Commenter jayackroyd lays out a pretty convincing case that there may be a move to cut Social Security during a lame duck session this fall (everything below is written by him, not me):
All the Very Serious Villagers know Social Security has to be cut, that the austerity program cannot work with an insolvent retirement program hanging over the American economy. Never mind that insolvent SS is a flat lie, with no more basis in reality than the story of St. Ronald the Magnificent.
There’s Brokaw, under contract with NBC through age 74, in the video, saying we need the tough, realistic Bowles-Simpson program.
The administration’s de facto Senate spokesman Dick Durbin recently reassured David Gregory that everything is on the table:
Durbin: But let me tell ya: I was a member of President Obama’s bipartisan Simpson-Bowles commission. That commission of course ended up with 11 of 18 of us voting in favor of it. That included Senator Tom Coburn, a very conservative Oklahoma Republican, and myself. It was a bipartisan statement that we need to combine, put everything on the table, and combine revenue with spending cuts.
A week or so ago Tim Geithner reassured the Village that the thrice (Commission, Senate, House) rejected Bowles-Simpson document still provides the roadmap
“This debate about what’s the right path to fiscal sustainability—it really began with Bowles-Simpson and that’s where it’s going to end,” Geithner said during an interview with Andrea Mitchell of MSNBC at the Council on Foreign Relations Wednesday. “The framework the president laid out is very close to that basic design.”
The Bowles-Simpson draft, entitled The Moment of Truth, features major cuts to Social Security benefits (B-S Summary page), raising the retirement age two more years and significantly reducing the cost of living adjustment, while undermining the program’s social insurance elements by weakening the relationship between contributions and benefits.
The centrist Beltway Media continues to hype B-S as the courageous Grand Bargain bipartisan blueprint, while the Democratic leadership has fallen into line–not merely failing to run against GOP privatization, but actually endorsing the B-S cuts:
Budget Senator Kent Conrad, the Democratic chairman of the Senate Budget Committee and a Simpson-Bowles member, introduced the commission’s report as his panel’s budget blueprint for a Senate vote.
Now if Social Security weren’t among the most successful public policy initiatives in US history-up there with the Homestead Act and Land Grant Colleges–gutting it wouldn’t be a problem. But it is hard to accomplish the Very Serious but “painfully necessary” goal of reducing middle class income through Social Security cuts, because successful public policy is pretty popular with voters.
So they’re gonna have to make these benefit cuts without leaving fingerprints on the machete. And look what’s coming up: the lame duck session. After the 2012 elections, we have the perfect unaccountability moment. Defeated and retiring Congresscritters and Senators (and their staffs), like Senate Finance Chair Conrad, will be voting to update resumes for investment bank or K-Street sexy-time. Those returning in January can count on the passage of time to dim memories and build “war chests.” A re-elected President Obama will not have to face the voters again. The Village media’s beloved “bipartisan” B-S plan will help them face the painful reality— that we just can’t, after all, pay out the $2.7 trillion in benefits accumulated since 1983. What with the debt ceiling crisis, the looming deficit and all that defense pork, the promises made by Ronald Reagan and Alan Greenspan, sadly, can’t be kept.
The GOP leadership put Simpson himself in charge of promoting and lobbying for the B-S agenda, but following a series of embarrassing idiocies, including a reneged agreement to debate young DC staffers on the facts, they’ve put Obama Commerce Secretary nominee Judd Gregg in for Abe… errr… Alan Simpson.
Judd’s not mincing any words Friday on CNBC’s Squawk Box (all below (sic) from the transcript, bolding mine):
simpson-bowles is a viable vehicle because it reached agreement on two critical areas, social security and tax reform. the one area agreement was not reached because the president didn’t want the commission to go into it was major health care reform on medicare and medicaid which has to be done. we’ll update it to do some medicare and some medicaid so have done the detail work so to say, and hopefully people can coalesce around adjustments to it but it gives them a memo where there has been bipartisan support. the three most fiscally conservative members of the commission voted for it as a couple of progressives, dick durban. unbelievable. profile in courage and kent conrad. kent not as much.
