Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Harry Reid's Debt Proposal Will Leave Entitlement Benefits Untouched

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » General Discussion Donate to DU
 
cal04 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-25-11 12:15 PM
Original message
Harry Reid's Debt Proposal Will Leave Entitlement Benefits Untouched
Sam Stein
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/25/harry-reid-debt-ceiling_n_908596.html

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's (D-Nev.) $2.7 trillion debt ceiling proposal will not include reforms to the benefit structure of entitlement programs, several Democratic sources confirmed on Monday.

The plan, which is being crafted as a last-minute attempt to break through the political impasse on a deficit reduction package, would instead lean heavily on cuts to discretionary spending. The package will also reportedly include roughly $1 trillion in savings that will come from the drawdown of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan (which the Congressional Budget Office does score). Reid's office was notably hesitant to confirm that detail, cautioning reporters to wait until the final package is unveiled. That said, if entitlement programs remain more or less untouched in the plan, there would be few other areas from which to draw ten-year savings.

Word that Reid is taking entitlements of the table will come as welcomed news to Democrats who are still smarting from the idea that the party has gone from demanding a "clean" debt ceiling bill to willingly backing $2.7 trillion in cuts without measures to increase revenue. The Obama administration had offered to support an increase in Medicare's eligibility age, the means-testing of certain Medicare programs, cuts to Medicaid benefits and a restructuring of the payments of Social Security benefits as part of a grand bargain with Republicans. GOP leadership ultimately rejected that proposal over complaints that the president was insistent that additional tax revenues be added to the mix to round out the plan.

A top Democratic aide confirmed on Monday that none of those specific entitlement reforms will be included in the party's most current debt-ceiling proposal. As for cuts to Medicaid or Medicare suppliers -- namely hospitals and pharmaceutical companies -- that remains less clear. According to House Majority Leader Eric Cantor's (R-Va.) office, both parties agreed to $334 to $353 billion in health savings during talks organized by Vice President Joseph Biden. Those talks, which never resulted in a formal agreement, do serve as one pillar of the $2.7 trillion proposal that Reid has put forward. But one Democratic source, who has been plugged into negotiations, says that Medicaid, at the very least, will not be touched under the Reid plan.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
DJ13 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-25-11 12:16 PM
Response to Original message
1. I hope thats accurate!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ruby the Liberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-25-11 12:21 PM
Response to Original message
2. This could explain why the R's reportedly rejected it this morning.
Still, not good enough. We have to raise revenue or we will be right back at this shit in 2-3 years.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Renew Deal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-25-11 12:28 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. The nice thing about it is that it allows the Dems to say they will refuse anything.
They even say no to a 100% solution for them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ruby the Liberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-25-11 12:30 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. I know, right? Let them hit the airwaves and say they rejected because it didn't
go far enough on Social Security and Medicade/Medicare

:rofl:

(And if they don't, we should...)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mmonk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-25-11 12:35 PM
Response to Original message
5. Why should the economy be put into a cuts box for future years?
It takes away spending from the tool box of government to conduct business properly if spending is called for.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ljm2002 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-25-11 12:42 PM
Response to Original message
6. I hate weasel words...
...such as: "will not include reforms to the benefit structure of entitlement programs"...

So what, exactly, is meant here by the term benefit structure? It seems to me that you could propose raising the age when you are eligible for benefits, and then turn around and say "but that's not a change to the benefit structure, dontcha know".

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mmonk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-25-11 12:46 PM
Response to Reply #6
7. Yes and that is a reduction no matter how framed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leveymg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-25-11 12:48 PM
Response to Original message
8. Here's the headline "Reid proposal calls for $2.4T in cuts to Discretionary Programs" Like it now?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Amonester Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-25-11 12:51 PM
Response to Reply #8
9. Which Programs are Discretionary?
Just asking.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leveymg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-25-11 12:53 PM
Response to Reply #9
10. Anything that isn't an "entitlement" (SS/Med/Title programs) or payment on the debt.
Edited on Mon Jul-25-11 12:54 PM by leveymg
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Amonester Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-25-11 12:57 PM
Response to Reply #10
11. Does that include "any" new "made-up" war for a few to profit?
i.e. like the "next" PNAC-planned "invasion" of Iran?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leveymg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-25-11 01:00 PM
Response to Reply #11
12. The wars were largely off-budget items. "Emergency" spending and "supplementals" - will be untouchd
Edited on Mon Jul-25-11 01:05 PM by leveymg
by Reid's plan. Isn't it nice to know we can still afford new optional wars?

Sorry. Another couple trillion for defense. Not a dime in new taxes for the rich.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed Apr 24th 2024, 05:49 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » General Discussion Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC