The Catfood Commission.

[johnaries]

Do you remember all the hand-wringing here and the accusations that Obama was purposely using the so-called “Catfood Commission” to privatize Social Security?

Do you also remember that some of us pointed out that Obama required 14 out of 18 votes for any official recommendation, and that the way the Commission was set-up there was NO WAY such a recommendation could get 14 votes, and that it was doubtful that ANY recommendation would pass?

And who was right? Well, the Commission did their final adjournment without the votes to pass any recommendations, just as some of us predicted.

What did come out of the Commission?

Well, both sides agreed that fundamental tax reform was necessary to “simplify the tax code and broaden the base for tax revenues (by eliminating many credits and deductions)”. Both sides agreed that Defense Spending must be cut. Both sides agreed that Social Security should be treated “separately” instead of showing up in government accounts as part of a "unified" federal budget - which also means critics of Social Security can't blame it as part of the nation's general budget problem. Both sides agreed that budgets shouldn't be balanced on the backs of America's least fortunate.

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2010/1202/Deficit-commission-Four-things-both-sides-may-agree-on/Fundamental-tax-reform

Also, the Commission did a lot of the legwork needed to investigate many different options that will prove invaluable both to the Administration and Congress. Further, it has many other groups to perform studies and release recommendations, which could also prove invaluable.

So, even though the Fiscal Commission was more or less rendered impotent because of the vote restrictions that Obama imposed on it, it has resulted in a plethora of new ideas and intensive studies as well as pointing out that there are many things both sides can agree on.

Can we stop the hand-wringing and baseless accusations, now?

Probably not: I fully expect this OP to be unrecced mercilessly and to drop like a stone.

[PBS Poll-435]

1. Obama wants to cut SS and privatize at the same time!

Meow Mix stock is UP!

[CaliforniaPeggy]

2. I really, truly, hope you're right...

And I did recommend your post, even though it didn't show.

Your points are well argued.

[johnaries]

3. thank you! nt

[Hannah Bell]

30. he's not right. watch what they do.

[Hoyt]

4. I agree and think some of the proposals -- public option -- weren't bad.

I give Obama credit. What Prez has even taken these issues seriously. Now, if the plan were passed as is -- I'd be ticked. But, it's a good point to start "dickering" over what really makes sense.

[johnaries]

67. People always ignore the recommendation for a Public Option.

Yes, that's right folks - the Co-Chairs actually called for reducing medical costs by using the same Public Option that we all have been clamoring for.

[thelordofhell]

5. The commission took congress out of the SS discussion

If there wasn't this commission, the republicans would have been proposing cuts to SS and Medicare from day 1 of the Obama Presidency. The commission took that weapon away from republicans. And now President Obama can cherry pick proposals like reducing military spending or raising the amount of SS to 250,000 instead of the 109,000 it is today, and the republicans can't bitch as much about it.

[johnaries]

11. EXACTLY!

THANK YOU!

[Historic NY]

17. Bingo, this was run as an excercise in futility.

[eridani]

21. LIke hell it did. They'll be after SS and Medicare in the next session

And Obama not criticizing the cuts is enabling them.

[Hannah Bell]

31. yep.

[thelordofhell]

40. What cuts? The commission approved nothing.

And the commission was a decidedly conservative one and STILL could not approve anything. This puts the ball in the President's court to pick out whatever he wants in the recommendations, and I guarantee it won't be to cut Social Security and Medicare.....it will be the recommendations that strengthen them.

[eridani]

59. Obama specifically said he would use the commission recommendations as legislative guidelines

Between him and the Repukes, we are totally fucked.

[johnaries]

65. Not quite. What he said is that he and his team would study them

to see if some of them should be considered in his budget recommendations. That is VERY different from "specifically" saying they would be "legislative guidelines".

[eridani]

79. Oh, OK. Let's all just STFU and let the Repukes set the agenda

Sorry, my bad.

[thelordofhell]

91. You must have missed my main point

The whole purpose of the commission was to take that option away from republicans. Before the commission, republicans were going to a full court press to privitize Social Security. Now, thanks to the commission, the steam came out of that balloon and we'll never see that again, unless another republican becomes president.

[Major Hogwash]

41. Touche.

They really wanted to privatize Social Security.
Senator Crapo was drooling over the prospect.

[quiet.american]

6. Excellent commentary.

All the misinformation put out there about this Commission, all the fearmongering, all the crap that went on and on and on -- it really made me GET that old saying -- "we have nothing to fear, but fear itself."

[Number23]

7. "Can we stop the hand-wringing and baseless accusations, now?"

You mean, here on DU? Home of the Baseless Accusation?? :rofl: :rofl:

I rec'd and it still stayed at +1!! :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: Oh, mercy. Try harder, johnaries. A fact-free whinge about how awful Obama is and how he's lost you is the only way to get recs around here now.

[johnaries]

10. Hey, what can I say? I'm stubborn!

I gotta keep trying to spread the facts! :D

Besides, I got tired of all the Wikileaks threads.

