This will give credence to Alex Sink supporters who felt the Washington establishment is responsible for her horrible messaging on Obamacare.
A Democratic Party aide, speaking on the condition he not be identified by name, said Senate Democrats received a memo from pollster Geoff Garin in recent days alerting them of a poll taken in conjunction with this week's Florida special election.
The poll found that "keeping parts" of the Affordable Care Act that work and "fixing those that don't" drew higher numbers than "the Republican message of repeal," the aide said, adding that this is the message senators are urged to campaign on.
I doubt Sink would have defended Obamacare 1005 if the DCCC told her. This is the same Alex Sink who supports the Simpson-Bowles plan. Even though the Simpson-Bowles plan cuts Social Security. Under the plan, some low paid workers may not even qualify for Social Security. Cost of living adjustments would reduce under the plan. Alex Sink campaigns for protecting Social Security and backing a plan that cuts Social Security. This was Sink's idea of playing 3-D chess against David Jolly.
Democrats have a messaging problem with Social Security. That alone isn't the reason for Alex Sink's defeat. Others will surely disagree. I will note that this the same Alex Sink that ducked the media the last week of her campaign. Any candidate who can't face the media during crunch time has no business running for Congress.
Republican candidate David Jolly hysterically claimed in his debate with Alex Sink that he never lobbied for offshore drilling. Unfortunately for Jolly he filled out a lobbying disclosure form stating he was working on behave of Free Enterprise Nation to expand offshore drilling. Jolly also wrote a blog post on the Free Enterprise Nation website in support of H.R. 909. The bill would expand offshore drilling.
Rising Gas Prices to Force Congressional Debate. Anytime gas prices rise dramatically, Congress begins anew to examine our nation’s energy policy. FEN members who have read Jim MacDougald’s book UNSUSTAINABLE will remember his call for a long-term energy plan that creates private sector jobs through the building or expansion of new refineries, including expanded drilling for natural gas. FEN will stay closely involved as Congress begins to debate this issue in the coming weeks, including advocating for legislation recently introduced by Rep. Devin Nunes (CA), the Roadmap for America’s Energy Future (H.R. 909). As stated in a letter of endorsement from Mr. MacDougald, “The Roadmap for America’s Energy Future promotes an energy policy that is both market-based and is technology neutral. It provides a thoughtful national energy policy that promotes the economic interest of the private sector by reasonably expanding permits and licenses for companies to engage in energy exploration and production, and by encouraging private sector development of new energy sources in an economically sensible way.”
Jolly would have voters believe that he Free Enterprise Nation paid him to lobby for offshore drilling and Jolly decided not to because... well we don't know why exactly. I'm sure Jolly didn't return Free Enterprise Nation's money. I doubt that Free Enterprise Nation would pay Jolly to not lobby on their behave. The mere suggestion on Jolly's part is silly.
Jolly made his claim that Social Security is not guaranteed. The statement is a scare tactic used by conservatives. Under the 14th amendment, the federal government is required to pay all debt.
The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned.
The Supreme Court case Perry v. United States confirmed that the federal government "invalidate the obligations which the Government has theretofore." Translation: the government must pay its debts. The Supreme Court cited the 14th amendment to back their decision. Jolly is claiming that the federal government will willingly violate the Constitution. Jolly doesn't explain how the federal government would pull this off or the motivation behind the action. Jolly either wants Wall Street to get Social Security money in private IRAs or he believes in black helicopters. I'm guessing the latter.
Social Security is solvent until 2037. The program faces significant challenges with baby boomers retiring but is in much better shape than the rest of the budget. What isn't mentioned in the report is that Social Security is partly funded by Treasury bonds. The Treasury Department can sell more T bonds to fund Social Security. Is Jolly going to sat that the Treasury Department isn't going to pay investor who cash in the T bonds? Treasury bonds are considered the safest bonds in the world to buy.
