The Social Security third rail

[ProSense]

Does cutting Social Security spell doom for Democrats only or for both Democrats and Republicans?

[ProSense]

1. No comment? n/t

[MannyGoldstein]

2. That's the faux genius of Obama

By teaming with Republicans to slash Social Security, he figures that he can do the deed without the Democrats taking a hit - in theory, both Dems and Repubs will be blamed so it will cancel out.

The fallacy of this DLC-think triangulation is seen in the DLC's record in Congressional elections: of the seven elections cycles they've led, in six we emerged holding zero houses of Congress, and in one instance we actually held one house. Total catastrophe.

[ProSense]

3. OK, that made me laugh

That's the faux genius of Obama...

By teaming with Republicans to slash Social Security, he figures that he can do the deed without the Democrats taking a hit - in theory, both Dems and Repubs will be blamed so it will cancel out.

"faux genius"

:rofl:

[laughingliberal]

4. I don't know. I know it spells doom for a lot of people trying to survive.

The tweaking of CPI to lowball the COLA's will mean seniors' lives will get progressively worse as time goes on.

[ProSense]

6. True

so how could any politician back that and not fear a backlash?

[laughingliberal]

8. It would not seem to make sense but I have this administration do a few things that made no sense...

to me.

Maybe they think doing this will mean more campaign contributions from WS or that WS won't fight them so hard in 2012.

If I could read minds, I'm pretty sure I wouldn't have bought my first home in 2005.

[jpgray]

5. Speaking practically: it depends who is successfully blamed

When I think of how Obama's stimulus -cut people's taxes-, and how he received virtually no credit whatever for it, and some actually thought he raised their taxes, I'm not hopeful. If we can't get our message out there, cutting SS is a seriously dangerous proposition electorally.

(Ideologically, I think it's even worse)

[ProSense]

7. OK

"If we can't get our message out there, cutting SS is a seriously dangerous proposition electorally."

Wouldn't Republicans have to promise to fix it to capitalize on that perception that it's the Democrats' fault?

Wouldn't they then be under pressure to fix it?

[jpgray]

9. Here's where I think they would take it

They would say the idea came from "the Obama commission." They would propose an opposing lunatic plan for privatization as foil to the cuts, which will make the cuts seem sane in comparison. Since those ideas could never pass, they would dream up fantastic scenarios of windfalls for citizens, all missed because they weren't listened to, and blame Obama et al for not supporting them. They would then find the absolute smallest number that would pass the cuts and have them vote for it in the House, thereafter blaming the Senate Democratic majority and Obama for the rest.

Plausible? I'm just assuming an absolute reticence to govern combined with a pathological avoidance of all responsibility.

I don't think cuts to SS are a -good- way to govern by any means, but still.

[Ozymanithrax]

10. The current drive to cut Social Security proves that it is not the third rail of politcs...

National Defense is the true third rail.

It does not pay for itself and generate an excess as does Social Security.

Over half the budget is dedicated to National Defense, Current Wars, Future Wars (building new weapons), and past wars (taking care of Veterans) and though it comprises the single largest expenditure in the budget, it only managed a slight mention by the Deficit committee.

It is so dangerous to touch that third rail that only the most liberal (Kucinich and Sanders) or the most libertarian (Rand Jr. and Rand Sr.) will talk about it.

Cutting National Defense is like Voldemort.

[jpgray]

11. DoD is less so for voters, weirdly enough

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/11/poll-voters-would-rather-tax-the-wealthy-than-cut-social-security.php

Voters last week sent Washington a strong message about fixing the federal budget, according to exclusive numbers from a new poll obtained by TPM: Raise taxes on the wealthy and cut the military budget before you touch the nation's largest entitlement program, Social Security.

The survey of voters who cast ballots last Tuesday -- conducted by Democratic pollster PPP and commissioned by the Progressive Change Campaign Committee -- found that when respondents were given the choice between cutting the defense budget, raising taxes on the wealthy and cutting Social Security to reduce the deficit, just 12% said they'd like to see the entitlement program cut. Forty-three percent said they'd prefer to see taxes on the wealthy go up, and 22% said cutting the huge defense budget was the best way to go.

For the establishment types, though...

[Ozymanithrax]

12. Unfortunately, the voters aren't voting on the these bills...

and putting Republicans in charge of the house kind of undermined their demand, and the Republicans are deaf.

[phasma ex machina]

15. Actions speak louder than words. DC TALKS a lot but DOES very little. nt

[phasma ex machina]

13. +1 SS is the third rail because almost one hundred million voters (oldsters) support it.

It WILL be the last entitlement standing. Bank on it.

[Skink]

14. Are there any third rails in red states?

Seriously I don't think there are any subways in red states.

[Edweird]

16. The only republicans involved were the ones appointed by Obama. This is all on the Dems.

It's on the Dem president specifically since he created the commission with an executive order after he was shot down by congress.

[Sirveri]

17. Where are these SS cuts. I've looked at the fiscal commission and haven't seen them.

The only thing I've seen was extending the age to 68 in 2050 and 69 in 2075.

However I've also seen that they want to:
Uncap the Disability Insurance (DI) portion of FICA taxes (1.8%)
Gradually increase the taxable maximum to capture 90 percent of wages by 2050
Add new protections for the most vulnerable:
Add a new special minimum benefit to keep full-career minimum wage workers above the poverty threshold.
Wage-index the minimum benefit to make sure it is effective both now and in the future.
Provide a benefit boost to older retirees most at risk of outliving other retirement resources.