[snip]when you think about the structure the president’s campaign for re-election, romney’s competing against so they’re not going to be able to reach agreement. the house has problems reaching agreement because everybody is so partisan and come from districts. the senate is where the action is. if we get governance it has to occur in the senate. it’s not going to occur before the election. it’s not going to occur before the election? from it can’t. our system doesn’t allow big things to happen prior to the election but they have to do something big because we’re headed into the mother of all lame ducks here in december with all of these things coming together so they have to either do something or set up a procedure to do something. what we’re suggesting is this is an opportunity, you’ve got sitting here a proposal which is sort of a menu of items which there is agreement on to some degree and it’s bipartisan.
By the way, the “detail work” is almost certainly raising the eligibility age and adding premium support to Medicare. And, just a reminder, here’s where the looming deficit came from :
Now maybe it isn’t true that the Obama administration is committed to the B-S framework, even though they set up the commission, and, nor is it true, as I’ve been by someone who was at a recent campaign event, that Ploufe is bringing backthe S4 trillion “go big” proposal. It’s certainly batshit crazy, from both a policy and a political perspective, for Democrats to even entertain the idea of Social Security cuts–it’s hard to think of a more effective way to undermine the brand.
But if it isn’t true–if Social Security is still the Third Rail of American Politics–it should be easy to get pre-election commitments from Democratic candidates and party leaders that Social Security is off the table. Geithner should walk back his comments. The President, the House Minority leader, the Senate Majority leader and the Chair of Senate Finance should be happy to publicly state their opposition to the Social Security cuts contained in the Moment of Truth draft.
Shouldn’t they?
cathyx
Social Security could only be cut by democrats. If republicans tried it, their would be too much opposition.
Mike G
So it ranged from the corporatist center-right all the way to the Talibaptist neanderthal right. Ask any Villager, that’s the entire range of political views! At least, ones that they acknowledge, anyway.
Parmenides
I all I can think when I see these things, “what the fuck are you people talking about and do you understand basic politics.”
jl
Yes we should. Otherwise the youngins will be asking who stole the peoples’ money?
I notice they keep lowering the grandfather-in age, since not enough oldsters are weak minded enough to go for the scam. Don’t think it be low enough to get me on if they do it this fall, though.
I will send some
polite inquiriescategorical directives to my rep.Edit: This is a do as I request or I will support primary opponent next time type of issue.
Edit 2: where I live the GOP is minor league fourth, no strike that, fifth party so I can make credible threats about making trouble in primary. Not sure how much good that does, though.
Steeplejack
Looking at that chart reminds me once again: any politician who is not willing to let the “temporary” Bush tax cuts expire is not serious about deficit reduction.
Ruckus
They absolutely should walk back any thought of screwing with SS over the deficits. No they should run them back.
But I’m pretty sure they won’t. After all what’s better in DC than being a vsp?
Ruckus
@Steeplejack:
Wouldn’t that be all of them?
Todd
Can we simply make the act of producing or appearing on pundit TV programs a capital offense with summary punishment? I’m suffering opinion fatigue.
For fucks sake, an oil worker sneezes and some fucking dipshit economic reporter will earnestly opine that a stock or energy market swing is attributable to the event, and the next thing you know, Netanyoohoo will start talking about nuking Tehran.
Chris T.
B-S (which is an astonishingly appropriate set of initials for that commission’s report), translated: “In order to avoid Social Security benefit cuts, we must make Social Security benefit cuts.”
Steeplejack
@Ruckus:
No argument from me.
NR
But wait, I thought everyone here was saying that the Bowles-Simpson commission was completely meaningless and that it didn’t matter that Obama had created it. I’m so confused! People here obviously can’t be wrong, so why is Geithner saying this now?
Brother Shotgun of Sweet Reason
The unacknowledged problem with raising the social security “retirement” age is that many people over 60 don’t get a choice of when to retire. Their employers make it for them, and as far as getting another job, that’s all she wrote.
I read recently that the average age people want to retire has gone up a year to 67, probably because of the recession. The average retirement age is the same as it’s been for 30 years: 60 to 61.
So they’re not raising the retirement age, they’re increasing the income gap.
The Moar You Know
I’ve been working and paying SSI since age 13. Dems sign on for this bullshit and they can kiss my vote goodbye. So will most of my GenX cohorts, I’m betting. Someone needs to explain to these dimwits that bipartisanship is not a suicide pact.
boss bitch
Wait, I thought SS and Medicare was going to be cut in the last lame duck session? But its going to happen THIS lame duck session? Oh, ok.
Professor
Have they thought about lifting the CAP from $106,000 to about $150,000? How many coal miners would live healthly past 75 years? The SS Fund is NOT broke, it is their wet dream of privatizing it to the Wall Streeters!