Jolly neither honest or has a basic understanding of constitutional law or economics. That is what happens when you are a corporate hack.
Update: Jolly supports overturning Roe V. Wade.
Rep. Alan Grayson is running a petition for no cuts to Social Security, Medicare or Medicaid.
Petition: "We Are Against Any and Every Cut to Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid benefits. Not today, not tomorrow, and not ever. No way, no how. Not on your life, and certainly not on mine. N-E-V-E-R. Sincerely, The American People"
Grayson has been quite vocal about not cutting Social Security and Medicare.
House Speaker John Boehner's office has sent out this hysterical survey. We are to believe that House Republicans do not want to cut Medicare and Social Security.
Do you support House Republicans’ efforts to save critical programs like Social Security and Medicare from bankruptcy – and protect seniors from drastic benefit cuts?
As part of a broader budget deal, Boehner is still seeking more spending cuts than Obama has proposed, particularly in mandatory health care spending. Boehner has asked for a long-term increase in eligibility age for Medicare and for lower costs-of-living adjustments for Social Security.
Boehner and other Republicans are brazen in their lies. Social Security is not even in immediate trouble. Yet Boehner would rather make cuts to entitlements than actually address job creation.
Boehner continues to further the talking point that the Affordable Care Act will kill jobs.
10. As Republicans continue to press for ObamaCare’s repeal, do you support vigorous Congressional oversight to expose the impact of the law’s burdensome mandates and jobs-crushing tax hikes?
More people having access to health care will create a demand for more jobs in the health care industry. Amy Howell Hirt has a good article on health industry jobs that will see an increase in hiring because of the AFA. Republicans haven't been able to produce a nonpartisan study on how AFA will decrease jobs because none exists.
After the Bush years, Republicans are suddenly fiscal hawks.
5. Do you agree that spending cuts – not tax hikes – are key to solving our debt crisis?
The Congressional Budget Office released a report saying that deficit reduction has hurt the economic recovery.
“[E]conomic activity will expand slowly this year, with real GDP growing by just 1.4 percent,” according to CBO’s projections. “That slow growth reflects a combination of ongoing improvement in underlying economic factors and fiscal tightening that has already begun or is scheduled to occur-including the expiration of a 2 percentage-point cut in the Social Security payroll tax, an increase in tax rates on income above certain thresholds, and scheduled automatic reductions in federal spending. That subdued economic growth will limit businesses’ need to hire additional workers, thereby causing the unemployment rate to stay near 8 percent this year, CBO projects.”
Interest rates are near zero right now. The federal government can afford to borrow for stimulus funding. Without job growth the tax base and gdp will not grow. Without that the national debt will never be paid off. Boehner continues to preach trickle down Laffer curve nonsense.
Update: The Christian Science Monitor has a graph showing several health care jobs has the fastest growing industries. The Adam Smith rule about the free hand of the market doesn't really apply to health care. People get sick during good and bad economic times. People can't afford not to go without health care when they are seriously ill. Health care isn't the same has deciding whether or not you should shop at a cheaper grocery store. The demand for health care will always be there. The argument by Speaker Boehner and Gov. Rick Scott that the ACA will kill jobs is nonsense.
Republicans such as Paul Ryan have advocated over either cutting Society Security or raising the retirement age. In Washington, people like to portray themselves as courageous by cutting benefits from the country's most needy. Rep. Ted Deutch has the easiest solution that both parties from Congress run from. Eliminate the $113,700-a-year cap on Social Security payroll taxes.
A bill by Deutch has a sponsor in the Senate; thanks to Sen. Mark Begich. Deutch'sbill has unsurprisingly gotten no traction in the House.
The bills also would increase cost-of-living raises by basing them on the Department of Labor’s Consumer Price Index-Elderly, or CPI-E. The “elderly” index, they say, better reflects how seniors and the disabled spend their money on medical care, prescription drugs, housing and energy. Some of those costs go up faster than the official inflation rate.
