Zero Hour for Social Security

[defendandprotect]

Zero Hour for Social Security

Robert Kuttner.Co-founder and co-editor of The American Prospect
Posted: January 9, 2011 04:51 PM

As I have previously warned--and I hope I'm wrong--President Obama seems on the verge of needlessly cutting America's most valued social program and the one that best differentiates Republicans from Democrats. This is part of a vain effort to appease deficit hawks in his own party and on Wall Street, as well as Republicans who are utter hypocrites when it comes to deficits--increasing them as long as the purpose is tax cuts but then turning around and demanding program cuts in order to reduce the deficits they created.

All the choreography is in place for the president to embrace Social Security cuts in his upcoming State of the Union address.

Cutting Social Security is financially needless--the program is in sound shape for the next 27 years. It has nothing to do with the current deficit. It will be solvent indefinitely if we can get some wage growth going again. Failing that, we should raise the lid on income taxed, so that millionaires pay the same rate as regular people. For more detail, see ourfiscalsecurity.org.

It's politically idiotic for democrats to join this parade. To have Republicans demand cuts in Social Security at a time when they are also demanding tax cuts for the rich is a cue for Democrats to make clear which side they're on. Obama got in big trouble with seniors in the health care bill because they were worried that it would mean Medicare cuts. In 2010, Democrats lost the senior vote, big time. Now, Obama has a splendid opportunity to point out that it's Republicans who want to cut Social Security.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-kuttner/zero-hour-for-social-security_b_806486.html


-------------------------



Think Obama showed his hand on this long ago when he set up the notorious Repug Alan Simpson

to head the "Cat Food Commission" --

[xchrom]

1. The SOTU is going to be interesting on a couple of fronts.

SS being one.

[elocs]

2. One a Democratic president willingly goes down the path of cutting Social Security,

then it is the beginning of the end for SS. Any Democratic president who does such a thing can count on losing millions of votes, and not from Republicans because they won't vote for him anyways.

[WinkyDink]

28. It is the beginning of the end for Democratic presidents, as well. We will NOT forget.

[blindpig]

3. There is virtually no opposition to this from the political class...

and the major media talking heads. Looks like a done deal with the 'debate' being mainly jostling about who takes the worst beating and of course the dog and pony show, which this time ain't gonna fool too many people.

[WillyT]

4. "It's politically idiotic for democrats to join this parade."

And we're just the guys to do it.

:banghead::banghead::banghead:

:kick: & Rec !!!

[SoCalDem]

5. and 27 years down the road many (most?) of the largest bulge of Boomers will be gone

, so if SS deductions are tweaked to NOT stop at 110K or whatever it is now, it would be solvent for a very long time, since lower wages now mean lower payouts later..

[fasttense]

6. Any cuts to Social Security is my litmus test.

If Obama signs any legislation or allows any policy to cut benefits, increase age, privatize or means tests Social Security, I will NOT vote for him.

With his 2% Social Security tax cut while giving hundreds of billions of dollars in tax breaks to the excessively wealthy, I'm almost there now. I'm this close to the edge of not voting for him again. If he reduces Social Security benefits in anyway, I'll be over that edge.

[lib2DaBone]

15. Mr. Obama could care less if he is re-elected. He works for Wall Street...

Obama is carrying out his mission for his masters... he is going to devastate the middle class and collect a big pension for himself in the process. Wanna bet the Mr. Obama gets a cushy seat on the Board of Goldman Sachs once he leaves office in 2013?

[bvar22]

7. They are coming.

The destruction of Social Security and Medicare are the last two big items on the DLC Wish List.


By their works you will know them.

[vssmith]

18. They have been trying to undo the New Deal for close to 70 years

[socialist_n_TN]

8. The capitalist class has hated Social Security ......

from the beginning. It's taken them 80 years, but they've finally gotten the power to begin the process of getting rid of it. It's not a Republican/Democratic issue. And yes I know the Republicans are and have been united in opposition to SS all along, but there are WAY too many Dems at that point now too. It is and actually always has been an us vs them issue.

[Greybnk48]

9. A cut to S.S. and my husband and I stay home in 2012.

We're Kennedy Democrats and I myself have voted in every election since I was 19. But as I just told the WI Dems calling our house for more money, if the President (who I love) acts like a Repug, then I won't vote for him. I adore him, his wife, and kids (and Bo), but I can't let that get in the way of something this important.

FYI: I've voted for two repugs in my life, Ford and a local pol. Toby Roth. I won't ever do that again, not in this climate.

[Hoyt]

10. Have not seen anything that suggests Obama is going to "cut" SS.

Even the so-called Catfood Commission suggested raising the wage cap and raising benefits for those receiving the least under SS. I have no problem discussing those options and other options that might make SS better.

[CountAllVotes]

11. seen nothing either

More hyperbole to scare people IMO.