Shane Taylor
In late May, Trudy Lieberman read similar signs that the Democratic leadership may be preparing to cut Social Security:
http://www.cjr.org/campaign_desk/those_smoke_signals_about_simp.php
Rex Everything
@The Moar You Know:
No, no! You should NEVER under ANY circumstances even THINK about not voting for them! On the contrary: You should repeatedly state, here and everywhere else—as loudly and often as possible—that you will ALWAYS vote for Democrats no matter what, because Supreme Court Justices!
Let ’em know you’ll go all the way without ’em even buying you a drink first! It’s the best way to get your drink, ask anyone!
—Sincerely,
the Balloon Juice commentariat
Odie Hugh Manatee
What needs to be pointed out is that these politicians want to cut SS so they can move the ‘savings’ over to use for more government spending. There will be no ‘savings’ with SS cuts, just more government spending on anything but the people who are ‘giving’ them then money to hold for retirement. The government needs money, especially for military adventures. SS has the money that they need but it’s tied up in paying benefits to people. Cut those benefits and now they have the cash to keep the war wagon rolling.
It’s all about redirecting our SS money to their coffers to spend as they see fit.
Baud
@Rex Everything:
I WILL ALWAYS VOTE FOR DEMOCRATS NO MATTER WHAT, BECAUSE SUPREME COURT JUSTICES!
russ
My prediction.
Obama box canyons everyone on Social Security anything and leaves them with one way out!
Baud
@boss bitch:
We need David Koch (ours, not the real one) in this thread.
NR
@russ: While playing eleven-dimensional chess the entire time.
Percysowner
Of course they say everything is on the table. They know without any doubt that the Repubs will NEVER, EVER raise the taxes on the rich. So Obama and the Democrats can say until they are blue in the face that everything including Social Security is on the table, but the only way they will actually do anything is when they get a bigger raise on taxes for the rich than they will if the Bush Tax Cuts just expire. The GOP will waffle and whine and then bow to Grover Norquist and the Democrats will be rightfully able to claim they were willing to cut what is needed in spending and the political kabuki is over for this year.
I’ve always felt that Obama’s “willingness” to put things like SS and Medicare on the table was because he knew in his heart that there isn’t a chance in this world that the GOP will agree to the other part of the compromise. It’s like me saying I’ll stop defending reproductive rights when I get assumed into heaven during the Rapture, it’s never going to happen.
PurpleGirl
@Brother Shotgun of Sweet Reason: The retirement age was raised a few years ago, but it was raised in stages. Instead of 65, for a person like me, born in 1951, the age is now 66. It reaches 67 in steps of a few months per year.
Although you are correct about not having a say in when you “retire”, i.e., I was let go from my job of 15.3 years at age 58. I’ve not been able to get a new job. My benefit would have been around $1,600 a month. Let’s be honest about the average benefit… it’s geared to make you live at a poverty level if SS is all you have. (And for most of us, it is all we will have.)
NR
@Percysowner: You’re right. Obama’s the world’s best eleven-dimensional chess player and we mere mortals just don’t understand his brilliance. When he says he wants to cut Social Security and Medicare, what that really means is that he doesn’t want to cut Social Security and Medicare. Because Obama always means the opposite of what he says. Or something. Anyway, the point is that we just don’t understand his brilliance.
ruemara
I don’t mind the pre-emptive panic, but I’d rather panic when there’s something clearly up for a vote, at least at a committee stage. Simpson-Bowles may be the latest VSP wank-off materials, but once it went down-it is not possible to be voted on again without another submission via committee, senate and house. Whereupon the same things that killed it (republican intransigence on increasing taxes and insistence that cooperation means 100% their way), will do the exact. same. thing. Other than that, a very fine freakout. 100+ comments of how that awful Obama sold us out should keep us all engaged for a saturday afternoon. Well, except me. I think I’ll go henna my hair.
beergoggles
I think cutting SS is amazingly good to kill off enough old people to provide a much needed demographic shift. Gotta break a few eggs to make an omelet.
Corner Stone
@Brother Shotgun of Sweet Reason:
I would doubt very seriously that people wanted to retire at 67. They probably more likely hoped they could ever retire at 67.
WeeBey
I have read this fucking story once every three months since Obama took office.
Don’t wake me for the next one.