Republicans are attempting to lower the cost-of-living raises. That would mean smaller Social Security payments seniors.
Begich took to the floor of the Senate to talk about lifting the cap.
“This bill isn’t just about providing our seniors the security they need and deserve, it’s about common-sense fiscal planning,” Begich said. “By creating a more fair and balanced system, we can increase benefits to our seniors, extend the solvency of the program, and give so many Alaskans peace of mind for their future.”
Begich's and Deutch's bill makes perfect sense. Which is exactly why the Beltway will hate it.
Paul Ryan spoke to the American Spectator's 2011 Robert L. Bartley Gala Dinner. Ryan told the crowd that 30 percent of Americans want to live off the federal government and have no interest in achieving the American dream.
"Today, 70 percent of Americans get more benefits from the federal government in dollar value than they pay back in taxes," Ryan said. "So you could argue that we're already past that [moral] tipping point. The good news is survey after survey, poll after poll, still shows that we are a center-right country. Seventy percent of Americans want the American dream. They believe in the American idea. Only 30 percent want their welfare state. What that tells you is at least half of those people who are currently in that category are there not of their wish or free will."
Simply put, Ryan is lying about these numbers. I have never heard of any poll that showed a significant segment of Americans that don't want the American dream. Ryan is just making up these numbers. Just like Ryan fibbed about his marathon time and that President was responsible for the Janesville auto plant that closed during President Bush's second term.
What is even more astounding is Ryan himself has benefitted from the federal government. Ryan's college education was paid for by his late father's Social Security benefits. I don't fault Ryan for using the Social Security benefits to pay for his education. I fault Ryan for being a hypocrite.
Watch out Sen. Bill Nelson. Republicans are pulling out the big guns to take your seat. That is right. I am talking about Pat Boone.
Boone made the ad for the 60 Plus Association. The organization was foolish enough to back SOPA. 60 Plus also backed President Bush's attempt to privatize Social Security. 60 Plus may bill itself as an advocacy group for senior citizens. Privatizing Social Security helps Wall Street; not American seniors. The idea that Wall Street can manage the retirement portfolios of seniors after the bailout is a laugh.
Boone attacks Nelson by stating that the Affordable Care Act would make patients lose their doctors. 60 Plus made the same attack against Democratic congressional candidates in 2010. FactCheck.org found the 60 Plus claim to be false.
Although the ads cite an April report from the office of the chief actuary of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services as support for this claim, that report actually discusses cuts the law makes in payments to other providers, such as hospitals and nursing homes – not doctors. The required cuts could make it difficult for some such providers to stay in business, the report says, "possibly jeopardizing access to care" from those institutions for seniors.
But that report and another CMS document issued in August also note that Congress has a habit of negating such cuts. In fact, the August report says with respect to the legislated payment cuts to hospitals and other such non-physician providers, "Congress is very likely to legislatively override or otherwise modify the reductions in the future to ensure that Medicare beneficiaries continue to have access to health care services."
60 Plus contradicts itself, in the add, with lamenting that Medicare will be cut by $500 billion. Boone then makes this statement.
BOONE: Medicare will be bankrupt in nine years, but Washington politicians like Bill Nelson are ignoring the problem.
60 Plus can't seem to decide whether Medicare fundings needs to be cut or maintained. The people whom made this ad weren't interested in getting the wonky policy right. 60 Plus just wanted to use buzz words to scare seniors. Democrats have four effective words to do that. Those words are "the Paul Ryan plan."
Rick Perry Doesn't Care About America Paying Its Debts
The Rick Perry campaign has been hysterically trying to deal with the blowback of the book "Fed Up!" It is bad enough that Perry had Newt Gingrich write the forward. Ray Sullivan, communications director, of the Perry campaign told The Wall Street Journal that Perry views on Social Security in "Fed Up!" are "a look back, not a path forward." Translation: the Perry campaign is saying that the views in a book published 9 months ago don't express the current views of the governor. Apparently, Perry hasn't received the memo from his own campaign.
