Meet The 18 People Who Could Determine The Fate Of Social Security

[sabrina 1]

How many of these wealthy, politically connected people are going to stand up for Social Security?

The Commission needs 14 people to agree on their recommendations. I can find only three who may fight to protect Social Security.

Looking at the makeup of the Commission it should come as no surprise that they are planning on cutting SS benefits, pretending that doing so would help reduce the Deficit!

That is a lie! If anything cutting SS benefits could increase the deficit. Increasing SS benefits is far more likely to reduce the Deficit, leaving less funds in the SS Trust Fund for the Fed. Govt to borrow from.

Meet The 18 People Who Could Determine The Fate Of Social Security

Last week former Republican Senator Alan Simpson, who co-chairs the White House's fiscal commission, drew a storm of criticism for comparing Social Security to a "cow with 310 million tits." But Titgate isn't really about language. It's about both Simpson himself -- who has long viewed Social Security as a bloated program for spoiled old people -- and about the commission as a whole.

Comprised of nine tax-averse Republicans and nine Democrats, many of whom have expressed support for Social Security changes in the past, the commission will almost certainly be biased toward benefit cuts, and away from raising taxes, when it presents its report on December 1. Below, the cast of characters who will be making the calls.

Did Monica Lewinsky help save Social Security?

President Obama chose these two men as co-chairs of his Commission:

The Chairmen

Erskine Boyles:


In the 1990s, he left Wall Street and corporate America to work in the Clinton administration, where in 1996, he was appointed Chief of Staff and led budget negotiations between the administration and the conservative Congress. In that role, he entertained and, by numerous accounts, nearly agreed to a Social Security compromise that would have invested money from the Social Security trust fund in the stock market.

Bowles is said to have made a deal with Newt Gingrich on Social Security, but when the Monica Lewinsky scandal broke out the deal never went anywhere. We owe her a debt of gratitude. However he's back and unless he's changed quite a bit, he's one of the Democrats I would not count on to protect the people's money.

Alan Simpson: The man who got progressive opposition to the fiscal commission rolling, Simpson will forevermore be known for comparing Social Security to a mutant bovine. Awkward as that was, though, it was just another piece of his decades-long career of calling for partial privatization of and benefit cuts to Social Security.

Not much to say about this choice that could give anyone comfort, except that without him, we would not know what they were planning. I am grateful for his big mouth and don't think firing him would do much good. Not to mention we would lose our source of information as he is incapable of hiding his disdain for us 'lesser people' and the 'greedy old geezers' who he doesn't think have any right to their Retirement benefits.

The President's Picks

Alice Rivlin

Rivlin is an economist with a long history in government and a propensity to call herself a budget hawk. She was the first director of the Congressional Budget Office, served as President Clinton's budget director, and later as a governor of the Fed. She has publicly argued that Social Security benefits should be cut and means tested.



Andy Stern

Until very recently, Stern served as president of the Service Employees International Union. His appointment to the fiscal commission drew the ire of the business community, and initially heartened progressives. But he has argued, à la Bowles and others on the commission, that part of the Social Security trust fund be invested in the stock market. This idea is distinct from the much more controversial plan to let people divert their payroll taxes into private investment accounts, but it's not without risk-averse critics.



David Cote

Cote is a Republican and the CEO of defense contractor Honeywell. He helped sell the stimulus bill to the business community at the beginning of last year (perhaps explaining his appointment to the commission). But though his views on entitlements specifically aren't known, he has, according to commission sources, advocated cutting service member benefits to avoid other defense budget cuts that would harm contractors...like Honeywell.



Ann Fudge

Fudge has spent most of her career as a business leader. She led a major division of Kraft Foods, and retired as the chairman and CEO of advertising giant Young & Rubicam in 2006. Fudge was born in Washington, DC, but has no professional experience in government. She was an Obama fundraiser and is a member of the board of the Council of Foreign Relations.

The Republicans

Paul Ryan

Ryan almost needs no introduction. The House Republicans' top budget guy is one of its most outspoken advocates of fiscal austerity. He's the author of legislation that would dramatically overhaul and shrink the country's budget, largely by privatizing Social Security and turning Medicare into a voucher program.



Jeb Hensarling

Hensarling comes straight from the Ryan school of fiscal austerity. He's even the second most senior Republican on the House Budget Committee, just behind Ryan. Hensarling is also a top conservative on the Hill, and led GOP efforts to oppose the bailouts during the financial crisis in 2008. As recently as February, Hensarling was publicly advocating partial privatization of and cuts to Social Security and Medicare.



Dave Camp

Don't expect Camp to advocate any real tax increases. You don't become the top House Republican on the Ways and Means Committee (with jurisdiction over tax policy) by entertaining the idea that the government should collect more revenue. In the past, Camp advocated for President Bush's Social Security privatization scheme, and claims on his website that he's opposed to cutting benefits for "current retirees."



Judd Gregg

After 17 years in the Senate, Gregg will retire later this year. Along the way, the New Hampshire Republican, and ranking member on the Budget Committee, has developed a reputation as a moderate. He briefly considered becoming President Obama's Commerce Secretary. But he's not that moderate. In 1998, he teamed up with conservative Democrat John Breaux to co-chair the National Commission on Retirement Policy. According to USA Today, their plan would have raised the retirement age to 70 by 2029, and included a Bush-like privatization component. Is that just a matter of fiscal austerity? No. Gregg wants to shrink the government by starving the beast. He recently argued that "hen you're spending money, you're spending money that is -- it's not the same thing because it's growing the government. So I tend to think that tax cuts should not have to be offset."