Corner Stone
@Percysowner:
To what possible end? The D’s will never ever get credit for being fiscally “responsible”, the R’s will never vote for them, the I’s will see no deal was done. and the D’s will be aghast and demoralized that a lifelong tenet was so casually and easily dismissed.
Corner Stone
There is no reason to be SS on the table. None. No reason to even mention the fucking words Social Security.
Any politician who doesn’t understand that isn’t playing the long game, or 11-D chess or anything else.
Bex
@Rex Everything: My stars, it’s little Miss Purity Troll.
Maude
@ruemara:
This SS cut bit come up like crab grass. It is always Obama is going to cut it because:
He’s worse than Bush. He sold us out.
There isn’t any indication that it will be cut, but hey, lets have hissy fits.
Hope the henna looks beautiful.
Corner Stone
And if some idiot shows up and starts running numbers about chained CPI being a boon for old people I’m going to sick a pack of wild hover round owners after him.
redshirt
I am so much happier since I stopped watching all cable/national news. What’s the point of it, other than getting propaganda force fed?
The Other Bob
As much as I do not want to hurt future seniors, if the current seniors all vote for Romney, why the hell should we not cut the crap out of senior benefits? Screw them.
Frankly we should be raising the retirement age. SS was not designed to support people for 20 years.
The Other Bob
As much as I do not want to hurt future seniors, if the current seniors all vote for Romney, why the hell should we not cut the crap out of senior benefits? Screw them.
Frankly we should be raising the retirement age. SS was not designed to support people for 20 years.
PurpleGirl
@The Other Bob: Raise the retirement age… really? Are you going to give me job? Do you know where I can get a job? Businesses DO NOT WANT TO HIRE ANYONE OVER 50. So what the hell am I supposed to do?
ETA: I’m now 60, I’m now a senior. I don’t plan on voting for Romney. Don’t make such sweeping categorizations.
The Other Bob
@PurpleGirl:
sweeping categorizations? Isn’t that what we do here?
Sorry, but polls show seniors going toward Romney and against ACA despite all that is great in there for Seniors. My parents are in therir 70s but damn, its hard to support senior issues when there is little love in return.
Rex Everything
@Bex: That’s right! Nothing comes between me and the Donk.
Valdivia
@ruemara:
henna does sound like such a much better plan
Corner Stone
@The Other Bob: We should lower the retirement age.
PurpleGirl
@The Other Bob: You didn’t answer my question(s).
Where do I get a job? Do you have a job for me?
jl
@ruemara:
I don’t have time to read all the comments, so don’t know what some people said. But I the post ended with suggestion to contact legislators now, to tell them to come out against it now. In my comment seconded that suggestion.
That will help prevent the people’s money from being stolen, and will help timid Dems get the nerve to come out for a good policy and have a better chance of getting elected.
If you see this after you get done with the henna and you see this, maybe you could explain what the problem is.
Phil Perspective
@Percysowner: And what happens come 2017 when Andrew Cuomo, god forbid, is President? And Senate Majority Leader Jim DeMented wants Social Security cuts for some other Village-induced debt freak-out deal? He’ll state that Obama was willing to, so why aren’t you?
Mnemosyne
@boss bitch:
I’m starting to feel like I’m being forced to listen to the followers of Harold Camping over and over again. Obama’s going to cut Social Security as soon as he takes office! … No, okay, but he’s totally going to announce cuts in his first State of the Union address! … well, okay, maybe that didn’t happen, but it’s totally going to happen in the 2010 lame duck session, no, seriously, you guys, I really mean it this time! … sorry, I read my Tarot cards wrong, what I really meant was that he was going to cut it to get the debt ceiling deal through …
Once the same prediction has fallen through a minimum of four separate times in four years, it may be time to come up with a new one. Just a thought.
The Other Bob
@PurpleGirl:
As many mentioned above, SS will burn its surplus until 2037, at which time, it will only be able to pay out 75% of benefits, unless we add money in, raise the retirement age or cut benefits. Considering yourncurrent age, I am betting you don ‘t need to be concerned.
You missed my point. Is supporting SS the right thing to do? Yes. But, Dems are spending political capital and yet Seniors still support Romney. At some point seniors will have to feel the pain of their votes. Heck, young people are becoming the more loyal voters, yet they are getting the real shaft in this economy.
lacp
Why wait for a lame-duck session to get all bi-partisany ‘n shit? The Senate’s doing it right now!