Perry told The Daily Beast that Medicare is unconstitutional and Social Security is a Ponzi scheme. Perry made the same statement again about Social Security on a recent campaign stop.
"It is a Ponzi scheme for these young people," Perry said in Iowa, mimicking his pre-presidential campaign language on the subject of Social Security.
"The idea that they're working and paying into Social Security today, that the current program is going to be there for them, is a lie," Perry added. "It is a monstrous lie on this generation, and we can't do that to them."
Perry is a not ready for prime time player. Eliminating Social Security and Medicare will not play with older Republican voters. A March WSJ/NBC poll showed three out of four Americans do not support cuts in Social Security and Medicare.
Perry's misunderstanding of the Constitution leads to to advocate that America ignores the 14th amendment and not pay its debts. Perry is telling people that the government will not give a return on the Social Security retirement fund they put their money into. Perry doesn't say why. Perry does make clear he doesn't support Social Security. Therefore, he fearmongers.
The "cut, cap and balance" bill failed to pass in the Senate. On August 1, the day before the debt ceiling deadline expires, Perry refuses to support the House & Senate deal that got budget cuts and no tax increases. Perry is saying he would rather let America default. Perry, the so-called fiscal conservative, has no problem with America not paying its bills.
"Cut, cap and balance" illustrates how unserious Perry is about policy. The legislation did not have the 51 Senate votes to become law. How does Perry think "cut, cap and balance" will get 67 votes to become a constitutional amendment? Another problem is the bill is it is not fiscally possible.
Total outlays for any fiscal year shall not exceed 18 percent of the gross domestic product of the United States for the calendar year ending before the beginning of such fiscal year, unless two-thirds of the duly chosen and sworn Members of each House of Congress shall provide by law for a specific amount in excess of such 18 percent by roll call vote.
The fiscal year of 2012 starts on October 1 of 2011. Congress would have to make a budget not knowing what the entire GDP would be. There would be not way to be certain if Congress went over or under the 18 percent of the GDP threshold until after the fiscal year over. It is the equivalent of filing your taxes before the fiscal year started. The fact that Perry would support such an unworkable proposal and advocates that it pass after it was already voted down in the Senate says much about his lack of understanding.
Sen. Marco Rubio spoke at the the Reagan Presidential Library. Rubio told the audience that entitlement programs such as Social Security and Medicare have "weakened us as a people."
These programs actually weakened us as a people. You see, almost forever, it was institutions in society that assumed the role of taking care of one another. If someone was sick in your family, you took care of them. If a neighbor met misfortune, you took care of them. You saved for your retirement and your future because you had to. We took these things upon ourselves in our communities, our families, and our homes, and our churches and our synagogues. But all that changed when the government began to assume those responsibilities. All of a sudden, for an increasing number of people in our nation, it was no longer necessary to worry about saving for security because that was the government’s job.
This was the kind of lift yourself by your bootstraps that was spoken by conservatives during the aftermath of hurricane Katrina. Bobby Jindal argued that Katrina was an example that people should help themselves and government should stay out of the way. Never mind that Jindal took federal relief money to help Louisiana recover from Katrina and the BP spill.
In the worldview of Republicans such as Rubio and Jindal, those people stuck on roofs during the Katrina flood should use their American exceptionalism to help themselves. Rubio unexceptionally was in debt with college loans. Rubio ran up a $110,000 credit card bill using the nonprofit funds of the Republican Party of Florida.
"Having expenditures in the tens of thousands of dollars to pay off credit cards, it's clear to me it was being used to live off of. The Rubios were living off it,'' said state Sen. Mike Fasano, R-New Port Richey, a strong Crist supporter.
Exceptional indeed.