[NYCGirl]

86. LOL! And don't forget that hand-wringing is our major form

of exercise!

[pa28]

8. Yes I do remember and I paid quite a bit of attention to that discussion.

The commission, it's regressive approach to deficit reduction and it's report should all be dead today and we should all be celebrating it's demise.

Trouble is it's not dead.

As Simpson himself said this is going to come back during the "bloodbath" of the deficit ceiling crisis coming in the next couple of months. On top of that Barack Obama said he was open to including findings from the report in the next budget process and Steny Hoyer just came on the record as saying the approach of the committee was valid and it's precepts should be a guide for the "shared sacrifice" which now appears inevitable.

Please don't be fooled. We had two options for deficit control and consensus has settled on redistribution from the middle class. Furthermore, we now we have a ready made template for austerity which the house is likely to employ when government encounters a manufactured shutdown in the spring.

The fight on this particular issue is just beginning.

[laughingliberal]

9. And the President said he'll be looking to incorporate elements into his 2012 budget. Goody! nt

[johnaries]

66. He said he would STUDY them. And, actually, some of them are

quite progressive and very good. Only a few are really bad, and I'm certain those will be rejected outright.

http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:Z-kejR5KRUoJ:www.fiscalcommission.gov/sites/fiscalcommission.gov/files/documents/CoChair_Draft.pdf+fiscal+commission+report&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESiFIoRlFtFOnEbNrfDx4fYsyTezsnIYrFRbMdbrd3_WTAPrtjjm3gbVMTwB37wV8Yln9sdmAD2O2yaw8C0F_THlAd0Mv3y7KBH1RxPx8tgn9--ce4FSRNuKjBSdbfQDTeVT70U1&sig=AHIEtbQ7jyGWLpQFri54qhrJmWjG_V6KYw

[Radical Activist]

13. I hope some of the reccomendations are adopted, such as defense budget cuts

and making the tax code more progressive. As some of us said all along, it was an attempt to get a few Republicans to support progressive measures like those.

[eridani]

19. Progressive? CUTTING tax rates for higher incomes? n/t

[eridani]

23. What horseshit. It's an attempt to get more Democrats to support a reactionary agenda n/t

[Capn Sunshine]

53. Really. IN what way?

?

[eridani]

58. Raising retirement age is reactionary, period

Slashing Medicare is reactionary, period. Cutting corporate taxes and highest bracket taxes is reactionary, period.

[Capn Sunshine]

60. reactionary compared to what?

You have a term you use over and over , without explanation.

[eridani]

61. This shit HURTS ORDINARY PEOPLE!! Capeesh? n/t

[Hannah Bell]

32. tax cuts.

[johnaries]

69. But also the elimination of many deductions for the rich. As well as

increasing the cap on the SS tax, and increasing the gas tax. You really should read the Co-Chairs' report. It has some really good stuff in it along with the few bad parts.

[eridani]

80. I don't give a flying fuck if this poisonous crap is sweetened with a couple of reasonable proposals

That makes it poison ivy salad with a nice vinaigrette on it. I'm not eating it, period.

[Radical Activist]

12. "Obama is leading the assault on social security"

That was the claim. It was complete, utter bullshit. But none of the bullshitters will be held accountable by the netroots. They'll just go on to raise the next false alarm of anti-Obama outrage.

When are people going to stop believing every sensationalist anti-Obama blog headline they read?

[eridani]

24. It is the flat out truth. The Catfood Commission has recommended slashing both

--Social Security and Medicare.

[Radical Activist]

26. Slashing...No, they didn't. You've lost touch with reality.

Lost cause.

[eridani]

27. Raising retirement age + fucking with COLA = slashing

Regardless of what whores for the overprivileged say about it.

[Sirveri]

28. Except that they didn't advise that.

They actually advised that there be a physical hardship exemption starting at 62 for early retirement. In addition they wanted to Index the retirement age to life expectancy, which means it could theoretically decrease. They also recommended putting in place a minimum benefit level tied to the minimum wage so that seniors wouldn't get locked into drawing 100$/mo.

But you probably never even read the report, even though it's a 50 page power point presentation that requires maybe five minutes to read. The other part of the report is a 24 page text document that takes about 15 minutes to read.

That is the entire point of this thread, more baseless fear mongering.

[Hello_Kitty]

44. You know how that physical hardship exemption is going to work?

It's going to be as difficult to get as SSDI is now. You'll apply and be dicked around for several months to a few years before they finally (maybe) approve you. Furthermore, that kind of exemption alters the whole premise of SS. It's not supposed to be a means-tested welfare program.

[Sirveri]

49. It's only means tested to get an early exemption.

There is also no validity to your claim, since neither of knows the exact procedure required to gain access to these benefits.