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=112&session=2&vote=00161
Xenos
Oh for fuck’s sake. What is this place, firedoglake?
What a bloody fucking mess this site has become. DougJ, I love you like a brother, but go back to trolling Darrel before going down this road.
Stuff and nonsense, signifyin’ nothin’. And who are all these new wankers clogging up the the place? Barack is not the second coming, but he is not selling us down the fucking river in a goddam lame duck term.
jl
@The Other Bob:
” As many mentioned above, SS will burn its surplus until 2037, at which time, it will only be able to pay out 75% of benefits, ”
That is 75 percent of scheduled future benefits, which will be higher in real value than current benefits. And there is only about a 50/50 chance of that happening. SS may be good forever, depending on future productivity and per capita income growth (though crummy macreconomic policy may destroy that possible future)
People need to check whether a replacement or significant modification of Social Security will deliver that 75 percent of the real value of the scheduled future benefits. Many of them do not.
Sorry, this is one issue that is pretty much closed. Substantial reductions in Social Security at current tax rates and social security contribution rates, given the borrowing on the social security trust fund, is stealing the people’s money. I just don’t see any way to avoid that conclusion, and I think Democrats should say so, since it is true and defends a good policy position that has massive popular support.
Stuart Zechman
@Phil Perspective:
Of course that’s the kind of thinking we need to do, and that the movement conservatives have been so successful doing.
Also, too, the idea that it’s somehow acceptable for national Democrats to play-act at the Republicans preventing them from ruining Social Security and Medicare (by the GOP refusing to take a tax-or-even-revenue-raise bargain) is insane –if one is a Democrat, that is. And yet, some folks don’t seem to realize that preemptively “freaking out” was exactly what made Social Security the Third Rail for decades, and that it was to Democrats’ credit that this sort of talk would be met with absolute, blanket resistance at the first syllable.
So, Phil, how did we get from ordinary Democrats saying “The Republicans want to steal your Social Security money from you!” to “Why are people freaking out before anything’s up for a vote?“?
When did we lose our minds?
TooManyJens
@boss bitch:
Seriously. By all means, everyone call your representatives and tell them that if they get a whiff of this, they need to vote NO. It’s never a bad time to remind the dumbfucks in Congress that we care about Social Security. But can we not do that thing that the left does where we decide we’ve already been betrayed, so we might as well just skip straight to the pissing and moaning?
Some days I think the slogan of the modern left (such as it is) is: Don’t organize — mourn!
lacp
@TooManyJens: Or, “Fired Up – Ready to Quit!”
Steve in DC
Obama has wanted to cut SS for a long time, even going off about how programs from back then do not work now. Is it giving the right what they want, sure! But Obama is in this for himself and it let’s him make his grand bargain and do the tough thing on social security. I’m sure he’ll pass out some social issue goodies (he already has) to help cover his ass on this. But don’t forget that Obama keeps asking to cut social security.
JWL
Obama sure makes it tough for the democratic rank and file to rally behind him, doesn’t he?
NR
@WeeBey:
FTFY.
Hsquared
I get sooo tired of people shitting their pants every time the phrase “everything is on the table” is uttered. It’s fucking meaningless.
Corner Stone
@Hsquared: Then why does one side say, “Revenue is not on the table. Period.” and the other side says, “Everything is on the table.” ?
It has meaning to someone.
Keith G
More trolling. Yippee.
One of these days a discussion of actual policy might break out. Or would that be too painful?
Ruckus
@Brother Shotgun of Sweet Reason:
Welcome to my world.
NR
@Maude:
Except Obama’s public statement that he’s already offered to cut it, you mean:
Oh, right, I forgot. When Obama says he wants to cut Social Security and Medicare, that means he really doesn’t want to. Of course.
Ruckus
@The Other Bob:
…Seniors still support Romney.
Not all of us. The one’s I know don’t. Maybe I just hang around with a better crowd.
Keith G
@NR:
I do not trust any politician and Obama is a mere politician so I will not trust him. That said, I doubt Obama wants to take on the ton of shit coming his way if he were to advocate for any benefit cut anytime soon. As far as Obama’s quote….he is less flexible that Mitt, but he still is quite flexible.
NR
@Keith G:
Are you kidding? Obama has already publicly offered benefit cuts, and people here are defending him to their last breath. Why would he be worried about taking a ton of shit for anything he does?