Rubio fails to understand basic economics by stating that the government pays for Social Security. The reality is workers pay into the retirement fund with the payroll tax. As for Rubio's good old days of families taking care of each other, the depression made that nearly impossible.
The elderly also relied heavily on their families. ''Children, friends and relatives have borne and still carry the major cost of supporting the aged,'' the Committee on Economic Security, the Roosevelt administration panel that developed Social Security, reported in 1935. ''Several of the state surveys have disclosed that from 30 to 50 percent of the people over 65 years of age were being supported in this way.''
The Depression swept this world away. Many of the elderly could no longer find work. Those who had been lucky enough to have a pension or some savings saw them disappear. And many who relied on their children saw them buckle under the strain.
''I am in no position to do the right thing for my mother,'' one woman wrote to Roosevelt. ''I thought as long as I lived there was no need to worry about her being taken care of, but I never dreamed of a depression like we have had.''
Working past 65 and families having to financially shoulder the burden of taking care of elderly members is a wonderful thing in Rubio's worldview. What Rubio does not find wonderful was President Barack Obama's proposal to tax owners of corporate jets.
“It was rhetoric, I thought, that was more appropriate for some left-wing strong man than for the president of the United States.”
Rubio's worldview is that taxing corporate jets is the radicalism of a third world dictator and Social Security weakens America. That tells you all you need to know about Marco Rubio.
Unsurprisingly, Republicans want to let the payroll tax cut expire.
Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney did not flatly rule out an extra year for the payroll tax cut, but he "would prefer to see the payroll tax cut on the employer side" to spur job growth, his campaign said.
Translation: screw the working class and give tax cuts to big business. These businesses that Republicans call "job creators" haven't created many jobs lately.
The payroll tax is the 6.2 percent taken out of employee paychecks for Social Security. President Barack Obama pushed for a payroll tax holiday. The current payroll tax employees pay is 4.2 percent. Obama wants to extend the payroll tax holiday. Republicans don't care about the payroll tax and only want to use it as leverage against the Obama for more upper income tax cuts.
I have always thought the payroll tax holiday was an extremely stupid idea. The positive impact of the payroll tax holiday for working Americans has been negligible. The tax holiday has had a negative impact on generating revenue for Social Security. Obama and Republicans saying they care about Social Security. (Oddly enough by proposing cuts to Social Security.) The payroll holiday tax cut hurts Social Security.
The problem is that wages have been stagnant for working Americans. If Obama really wanted to help people put more money in their pocket he would propose raising the minimun wage. It would would a hugely popular proposal and put the Republicans in the position of having to tell Americans that raising the minimun wage is wrong. Of course, Obama is not going to do this.
Sen. Bernie Sanders issued the following statement today after he voted against a Senate deficit- reduction proposal:
"The Republicans have been absolutely determined to make certain that the rich and large corporations not contribute one penny for deficit reduction, and that all of the sacrifice comes from the middle class and working families in terms of cuts in Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, LIHEAP, community health centers, education, Head Start, nutrition, MILC, affordable housing and many other vitally important programs.
"I cannot support legislation like the Reid proposal which balances the budget on the backs of struggling Americans while not requiring one penny of sacrifice from the wealthiest people in our country. That is not only grotesquely immoral, it is bad economic policy."
I guarantee Obama will act mystified when Republicans run ads that the president cut Social Security and Medicare.
Democrats can no longer accuse Republicans of supporting to cut SS and Medicare cuts (by supporting the Paul Ryan plan) when they themselves made actual cuts to the budget. This is a huge political win for Republicans. The GOP got their ideological cuts and can attack Democrats for making cuts to their sacred cows of the Left. The Republicans always intended to raise the debt ceiling. They knew Obama was a horrible negotiator. The Republicans bluffed and won.
The Washington Post reports that White House sources have admitted that they are seeking a deal "to the right of the Gang of Six."