Tom Coburn

The junior senator from Oklahoma is one of the most conservative men on Capitol Hill. He recently came out in support of extending the Bush tax cuts on the rich, which, short of other tax increases or drastic spending cuts, will ensure deficits just about as far as the eye can see.

> snip

On Social Security, he says all options should be on the table... except the ones that preserve benefits and the current structure of the system. "There are only three things you can do with Social Security," Coburn said. "You can raise taxes on Social Security, you can allow option-out into private accounts or you can delay retirement age...



Mike Crapo

Crapo is a member of both the Senate Budget and the Finance committees. In 2006, he teamed up with Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) -- one of the most conservative members of the Senate -- on legislation that would have "

rovided a voluntary option for younger Americans to obtain legally binding ownership of a portion of their benefits," (also known as privatization) and "Made no changes to the benefits of those Americans born before January 1, 1950," suggesting that those born after 1950 will likely see their benefits reduced relative to older Americans.

Well we know what they will do with Social Security. But what about the Democrats?

The Democrats

John Spratt

Spratt is the top budget guy in the House and a self-described budget hawk. Spratt epitomizes the "all options on the table" ethos of the fiscal commission, and has for a long time. He has in the past advocated for supplementing Social Security with a private savings plan and capping. He has opposed hard entitlement caps, though in the 1990s advocated a plan that would have forced Congress to vote on a Presidential entitlement plan if entitlement spending passed a certain threshold.



Xavier Becerra

Becerra is the vice-chairman of the House Democratic conference. He serves on both the Budget and Ways and Means Committees, and is a liberal. He's one of the few people on the commission without a history of at least entertaining changes to Social Security.



Kent Conrad

Conrad is one of the only people in Washington -- let alone on the fiscal commission -- whose rhetoric about the country's looming fiscal crisis closely matches his voting record. He opposed the Bush tax cuts and the war in Iraq. During the fight over health care reform he was instrumental in ensuring that the legislation contain cost saving financing measures, though he largely opposed the public option. Recently, he has suggested a brief extension of the Bush tax cuts across the board, but argues that shortly after the economy recovers, the government will have to do a great deal to bring outlays and revenues into balance, including tax increases and spending cuts.



Max Baucus

In 2001, Baucus voted for the first round of Bush tax cuts. He even stood behind the president at the signing ceremony. He was also instrumental in the creation of the Medicare prescription drug benefit -- an unfunded entitlement. Now he's chairman of the Finance Committee, but before the Democrats recaptured the Senate, he entertained the idea of negotiating with the Bush White House on Social Security cuts. It took Minority Leader Harry Reid's intercession to put the kibosh on the whole scheme.



Dick Durbin

The Majority Whip is easily the most progressive senator on the fiscal commission, and one of its most progressive members overall. But he raised eyebrows in April when he admonished "bleeding heart liberals" to be open to the idea of scaling back entitlement programs in order to reduce future deficits. He's not the man you'd expect to turn to Social Security as the first-best way to cut federal spending. But for the commission to agree on a program, 14 of 18 members must agree, and Durbin's statement cast some doubt on whether he'd willingly be the fifth vote to stymie their recommendations strictly on progressive grounds.

So to those who say the Commission is not stacked with Republicans and Blue Dogs who are enemies of Social Security, that is the group that this White House has entrusted with the future of Social Security.

I see only three people who might stand up against the overwhelming number of enemies of the people's savings.

Dick Durbin, although I'm not even sure about him not compromising. He caved once before even though he was RIGHT, when the Right went ballistic over his excellent speech on the floor regarding torture. He owed no apologies for that speech, but under pressure, finally gave in and apologized. He's a good guy, but he's going to be under a lot of pressure.

Xavier Becerra So far he has not record of selling out on Social Security


Ann Fudge, only because I don't know what her position on Social Security is.

And the question remains. Why was this Commission set up in the first place, by a president who said many times in the Campaign that he opposed such Commissions? And why, (since we WON, DIDNT WE?) does this Commission look like it was set up by a Republican administration?

Firing Alan Simpson will not help. He will simply be replaced by another rightwing anti-SS Republican. The whole Commission should be disbanded. As James Galbraith said, they have made themselfes illegitimate, having focused on Social Security which should not even be a part of their discussions regarding the Federal Government's fiscal problems, except maybe as one of the Government's biggest creditors.

It is Congress job, NOT THIS COMMISSION'S, to find a way to pay its debts. Someone please explain how the American People who are owed money by the Federal Government came to be asked to pay the Government's debt to THEMSELVES? Does that make ANY sense whatseover?

[EFerrari]

1. Marking to read after work.

Thanks, sabrina. :hi:

[sabrina 1]

2. You're welcome ...

It's a holiday! Shouldn't you be at the beach? :-)

[Crazy Dave]

3. I think that they're eventually going to raise the full retirement age to 80...

As the government does not want to have mandatory contributions to their main slush fund to go away. You'll still be forced by law to pay into it but you will hopefully never live long enough to collect.

Just like current health insurance that you pay for only to have all your claims denied.

[sabrina 1]

10. Right now they want to raise it to 70.

So I would not be surprised if it did eventually go higher. Imagine how much money they would have in that fund if they just raised it to 70.

As it stands now, the fund has 2.5 trillion dollars in it, and that will double by 2023 without doing anything. If they cut benefits, and/or raise the retirement age, it would be even higher. And that is the goal, NOT to reduce the deficit as they are falsely claiming.

It makes no sense. Depriving those who paid into it of having enough money to live on to simply have it sitting in a fund where it will be used for more wars and Wall St. bailouts etc. makes no sense at all.

And the more I think about it, the more I am in favor of raising the benefits right now, which I believe would do more to help the economy and reduce the deficit, than leaving it in that fund where it is not doing anyone any good, unless you're a Military Contractor or Wall St. banker.