Maude
Direct Deposit which will be for everyone nest year is considered a cut in the Social Security budget. Hence a cut in Social Security.
Medicare cuts are on the provider side.
Let’s all do this in a few weeks again.
It’s like groundhog day.
Baud
@Maude:
I’ll bring the cheese dip!
FlipYrWhig
Oh, Jesus Christ. Maybe the diabolical Grand Bargain will be that we start a war in Iran AND cut Social Securit benefits, the two things we’ve been warned repeatedly are right around the corner _if you know how to read the signs! Booga Booga!_
FlipYrWhig
@NR: I know that your shtick is to refuse to listen to anything anyone ever says against you on any subject, and just pop up again like Whack-a-mole to say the same thing again and again and again, but, for the last time, the word “cuts” is not identical to the phrase “benefit cuts.” Just write it on your hand or something.
Corner Stone
@NR: Let me get this straight. When Obama says he intends to fully prosecute the Afghanistan conflict then we should not have any problems because he means what he says. When he says he’s on board to negotiate cuts to SS we shouldn’t have any problems because obviously he doesn’t mean that.
This, to me, is simple. Scream like a cat caught with their tail in a rocking chair every single time SS is mentioned. Make it so painfully consistent that this issue actually has meaning to elected officials. They all just want to steal the money there. That can’t be denied. And if they thought they could do it, either bald faced stealing privatization ala GWB or some BS Grand Bargain, they’d try it on.
Valdivia
@Baud:
can we add something stronger too? wine?
Maude
@Baud:
I’ll bring the chips.
Maude
@Valdivia:
Ever hear of bathtub gin?
Valdivia
@Maude:
Ha! Sounds perfect.
Brother Shotgun of Sweet Reason
@Ruckus: Could be my world, too. The company cut my hours this spring, largely because I’m old, expensive, and write a lot of proposals, so I’m jacking up the overhead costs. If the work doesn’t come in, they’ll throw me overboard. I’ve seen it happen to others. And here’s a tell: The number of people that I’ve seen retire from this place can be counted on one hand.
Marc
The people screaming about this have claimed that Obama is about to sell them out over and over on Social Security. They’ve been completely wrong over and over. They never admit that they were ever wrong. As far as I’m concerned they’re no better than birthers at this point.
On the bright side, it at least illuminates the so-called progressives with an obsessive hatred of the president.
Ruckus
@The Other Bob:
You don’t support SS for the current seniors, even though they are the ones using it now. You support it for your own ass in 20-50 years. I did and so did most of my fellow boomers. We didn’t like it but some of us saw that it was a worthwhile thing to do. Right now you have no idea how glad I am that it’s there and solvent for decades to come. I’d be eating out of dumpsters if not for SS. And I’m not even 65 yet. Remember that for boomers the age for full retirement is 66. You try working blue collar jobs for 50 yrs and see how your body feels. Retire at 66. Bullshit. Don’t lose or quit your job till then cause the chances of finding another are almost absolute zero.
burnspbesq
@The Moar You Know:
Riiight. You’ve always sounded totally like a Republican.
burnspbesq
@Corner Stone:
Sure it can. I’m denying it right now. Got evidence?
Lawnguylander
If jayackroyd is trying to make a career out of liberal disaster porn, I suggest that, if he must get loaded, he do so after he writes this shit. What a fucking mess. When Digby is capitalizing on paranoia, you don’t see her forgetting where the shift key is, do you? Show some fucking professionalism, for fucks sake.
Corner Stone
@burnspbesq: Yeah, you fucking dipshit moron son of a bitch. Try looking into the year 1983.
You stupid fuck.
DougJ
@Xenos:
I’m genuinely worried. I don’t think this will happen, but I wanted to give someone who disagrees a chance to make their case.
WeeBey
@Marc:
Yup.
burnspbesq
@Corner Stone:
Lovely. All invective, no ideas.
Can you do anything besides curse?
Corner Stone
@burnspbesq: I can do the Lambada.
What idea do you need to understand it’s the last pile of fucking cash they all salivate to get their hands on?
Only a fucking moron doesn’t get that.
burnspbesq
@Corner Stone:
That’s nice, because you certainly can’t tell the difference between fact and fantasy.
1983? I know what happened in 1983. There was a compromise, engineered primarily by moderate Republicans (remember them?), that preserved the solvency of the Social Security system for a very long time. Someday, we will need to reach another such compromise. Today is not that day.
