Is Social Security just a warm up for the real sucker punch?

[Armstead]

The GOP's campaign to "reform" Social Security has been called touching the "third rail" of politics.

But I'm wondering if it's just the first strike in a one-two "sucker punch," which is to soften up the American people and the Democrat weenies for the real blow -- Gutting Medicare.

The GOP oveerall game plan is to put the government into such a financial bind that it is castrated and starved by default. Then the conservatives can tie the hands of any reforms, regulation or entitlements for decades to come.

Use the theory of descending standards. The first time something dramatically horrible is done, it seems outrageous. The next time it seems a little less so. Pretty soon standards have been so lowered, what used to be outrageous become commonplace.

If Bush manages to soften up the public by chipping away at Social Security with some meaningless "reform" that weakens it, then the stage is set for something more drastic. Like gutting Medficare.

Medficare, after all, does need reform to bolster its financial position. So it is ripe for GOP plucking.

But Medicare is also as big a sacred cow as Social Security. And probably more emotional because so many people depend on it in a life-and-death way.

So if Bush can first set the stage for major slash and burn of Medicare, how better to soften up the public, and further marginalize the Democrats by some safer "fight" over Social Security?

---

http://bernie.house.gov/documents/articles/20041213172200.asp

Published on 12/13/2004 in the Scripps Howard News Service
Medicaid May Face Big Cuts
by LAWRENCE M. O’ROURKE

If President Bush and Congress want to cut the federal deficit starting next year, as they say they do, then Medicaid has become a choice place to look.

Medicaid, the nation's largest health care program for the poor, disabled and nursing home residents, appears headed for the chopping block in 2005.

Strengthened by the election, the Republican majority on Capitol Hill looks ready to join President Bush in putting a lid on federal Medicaid spending, according to members of Congress and state officials.

“Republicans are real sincere about cutting the budget, and that makes Medicaid vulnerable,” said Rep. George Radanovich, R-Calif., a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, where Medicaid legislation starts.

Many congressional Republicans want to get to a balanced federal budget even faster than Bush, who has promised to cut the deficit in half over the next five years, Radanovich said.

“The big entitlements, including Medicaid, are on the table,” he said.

Rep. Anna Eshoo, D-Calif., also a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, agreed. “Medicaid could be on the table next year, including cuts in program services,” she said. “The President has already proposed turning the program into a block grant and eliminating the intergovernmental transfer program that is so vital for hospitals serving low-income individuals and families in California . I will oppose this.”

Cutting health care programs is a tough go on Capitol Hill. Americans, while supporting deficit reduction, are overwhelmingly against targeting Medicaid for big cuts, said Linda A. DiVall, a GOP pollster.

Contd.

[electropop]

1. Frame the debate: "Don't Corporatize Social Security!" n/t

[undergroundpanther]

2. I dunno

The American people didn't riot over torture being done by soldiers and corporations in our name,They didn't get upset about America Breaking Geneva like Nazis ....They didn't scare the Bushes from their power grabbing scams with rebellion and attempt to tie their hands over Enron.
I fear they'll be just as numb to this as everything else.
WE just have protests,nothing we do tells the Bush's we will not tolerate what they do.WE are no threat to the Bushes.What will we do,not vote for his appointees,Shit,the Dem's roll over like Spaniels because the People already have.Scared to lose their jobs their lifestyle the approval from church. Sometimes I feel like we are in a trance,enchanted by comfort and inaction and fear of risk and integrity.Scared to death of what will people think if we speak up and do the right thing so we do nothing. We pander and wish wash and become ineffective because we fear"radicalism" .Well it takes radicalism to stand up to fascists people.I have come to the conclusion at least half of America is heartless,selfish,stupid and crazy.
And that is not a good thing for those of us who need the help and protection of others,because the others are out for number one and have ceased to care about the poor and bush brand fundamentalism makes it OK to not care,and that fits right in with American money maker immorality,and this misguided cult of the independent "individual"..myth. No man is an island not even a CEO.

[CWebster]

7. They don't even worry about Enron

when it comes to investing their future security in the stock market.

[NashVegas]

3. I Believe You Are Mistaken In One Assumption

When I follow certain paths of logic, I don't believe the goal is to reform SS, I believe the goal is to drop it, entirely.

By mandating private accounts, the * administration is opening up Wall Street to demands for new regulation. Even many people who thought they knew what they were doing in investing lost their shirts in 2000/2001. When you mandate people invest in Wall Street and decree it by law, you're going to have a host of people who will *demand* Wall Street guarantee we'll never lose a dime of that money.

You think Wall Street is going to stand for that? I don't see it happening. I see the SS-destroyers saying, "well, fuck it then. Let's just drop the program and let people do what they want to with their money. Spend or save, your choice."

Will they go after Medicare after that? Doubtful. That's all old people, some of whom are educated and connected. More likely Medicaid, if anything. We don't like poor people.

[Armstead]

4. I used the term "reform" loosely

You're right. Their goal is not to "fix" the system. Rather it is to break it.

[papau]

5. Medicaid stops getting Fed Funds - a year of "block grants" and then

gone - just the way Reagan killed mental health care in the budget passed 8/81.

But Medicare if it moves to the Insurance company approach is dead - indeed the current budget projections have a addon cost factor for each additional percent of the population that takes advantage of the insurance company option for Medicare

[CWebster]

6. I wonder because

this morning, while I was getting ready for work, I watched just a bit of the press conference yesterday. Just enough time for one question. One, of the usual cast of the press corps, asked where, between the cost of Iraq and the trillions for Social security, would the money come from. Bush's response, in 3 parts:

Americans pay a lot of taxes. They pay federal taxes. They pay state taxes. They pay local taxes.

We will provide for all of soldier's needs.

In the near future I will unveil a plan to cut the deficit in half.



What do you suppose he was talking about?

[Armstead]

10. Cutting entitlements and domestic spending

x

[KissMeKate]

8. every day under this admin is the sucker punch.

hes screwed up our country so bad I dont know how we will be able to dig out from under him.

[DemBones DemBones]

9. Many people depend on Social Security "in a life or death way."

Food, after all, is needed for life, and a lack of shelter can also cause death.

There are people on Social Security who rarely use Medicaid. I don't know how common that is but personally know a couple of octogenarians who very rarely see a doctor. One is on no medications, the other takes thyroid medication after having thyroid cancer a few years ago.

Of course, we'll all be up the creek if they screw up Medicare or Social Security -- and I won't be surprised if they try to do both. People should pull themselves up by their own bootstraps, you know. It's mind-boggling when you think of how Dubya got by due to legacy admissions and Daddy's friends being will to shell out big bucks to set him up in business and to bail him out when each of his businesses failed. Anyone remember a book published in 1968 called "The Peter Principle"? The Peter Principle (named after the book's author) states that people are promoted to their highest level of incompetency. In other words, a person may be doing a good job at level C, but will be bumped up to level B, where his or her incompetence will become obvious to all.