Social Security: Will Obama sign cuts into law or not? What's you best guess right now, today?

[Stinky The Clown]

I think he will.

What do you think?

No need to say why you think what you think as there are no hard facts yet. So this is really just a gut check.

[woo me with science]

1. I'm worried about it.

I hope he surprises us with a firm stand tonight taking SS off the table.

But I'm not holding my breath.

[Autumn]

2. He said he doesn't "endorse" them

He hasn't said that the cuts are off the table. To me that gives him plenty of room.

[emulatorloo]

3. No

NYT article I read yesterday, admin insider preview, no cuts to social security.

[Poboy]

4. The fact that this is a question is a damning indictment in and of itself.

[leveymg]

5. His "not off the table" position gives him lots of room for another secret deal with the GOP.

I think he's a shrewd but cowardly political operator, and resent his part-of-the-truth approach to revealing his actual agenda for "Social Security and entitlements" reform. If he believes that cutting the deficit is most important, he needs to just come out and tell us what middle-class benefits he's willing to cut.

These closed door deals have got to stop. I'm losing all trust in him.

Raising the retirement age is just one of many proposals put forward by the Catfood Commission. I note with dismay that Obama doesn't talk about the others. Here's more on the specifics we do not yet know: http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/1210/120110nj1.htm

Still, the basic concept of the plan's attack on the deficit remains the same. It begins with a modest increase in the overall tax burden, softened by a broad tax reform that knocks out most tax breaks and reduces tax rates at every level. It then calls for an increase in the retirement age for Social Security -- which would save tens of billions of dollars over the next decade alone -- and more changes aimed at slowing the growth in health care costs.

The commission goes further than the president's stated goal of reducing the deficit to 3 percent of gross domestic product, instead whittling it down to 2.3 percent of GDP by 2015. It caps revenue and spending, meanwhile, at 21 percent of GDP each.

The plan recommends the immediate implementation of fundamental tax reform and the elimination of nearly all of the 150-plus tax expenditures, with a few exceptions: the earned income tax credit, the child credit, mortgage interest deductions (but only for primary homes), employer-provided health insurance credits, retirement savings and pensions credits, and charitable giving deductions. Itemized deductions would be eliminated, and capital gains and dividends would be taxed at ordinary rates.

The plan cuts tax rates across the board, reducing the top rate to between 23 percent and 29 percent. Originally, the co-chairs recommended establishing three rates -- 15 percent, 25 percent, and 35 percent. Their proposal to implement a 15 cent-per-gallon fuel tax hike within the next five years remains unchanged.

The corporate tax rate would be streamlined, with the rate necessarily falling between 23 percent and 29 percent, down from the current top rate of 35 percent. The plan suggests a 28 percent rate in its illustrative proposal, a 2-point increase over the chairmen's mark proposal. Meanwhile, a territorial system would be established for foreign-owned companies with U.S. subsidiaries, allowing them to keep foreign profits. All tax deductions and expenditures for businesses would be eliminated.

The plan calls for discretionary spending to return to pre-crisis 2008 levels in 2013, while freezing spending in 2012 at 2011 levels and constraining spending growth to half the rate of inflation through 2020. It would cut non-war defense spending at the same rate as non-defense spending, while war spending would fall under the responsibility of the president, who would be required to propose annual limits.

The plan adds details on how to reduce federal health care spending, which were noticeably absent in the initial Simpson-Bowles proposal. They include changing how Medicare pays doctors, scrapping a long-term care insurance plan created by President Obama's signature health care bill, overhauling medical malpractice litigation, and chipping away at Medicare and Medicaid costs through a variety of measures.

But the final proposal still lacks specifics on how to control upward-spiraling health care cost increases throughout the economy - the biggest driver of long-term budget deficits, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

The commission's boldest attempt to control those costs is by eliminating the tax exemption for employer-paid health benefits, which many economists say would help reduce costs by forcing individuals to shoulder more of the burden of their health-care choices.

The retirement age would be raised to 69 from 65 in order to rein in Social Security spending to ensure the program's solvency.

More generally, the plan proposes budget process reforms to encourage accountability in the budgeting process.