While we’re idly throwing dates around, do you remember 2005?
FlipYrWhig
@DougJ: Yup, because what the liberal blogosphere was lacking was more spaces for people to get each other worked up over Obama/Paul Ryan/Tim Geithner slashfic fantasies.
cat48
I saw a brief part of Geithner/Mitchell Interview & I’m sure he said the prez agrees with a basic framework like Simpson Bowles, but he doesn’t agree with the entire plan is what I thought Geithner said. There are about 20 different plans that have been done by think tanks. I looked at them one nite on a think tank website.
The president wanted to lift the Cap on SocSec & implement the cuts to Medicare they made to pay for Obamacare. He wants to trim some provider payments, etc. If he has to trim SocSec, he wanted to implement a new inflation rate they use for other programs. He’s said all of these things during speeches in the last 3 1/2 yrs.
Also; there is not a definite amount of Revenue that comes with SimBowl & he wants more Rev. They didn’t complete the Revenue allocation & tax rates, etc. This will be a big fight b/c Grover doesn’t want any new revenue. I just got a newsletter from Jared Bernstein who was explaining how important it was to make sure we get Revenue from Tax Reform & the problems the Simp plan has.
Obama’s plan may be worse than simp/bowles; but I do know he doesn’t agree with it!
FlipYrWhig
Just as a thought experiment, and I’m NOT saying this is true or will be true, is it possible for there ever to be a level at which Social Security benefits are too generous? Like if for some reason it had been built into the system that in 101 years the benefits would jump to ten times what they are now, would any attempt to adjust that, either by increasing the withholding or by decreasing the benefits, be an abomination unto the liberal non-gods?
To reiterate… IMHO in the list of problems the USA needs to deal with, Social Security is way, WAY far down the list. If irreversible climate change happens, getting 75% of promised SS benefits will be the least of our problems. You name it, it’s a bigger problem than Social Security. But the way it leads liberals and progressives to talk about “cuts” to anything is aggravating. I don’t see why the objective of social program funding in the future isn’t to guarantee a certain level of benefits, as opposed to guaranteeing that that level of benefits always goes up.
(Furthermore, Ballsier taxation would allow for a much more robust social-welfare structure, but I’m not going to hold my breath waiting for that to happen, never mind how beneficial to so many lives it would be.)
Politically, yes, fine, raise holy hell any time it might be contemplated. But I can imagine a bunch of wonks coming up with beneficial “cuts” — this is much more true of the Medi programs than SS, mind you — that would make sense to embrace.
cat48
Actually, if we win, Obama may go for the Jonathan Chait Do Nothing Deficit Plan
which is more complicated now because of the Debt Ceiling.)
This consists of letting ALL Bush taxcuts expire & do nothing else. Easy Peasy. No huge cuts needed. He already threatened to Veto any extension of the Rich part 2 wks ago.
FlipYrWhig
@cat48: The inflation/cost of living adjustment model is the basis for virtually all the panic about SOCIAL SECURITY CUTS! BIG AND SOON! around the blogosphere. I agree it seems fishy, and, again, it’s basically coming up with a way to fix something that isn’t particularly broken and could be fixed other ways that would never risk looking like a cut.
FlipYrWhig
@cat48: Last time the Senate Democrats had a conniption and begged him not to make them look even for a moment like they voted to raise anyone’s taxes. I have a hard time seeing them doing anything else the next time the issue comes up. They’re a skittish bunch.
NR
@FlipYrWhig: And once again, when it comes to Social Security, that is exactly what it means. Social Security operates with less than 1% overhead. There is nothing to cut BUT benefits.
NR
@Marc:
Obama has publicly stated that he has offered to cut Social Security. The people denying that are the ones who are fundamentally out of touch with reality.
You want to see someone who’s no better than a birther, look in the mirror.
cat48
@FlipYrWhig:
Well, that’s what the new Inflation Index was about when the prez brought it up before & it also has built in COLA raises, which “some say” should not have been done as frequently as they are currently scheduled.
I used to work for Social Security so I don’t get upset about cuts because I actually feel like most people if they live very long (mid 70’s) get back more than they pay in, if they start receiving at 62.