"Second, we propose a hardship exemption for those who may not qualify for disability benefits, but are physically unable to work beyond the current EEA. A recent RAND analysis reported that 19 percent of early retirees claimed a work-limiting health condition that would have limited their ability to continue in the paid labor force. To protect this population, the Commission proposal sets aside adequate resources to fund a hardship exemption for up to 20 percent of retirees. This exemption would allow beneficiaries to continue to claim benefits at age 62 as the EEA and NRA increase, and hold them harmless from additional actuarial reduction resulting from increased NRA. The Commission is charging the Social Security Administration with designing a policy over the next ten years that best targets the population for whom an increased EEA poses a real hardship, and considering relevant factors such as the physical demands of labor and lifetime earnings in developing eligibility criteria."

Source: http://www.fiscalcommission.gov/sites/fiscalcommission.gov/files/documents/TheMomentofTruth12_1_2010.pdf
Page 51

[eridani]

56. Meaning that they are going to fuck people over

And what about the work-limiting condition that people fucking won't hire you because you are too old?

Fuck all the sociopathic excuses for raising the retirement age, period.

[cutlassmama]

14. K&R, thanks for your summary.

[JoseGaspar]

15. Interesting narrative if it were true... but it isn't.

Only three commission members voted against the proposal "from the left" (Becerra, Schakowsy, and Stern)... that is, because they opposed the proposed cuts to Social Security.

A fourth, right-wing Dem Max Baucus, also voted against and also mentioned Social Security but his primary objection was to cuts in farm subsidies. He was "open to compromise".

No "compromise" was needed though, because even with Baucus' opposition, the proposal would have passed by the needed 14 votes.

What torpedoed the proposal were "No" votes from 3 very right-wing House Republicans who would have been certain "Yes" votes except that the 2010 mid-terms put the Republicans in charge of the House. Paul Ryan and company decided they would take their chances on even deeper cuts later.

Meanwhile, five out of the six Obama appointees voted for the proposal.

Now, from this you can argue that Obama was SO brilliant that he foresaw the complete disaster of the 2010 mid-terms, Republican hubris resulting from it, and thus a miracle rejection of the proposal from the most unlikely source possible (with 9 more levels of chess to explain "Why?").

OR...

You could argue what a wonderful thing it is for progressives that the Obama team is so incompetent, because they can't even pull off an obvious sellout.

BUT...

The one thing you cannot do is to hitch your thumbs into your suspenders and, like Will Rogers, claim, "See boys... what did I tell ya? There was nothin' to worry about."

The Commission did exactly what it was supposed to do: it brought up Social Security in a way that hadn't seemed possible for a Democratic administration, and then demonstrated "bipartisan" support for cutting it.

[Radical Activist]

16. Nope. You're not making the case.

Even if the commission recommendations had passed, the proposal doesn't come anywhere near the fear-mongering, horrific predictions that were passed around the left blagosphere for months. It was not the assault on social security that it was portrayed to be. It was a minor adjustment to the system that would have benefited many low-income recipients.

A lot of gullible people in the blagosphere were fished in but it was bullshit.

[eridani]

20. Like hell it doesn't Raising the Social Security retirement age is actually horrific

Especially since the age for early retirement will be raised to 64. This amounts to killing off people dealing with age discrimination.

Tinkering with the benefits formula to furter benefit lower income people is fine, but it amounts to a nice balsamic vinaigrette on a poison ivy salad, so quit trying to force us to eat this crap.

[Radical Activist]

22. In 40 years.

You really think anything they pass today will mean shit 40 years from now? Come on.

[eridani]

25. Fucking with COLA would cut benefits starting ASAP

If what passes stays in effect, people entering the labor force now are even more fucked than currend SS recipients. Their lifetime earnings will be slashed, and then they won't even be able to retire when they face the inevitable age discrimination in their late 50s.

[Sirveri]

34. The only change to COLA is tying it to chained CPI. Which they're doing across the board.

RECOMMENDATION 5.7: ADOPT IMPROVED MEASURE OF CPI. Use the chained CPI, a more accurate measure of inflation, to calculate the Cost of Living Adjustment for Social Security beneficiaries.
Source: http://www.fiscalcommission.gov/sites/fiscalcommission.gov/files/documents/TheMomentofTruth12_1_2010.pdf
pg. 51 (52 with reader)

It's already attached to current CPI-W, so you're over exaggerating what would occur, it a minor shift at most.

[eridani]

46. It is not a "more accurate" measure of inflation. It is a stingier measurement of inflation

In other words, a benefits cut.

[Sirveri]

50. Proof? Like seriously, I'm looking for more data on chained CPI.

I'd love a detailed breakdown of how it compares to CPI-W, which is what's currently used.

[eridani]

55. Pedal that bullshit about how there hasn't been any inflation over the past two years

--and then ask seniors what's been happening to their health care costs.

[Sirveri]

72. When did I say there wasn't inflation?

[eridani]

76. If you're backing CPI, then you are indirectly saying there hasn't been inflation n/t

[Sirveri]

88. CPI is already used to calculate the existing rate, and it says there has been inflation.

Possibly excluding core, but CPI-W, CPI-U, and C-CPI-U all show inflationary effects.