[Crazy Dave]

17. If the US lowered the full retirement age to 65, increased benefits & single-payer healthcare...

Unemployment would probably drop down to 8% or 7% and keep dropping. Millions upon millions are working longer than they want to because they can't afford to retire until they're 67 - 70 years old and/or afford to lose their health insurance therefore keeping the job market even tighter. Just think if about two million people could voluntarily quit their jobs tomorrow and all the hiring to replace them. I personally know two people who would love to retire but can't for both those reasons so there's at least two good paying jobs with benefits that nobody can be hired or promoted to for another four or five years, maybe longer. Multiply that by a few million.

[xchrom]

4. For the most part - these are people who agree

In a neo- liberal policy agenda.

And that's before sit down and talk.

[napi21]

5. What exactlydo they mean by means testing? nt

[boppers]

18. Means testing would deny Bill Gates and Warren Buffet benefits.

That's the general idea, anyways, that if you're already rich, the government shouldn't be cutting you checks. Where the idea becomes problematic is where and how that line is drawn, exactly. If somebody owns million is real estate, but has no income, are they "rich"? What if that millions in real estate was the family ranch?

[napi21]

38. That actually sounds lie something that MIGHT WORK.

If they make the limit similarto what they have on inheritance taxes, that would work just fine.

[Warren Stupidity]

59. Yeah right - that is what they will sell you in a bright shiny package

what we will get is a definition of eligibility that denies benefits to working people who paid in all their lives and saved for retirement. It will kill social security, and rightly so, as it will become a welfare program of no use to the middle class.

SS benefits are already 'means tested' through the tax code. If your income exceeds very low thresholds, your ss benefits are taxed. I think that is bullshit too, but it certainly is more than enough 'means testing'.

Lower the retirement age to 60 for full benefits. Lower the eligibility age for medicare to ZERO: medicare for everyone. Add more brackets to the income tax system and raise the income tax rates on the truly wealthy.

[bbgrunt]

85. Yes! Once SS becomes welfare through means testing, you can kiss it good-bye.

[boppers]

91. That's the reason it was created.

It wasn't a golden parachute, it was for those who *needed* supplemental help.

Things changed.

[bbgrunt]

95. the reason it was made universal and not subject

to "means testing" was to preclude the perception that it was a welfare program.

[boppers]

97. Does Bill Gates need your tax dollars?

Warren Buffet?
Donald Trump?
The Koch brothers?
The Wal-Mart family?

At least the poor aren't having to work minimum wage jobs into their 80's to pay for the rich...

Oh, wait.

[BrklynLiberal]

29. Here.

Definitions of Means-testing on the Web:

* The term means test refers to an investigative process undertaken to determine whether or not an individual or family is eligible to qualify for help from the government.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Means-testing

* means the use of an older person's income or resource to deny or limit the person's receipt of services.
www.okdhs.org/library/policy/oac340/105/10/0003000.htm

[Hawkowl]

6. Obama should dissolve the commission

Obama should very publicly dissolve this commission. Just send everybody home in the name of saving social security. Say the commission overstepped its bounds and throw it back to Congress.

This would ensure a Democratic victory in November. The Dems need one single, easy, winnable theme.

Saving Social Security is it.

[sabrina 1]

7. I agree with you completely! He could say he was disappointed

with their focus on SS when that is not the problem. And then thank for their time and make protecting SS from Republicans the main issue in November. They would win a huge majority if they did that.

[Hawkowl]

8. Obama would finally be playing chess!

If this happens, I'd finally believe that Obama was actually playing a good chess game!

[sabrina 1]

24. That would definitely be a great move. Checkmate

for Republicans. SS is THE most popular program across political lines in the country. No one can lose by fighting to keep it going as it was intended.

I'm laughing thinking about it. Set up a Commission, put a whole lot of Republicans and DLC types who hate SS on it. Let them expose themselves for what they are, THEN shut it down, expressing outrage over anyone attempting to destroy SS.

If only that is what it is. I too would begin to believe in the multi-level chess game stories.

[WorseBeforeBetter]

43. Self-delete (n/t)

[WorseBeforeBetter]

44. "Playing chess" with Americans' Social Security would be unconscionable. (n/t)

[Scuba]

22. He should take SS off the table and tell them to look at the military...

...probably requires new membership to add expertise.

[glitch]

23. That would be beautiful. I might actually have to start believing some of the 'chessmaster' hype.

But I doubt it would happen, because that would not look like a personal 'win'.
I'd be thrilled to be wrong.

[femrap]

80. He put Simpson

as co-chair. WASF.

[BrklynLiberal]

9. Disheartening, disappointing and sickening.

I can only come up with one question: "What the hell was President Obama thinking???"

The inferences to be made from these choices are not very comforting.

[sabrina 1]

25. The fact that this OP is being unrec'd answers your question,.

They CANNOT defend it, so they are trying to hide it as if that were possible.

It is disgusting, and every other adjective you used and more, that a democratic administration is responsible for this. I am furious to think that we thought we had fought off the anti-SS rightwingers during the Bush administration, and had protected it for at least another eight years when we elected Democrats.

I will not support any Democrat who does not speak out before the election on how they intend to vote on cuts to SS even if they are part of any package.

[BrklynLiberal]

27. +10000000000000000000000000000

[AnArmyVeteran]

32. It's sickening who Obama is surrounding himself with.

If Bush selected the people Obama is selecting we would all be outraged. What in the hell is wrong with Obama? Did he mean one thing he said during the campaign?

I'll bet anyone that the democrats CAVE IN to the republicans and make Bush's tax cuts for the rich permanent. Hoe many others are tired of being betrayed?