[defendandprotect]

12. You didn't see Obama make back room deals with Big Pharma ....

or with the private Health Care Industry to destroy the largest push

ever -- 76%+ of the public and still increasing -- for single payer/

public option - MEDICARE FOR ALL?

Why would you think these endless pro-corporate decisions Obama has made are

going to stop before he gets to Social Security? Would you have appointed

someone like Alan Simpson to head up the CFC?

[Hoyt]

24. He made deals he thought needed to get it passed without shoving it down the opposition's throat.

I agree with that. Now, we can adopt the Catfood Commission recommendation to offer a public option. Right or wrong, we can forget single payer for awhile. And even if we got it, the cost would still be high for most unsubsidized people.

But, how does all of have anything to do with SS?

BTW-- I'm close to SS and will need it, but I'm perfectly happy with discussing the options. If they raised SS benefits for the lowest group, and say tweaked Medicare a little, got jobs for millions of people, adopted the CFC recommendations of raising the wage cap, etc., I'd CONSIDER a cut. Why, because I'd still be better off in many ways (if not financially), and so would a lot of others.

And, yes, I would have appointed Simpson. I've seen the same thing done in other political organizations and corporations. Take someone is is bitching about the something like the deficit and put them on a COMMISSION. And, I think the actual recommendations of the CFC were a good place to start negotiating some plan that will improve our deficit and debt issues. So, are you opposed to considering cutting the military budget $100 Billion per year as proposed by the draft CFC report? It might ought to be 200 or $300 Billion, but let's start at $100 Billion and work upward. There are other recommendations that should, and very likely will, be considered for 2 seconds, denied, and then they'll move on to the next item.

Point is, if we work out something that makes a real dent in the debt situation and our future, yep, I'd consider a cut in SS because the country will be better off.

If the worst that you expect materializes, Obama -- or anyone else -- screws with it so the country is not better off, he'll be moving back to Chicago in 2012. But, I don't think it will happen. I do think people will keep griping no matter what happens.

[defendandprotect]

30. Democracy isn't based on back room deals... it's based on open discussion and debate by Congress --

He made deals he thought needed to get it passed without shoving it down the opposition's throat.

Does Obama even know who the "opposition" is?

Generally, it seems he considers liberals the opposition.

Meanwhile -- here's Rahm Emmanuel "crowing" about preserving "private health care industry" ... business s/b grateful!


”In a Thursday interview, White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel argued that rather than recoiling against Obama, business leaders should be grateful for his support on at least a half-dozen counts: his advocacy of greater international trade and education reform open markets despite union skepticism; his rejection of calls from some quarters to nationalize banks during the financial meltdown; the rescue of the automobile industry; the fact that the

overhaul of health care preserved the private delivery system;

the fact that billions in the stimulus package benefited business with lucrative new contracts, and that financial regulation reform will take away the uncertainty that existed with a broken, pre-crash regulatory apparatus.

http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=B2F85DDF-18...

Don't know where you got the idea on what universal health care would cost -- it would actually

save the government money -- and would provide 2.3 million new jobs.

And even if we got it, the cost would still be high for most unsubsidized people.

We're already subsidizing people who can't afford medical care -- plus there is an injury to

society when we have so much illness. Right now 1 in 3 Americans have cancer, for instance.

Raising the cap has long been done -- on a more gradual basis -- and is always an option.

And should be done. However, it has to remain a universal program and not something connected

to wealth or poverty.

And, yes, I would have appointed Simpson.

Well, I think that pretty much explains all of your thinking.

Why bother voting for Democrats if you're in favor of giving leadership to Repugs?

Point is, if we work out something that makes a real dent in the debt situation and our future, yep, I'd consider a cut in SS because the country will be better off.

Social Security has NOTHING whatsoever to do with the national debt, nor the deficit!

If you're under that false illusion, you should try to correct it.

"People keep griping" -- how long have you been unemployed?

How long have you been without health insurance or medical care?

:eyes:

[Hoyt]

38. A few comments about your misunderstanding.

Won’t respond point by point – waste of time.

But here are a few comments –

The “Commission” had co-chairs, one Republican, one Democrat.
Thus, the leadership of the commission was not turned over to Republicans. It was put in the hands of people with some budgetary experience. If Obama had appointed all Democrats, no one would have listened.. Besides, the Commission only issued recommendations. Most of it will never happen. And part of the reason is that some folks don’t even want to talk about possible solutions.

SS does impact our deficit indirectly. If SS taxes go up – which I think is the best way to resolve any long-term funding shortfall – it reduces the amount available that can be charged as other taxes. We also have to pay interest on bonds.