Congressional and administration officials said the White House informed Democratic leaders about the talks after Obama met privately with Boehner and House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) late Wednesday. Congressional aides, speaking on the condition of anonymity to detail private discussions, said the White House acknowledged that the emerging agreement is “to the right of the Gang of Six” — a bipartisan Senate debt-reduction framework unveiled this week — and far removed from what Democrats have said would be acceptable.
WaPo and the Wall Street Journal report that Senate Democrats went off on OMB Director Jacob Lew. The reason being is that Obama and Republicans are negotiating decreases in cost of increasing rates to Medicare and Social Security. In exchange, Obama gets no tax increases for giving two Democratic sacred cows to the Republicans to carve up. It appears that the Democratic caucus will not go for it. For now.
After a lunchtime meeting between Lew and Senate Democrats, Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) made no attempt to hide his anger, telling reporters that his caucus would oppose the “potential agreement” because it appeared to include no clear guarantee of increased revenue.
“The president always talked about balance, that there had to be some fairness in this, that this can’t be all cuts. There has to be a balance. There has to be some revenue and cuts. My caucus agrees with that,” Reid said. “I hope that the president sticks with that. I’m confident that he will.”
Democrats for planning to go into the 2012 election campaigning against Rep. Paul Ryan's attempted Medicare cuts. Obama is trying to make cuts into Medicare and Social Security. I can guarantee Republicans will run attack ads against Obama if he succeeds in enacting these cuts. The policy is horrible. Why Obama thinks this is good politics is beyond me.
Joy-Ann Reid wrote that she was extremely dubious that President Barack Obama would cut Social Security and Medicare.
When that “unnamed source”-laden Washington Post story came out earlier this week, claiming the White House was putting Social Security and Medicare cuts on the table, I was extremely dubious.
The Washington Post and Politico versions of the story quoted no one, cited no “unnamed administration officials” — only “sources with knowledge of the White House’s thinking” — always a sketchy concept. And the reports claimed that the White House was dangling entitlement cuts in front of cut-happy Republicans in exchange for ending the Bush tax cuts for the rich. But that made no sense, because everyone knows Republicans will never, ever go for it. Besides, Democrats don’t need to deal that hand, since those cuts will expire at the end of 2012, after the election is over, when regardless of the outcome that November, Democrats can let all of the Bush tax cuts die (including the ones Democrats want to keep, like the child tax credits, but there you go…) by simply refusing to bring them up for a vote in the Senate.
The problem is I tweeted to Reid instances when President Obama and Vice-President Joe Biden said that Social Security and Medicare were on the table. Reid was defending Obama. She didn't care about Social Security and Medicare. Reid is now defending cuts to Social Security.
@mygirls3333 not just Clinton. Tip O'Neil and some Dems who are still in Congress, voted for that 1983 plan that raised the Soc Sec ret age.
@ClarissaW no, I don't think he's proposing that. He did propose slightly increasing the existing means testing in Part D in his budget.
Means testing is a Republican talking point for cutting benefits. Means testing is reducing the number of people that qualify for Social Security. The current program is that any American can receive Social Security benefits when they retire. John Rother of the AARP points out how stupid means testing would be.
The notion that the benefits are an earned right separates Social Security from means-tested income-support programs. Social Security can help everyone. Means testing is a feature of taxpayer-funded welfare programs designed to help the poor. A means test would inevitably erode the universal and contributory nature of Social Security and some of the popular support that has sustained it for nearly 75 years.
We also should remember that Social Security already makes distinctions based on income. Lower-wage earners get a higher return on their contributions. Higher-income retirees pay income tax on a portion of their benefits. Given these progressive features, it's not logical to add a means test. In fact, Social Security is far more progressive than any other retirement program.
Social Security has a payroll tax that Americans invest into the SS system. These people are entitled to their benefits. There is no short term Social Security crisis. If Congress was really worried about Social Security they would stop raiding the fund and eliminate the $250,000 tax cap.
Reid went from Obama's is not cutting Social Security to means testing isn't cuts. What a joke.