[Sirveri]

33. Under the current law it will already reach 67 by 2027.

All it does is index the current law to changes in life expectancy, which means a decrease in life expectancy would cause retirement ages to drop. In addition they now start giving hardship benefits to workers in labor intensive jobs at age 62.

Should the current law that determines the retirement age be changed... Yes it probably should, but right now they're simply working with what they have.

[eridani]

47. IOW, people doing physical labor witll be treated like SSDI clients are treated now. FUCK THAT!!

Grovel for a couple of years proving that you did exactly the right mix of physical labor, and maybe they'll let you retire early. Or not.

Indexing the law to changes in life expectancy is a totally unjustified and VICIOUS attack on lower income people. Low income mean have dramatically lower increases than high income men, and life expectancy for low income women has DECREASED. So their benefits should be cut because the privileged live longer. FUCK you and your class snobbery.

[Sirveri]

52. There is no validity to your statement. The system hasn't been set up yet.

You have ZERO proof that it would be anything like SSDI, because the system hasn't been created yet. Oh, and you can get your funding, even without the exemption, at age 62, just with lessened benefits (that will be repaid once you qualify). That's already different from the current SSDI set up.

"First, the Commission proposes allowing beneficiaries to collect up to half of their benefits as early as age 62, with applicable actuarial reduction, and the other half at a later age (therefore incurring a smaller actuarial reduction). This increased flexibility should provide for a smoother transition for those interested in phased retirement, or for households where one member has retired and another continues to work"

[eridani]

62. Right. Let's wait for the Repukes to set the parameters.

Obama wants to compromise with them, after all.

[Sirveri]

74. You're clearly not actually talking to me, since you're responding to things I haven't said.

So I guess we're done here.

[johnaries]

63. Actually, the exact wording in the Co-Chairs' recommendation was

Direct SSA to design a way to provide for the early retirement needs of workers in physical labor jobs. Require SSA to have accomodation in place before longevity indexing begins and set aside funds to pay for new policy"

http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:Z-kejR5KRUoJ:www.fiscalcommission.gov/sites/fiscalcommission.gov/files/documents/CoChair_Draft.pdf+fiscal+commission+report&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESiFIoRlFtFOnEbNrfDx4fYsyTezsnIYrFRbMdbrd3_WTAPrtjjm3gbVMTwB37wV8Yln9sdmAD2O2yaw8C0F_THlAd0Mv3y7KBH1RxPx8tgn9--ce4FSRNuKjBSdbfQDTeVT70U1&sig=AHIEtbQ7jyGWLpQFri54qhrJmWjG_V6KYw

I have no idea where you got your information, but it's obviously false as you can see. It doesn't matter anyway, since it didn't get the needed votes.

[Sirveri]

73. You're using the older powerpoint document. I'm using the newer doc.

You can find it here:
http://www.fiscalcommission.gov/sites/fiscalcommission.gov/files/documents/TheMomentofTruth12_1_2010.pdf
Page 50-51.

This document is MUCH more detailed than what you have been using.

RECOMMENDATION 5.5: GIVE RETIREES MORE FLEXIBILITY IN CLAIMING BENEFITS AND CREATE A HARDSHIP EXEMPTION FOR THOSE WHO CANNOT WORK BEYOND 62. Allow Social Security beneficiaries to collect half of their benefits as early as age 62, and the other half at a later age. Also, direct the Social Security Administration to design a hardship exemption for those who cannot work past 62 but who do not qualify for disability benefits.
As workers approach retirement, they are faced with varying needs, and different retirement patterns make sense for different workers and their families. In recognition of these diverse experiences, the Commission’s proposal introduces significant new flexibilities and protections in addition to an indexed retirement age.
First, the Commission proposes allowing beneficiaries to collect up to half of their benefits as early as age 62, with applicable actuarial reduction, and the other half at a later age (therefore incurring a smaller actuarial reduction). This increased flexibility should provide for a smoother transition for those interested in phased retirement, or for households where one member has retired and another continues to work.
Second, we propose a hardship exemption for those who may not qualify for disability benefits, but are physically unable to work beyond the current EEA. A recent RAND analysis reported that 19 percent of early retirees claimed a work-limiting health condition that would have limited their ability to continue in the paid labor force. To protect this population, the Commission proposal sets aside adequate resources to fund a hardship exemption for up to 20 percent of retirees. This exemption would allow beneficiaries to continue to claim benefits at age 62 as the EEA and NRA increase, and hold them harmless from additional actuarial reduction resulting from increased NRA. The Commission is charging the Social Security Administration with designing a policy over the next ten years that best targets the population for whom an increased EEA poses a real hardship, and considering relevant factors such as the physical demands of labor and lifetime earnings in developing eligibility criteria.
At the same time, the Commission recommends eliminating a provision that allows retirees who claim benefits early to withdraw a benefit application and return benefits received – even years after claiming – without paying interest or inflation, before reapplying for benefits at a later age and with a smaller actuarial reduction. This loophole is in effect an interest-free loan for wealthier retirees able to take advantage of it.

