some who make unforced commentary showing a potential willingness for cutting benefits. House minority leader Pelosi comes to mind.

[sabrina 1]

20. What is today's outrage?

[Life Long Dem]

27. Right here

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014424532#post24

Same as the outrage 4 years ago.

[sabrina 1]

30. That is justifiable outrage. Unless you think that the Republican lie, now being

fed by Democrats, that SS is any way connected to the deficit, or that there should even be a suggestion, a hint of the Republican policy that SS benefits should be cut. The only reason, ironically, that Obama's repeated offers to do so has not yet happened is because Republicans want even more in tax cuts for the wealthy. Iow, he is offering them SS benefit cuts, they want him now to include more tax cuts and as soon as he does that, for the first time ever, a Democratic President will have attacked a program that is one of the best policies and fiscal programs ever in this country, not to mention that it is the first time a Dem President ever played these kind of cruel games with SS.

The correct answer to the Republicans insistence on even including SS in these talks, is a simple 'NO'.

As for it being just talk? SS has been cut under this president. For two years SS recipients did not receive a COLA and this year have only received half of what they should have received. Not to mention the fund itself was harmed with the SS tax holiday. These are not Democratic policies, these are Republican policies.

I don't know about you, but as a Democrat I am outraged and I know this is scaring seniors and the disabled, and yes, they have lost already. And it is a lie to tie these programs to the deficit. The Bush Tax Cuts, the corruption on Wall St and the illegal wars are some of the causes of the Deficit.

Why is SS a part of these discussions? Because Republicans insist on lying about it. But why are Democrats not publicly exposing those lies, and worse, why are they agreeing to cave to them?

[paleotn]

8. For all we know, the sticking point may be

on the revenue side, not cuts to the big 3. They might have a working agreement on benefit cuts, but Obama wants tax increases on incomes closer to $250K per year, but the Republicans will not budge on any increased taxes. That's my sneaking suspicion, for what it's worth. Our centrist president has never given me any indication that he views the big 3 as sacrosanct.

[Doctor_J]

6. At least the HW has got the media speaking their language

his offer to apply a less-generous measure of inflation to Social Security

Chained CPI? Too wonkish. Superlative CPI? Sounds like things are getting bigger, not smaller. I got it - "less generous measure of inflation". Sounds like they're still getting a handout - just a smaller one! Brilliant!

[John2]

9. Let me put change the Debate,

of the argument this way. Social Security and Health care are not the only drivers of spending in the Budget, but so is Defense. The Congress and the media tie Social Security and Health care together, to make it seem like those programs are the most serious spending problem.

The military spending is out of control because the Congress is trying to protect their Empire under the false pretenses of National Security. It is an Empire that benefits the top percent and not all Americans. There are better things to do with American taxpayers money than to support this Empire. We are still fighting the same Wars after World War II and the Cold War under this premises of National Security. It has gained us more enemies also sustaining the military industrial complex, Eisenhower warned about. This is the biggest driver of our spending and now it has even taken priorities over our most precious interests, which happens to be our citizens.

We are living in the past based on fear, Congress want let us forget. That fear is the return of the Japanese and German military aggression. We still have two significant armies occupying those countries. We have a significant army occupying South Korea because of unfinished business from the Cold War. Americans need to go back to the Genesis of the conflict in Korea because they forget history too often. The reason we are there is because of the same reasons we entered Vietnam. It was to prevent them from falling to communism. The War in Korea was a civil war. The war in China was a civil war. The communists won that war even though the U.S. interfered there also. They won that war in Vietnam also. The Chinese will not let the North Koreans down because they participated in the Chinese civil war on the side of the communists. The Vietnam War emboldened the North Koreans. They also hate the Japanese because they were the enemy of China and occupied North Korea. These participants have been fighting against foreign aggression for a long time and they see the U.S. in the same fashion. I'm a believer in letting the people decide their own fates, even if it meant winning a Civil War like we did. Even after all the fighting among themselves, they will decide what government they want without interference or outside influence. Russia is a very good example of that when the USSR dissolved and China is even making some changes. You are not going to influence Democracies by seperating families against each other. And the Government in South Korea did not sustain itself by freedom of the Press either. It also drowned out dissent. There are political prisoners in South Korea. I was stationed there. It had more to do with them than it had to do with Ronald Reagan.

[nyy1998]

11. This is good politically for Obama too

It gives him cover from the left, when he approaches the Republicans. Therefore this would hopefully force the Republicans off their anchoring position, realizing they cant get a deal.

[sabrina 1]

21. Well, frankly we are not worried about what might or might not be politically good

for Obama. His political career is over, he has zero to worry about from now on regarding his own retirement or his family's. We elected him, NOT to do things that are 'politically good' for him, we elected him to protect the American people, especially the elderly, the poor, the disabled, dependent children from the grotesque greed of the party he is trying to make like him. He was supposed to refuse to even consider taking money away from those who actually earned it.