Apparently, Marco Rubio thinks that Social Security is in a deficit. Rubio is not even aware that Social Security is a surplus. Rubio appeared on Rush Limbaugh's show and uttered economic nonsense.
SENATOR RUBIO: Sure. He can stop it right now by basically saying, "You know what, we need to do something to grow our economy. Let's pass tax reform. Let's pass regulatory reform." He can stop this by also starting to implement some of the spending measures we think are necessary. He can also stop it by basically prioritizing spending on certain things if it comes to that. But let me tell you one thing, Rush, that no one said yet or maybe they have, the fact that payments on Social Security and Medicare may stop is a stinging indictment and a wake-up call. What Americans should realize, "Hold on a second, my Social Security check and my Medicare benefits are borrowed? The money that you're using to pay for my Social Security are borrowed? I thought I paid into a trust fund. I thought I worked my whole life to pay into some system and now you're paying my money back and you're claiming that the money is being borrowed?" That's what they're basically conceding when they're saying this.
Rubio continues spreading misinformation about Social Security.
RUSH: Yeah. You know, that's exactly right. We always thought Social Security was in a lockbox.
SENATOR RUBIO: Well, maybe a Chinese lockbox because that's what we're borrowing the money from. The point is if that comes to pass or he's threatening to do that, then the wake-up call and the message to Americans is, hey, your Social Security benefits, your Medicare benefits, what we're paying soldiers in the field, all these things that are being cut off, this is borrowed money. This is not money we have or money we saved for you. This is money we are borrowing from your children and your grandchildren, and we have no way of paying it back, and that alone should send a chill up the spine of millions of Americans.
Social Security is solvent until 2037. Payroll taxes for SSI are taken out and used to fund other parts of the federal government. The government can repay that money back to Social Security. As for conservatives who lament that Social Security is merely IOUs? What do conservatives think Treasury bonds are? The Social Security doesn't keep money inside a giant bank vault.
Defense bonds helped fund American military operations during WWII. Americans got repayment and the interest from the bonds. Social Security is a trust fund that has been repaying retirees since FDR. Taxes were increased and the retirement age was raised in 1983 to make the trust fund for solvent. The fact remains that Social Security is not part of the national debt or deficit. Rubio is wrong.
Rubio claims that President Barack Obama wanted the debt ceiling crisis to go down to the wire.
Once More With Feeling: Obama Cutting Entitlements
I wrote about Obamabot Joy-Ann Reid lying about President Barack Obama not targeting entitlements. Below are Obama's own words. The President clearly states that he is targeting Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.
"The vast majority of Democrats on Capitol Hill would prefer not to have to do anything on entitlements, would prefer frankly not to do anything on these debt and deficit problems," he said.
But doing nothing is irresponsible and is really not an option, Obama argued.
"If you look at the numbers then Medicare in particular will run out of money and we will not be able to sustain that program no matter how much taxes go up," he said. "It's not an option for us to just sit by and do nothing. if you're a progressive that cares about he integrity of Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid ... then we have an obligation to make sure that we make those changes required to make this sustainable in the long term."
Social Security is running on a surplus. Money has been taken out of Social Security to pay for other federal spending. The health care debate was an opportunity for President Obama to deal with Medicare and Medicaid costs. To some extent the administration lowered costs. The cost savings the White House have been internally talking about in cost of living adjustment. COLA is the inflation adjustment to Social Security payments. Translation: the payments are going to either look smaller are the inflation increases are spread out more.
Either Obama believes that Dick Morris' 1996 campaign advice to Bill Clinton was true or the President is rather conservative. Most likely, it is a combination of the two.
Maddow Maddow takes President Barack Obama to task for offering to cut Social Security and Medicare. Maddow points out that Obama angered progressives and got no concessions from Republicans. I have to wonder if this the breaking point for the Obama administration.