[sabrina 1]

36. Oh, I think that is going to happen. There are already rumblings

from them on extending them for a 'little while longer'.

And yes, it is sickening who has surrounded himself with. I know next time I support someone for the presidency I will want to know 'who will be in your cabinet'? This has become a very, very important question for me now, one I never though of asking last time.

[AnArmyVeteran]

64. Good point Sabrina. Candidates should select their cabinets 2 months before elections.

That would say a lot about what they will or won't do as president. And it would also reveal what kind of person they are. I know I would not have worked my butt off for a year trying to get Obama elected if I knew he was going to select Wall Street insiders and other enemies of the people.

I understand it would complicate elections, but the people should know who the presidential candidates are going to select to be the ones advising and making the decisions that will effect all of us. I know not all cabinet appointees would be approved by congress in the end but at least a candidate's initial selections would tell a more complete story about who we are voting for.

Do you remember that 60 Minutes story of the guy who tried to expose what Wall Street was doing years before the economic meltdown? He tried to get the SEC to act to prosecute obvious criminal wrongdoings, but the SEC did nothing under Bush. If Obama was smart he should have named him to head the SEC or made him the secretary of the treasury. That guy was honest and tried to do what was right, but Obama ended up selecting the same criminals to oversee the economy that destroyed millions of peoples' lives. It's not hard to do the honest and right thing, but it seems to be for Obama.

He needs to purge most of his advisors and half of his cabinet. I know people in my circle of friends who could do a better job than what I've witnessed so far. What gets me the most is Obama could have been a hero by now if he simply did what he said he was going to do during the campaign. But instead of listening to the people he is only listening to a small circle of advisors and members of his cabinet who don't seem to give a damn about the American people.

I love your idea Sabrina...

[sabrina 1]

70. I don't remember who that guy was, AnArmyVeteran. But

I agree that someone who was honest and sincere should have been an obvious choice for a Democratic president.

I know what you mean about supporting any candidate who was going to make Gates his SOD eg, or keep Ben Bernanke on. And Geithner, Summers and the rest of the gang from Wall St. who were part of the problem to begin with.

And then to seek advice from people like Lindsey Graham and appoint Republicans to positions of power, like Judd Gregg, and all those Repukes who are on the Deficit Commission.

We threw out Republicans. What is he thinking by handing them power the people clearly didn't want them to have?

So yes, next time it is a question I will ask and I think everyone should. Because the people he is getting advice from on important issues like the economy and the wars are not people I would ever think of voting for.

I did once get a chance to ask Elizabeth Edwards a question about her husband when he was running (she was on a blog to talk to people about the election) I asked her who would be her husband's choice for VP. She answered the questioned, but basically said the choice had not been made yet but she could assure us that it would be someone who shared her husband's values so that if anything happened to him, nothing would change regarding the issues.

[TBF]

54. That is how the unrec function is used on this site -

anything that is at all critical of Obama is unrecc'ed. It's a horrible feature.

[sabrina 1]

55. Yes, I have noticed that n/t

[QC]

78. That's how it was designed to work.

Were you here when unrec was introduced? The purpose was to keep threads insufficiently adoring of the president from getting onto the greatest page.

[TBF]

86. No I had taken a break at that time -

so I came back to find that in place. It seems to unnecessarily divide people. It's like constant primary ... doesn't seem to build much good will between folks at all.

[AnArmyVeteran]

88. Not to mention people who automatically unrec people they don't agree with or like.

Recs are okay, but unrecs should be eliminated. At the least it should be a system where the totals for recs and unrecs were shown, but where unrecs were NOT subtracted from the rec total. Or give people ONE unrec per week so they can't spend all their time unrecing dozens of peoples' OPs mindlessly. I like DU, but the unrec feature is like the 'thumbs down' features in other forums which are used by right wingers to hide anyone or anything they want to censor. I believe it's a petty feature.

[jaxx]

11. Just to set the record straight.

<snip>

(a) six members appointed by the President, not more than four of whom shall be from the same political party;
(b) three members selected by the Majority Leader of the Senate, all of whom shall be current Members of the Senate;
(c) three members selected by the Speaker of the House of Representatives, all of whom shall be current Members of the House of Representatives;
(d) three members selected by the Minority Leader of the Senate, all of whom shall be current Members of the Senate; and
(e) three members selected by the Minority Leader of the House of Representatives, all of whom shall be current Members of the House of Representatives.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/executive-order-national-commission-fiscal-responsibility-and-reform


With thanks to extremeliberal, firedupdem and Cha...for making the facts known.

[sabrina 1]

14. See the OP under the 'President's Picks'

I listed his four appointees and above that his two choices for co-chairs totally six.

But thank you for the link. I would add it to the OP as it is good information to have, but I think it is too late to edit.

[jannyk]

12. Thanks Sabrina - printed it out to show neighbors. k&r nt

[FrenchieCat]

13. Actually, that OP is incorrect,

there are 535 folks that will be determining the fate of Social Security.

The folks you named are on a powerless commission that will make recommendation
that congress will then vote on.

Additionally, there are 300 million Americans, a certain percentage of whom are registered to vote,
and who can on November 2010 determine which of some of those 535 congressfolks get to go
back to washington and vote on anything that might be proposed by a commission
which wasn't actually formed to do anything about Social Security.

The fact that you have speculated to the point of making these folks responsible,
as opposed to who really will be responsible is strange, and should be judged
as scare tactic propaganda.

[sabrina 1]

15. No, the OP is not incorrect.

Unless you're saying that President appointed a Committee to make recommendations regarding the country's fiscal problems, spending quite a bit of money we cannot afford, just for show?

Explain why you believe they have no power?

