I should be more upset about this than I am:
President Obama next week will take the political risk of formally proposing cuts to Social Security and Medicare in his annual budget in an effort to demonstrate his willingness to compromise with Republicans and revive prospects for a long-term deficit-reduction deal, administration officials say....First of all, there's zero chance of a bargain aloing the lines Obama is proposing, which includes a "demand for higher taxes from wealthy individuals and some corporations." The fifth sentence of the New York Times article I'm quoting begins:
The administration's hope is to create cracks in Republicans' antitax resistance....That cracks me up. As if it could actually happen.
I can never tell if the administration actually understand that there is no chance whatsoever of this and is just posturing, or if hope really does spring eternal in Obamaites' "grand bargain"-craving heads. But it doesn't matter -- or at least it doesn't matter as long as the president stands firm on the tax-the-rich quid for his screw-the-beneficiaries quo. The GOP will never, ever go for it.
A Social Security cut based on a shift to chained CPI is part of the president's proposal. I see that BooMan thinks this is not awful. This will upset some of you, but I think he's right that it's a less bad option than a lot of other proposals that have been floated. BooMan cites a December Salon article by Alex Seitz-Wald. What Seitz-Wald wrote about the dealmaking then seems relevant now:
The key question is this: Do you believe Obama can get a deal without cutting anything from social safety entitlement programs, or is he going to have to do something? If you fall in the former camp, then the chained CPI is dead on arrival. But, if you think we're going to have to cut entitlements at some point, then the chained CPI is probably the least bad option of a menu of bad possibilities, including raising the Medicare retirement age, which is the most likely alternative and would be far more harmful.That's the point: we are probably going to have to cut entitlements at some point because liberal budget alternatives that spare entitlements are simply considered beyond the pale in the Beltway. And until our side figures out a way to get such proposals into the debate in a serious way -- with a serious chance of passage -- then the calls for austerity are going to be relentless, and thus it's not surprising that the president feels he has to propose something austere.
I've looked at the "what you lose" calculator for chained CPI at the Web site of AARP (which opposes the idea). I plugged in my age (54), and, because I'm not collecting benefits yet, I plugged in the average annual Social Security benefit, as AARP suggests (it's $15,190). The calculator tells me that over ten years, under chained CPI, I'll lose $2,354.81 -- or about $20 a month. I don't know why the hell ordinary Americans have to pay more for the recent follies of our betters -- but if the system insists that we have to (and that seems to be the case), then this is a hit I could endure. Yes, it's a lot of money for the very poor and very elderly, but the Times story says the White House proposal includes "financial protections for low-income and very old beneficiaries."
The ridiculous thing about this is that even though the president is talking about deficit reductions (past and proposed) that are 80% spending cuts and 20% tax increases, he's going to continue to be attacked as a compulsive taxer and spender by the GOP. And even though the GOP wants massive benefit cuts, dwarfing what Obama is proposing, Republicans are going to run against Democrats as benefit cutters in 2014.
So this sucks -- but it would take a great liberal revival in America to get reasonable counterproposals on the table.
****
AND: In case it's not clear what I mean by "a great liberal revival," what I mean is a serious increase in the number of Americans, especially white heartland Americans, who viscerally understand how right and right-centrist economic policies screw them, and who are motivated to vote for politicians who resist those policies.
****
UPDATE: AARP calculator link fixed.
Here's what we really need - a plan to INCREASE SS:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.americanprogress.org/issues/economy/report/2010/12/09/8772/building-it-up-not-tearing-it-down/
Especially now that pensions are about as extinct as the Dodo Bird, and the 401K Plan has, if not exactly failed catastrophically, let's say, has underperformed rather dramatically as a vehicle for retirement.
But, of course, the people who are advocating for increasing SS benefits are all DFH's who've been right about virtually everything for the last 3+ decades, so what the fuck do they know?
No, say the "Serious People" in the Village - a tranfusion of more blood will only eventually kill the anemic patients, so the best solution is to get as many leeches as possible, and BLEED THE PATIENTS NOW!!!
That'll cure 'em!
Oh, and I forgot to mention that the R's reaction to this suggestion shouldn't be that hard to predict.