President Barack Obama continues to handle negotiations with the terribly. Obama offered Social Security and Medicare cuts. The Republicans have refused to even consider ending tax breaks for corporate jets to help pay off the federal debt. Obama once again forgot which caucus backs him. Obama failed to tell the Democratic caucus that he was putting Medicare and Social Security on the table.
“We would have preferred to hear it from the president instead of from the press,” said Sen. Barbara Mikulski (Md.), a senior member of the Senate Democratic conference. “We first have to go after tax earmarks.”
Mikulski and Sen. Kent Conrad that they are open to Social Security cuts. Social Security is running on a surplus. Republicans have long hated Social Security and wish to turn it into Chile dictator Augusto Pinochet's pension plan. Social Security isn't the cause of the federal debt.
Obama gave the the pay freeze to Republicans without getting nothing back. Obama dropped the public option to garner Republican votes. The result was House Republicans attempted to repeal the Affordable Care Act. Obama's poor negotiating skills have created friction with the Democratic caucuses and the progressive base. Howie Klein urges progressives not to vote for President Obama in 2012.
"Social Security is not going broke. Social Security has a $2.2 trillion surplus... The Koch brothers want to invest your retirement funds on Wall Street, and you may lose all your retirement savings when you get old."
"It was never intended as a retirement program. It was set up in '37 and '38 to take care of people who were in distress—ditch diggers, wage earners—it was to give them 43 percent of the replacement rate of their wages. The [life expectancy] was 63. That's why they set retirement age at 65."
"We can never insure one-hundred percent of the population against one-hundred percent of the hazards and vicissitudes of life. But we have tried to frame a law which will give some measure of protection to the average citizen and to his family against the loss of a job and against poverty-ridden old age. This law, too, represents a cornerstone in a structure which is being built, but is by no means complete.... It is...a law that will take care of human needs and at the same time provide for the United States an economic structure of vastly greater soundness."
FDR designed Social Security so that Republicans could not repeal it. Unlike Obama mandating Americans buying private health insurance. FDR did a more painless thing by making it part of the tax system. Over the course of time people would be used to the Social Security tax. Under Obama's health care reform, Americans can look forward to states allowing health insurers to increase insurance rates.
“I guess you’re right on the economics. They are politics all the way through. We put those pay roll contributions there so as to give the contributors a legal, moral, and political right to collect their pensions and their unemployment benefits. With those taxes in there, no damn politician can ever scrap my social security program. Those taxes aren’t a matter of economics, they’re straight politics.”
Teagan Goddard reports President Barack Obama will announce plans of entitlement reform of Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. The policy of the health care mandate, the lame duck session tax cut extentions and recent cuts of Pell Grants and heating for the poor sucked. I have little confidence that the so-called reforms Obama will announce this week will be progressive. From a political standpoint, it is stupid. The entitlement programs are extremely popular with voters in both political parties. Is Obama running president in 2012 or most popular guy in the Beltway.
The Social Security wage base is currently $106,800. I seriously doubt Obama will raise the cap out of fear he will be labeled a tax and spend Democrat. The fact that Obama aleady is accused of that by Republicans is secondary. Obama's political agenda is to move to the right of his party. Seniors do not want Socail Security changed and they will come out to vote.
Medicare and Medicaid are in need of reform. The policy details will matter. I wonder why Obama thinks talking about government health care is a political winner for him. Again, seniors do not want drastic change to Medicare and Medicaid.
Obama is placing himself in the position of getting hammered by progressives and the tea party. What makes matters worse is Obama can not give a policy speech to save his life. (Quick: name your favorite Obama speech on health care and Afghanistan.) I would have more faith if this White House did policy well.
I wonder if the White House feels to has to counter Paul Ryan's budget proposal. The CBO scored that Rayan's budget would increase the deficit. Ryan is also getting hit hard for turning Medicare into a voucher program. The Ryan budget will not become law. Obama doesn't need to counter it.