They already have a promise that their recommendations will get an up-or-down vote from Congress AFTER THE ELECTION.

Why not BEFORE the election? This way all those registered voters you mentioned, could make a more informed choice and not have to wait two more years to kick out those who betray the American people?

Of course it has power. And those are just the Commissioners. The list doesn't include the 'advisers' like Grover Norquist and Pete Peterson eg. Why are these people being given a voice at all in a Democratic administration?

And why is this president seeking advice from Republicans like Lindsey Graham? Aren't there good Democrats he could go to for advice?

[Forkboy]

16. Why form a commision that is powerless, and one that no one has any intention of listening to?

You're essentially claiming that whatever ideas this commission puts forth will just be ignored, so no one should worry. If that's going to be the case, and you seem damn sure of this, why form it in the first place? Why ask for recommendations and ideas if you know you're just going to discard them anyways?

[sabrina 1]

20. That was my question. A powerless commission? Not what

history tells us. And Obama didn't think so either when he opposed these commissions in the campaign.

He called them 'stealth ways to get around the legislative process' and told McCain they were 'a stunt' to avoid allowing Congress to debate issues.

I see the unreccers are here! Lol. I find that ironic. I assume the unreccers are people who blindly support anything this administration does. So, why would they want to hide a list of the President's own Commission? Shouldn't they be defending it, be proud of it?

[EFerrari]

19. LOL. So Obama ordered up this commission for show?

[sabrina 1]

21. Another question for you. If the Commission is powerless

then why did Chris Van Hollen refuse to answer Cenk's simple question 'will you be voting to cut SS if the Commission recommends it'? Why did he say he would be voting on the WHOLE PACKAGE and would have to wait to see what was in the package? How come he didn't say 'if that package includes cuts to SS benefits, I will be voting against it?

Sounds like they are pretty powerful to me.

[lib2DaBone]

33. Nancy Pelosi already inserted language that will allow a up or down vote ....

This vote will come during a lame duck session on a Friday evening after the news cycle has closed.. just before Thanksgiving when people are not paying attention.

The bill will be entitled "Saving our Children From the Deficit", as opposed to... "Gutting Social Security".

Any way you slice it.. it is fraud and deceit.

[sabrina 1]

35. There should be outrage over that. And I hope there will be.

No one does this unless they are trying to slip something past the American People. And the irony of it all is that Candidate Obama said that he opposed these Commissions for that very reason. Because 'they are a stealth way to get around the legislative process'. He promised that there would be no such deceptive commissions in his administration.

They are liars and deceivers and we cannot trust them with the people's business, yet here we have people asking us to do just that, once again!

[FrenchieCat]

39. Can you provide the link on that and provide the language.....

thank you.

[sabrina 1]

51. Can you provide a link showing any Democrat denying it?

It has been widely discussed and accepted with no denials from the WH or Congress.

Why, eg, if Democrats intend to defend SS from the attacks from the right, are the Commission's recommendations NOT being presented to Congress BEFORE the election?

And even more importantly, why has Congress decided to allow a Commission, which you say has no power, to delay discussion of this until after the election?

The Progressive Caucus is demanding now that this be brought to the floor before the election. Many groups are joining them in their fight to get this out in the public for a vote BEFORE the election.

Do you support that? Or are you unwilling to find out where Democrats stand on Social Security until it's too late?

Here's the deal. Either they openly vote on this before the election, or we the people will assume they intend to sell out the American people after the election. It is that simple.

[JanMichael]

41. Your reply is why i think DU should have the Yahoo Thumb up or Thumb down....

...on individual posts to show how much some are loved or some are hated.

[Turborama]

46. Think progress have that function too.

Although, you have to sign in to see it. I think it should be in place for OPs & replies. It's something I've been calling for for a while.

[sabrina 1]

66. Lol, that's a cute little guy and he's not happy!

[WinkyDink]

58. The Commission offers the SOP of Plausible Deniability. AKA: Folks, This Was Bi-Partisan!

[democracy1st]

26. K & R

[madamesilverspurs]

28. Baucus did more than any other Democrat

to kill the public option, and by doing so he ensured the continuing suffering of hundreds of thousands of Americans. His presence on this commission does not engender confidence.


-

[sabrina 1]

31. Check out Jaxx's post #11 which provides a link to how

these people were elected. It looks like Reid and Pelosi are responsible for choosing the sitting members of Congress and the Senate. So Harry Reid is responsible for putting this DLCer on the Commission.

Thanks a lot Harry, he couldn't choose someone who might actually stand up for the people this time?

The whole game appears to be rigged ... we have to find other ways of getting some control of our government, because elections don't seem to be doing it.

[slipslidingaway]

30. knr nt

[Bonhomme Richard]

34. I am fucked. n/t

[stevedeshazer]

37. Thanks for some actual information.

Well done.

[Cleita]

40. This makes me sick but it will be worse if we

lose Congress in November.

[WorseBeforeBetter]

42. "Banana Republicans: How the Right Wing is Turning America into...

a One-Party State"

http://www.bananarepublicans.org/

Obama and his advisors seem happy to lend a helping hand. I didn't vote him into office for him to seek recommendations from fuckers like Alan Simpson and Tom Coburn. He's looking less and less like a leader every day.

[sabrina 1]

50. None of us expected this. As William Greider from The Nation

said, 'whacking the old folks' as it appears they are about to do, will be Obama's version of 'Nixon goes to China'.

People HAVE to mobilize to stop this. The Progressive Caucus has stated that they 'will stand firm' against cuts to SS suggested by this Commission. They are hoping to force the issue before Congress before the election. However, we know what happened in the Health Care debate when the Progressive Caucus tried to push for the PO. So, they will need the help of the public.