[johnaries]

75. Ah, thank you for posting that. I'll start using that link instead.

It's amazing how different things look when you have the actual facts instead of fear-mongering spin, eh? :hi:

[eridani]

77. And what about people who sometimes have done physical labor and sometimes not?

You think that assholes whose main priority is cutting costs is going to be primarily concerned with helping these people.

[Hannah Bell]

29. +1000000

[johnaries]

43. Ah, but it DID exactly what we predicted. We predicted that

some Republicans would vote against it, as well as some Democrats no matter what the proposals were.

And I reject your paranoid assumptions of what it was "supposed" to do. Especially in light of the way it turned out.

[JoseGaspar]

45. Consider what you just wrote, for a moment....

You "knew" that somebody would vote against it. That "knowledge" was so certain that it was possible to stack the Commission with Democrats who would vote for and give cover to cutting Social Security. It was not a problem to take a "flyer" on one of the most important social issues of our age, because you could always count on John Boehner's appointees to save Social Security.

And this was done, why?

Whether you know it or not, you have come down decisively on the side of always electing nincompoops and incompetents to "advance our progressive agenda".

In comparison to your "theory", mine is strictly small-time. I merely stated what actually happened and made the "paranoid" assumption that it was what was intended.

[johnaries]

64. That is not at all what I said. You have completely misquoted and

misrepresented my post.

I said we "predicted" - not "knew". I never said anything about being possible to stack the Commission. In previous posts, I always argued AGAINST the false meme that the Commission was "stacked" and I provided links on previous statements and positions by various members to prove it.

The entire basis of your argument is false, therefore your conclusion is also false.

[nashville_brook]

51. scorching response. spot on.

[RandySF]

18. Now that the Commission is done

I would have thought that David Gergen would shut up. But no, he's still hyperventilating because Obama did not take a more active role. Well, David, perhaps he knew that some of the Cat-food Commission's were no better than kitty litter.

[Sirveri]

35. So many people couldn't be bothered to read the report.

They just released a new one.
http://www.fiscalcommission.gov/sites/fiscalcommission.gov/files/documents/TheMomentofTruth12_1_2010.pdf
Dec 1 2010. Haven't finished reading it yet unfortunately.

The original report was a 50 page power point presentation that took 5 minutes. Almost nobody read it, yet everyone had a BS opinion on it they culled from fear mongering.

[lamp_shade]

36. K&R because I'm in favor of many of the commission's recommendations. n/t

[Name removed]

57. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[lamp_shade]

70. Bookmarked.

[lamp_shade]

71. Thank you mods.

[Warren DeMontague]

37. This wouldn't be DU if people didn't freak out constantly about stuff that isn't going to happen.

I remember about 8 months where we were constantly 48 hours from an IMMINENT WAR WITH IRAN ZOMG ZOMG!!!!!

[eridani]

78. There is no question that Bush wanted one. And I guess Rachel Carson was just a silly ninny too

Whining about pesticides and bird egg shells. Why, when DDT was banned, many bird populations started to recover, so she just should have shut up.

[Warren DeMontague]

81. What the fuck does Rachel Carson have to do with anything?

Jesus. Talk about dragging something in from left field. It's exactly that sort of behavior that killed Giordano Bruno. Happy, now? :eyes:

[eridani]

82. The discussion is about people (supposedly needlessly) sounding alarms

Because Carson got in an early warning about threats to bird populations, many were saved. And because people are raising hell about the Catfood Commission proposals, we have more of a chance of heading them off at the pass.

[Warren DeMontague]

85. Rachel Carson doesn't have anything to do with it, although interestingly enough

there is real debate in the scientific community about bringing back DDT as a targeted weapon in the fight against the resurgence of malaria in some parts of the world. It's not black and white.

The Catfood Commission proposals never had a chance in hell. It's the tin foil hattery that I find tiresome. There is plenty enough to be irritated with the President about, without inventing convoluted schemes as to how he's conspiring to end Social Security.

[eridani]

87. With a Repuke congress, and Obama in a capitulating mood--

--I don't agree that the proposals have no chance.

I agree about DDT--there are now ways of chemically linking it to bed netting (preventing it from getting into the environment), and topical application to inside walls is very different from the broadcast spraying that they used to do before the ban.

[Warren DeMontague]

89. There's something in there for everyone to hate.

The GOP wants to cut taxes and eliminate any and all environmental, etc. regulation, but they don't give a shit about anything else. They saw what happened when Bush pushed for Privatizing Social Security, and that was when the markets had been doing well. I highly doubt very much is going to come of the commission, if anything at all.

Also, remember, now you can't pass any legislation, ever, under any circumstances---- without 60 senators. At least, you know, that's what I heard.

