House Democrats: No dice on Medicare, Social Security cuts

[spanone]

Washington (CNN) -- Congressional Democrats, frustrated that President Obama is including entitlement changes in debt negotiations, pushed back Friday, insisting they will not support any benefit cuts to Medicare or Social Security.

They also reminded the White House it should heed their concerns if it wants to get Democratic votes necessary to pass any agreement.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, who had a one-on-one meeting with the president Friday morning, told her caucus she reminded Obama that
Democrats oppose any reductions in benefits for these government programs that serve as safety nets for the elderly, poor and disabled.

"We are not going to reduce the size of the deficit or subsidize tax cuts for rich, on the backs of America's seniors," Pelosi said at a Capitol Hill news conference.


http://www.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/07/08/congress.entitlements/index.html?hpt=hp_c1

[DJ13]

1. I remember they were adamant that they wouldnt vote for HCR

unless it had a public option.

I feel like this whole thing is a script, one that has too many similarities to the way they handled HCR.

[Fearless]

3. Maybe they'll learn from 2010??? Please?

[chill_wind]

2. Kabuki. She won't concede that the chainsaw CPI plan that's being entertained

represents a cut.

[johnaries]

5. "chainsaw CPI"? LOL!

And how can regular increases be a "cut"? :shrug:

[kelly1mm]

6. By that logic a freeze in SS payments (no COLA increases at all) would not

be a cut either, correct? Or what about only 1/2 of the COLA increase, that would be a 'regular increase' and not a cut either, correct?

[chill_wind]

7. How about "The Fukishima approach to (sur)reality", then.

Tyler Durden.

"A few months ago we reported on Goldman's proposal to change the definition of GDP to make the US economy appear to be growing faster than it really is. So far, it has not caught on, as even the revised definition will soon confirm a contraction. But that proposal appears to have given Joe Biden some ideas, who now has taken the Fukushima approach to (sur)reality, whereby one merely changes the terms of data measurement when the data does not cooperate."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=103&topic_id=611991&mesg_id=612089


chainsaw CPI= Sarcasm. I can't take credit for the coined term, but here is who can:

(...)

Cutting Benefits

Democrats such as Representative Jan Schakowsky of Illinois say the alternative index, which she called the “chainsaw CPI,” would mean cuts in Social Security benefits. Over 10 years, using the alternative index would reduce projected Social Security spending by 1.2 percent, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

Schakowsky said the current inflation measure already understates the cost-of-living increases facing seniors because they spend more on medical care than the average American.

“Seniors get the double whammy -- higher health-care costs and deeper benefit cuts,” she said.

Even Democrats like Senator Ben Nelson of Nebraska, who’s often voted with Republicans, rejected the idea. “At some point we have to look at Social Security, but that’s not part of this process,” he said today.

Social Security Cuts Weighed by Lawmakers Under Change in Inflation Gauge
By Brian Faler and Heidi Przybyla -

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-07-07/social-security-cuts-weighed-by-lawmakers-under-change-in-inflation-gauge.html

When even Ben Nelson is afraid of this turd, it's a turd.

[PoliticAverse]

4. And if the bill is presented at the last minute with the choice "pass the bill or default"? n/t

[global1]

8. It Depends On What Else Is In The Bill......

If there are no tax increases for the wealthy and only cuts on social programs and the so-called entitlements - that would please the Repugs and technically they would have enough votes in the House to pass it by themselves. The Dems in this case wouldn't vote for it and they would have at least give them some out when they went back to there districts to face their constituents. They could say they didn't vote for it. Obama would take the big hit on this and would most likely not be re-elected because of the backlash by his supporters in 2008 the would now abandon him. It would still have to go to the Senate and Bernie Sanders indicated he would filibuster it.

If on the other hand tax increases to raise revenue were included in this bill - then many Repugs too would vote no and then both parties would have to share in the blame if we default. Maybe that's the definition of "Shared Sacrifice".

[xchrom]

9. Either God or the Devil will be in the details.

I will remember which it is in the voting booth.

[chill_wind]

10. Won't we all. n/t