[Autumn]

19. That's my problem. You said

"I think he's a shrewd but cowardly political operator, and resent his part-of-the-truth approach to revealing his actual agenda for "Social Security and entitlements" reform. If he believes that cutting the deficit is most important, he needs to just come out and tell us what middle-class benefits he's willing to cut.

I agree completely. During the "health care" debate he had always referred to it as health care reform, then on a press conference he called it "insurance finance reform", I got a sinking feeling in the pit of my stomach and knew then it wasn't going to be any substantial reform. Since then I don't trust what he says. I watch what he does.

[leveymg]

39. He also did the same thing during the lame duck session tax deal.

Obama started out with a public position that he opposed an extension of the Bush-era "temporary" cut in the top-rate, but then parlayed concession on that and the inheritance tax into an across the board extension and a one-year cut in Social Security withholdings. He ended up labeling that a second-round stimulus.

After watching how he operates to advance the GOP agenda, I have little confidence left in his carefully-crafted public positions on such issues. He's not transparent, and what comes out bears little resemblance to his initial promises.

[SidDithers]

6. Nope...nt

Sid

[lumberjack_jeff]

7. Sure. It'll be bundled with some "save the whales" bullshit.

He'll be very clear with congress about how much political cover he feels necessary.

"It was oh, so very important that we raise the tax one half of one tenth of one percent on bankers executive bonuses. The only way we could get that is by gut... err ... strengthening Social Security."

[ljm2002]

8. My gut says...

...if a bill comes his way with cuts, unless the cuts are very very draconian, he'll sign it, all the while saying he doesn't "endorse" the cuts.

I'm happy he won't endorse any cuts in his SOTU, but then again, he's not going to say they're off the table either. That's how he rolls.

JMNSHO.

[blindpig]

9. Done deal

The dog and pony will work overtime, a fig leaf will be provided, we will get screwed.

[Statistical]

10. As part of a "compromise" I think so..

Raise cap, raise contribution rate, alter bend points, push back retirement age for younger Americans.

Would he sign a bill that directly cuts benefits? No.
Would he sign a bill that includes other changes and pushes back retirement (in effect cutting benefits)? Yes.

There will be a lot of backslapping and handshaking. Talk about securing SS for next 75 years, and achieving fiscal discipline.

[northoftheborder]

14. He'll compromise.

[Orangepeel]

33. Yep. nt

[suston96]

11. The end run he and the Repubs pulled.......

...by lowering the 6.2% tax to 4.2%, was an insidious and cowardly attack on the incoming funds to the SS Trust.

I say look for more of these games played by Obama and the Repubs who believe - wrongly - that Social Security is the cause of budget deficits.

Both Obama and Repubs insist that Social Security is in trouble. That is a lie.

[Radical Activist]

12. Obama won't endorse raising retirement age or reducing Social Security benefits

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/01/24/AR2011012403472.html

[Statistical]

15. Not endorsing is not the same thing as working to defeat.

He didn't endorse tax cuts for the rich but he was willing to compromise to get UI. Now in that instance I think it was the right call. The point is Obama has shown a willingness to vote for things he doesn't endorse to get things he does.

[Stinky The Clown]

16. There's a term for such speeches:

"Weasel Words"

History is on the side of calling it weasel words and not reassurance.

[Name removed]

20. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[boston bean]

22. What was your argument again during the PO debate and Bush tax cut debate? nt

Was it Prove it, he said no such thing, there will be a PO, Obama will never extend the Bush tax cuts?

[Radical Activist]

23. I believe my argument was that we should focus on pressuring the Senate

since they're the real obstacle to progress. And yes, I turned out to be right. We would have gotten the PO and an end to Bush's tax cuts for the rich if the Senate had passed them. Putting all the focus on Obama like he's the only elected official in America turned out to be a dumbfuck strategy.

[boston bean]

25. Obama made no back room deals on either of those two issues?

he had no input whatsoever. You really need to give this prez more credit.

[Radical Activist]

27. ZOMG! A compromise!??!1?1?!! In politics??!!?

Yeah, that's how things get done in DC. You're setting up a straw man.