[eridani]

92. If we quit fighing on this, we are screwn n/t

[MineralMan]

38. Recommended. I was one of those pointing at that 14 vote

minimum and saying that this was just a commission, with no power to do anything. And so it turned out. They could only get 11 votes for the final report, so they adjourned and the commission is no more. We all wasted an enormous amount of time on this.

[johnaries]

42. Yep! It was Much Ado About Nothing.

Although I think some good will still come of it. For one thing, as another poster pointed out, it took the deficit discussion out of Congress and allowed them to concentrate on other issues (although the Repukes still blocked most of it). And some of the recommendations from the chairs were very good! Some of them really sucked, but I sincerely doubt those will be of any consequence.

[eridani]

48. The commission has just set the agenda for then next congressional session, and Obama thinks

--that's just great. The commission was just the opening move in an attempt to eliminate the middle class under the guise of deficit reduction. The nasty stuff is yet to come.

[johnaries]

68. Do you mean recommendations like a Public Option? Or reducing

Defense spending by $100B? Or raising the cap on SS taxes? Or increasing SS benefits to the needy? Or separating SS from the General Budget? or increasing the Gas Tax? Eliminating most of the tax deductions for the rich? Or many of the other things that we Progressives have been pushing for?

Yes, there are a few "bad" suggestions. But there are a lot of good things in the co-Chairs' report. You should try reading it. I've posted a link several times.

[eridani]

83. What in fucking hell do you mean "separating SS from the general budget?

It already is separate from the general budget, or somebody's screwing up badly reporting FICA separately from withholding on W-2 forms all these years?

Raising the Social Security age, partially prizatizing Medicare, and lowering tax rates on corporations and the rich amounts to a devastating attack on 98% of the population. I don't give a flying fuck what other useful proposals are in it--they amount to nothing more than a nice vinaigrette dressing on a poison ivy salad.

[stray cat]

39. Cat food isn't cheap!

[johnaries]

54. I also want to point out that many here, inspired by Jane Hamsher,

were convinced the recommendation would be "privatization" of SS. It wasn't even close. Gradually raising the retirement age to 69 in 2075 (with a hardship exemption at 62) and changing the way that the COLA is indexed is also far from "slashing". In fact, they actually recommended INCREASING benefits for many!

And another recommendation in the Co-Chair report; increase revenues by INCREASING THE CAP.

http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:Z-kejR5KRUoJ:www.fiscalcommission.gov/sites/fiscalcommission.gov/files/documents/CoChair_Draft.pdf+fiscal+commission+report&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESiFIoRlFtFOnEbNrfDx4fYsyTezsnIYrFRbMdbrd3_WTAPrtjjm3gbVMTwB37wV8Yln9sdmAD2O2yaw8C0F_THlAd0Mv3y7KBH1RxPx8tgn9--ce4FSRNuKjBSdbfQDTeVT70U1&sig=AHIEtbQ7jyGWLpQFri54qhrJmWjG_V6KYw

[eridani]

84. There are no increases that will not be cancelled out by raising the retirement age

Changing COLA will cut current SS benefits. Increasing the retirement age IS slashing benefits.

http://strengthensocialsecurity.org/sites/default/files/TenReasonsFiscalCommissionProposalShouldBeDOA_FINAL.pdf

Poll after poll has shown that Democrats, Republicans, and Independents reject the punitive cuts in America’s economic security that the co-chairs have proposed. Their proposal:

1. Deeply cuts the benefits of middle-class families.The proposal would cut retirement benefits by more than 35% for young people entering the workforce today. Today’s 20-year old workers who retire at age 65 would see their benefits cut by 17% if their wages average $43,000 over their working lives, by 30% if their wages average $69,000 over their working lives, and by 36% if their wages average $107,000 over their working lives, according to the Social Security Chief Actuary.1 The proposed cuts would apply to retirees, disabled workers and their families, children who have lost parents, and widows and widowers.

2. Closes Social Security’s long-range funding gap primarily by cutting already low benefits, rather than by raising taxes on those who can most afford to pay. Ninety-two percent of Social Security’s projected funding gap is closed by cutting promised benefits, according to the proposal. The benefit formula change eliminates 45% of the projected shortfall, raising the retirement age eliminates 21%, and reducing the COLA eliminates 26%.2 Social Security's benefits are already inadequate – just $13,000 a year on average3 – and should not be cut further. Instead, Social Security’s long-range funding gap could be closed, as most Americans want, by requiring those employees (and their employers) who make more than $107,000 a year to pay Social Security taxes on all their wages, as the rest of us do who earn less.4

3. Raises the retirement age to 69. This is a 13% benefit cut on top of the 13% cut already made when the retirement age was increased from 65 to 67, according to the Social Security Administration.5

4. Raises the early retirement age to 64. Most Americans claim Social Security benefits at age 62 even though the benefits are currently reduced by 25%, when they do so.6 Millions take early retirement because they work in physically demanding jobs, have health problems, or can no longer find work. Raising the early retirement age will shut them out of the system when they are most vulnerable, potentially forcing them to seek disability benefits or welfare.