FlipYrWhig
@NR: Fair enough. And I think the inflation/COLA indexing question needs to be watched vigilantly. If we can sustain or even improve benefits by tweaking the funding stream, let’s do that instead. Bring in more money and the whole thing practically fixes itself.
But on the larger question, I don’t think a statement like “we offered to make cuts to Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security” necessarily means “we offered to make cuts to Medicare, to Medicaid, and to Social Security, inclusive.” I think that list is a kind of enumeration of what might otherwise be lumped together as “entitlement spending” — a hateful phrase — and that there’s a kind of deke built into it such that provider-side cuts and restructuring of fee-for-service models that apply only to the Medi programs can be sexed up and made to seem more bold. IOW, there’s more drama in a statement like “we offered cuts to a, b, and c” than there is to “we came up with cost savings for a and b and a techno-fix only wonks can love to c.”
And, when you get right down to it, I have a hard time seeing why anyone would think there was anything to be gained by Killing Social Security. Obama authorizes drone attacks because he wants to kill terrorists. There’s a reasoning behind why he would do the bad thing. What’s the reasoning for killing Social Security? What’s in it for Obama? Do you seriously think he’d rather make Thomas Friedman and Pete Peterson happy than, well, pretty much anything else?
FlipYrWhig
@cat48: That last point goes back to my question about whether it’s possible that Social Security benefits don’t _need_ to keep growing as promised. But I hasten to add that the “problem” of retired people having lives that are too cushy doesn’t ring a bell as a pressing social issue.
Mike Lamb
@NR: If Obama wants to cut Soc. Sec., and the GOP wants to do the same, then why haven’t there been cuts?
Yutsano
@Mike Lamb: Because Obama also threw in a poison pill: there had to be a tax increase on the wealthy as well as capital gains. Grover threw a shitfit. Context matters. Hoocodathunkit?
Marc
@NR:
You’ve defined that word in a very special way. It used to be the case that Democrats could look at something – say, for example, how inflation is calculated – and try to decide if it’s actually accurate. Or they could look at cutting administrative overhead in a program (say, Medicare or Medicaid.) But we now have a bunch of people on the left who are jealous of the far right and who want to instill a similar dogmatism on the left. So it doesn’t matter whether a given treatment of inflation is correct or not; only if it is a “cut.” Similarly, reductions in payments to providers get transmuted into “cuts”. By this twisted logic we can’t stop paying for useless medical tests because we’re “cutting benefits”.
As noted in #99, there is also such a thing as a gambit. Someone like Obama can promote flexibility in exchange for things that he knows the other side won’t accept. But, of course, if you’re promoting a Norquist-like fanaticism, this is a betrayal.
What’s truly sad is that this has morphed into a exercise where people can’t tell friend from foe. By defining any deviation from the status quo as evil, you lose the ability to make distinctions.
negative 1
This will never happen in an election year. Plus, though both parties may want to, both want to dare the other guy to be the one who does it. Even the dumbest senators can read opinion polls.
Hsquared
@Corner Stone: When has “everything is on the table” actually resulted in anything?
Neldob
I’m just making sure my reps know where I stand for insurance.
Rex Everything
@burnspbesq:
Yeah. They changed their party, but not their ideology, and morphed into YOU.
someguy
When millionaire doctor / representative / teahadist Ron Paul can collect social security and congressional pay, perhaps it’s time to means test. I’d put the mark at the 75th percentile, personally – at that level of income, you’re a taker, not a giver, and Uncle Sam shouldn’t be giving you any more candy. Certainly, nobody over the 85th or 90th percentile should get a damn thing; their country has given them enough with years of high income.
Corner Stone
@burnspbesq:
Yes, this is how a Rockefeller Republican such as yourself would view what happened in 1983. But, distinct from the fantasy view you hold, the facts of what the deal did seem to elude you. How surprising.
It cut benefits and raised taxes on lower income groups. It raised the retirement age and increased the payroll tax. It instituted taxes on SS for those who also had been fortunate enough to have pensions.
Sure, revenues for SS increased after the 1983 deal, only to be robbed and raided for programs other than SS. It also has allowed buffoons like Alan Simpson to repeatedly crow the SS fund created during that deal is nothing but a fraud and doesn’t exist.
It was a lopsided Republican victory then and anyone who looks at it clearly should be able to see that. So it doesn’t surprise me how on board you are with people out to steal from Social Security.
Hell, you’d probably earn a hefty fee helping some of the looting ticks shield their new found funds from the government.