Now he is betraying those who elected him. If we wanted lies about SS affecting the deficit in any way, if we wanted cuts to SS benefits, we would have elected Paul Ryan.

It is reprehensible that any Democrat would even consider TALKING about cutting SS benefits, from a fund he has zero right to touch since it belongs to the people who paid into it. He has no right to bargain with our money. SS is not part of the Federal Budget. And the worse part of all this is he KNOWS this. This is worse than someone who is simply ignorant of the facts.

How this could be politically good for a Democrat is beyond me btw. Clearly he waited until it could no longer affect him, which is even more reprehensible and lied to us when he stated he would not cut SS benefits.

[nyy1998]

23. You're missing the point here

He has to work with House Republicans to get a deal. Having the left pull him from one end will indicate to Republicans that if they really TRULY want a deal on the deficit, they need to come closer to the middle.

You're making the mistake of blending policy and politics, when they are two distinct(while yes, overlapping) fields.

[sabrina 1]

24. No, I'm not missing anything. I wish I could miss some of what is going on

with this WH and Republicans frankly, I would be a lot happier.

No other Democratic President has ever offered to cut SS benefits because Republicans are throwing a temper tantrum. Republicans have ALWAYS wanted to privatize SS and Democrats were the party that stopped them, and for some reason no other Dem President ever felt that they had to play politics with a fund that is not theirs to play with in the first place. The reason being that they would not get away with it, politically.

If politics is what you are worried, then I cannot think of worse politics for the Democratic Party than to mess with SS. You are iow, pushing BAD politics.

I will say this and every Democrat I know agrees. If this President hands Republicans something they have been trying to get for fifty years, I will not be a member of this party anymore. Nor will millions of other Democrats.

To be ready for this horrible possibility because this president has repeatedly played this game with the people's money in an effort to please the most insane bunch of lunatics ever, a huge coalition of Liberal groups have joined forces with major Unions and other Civil Liberties Organizations to take action to remove from power anyone who dares to betray the people like this.

In their first meeting they raised a huge amount of money, money that normally would go to the Dem Party. Any betrayal of the people re SS will ensure that the membership of this coalition will only grow and the Dem Party if they go along with these insane policies, will find itself in very big trouble. I call this very, very bad politics.

If politics is what this President is worried about, he better start worrying about DEMOCRATS. Unless you think that Democrats, 'have nowhere to go'. They have, they have been watching this for a long time now and have stated that while they supported him last November, they no longer trusted him with SS. That is a sad statement coming from so many good Democrats about a Democratic president.

[nyy1998]

29. Once again you're still missing the greater point

HE HAS TO MAKE A DEAL IN SOME SHAPE OR FORM.

But if you want to keep ranting about SS. Be my guest, because I sure love the opportunity to get lectured at

[sabrina 1]

32. He has NO right to introduce a fund that does NOT belong to the US Government

but to the American People into this debate, the people who own it have NOT given anyone permission to use it to bargain with.

This is like saying that if someone is pressuring me to 'make a deal' I can confiscate my neighbor's savings account because 'I have to make a deal'. Do you understand how outrageous a statement this is?

Democrats USED to understand it, SS is NOT THE GOVT's fund to bargain with. It had ZERO to do with the deficit and if someone is demanding a bargaining all they have to be told is that they are way, way, way out of line if they think they can use a fund that belongs to people who were not involved in the crimes that collapsed this economy.

Please STOP spreading this nonsense, NO ONE is buying it. It is a disgrace to see how when Bush tried this, (didn't he 'have to make bargains also) the very same people who went ballistic over him daring to try to touch that fund which he had no right to do, are now making excuses when this president goes even further.

Unbelievable. Once again, no president, no elected official has a right to touch, let alone use as a bargaining chip, a fund that does NOT belong to the US Government, it belongs to, was paid into by THE AMERICAN PEOPLE for a specific purpose and nowhere were they told that it was to use as a bargaining chip for out of control Republicans. What is so difficult to understand here?

[madfloridian]

34. ......

[forestpath]

13. So Bernie had to "press" Patty Murray to act like a real Democrat. Not very reassuring.

[DeSwiss]

22. Leave it to the Independent.....

...to sound like a Democrat.

K&R

[MotherPetrie]

26. I hope they don't waver. Obama sure doesn't have THEIR backs.

[lib2DaBone]

33. Simpson-Bowles

I'm afraid of what is coming.

I will do all I can...Obama may be the first Dem POTUS to gut the New Deal.

[sabrina 1]

35. Only if the Democrats in Congress allow him to do so.

A walkout of any vote on cutting SS in any way, no matter how cleverly worded, by all Democrats would get the attention of the American people who have no clue apparently of what is being done to them. They overwhelming reject cuts to SS when asked, crossing party lines.

This should not be hard for real Democrats. If their own party leadership won't listen to them, then they should go to the people. All of the people and let's see Republicans try to explain to their own constituents, which they never do, why they want to raid their retirement funds.