5. Discriminates against lower-wage workers. Over the last quarter century, life expectancy of lower-income men increased by one year compared to five years for upper-income men. Lower-income women have experienced declines in longevity.7 Yet, the higher retirement age applies to rich and poor, healthy and sick, alike. In effect, the proposal says to lower wage workers that they must work longer because the rich are living longer!

6. Reduces the annual Cost of Living Adjustment (COLA) for Social Security beneficiaries. The “chained CPI” proposal would reduce benefits by 0.3% a year on average.8 This will result in a 3.7% cut in benefits after 10 years in retirement beginning at age 65 and a 6.5% cut after 20 years, according to the Social Security Chief Actuary.9 If anything, the COLA should be increased because it does not adequately take account of skyrocketing medical costs, which hit seniors and people with disabilities hardest.

7. Hurts current retirees, contrary to promises made by the Co-Chairs. The change in the COLA calculation would begin in 2011 and affect all beneficiaries, not just retirees.

[Sirveri]

90. point by point commentary.

First off, you gave us a dead link, or it doesn't work for me anyways.

1. Deeply cuts the benefits of middle-class families.The proposal would cut retirement benefits by more than 35% for young people entering the workforce today. Today’s 20-year old workers who retire at age 65 would see their benefits cut by 17% if their wages average $43,000 over their working lives, by 30% if their wages average $69,000 over their working lives, and by 36% if their wages average $107,000 over their working lives, according to the Social Security Chief Actuary.1 The proposed cuts would apply to retirees, disabled workers and their families, children who have lost parents, and widows and widowers.

You're talking about the proposed adjustments to the benefit bend points.
Figure 11: Social Security Bend Points
Bend Point Locations in 2010 dollars
$0 to $9,000 | Current 90% | Proposed 90% | In 2050 $0 to $15,000
$9,000 to $38,000 | Current 32% | Proposed 30% | In 2050 $15,000 to $63,000
$38,000 to $64,000 | Current 32% | Proposed 10% | In 2050 $63,000 to $102,000
$64,000 to $107,000 | Current 15% | Proposed 5% | In 2050 $102,000 to $173,000
>$107,000 | Current n/a | Proposed 5% | In 2050 $173,000 to tax max

So first off, today's 20 year old worker can't retire with full benefits at 65 today anyways, since retirement age will increase to 67 automatically in 2027 (when they turn 37). Second off, they already did the math, it's on page 56 of the new report. Based off the quintile system, bottom would see an increase of only 3.8% while 2nd would see an increase of 0.0%. All others lose. Top lose the most at -18.7%. I'll come back to this at the end of the piece.

2. Closes Social Security’s long-range funding gap primarily by cutting already low benefits, rather than by raising taxes on those who can most afford to pay. Ninety-two percent of Social Security’s projected funding gap is closed by cutting promised benefits, according to the proposal. The benefit formula change eliminates 45% of the projected shortfall, raising the retirement age eliminates 21%, and reducing the COLA eliminates 26%.2 Social Security's benefits are already inadequate – just $13,000 a year on average3 – and should not be cut further. Instead, Social Security’s long-range funding gap could be closed, as most Americans want, by requiring those employees (and their employers) who make more than $107,000 a year to pay Social Security taxes on all their wages, as the rest of us do who earn less.4

They do advise raising the cap, but not enough IMO.
"RECOMMENDATION 5.6: GRADUALLY INCREASE THE TAXABLE MAXIMUM TO COVER 90 PERCENT OF WAGES BY 2050.
As recently as the early 1980s, the Social Security payroll tax covered 90 percent of wages (in other words, 9 of every 10 dollars in wages were subject to the payroll tax). Since then, however, the taxable maximum wage cap (currently $106,800) has not grown as fast as wages above the cap; as a result, less than 86 percent of wages were subject to the payroll tax in 2009, and less than 83 percent will be subject to the tax by 2020. The Commission proposes to gradually increase the taxable maximum so that it covers 90 percent of wages by 2050. This recommendation would result in a taxable maximum of about $190,000 in 2020, versus approximately $168,000 in current law. The proposal will also de-link increases in the taxable maximum from increases in the Cost of Living Adjustment (COLA), allowing the taxable maximum to increase even in zero-COLA years."

3. Raises the retirement age to 69. This is a 13% benefit cut on top of the 13% cut already made when the retirement age was increased from 65 to 67, according to the Social Security Administration.5

They aren't technically raising the age, they're indexing it to life expectancy (based on a law passed during the Reagan admin). Fix the Reagan admin law, and then indexing is a better idea. That said, if life expectancy were to decrease, it would correlate to a decrease in retirement age. Because under the current law, if it was indexed to changes in life expectancy, the retirement age would go to 69 (in 2075). I personally am more in favor of a static line, since after a certain point it isn't really reasonable to ask the elderly to work further.