This will be the line for many people as far as the Democratic Party goes. I hope they realize it because I really believe that if they sell out the people on SS, there will be a real change, not just talk, in whether or not this party survives.

[johnaries]

45. Amazing how the meme has changed from "privitization" to "cuts".

Originally it was "they want to privitize Social Security!" Well, that's been proven wrong. So the fear-mongers and Obama-bashers had to change their fear-mongering to so-called "cuts".

Of course, I can't defend the Republicans - we all know what they want. But most of the Dems and Dem-leaning folks you listed as "publicly arguing for cuts" did not - but argued for changing the ways benefits are increased as well as raising the SS tax cap. The most popular suggestion is tying to the benefit increase to the price index rather than the wage index. Some argue making this change only for those receiving the "top tier" of benefits (i.e., those who won't miss it) and letting the lower tiers remain tied to the wage index.

Yes, it's true that some have suggested rasing the retirement age, as well as raising the SS tax cap.

As far as the Trust Fund is concerned, it is in the form of Government Securities, backed by the Government. The cash has alread been spent.

As stated above, money flowing into the trust funds is invested in U. S. Government securities. Because the government spends this borrowed cash, some people see the current increase in the trust fund assets as an accumulation of securities that the government will be unable to make good on in the future. Without legislation to restore long-range solvency of the trust funds, redemption of long-term securities prior to maturity would be necessary.

Far from being "worthless IOUs," the investments held by the trust funds are backed by the full faith and credit of the U. S. Government. The government has always repaid Social Security, with interest. The special-issue securities are, therefore, just as safe as U.S. Savings Bonds or other financial instruments of the Federal government.

Many options are being considered to restore long-range trust fund solvency. These options are being considered now, over 25 years in advance of the year the funds are likely to be exhausted. It is thus likely that legislation will be enacted to restore long-term solvency, making it unlikely that the trust funds' securities will need to be redeemed on a large scale prior to maturity....

The assets of the larger trust fund (OASI), from which retirement benefits are paid, were nearly depleted in 1982. No beneficiary was shortchanged because the Congress enacted temporary emergency legislation that permitted borrowing from other Federal trust funds and then later enacted legislation to strengthen OASI Trust Fund financing. The borrowed amounts were repaid with interest within 4 years.

http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/ProgData/fundFAQ.html

As for those who think nothing needs to be done:

The last 5 Trustees Reports have indicated that Social Security's Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance (OASDI) Trust Funds would become exhausted between 2037 and 2041 under the intermediate set of economic and demographic assumptions provided in each report. If no legislative change in enacted, scheduled tax revenues will be sufficient to pay only about three fourths of the scheduled benefits after trust fund exhaustion. Many policymakers have developed proposals and options to address this long-range solvency problem.

http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/solvency/index.html

But, as was pointed out upthread, the FATE of SS lies not in the hands of this commission but in the hands of Congress.

[jeanpalmer]

47. Alice Rivlin in her own words

"Are Republicans willing to sign onto a tax increase, and are Democrats ready to sign onto a benefit cut? I think the answer is probably yes in both cases if the other is willing to do it," said Alice Rivlin, a Democrat and former White House budget director.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704476104575439792287255372.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_LEFTTopStories

[sabrina 1]

49. Wow, so that IS the deal they are going to make.

I did read some speculation that Obama was willing to cut benefits in return for Republicans agreeing to some tax increases.

This truly is an outrage. I thought WE WON the election. Why was this not brought up in Congress BEFORE the election?

What a winner it would have been for Democrats. Slam Republicans for trying to cut benefits, and for refusing to tax the most wealthy members of society. Make them reveal themselves by making it AN ELECTION YEAR ISSUE. Sorry for yelling, I just cannot believe how Democrats are allowing Republicans to do this behind closed doors and not have to face the public until after the election.

But mostly I am outraged that they are willing to bargain away the most financially vulnerable people's pittance just to get a few tax raises for those who can more than afford it. It's like saying 'why should we rich people have to sacrifice if the 'lesser people' aren't will to give something up.

Thanks for posting this. I was hoping it was not true, but clearly it is. We are being screwed again. We need to do something before it's too late.

[WinkyDink]

57. Any proposed-so-far tax increase STILL WILL NOT BE FAIR. SS should be TOP DOWN.

[sabrina 1]

48. The DO want to privatize Social Security. And since we do not

know what they talk about in their secret meetings, we only know what Alan Simpson has leaked. They only allow public access to what they are doing once a month. The rest of their meetings are off-limits to the press or the public.

However, thanks to Simpson's revelations, the public outcry was so intense from everywhere, the public and every reputable economist in the country, the President was forced to calm people down by stating that this Commission will not privatize SS. However, he did not say they would not cut benefits.

Iow, public outrage works. It may be that this time they will have to forego their dreams of privatization.

SO KEEP UP THE PRESSURE is the message from that small concession. And we will.

As to the rest of your post, I have read and posted OPs on the Trustees Reports.

That 2037 figure was from this year. Interesting how you jumped to the conclusion that that is bad news. IT IS NOT. It means that SS is working exactly as was intended. And that figure is the WORST CASE scenario. Projection based on a bad economy and high unemployment. Even with that, it means that without doing ANYTHING, SS can meet all of its obligations for more than 25 years. And next year if the economy improves, that figure will go up.

And again, without doing anything, that fund even after 2037, can still pay out 78% of its obligations. WITHOUT DOING ANYTHING. But even more likely, when unemployment goes down and the economy improves, the fund will go further as it will be taking in MORE MONEY.

Try to understand this. SS DID NOT CAUSE THE DEFICIT. We are CREDITORS, that money belongs to the AMerican people. Retirees, the disabled and dependent children ARE NOT RESPONSIBLE for the debt the Government owes. THEY OWE US!