ReplyDeleteOf course, even though their fondest wish is to either eliminate or privatize SS (probably, the latter), if Obama actually proposes even a penny of SS cuts, the R's do a 180 and scream about how Obama's trying to starve Grandma, and how, like in 2010, with Medicare, THEY, and THEY ALONE, are the great protectors of the ENTITLEMENT programs they love!!!
And you can take that to the bank!
At least you can take THAT to the bank, since there may be precious little else you'll have to take to the bank.
My suggestion is, let's just wait and see.
It's not like this isn't something the President hasn't been talking about for years, and the R's still haven't bitten at the lure.
Yes, I think you've got it.
ReplyDeleteWasn't there a budget that progressive groups put together? I think it was last summer.
ReplyDeleteAnyways, there is a liberal revival, many more people are looking at things from our side.
Just last week, I heard Rush say something like 'The liberals are taking over America' It was on a coworkers office radio, I just started clapping and said 'yea, finally!' If Rush says it, it must be true, right?
Yeah, there was the People's Budget in 2012, and there was the Back to Work Busget last month.
ReplyDeleteThe Beltway responded to both as someone had farted in church.
Hell, the best way for the Rethugs to screw Obama is to reject his budget on the basis it cuts Social Security! Just imagine what will happen to Dems who run for office in the next few elections with repugs running against them because Obama was stupid enough to offer it.
ReplyDeleteThere are some ways in which the President may be bound by the strictures of "Beltway Wisdom," but offering social security cuts, even the CPI change should not be one of them.
ReplyDeleteThis is an area where the President can lead and try to shape public opinion. It's one thing for Paul Krugman to shout into the ether (or on Morning Joe) that debt is not the biggest problem.
It's another thing for the President to make this case. Especially since the deficit is now going down fast -- from 5.6% of GDP in 2011 to 2.5% of GDP now.
I voted for Obama and I want him to cut social security. I'm a Democrat because I'm a social liberal and upper income. And Republicans are social conservatives. I vote Democratic and part of what I demand from them is smaller government, because while only Nixon could go to China only a Democrat can slash entitlements.
ReplyDeleteThis isn't the new deal Democratic party. It's a socially liberal and free market party. Get with the fucking program. Times have changed. And a Democratic party that expands the welfare state couldn't be voted into power.
Sorry, but this is the reality you face. Your vote is about the culture wars, the New Deal is as dead and old as the racist coalition that built it.
I don't think it was really necessary for you to mention that you were "upper income", there, Overclock. As for racist coalitions, the one between Wall Street, overstuffed cocaine-libs (present company included, I fear) and airheaded, overpaid "centrist" pundits - the currently dominant coalition, it seems - certainly qualifies as racist as well, since we're talking.
ReplyDeleteOverclock,
ReplyDeleteMaybe to enhance your "upper income" to maximize your own retirement, you might want to consider starting investing in a Soylent Green facility, for the rest of us who've been either lower income, or didn't get enough income to keep our heads barely in the middle class.
Oh, and thank you for your touching concern...
Overclock - I smell a troll here. The reality of Social Security is its totally self sufficient. That means it does nothing to increase the debt, nothing. So the only reason for cutting it is the Rethuglican wet dream to begin the process of destroying it. A wonderful program that works and has kept millions of Americans from ultra poverty. I dont know about you but I for one receive SS and it aint paying much. So please take your small Govt BS someplace else. Dems created it and Dems need to protect it and improve it by removing the Pay Cap and improving the monthly stipend.
ReplyDeleteLink fail for the AARP calculator.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.aarp.org/whatyoulose
Troll indeed. "I voted for Obama" is about like "some of my best friends are X but..." these days. The O was a shew in from the get go. The Bushies trashed the place and then threw both elections. McCaln/Palin? Thurston Howell the Third!? Breakmeoffapieceofthatkitkatbar.
ReplyDeleteThis Old Logger voted Green. Twice.
No fear...
Link fail for the AARP calculator.
ReplyDeleteThanks. Fixed now.
This is more than just moronic but pretty immoral too. So Obama had no alternative to push Social Security cuts because there was nothing else he could do in this reverse-Panglossian worst of all possible worlds? Way to rationalize sticking it to the elderly and the needy, asshole. Sleep well!
ReplyDelete