4. Raises the early retirement age to 64. Most Americans claim Social Security benefits at age 62 even though the benefits are currently reduced by 25%, when they do so.6 Millions take early retirement because they work in physically demanding jobs, have health problems, or can no longer find work. Raising the early retirement age will shut them out of the system when they are most vulnerable, potentially forcing them to seek disability benefits or welfare.

That's just plain wrong, they want to retain the 62 year mark early out.
"RECOMMENDATION 5.5: GIVE RETIREES MORE FLEXIBILITY IN CLAIMING BENEFITS AND CREATE A HARDSHIP EXEMPTION FOR THOSE WHO CANNOT WORK BEYOND 62. Allow Social Security beneficiaries to collect half of their benefits as early as age 62, and the other half at a later age. Also, direct the Social Security Administration to design a hardship exemption for those who cannot work past 62 but who do not qualify for disability benefits."

However it does increase the penalty from 25% to 50%, so that is a problem. Assuming that is the current penalty, I've seen enough incorrect info in this piece to be suspicious. Considering that the exemption is supposed to be designed for those who don't qualify for disability, one would assume they would make it easier to achieve than the current SSDI system. In addition, if there were delays in receiving the exemption, they could still claim and have an income source (unlike SSDI) and then receive the back pay for the missing benefits. For what it's worth, they also mention that SSDI should be reformed to make it easier to achieve benefits, but then go on to say that it's out of the scope of the commission.

5. Discriminates against lower-wage workers. Over the last quarter century, life expectancy of lower-income men increased by one year compared to five years for upper-income men. Lower-income women have experienced declines in longevity.7 Yet, the higher retirement age applies to rich and poor, healthy and sick, alike. In effect, the proposal says to lower wage workers that they must work longer because the rich are living longer!

Except that the poor will also gain a hardship exemption, to retire with full benefits at age 62. This age number is also no indexed to life expectancy. The question becomes how would SSA establish the hardship exemption, which they won't be answering since the bill died in committee. So there really isn't much point to talking about it.

6. Reduces the annual Cost of Living Adjustment (COLA) for Social Security beneficiaries. The “chained CPI” proposal would reduce benefits by 0.3% a year on average.8 This will result in a 3.7% cut in benefits after 10 years in retirement beginning at age 65 and a 6.5% cut after 20 years, according to the Social Security Chief Actuary.9 If anything, the COLA should be increased because it does not adequately take account of skyrocketing medical costs, which hit seniors and people with disabilities hardest.

C-CPI-U (Chained CPI), is a slight of hand to reduce inflationary rates. However CPI-U DOES count medical costs and energy costs. Year long CPI-U for Oct 2010 showed an increase in Energy costs of 5.9 and medical services of 3.6 (gasoline was 9.5 fuel oil 14.5). So yes, they're tracked, and Chained (C-CPI-U)is based off of Urban (CPI-U). What C-CPI-U does is some magical math which is supposed to work out so that if the price of bananas skyrockets while oranges stay flat, the price increase for bananas is weighted less because they assume more people will buy oranges instead. I'm not clear if this applies to energy prices or medical services, I need to do more research.
Source: http://www.bls.gov/cpi/cpid1010.pdf | pg. 3

However, this isn't a nefarious plot to kill the SS COLA, the reason they want C-CPI-U is because they want to apply it across the board in ALL systems that are currently indexed to Inflation.

7. Hurts current retirees, contrary to promises made by the Co-Chairs. The change in the COLA calculation would begin in 2011 and affect all beneficiaries, not just retirees.

Yeah except for this:
RECOMMENDATION 5.2: REDUCE POVERTY BY PROVIDING AN ENHANCED MINIMUM BENEFIT FOR LOW-WAGE WORKERS. Create a new special minimum benefit that provides full career workers with a benefit no less than 125 percent of the poverty line in 2017 and indexed to wages thereafter.
and this:
RECOMMENDATION 5.3: ENHANCE BENEFITS FOR THE VERY OLD AND THE LONG-TIME DISABLED. Add a new “20-year benefit bump up” to protect those Social Security recipients who have potentially outlived their personal retirement resources.

The one thing the detractors don't want to talk about, and possibly the MOST important part of the bill. The glass floor.

Back to the bend points, the bill died in committee, so you can put those bend points where ever you want to put them. I'd personally make the number 100|75|10|5, and then dump the cap. Who cares, we're just talking about something that is dead in the water, we can do whatever we want with it now. What we shouldn't do is panic over this, and toss the baby out with the bath water. There ARE good things in this proposal, lets actually discuss them when we talk about it. There is more at play here than in previous times as well, since the authors operated under the assumption that the two sides were sane and willing to compromise. 20-30 years ago that might have been true, but today it is not. Would the Republicans have been willing to accept this, back then, maybe, today, no because they act like spoiled little brats who demand everything be done their way or the highway. Governing involves drawing a consensus, something the Republicans are no longer capable of doing, and why this proposal was doomed to death the moment the committee was conceived. Lofty ideals are great, but if they don't get the votes they don't go anywhere.