Yes, Obama compromised to get a bill passed because THE SENATE was never going to pass the public option. In other words, the netroots could have been productive by pressuring a few more SENATORS instead of pissing in their diapers about Obama.

If you want to argue that we'd be better off with no bill passing at all then be my guest. The Republicans are making that argument right now and it isn't going so well for them.

[boston bean]

31. Oh so he did have something to do with it.

His campaign promises were to end the bush tax cuts for the wealthy.

He stated repeatedly he wanted a PO.

I am suppose to believe now, after everything is on the table, that he is against every single cut to social security.

he's not going to compromise now?

I don't want any compromise on SS cuts.

I want hands off SS.

You think these compromises are fine and dandy and repeatedly give the benefit of the doubt.

[Stinky The Clown]

43. Hahaha

:thumbsup:

[polmaven]

30. As far as the PO,

while that was a disappointment, it is not anywhere near Social Security. It was not a long established program into which every working person has paid for years. And it was obviously needed in order to not sink the entire bill.

As for the extension of the tax cuts, may I ask if you would have preferred that UI benefits not be extended for that principle? Would you have preferred that millions of people, including children be put out into the streets because of it? I am one of those UI, and this week exhausted the first 26 weeks, with no new job in sight. Would it have been more beneficial for me to have the satisfaction of the president not renewing those tax cuts, or being able to extend UI?

[boston bean]

32. What I think is that he didn't even put up a fight. he just extended them

didn't even give congress time to work it out.

He made a decision.

He could have won the argument and probably gotten the extension you needed without ever having to extend the tax cuts for the wealthy.

But we will never know cause he folded.

[polmaven]

35. And you know that because

you were in the room during the negotiations? You do remember that the Republicans had already blocked an extension in December, leaving 2 million people with no income, and several more millions would have been would have been exhausted in early January, and ongoing from there.

What the president did was put the unemployed to the top of the list. He took a lot of heat for that, but he did the right thing.

[boston bean]

45. yes, i do know that. he made a deal. it is well known and he has taken credit.

he did not put them on the burner for this at christmas time no less.

he didn't even make the argument.

So, yes, he just made the deal, no effort at anything else.

I didn't hear him say boo to the republicans, did you. What does that lead you to believe?

[polmaven]

47. Again -

Were you in the room when any of these negotiations were underway?

[boston bean]

48. Were you? I know what the end result was and I know he didn't

bring the issue to the american public and applied no pressure at all.

That history cannot be re-written.

[EFerrari]

41. Misleading headline; not what the article says.

And yeah, he will sign cuts in law.

[Edweird]

13. I agree. He will.

[jaxx]

17. No.

There is no reason to think he would.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

18. Absolutely... he knows we bitch alot but have no resolution to can his ass.

[Safetykitten]

21. Yes he will. And he will be applauded here by many for doing so.

[jonnyblitz]

24. i think he will. nt

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

26. Of course he will. And, then tell us it's good for us and call it a victory.

[Celeborn Skywalker]

28. I don't think so.

It would be the end of his presidency if he did that and I don't think he really wants to mess with SS anyway. In fact, I hope he goes the opposite way and raises the cap on who pays into social security.

[Ernesto]

29. What Radical Activist just said!!!!!!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/01/24/AR2011012403472.html?wpisrc=nl_politics

[Stinky The Clown]

36. And what I said to Radical Activist: Weasel Words.

[Better Believe It]

34. Of course he will and a minority of self-proclaimed "liberals" will defend the cuts.

[SidDithers]

38. A minority of self-proclaimed "liberals" hope he does cut SS...

just so they can high-five at how right they were that Obama is such a bad, bad man.

Sid

[SammyWinstonJack]

37. Yes I think he will.

[tammywammy]

40. No n/t

[PoliticAverse]

42. Would you define 'cut' ?

Does a 'cut' include:
Raising the retirement age.
Changing the COLA formula.
?

[Better Believe It]

44. Those are cuts, big cuts!

[Stinky The Clown]

46. Yes

[timtom]

49. He's a corporatist.

Of course he will.

(May I live to eat my words...)