And how ludicrous is it that they want the American Workers to pay off a debt TO THEMSELVES.

This is unacceptable. The Government will have to find a way to pay back what they borrowed, to bail out Wall St and for their Wars etc, to the American People's Trust Fund from which they borrowed it.

It is a shame that you are not understanding what cutting benefits means. What a rightwing idea it is. What it is going to do if they get away with it. It will simply add MORE money to the Trust Fund for THEM to borrow and help them put their debt forward.

The way for them to pay back what they owe SS, is well known to them. They have to let the Bush Tax Cuts expire, and raise taxes on the wealthy to begin with.

This is what it's all about. They know this is what they must do, but they don't want to do it. They want to make the most financially vulnerable people pay THEIR debts, and by believing their scare tactics, their false claims, you are helping them to do it. I think you should really study this issue a bit more because it's clear from your comment that don't really understand how outrageous it is for them to even be talking about cutting benefits.

They need to raise benefits, cutting them will only add to the debt and will do nothing to reduce the deficit. But raising them will help the economy, help reduce the deficit and stop them from running up more debt.

[defendandprotect]

52. K&R -- and back tomorrow to read . . .. thanks again for your continued

excellent efforts on this and all other subjects!!

[sabrina 1]

53. Thank you

I appreciate your efforts also ... :-)

[annabanana]

56. I'm always surprised when I'm reminded that Baucas is a Democrat.

I wonder why that is? :eyes:

[sabrina 1]

75. We can thank Harry Reid for Baucus' presence on this Commission.

He seems to be the Democrat of choice of the Overlords to deal with these 'trivial matters' from the left. Or 'Economic Hitman' might be a better title.

[seafan]

60. Votes for war come BEFORE an election. Votes to steal SS benefits come AFTER an election.

In a lame duck Congress. So they can escape paying the price at the polls. Don't ever think this wasn't planned from the outset.


'If Obama Opposes Ryan’s Social Security Plan, Why Did He Appoint Him to the Catfood Commission?'


Labor Day Irony: The People Who Want to Cut Social Security All Have Great Retirement Plans, September 5, 2010


Thanks for your continued work on this critical issue, sabrina 1.



What is Obama thinking? Frankly, I don't ask that question any longer. For quite a while now, the policies haven't matched the rhetoric.


Bottom line: The person in whom we put our trust, our money and effort, our enthusiasm and our hope for a different direction for America, continually scores for the other team.

And that is the team of warmongers, torturers, domestic spies, assassins, giggling war criminals, economy bandits, social structure thieves, environmental rapists and assorted cynical enemies of the common people.


It is past the point of no return for this administration.


Just as George W. Bush 'shock-and-awed' the goodwill of the world after the Twin Tower attacks, Barack Obama was given the unprecedented opportunity in 2009 to correct America's course after the devastation of the last 30 years.

He had the wheel in his hands. The people were behind him.

We the people gave him the mandate with our widespread support to implement wide-ranging policies that would improve the lives of everyone. Public-empowering policies that have heretofore been buried, vilified, dismantled and demagogued for decades, now, the people wanted to revive and implement for the common good.



That epic opportunity is now gone, falling victim to the same disease of greed, self-absorption and hatred that grips American politics by its throat.



The very wealthy win.


Once again, the people lose.

[sabrina 1]

68. Excellent post Seafan, thank you. It should be an OP

Yes, it is infuriating that they are trying to pull this off in such a sneaky way.

Everything to them is a political game, even when it involves the very lives of their own people.

I am happy, however, that Alan Simpson blew it for them when he started blabbering about Social Security.

That put Democrats on the spot and created a great deal of outrage which was very inconvenient for them.

Now, I have read, the Progressive Caucus has stated that they will not vote for anything that includes cuts to Social Security. But Chris Van Hollen would not make the same commitment when asked about it by Cenk.

I have not had time to post the information on the Progressive Caucus yet, but they have sent a letter to the leadership which they are asking other Democrats to sign confirming that they will 'stand firm' against any attempt to cut SS benefits. Several Dems have signed the letter, and I will check out later to see how many.

They want Dems to commit BEFORE the election to exactly where they stand on SS.

You are 100% right that when they were given the power, Dems could have changed the course this country is on. If they allow this to happen to SS I believe they will be finished for a long time as the party of the people.

But it isn't over yet and the pressure on them was evident when Obama made a speech stating that they would not privatize SS. However, he did not say they would not cut benefits. But that was something and shows that pressure works, contrary to what some people, even here, think. That we ought to just trust them and not talk about this until after the election.

Off to read your links, and thank you for your post ....

[ctwayne]

61. Remember We Have An Election in 2010

The Republicans like Paul Ryan are talking about privatizing Social Security. The Tea Bag Republicans like Sharon Angle are talking about abolishing Social Security. The Democrats- the party for Social Security- have a wonderful campaign issue for 2010.

Instead Obama, with his Simpson-Bowles Cat Food Commission, has the public worried about what the Democrats will do to Social Security after the election.

Imagine a young voter being told that his choice is between benefits at age 70 or no Social Security at all. He might reasonably prefer no program at all. Since the Democrats want to cut his benefits and keep raising the retirement age, he might well assume that he wouldn't get SS until he is 75. If that is the case, the Republican idea of no SS and no SS taxes doesn't sound so bad.

So from a strong campaign issue,(Let's keep and expand Social Security) Obama in his usual bi-partisan, Mr. Moderate fashion is shooting the Democratic party in both feet.

[still_one]

63. If the Democrats continue to pursue this reckless course the party will be destroyed

and they can forget about regaining control for a long time, until the party is throughly cleaned out, or a new party is formed.

I cannot believe after winning in 2008, that they are essentially destroying the foundation of the modern Democratic party

They have been slowly increasing the age, and that is a no go for me, because they are directly going after my daughter.

They will not get my support in 2012 if they do this to social security

[rhett o rick]

67. I think it has already happened. The left just hasnt figured it out that we are no longer part of

party. Still holding out hope that we can take back the party from the DLC and the "New" Democrats.

[russspeakeasy]

62. Great post.....Thanks.....

[Faygo Kid]

74. +1

[Faryn Balyncd]

65. Most important!

[rhett o rick]

69. IMO some (not enough to scare the frog) SS money will be diverted into the stock market.

Bingo, instant bubble and the economy is back on track. Keep your eyes on the stock market bubble, your pension has a chance, just dont look over there at the unemployed. They are such buzz kills.

[grahamhgreen]

71. The simple answers: raise the SS cap; repeal the reagan tax cuts to the wealthy; End wars.

[dajoki]

72. K&R

[suffragette]

73. It's so important to have info on the views held by

the people on this commission.

Good to see this posted again:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=9067465&mesg_id=9067465

Jan Schakowsky is also on the commission:

Jan Schakowsky

The Illinois Democrat has a close relationship with President Obama. But she's the only member of the Congressional Progressive Caucus on the commission, and a foe to those who propose entitlement cuts. In the 111th Congress, she led the CPC's health care task force, and in that role was one of the leaders for the unsuccessful fight for a public option. She continues to argue that so-called deficit hawks who favor major spending cuts could instead save billions of dollars by supporting a public health insurance option tied to Medicare reimbursement rates.


Even with adding her in and given that 14 of 18 members must agree, the commission still looks very tilted toward those with a history of wanting to see Social Security dismantled or reduced.

[sabrina 1]

79. I missed that, but would definitely have rec'd and kicked it

had I seen it, suffragette. If you post anything on SS PM me the link and I will rec it.

Thank you for posting the info also. A lot was being said about the Commission and I realized that who is actually on it was not generally known. So between both OPs hopefully a lot more people do know now :-)

I didn't include Jan Schakowsky in my list of those who might fight for SS because I did read that she might waver somewhat on some of the issues.

Mmm, I just noticed I do not seem to have her listed in the OP. That was a mistake, but can't fix it now.

I would add her as a 'maybe' along with Durbin because airc, both have shown signs of being willing to compromise.

[suffragette]

81. I agree with placing her in the maybe zone

I won't be posting as much the next couple of weeks due to work, but will send you a link if you do and please do the same for me since I'm likely to miss some good threads.

[sabrina 1]

83. I will and thank you. I will. It's easy to miss good posts

and information. If I add you to my buddy list, I have been told, though haven't tried it, that I will get notices of when you post an OP? Not sure if that's true as I haven't used the feature, maybe someone else knows?

I'll add you anyhow and I guess I'll find out :-)

[suffragette]

84. I haven't used it either

Good idea, though.
I'll add you and we'll both find out together
:)

[JDPriestly]

76. Another Obama double-cross.

He handpicked these anti-Social Security nuts. He purposely rigged this committee. Shame on him.

[Jim_Shorts]

77. It's really quite simple

Lets just lower the eligibility age to 50 and do away with the cap. This would accomplish 3 things - it would create a lot of jobs (due to people retiring) which we badly need, and it would tax the richest who really deserve it. Lastly we would be playing the same game as them -asking for the ridiculous in the hope to carve off just a little.

They use the word entitlement like its something they are just giving us -- WE PAID IN TO THAT FUND -- they can't just arbitrarily decide how much their are going to pay us back when ever they feel like it.

I SAY WE START A MOVEMENT TO LOWER THE AGE & RAISE THE CAP!!

[sabrina 1]

82. I could go along with that. But for right now,

we should be pushing for an increase in benefits and yes, do away with the cap. Let the Bush tax cuts expire and raise taxes on the wealthy. SS is separate from the Fed. Govt. funds so there's no need to worry about it once the Govt. gets their affairs in orders. Our affairs ARE in order but they consistently lie about that.

I like your ideas for a movement. Enough with the lies about SS. Make them start pulling up their bootstraps and pay their debts without relying on the American people.

Welcome to DU btw :hi:

[earth mom]

87. K & R & Bookmarked! nt

[DailyGrind51]

89. Just let them try, the seniors will show up to vote in record numbers,

making the Republicans as extinct as the Bull Moose Party!

[sabrina 1]

90. Well, they have already cut benefits, but in a sneaky way.

They have not given benefiaries a cost of living raise in two years. That alone should have caused Seniors to go berserk. What is odd about this is AARP. They were out front fighting Bush's attempts to privatize SS but I haven't heard much about them this time. Iow, are they informing their membership of what is going on?

A few older people I have spoken to had no idea about any of this.

[DailyGrind51]

92. Dems don't yell about it enough to stir things up.

[sabrina 1]

96. Well, there' s no time like the present to start ...

[Better Believe It]

93. A union busting CEO on Obama's Deficit Commission is willing to risk nuclear fallout in a town

A lot of attention has recently been focused on one of President Barack Obama's top advisers on the Federal Debt Commission -- Former Senator Alan Simpson, R-WY. Simpson has generated justifiable outrage for describing Social Security as "a milk cow with 310 million tits." But Simpson isn't the only unhinged fanatic on Obama's Debt Commission. One man, in particular, stands out as far more sinister, and he was hand-picked for the Commission post by Obama himself.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x9088674

[sabrina 1]

94. Thanks for the link.

Nice guy, David Cote ...

[democracy1st]

98. Kick thank for the info