As to cost of health insurance,
My point was – and you completely missed it – is that even if we had gone to Medicare for all, you and I would still pay premiums higher than we want to pay. I think single payer is best, but going to Medicare for all, at best will be 20 to 30% less than private insurance by cutting out the marketing, CEO bonuses, profits, dividends, etc. And we have to, and should, cover the uninsured. The underlying healthcare costs will remain pretty much the same unless we take some tough actions on what is covered, the delivery system, etc. (Again, these are things we need to do, but folks will gripe because they don’t understand it ain’t free.) People will still gripe about having to pay anything, because it will not be free to most of us. People will gripe because they don’t get to see a physician as often because we will need to use other personnel (which I think is fine, but people will still gripe) to make the system affordable while adding millions more with coverage.

So, we might get a one time reduction in the cost of health insurance, but 10 to 15% increases per year will eat that up in no time. Then, people will gripe, and many will blame it on Obama. Heck, they blame him right here for things he hasn't even done.

Maybe you should try to temper your attitude and recognize there really are not quick fixes to the serious problems we face.

[defendandprotect]

41. The Cat Food Commission is political ... many politicians have "budgetary experience" ....

Those appointed by Obama have a bias -- long established in the case of Simpson --

to destroy and dismantle Social Security.

Congress voted AGAINST this Commission -- and Pelosi never appointed Democrats to it --

Democrats who might have countered this Repug influence put in place by Obama.


Medicare costs are higher now because it is a limited pool of elderly --

It costs less to cover an expanded pool of various ages.

And, evidently, you have no idea of the private costs of insurance coverage, which, btw,

guarantees nothing. Insurance companies dictate what care you get for your premiums, if

any care at all.

Medicaid is already covering many who can't afford insurance --

Again -- as has been made clear by GAO, government would save money if MEDICARE FOR ALL were passed.

Your opinions and comments on "people and griping" also reveal more about you than any reality

of the public and its attitudes. Meanwhile, MEDICARE FOR ALL would also be moving to PREVENTIVE

health care which is also a savings for the system, but a huge threat to the for profit health

care system.

Maybe you should try to understand how these systems work in other nations -- when their right

wing governments aren't trying to destroy and starve the systems they already have?

We rank 37th in health care in the world -- that's below CUBA.

Americans, as a nation are paying more than Switzerland pays per person to cover their citizens

with the most luxurious of health care.

Americans pay more for health care and insurance than any other nation -- on drugs we pay

4X, 5X and 6X what other nations pay for drugs. Evidently, you are either missing a great deal

of info posted here at DU, or ignoring it.


SS does impact our deficit indirectly. If SS taxes go up – which I think is the best way to resolve any long-term funding shortfall – it reduces the amount available that can be charged as other taxes. We also have to pay interest on bonds.

More of the right wing "up" is "down" nonsense --

Social Security is paid for by the employer and the employee -- and costs government nothing.

Government simply administrates the program at 3%.

And, again, Social Security has NOTHING whatsoever to do with the debt -- or the deficit.


What we need to cut is the military -- we can save an immediate 28% of our MIC costs simply

by merging the services. However, W doubled the MIC budget -- we should at least halve it --

and then merge the services!

We could also do with much less warmongering and warmaking by Obama and this administration --

Biden is still pushing for Israel to attack Iran!

We also need to create jobs for Americans -- that means overturning the trade agreements rather

than negotiating new ones as Obama is doing.

Farce upon farce!

[Hoyt]

42. The Catfood Commission is political, so is DU, so is your screed on Obama, etc.

As far as health insurance, I can tell you right now that Medicare operates with a 3 - 5% overhead (and most of the administration is actually managed by private insurance companies), while private insurance's overhead is 15 - 30% (BTW -- Obama's health insurance reform will limit that to 15 to 20% in the future). That is the primary savings you can hope for from Medicare for all, after that you'll have to cut benefits or radically change the delivery system (which I support, but will get cursed by Liberals and conservatives) and coverage. And, people above a certain threshold will have to pay premiums for it and it will be more than most will pay without bitching.

And I can quote WHO stats too. I never said I health care system is the best or worth what it costs. Never even broached that subject because it's a long established fact. I did say, that even if we adopt Medicare for all, it will still cost most people more than they'll willing spend without bitching. I stand by that, notwithstanding all the extraneous BS in your post.

Yes, these systems work in other nations and they will work here -- but it is going to cost most of us more than we think. In other words, if you are paying $650 a month for commercial insurance, you are still going to be paying $500 in premiums or taxes under Medicare for all, maybe more to cover the uninsured. And you will still bitch. That's not a reason not to hope for Medicare for all, but it isn't going to appreciably change our personal budgets at home.
As to military spending, show me anyone else who has seriously proposed a cut of $100 Billion. As to your assertions about war, etc., I totally agree (although those cutbacks will eliminate a lot of jobs, but I think we have to bite that bullet).

Finally, SS does impact our debt because the money that will be used to pay back the government bonds in the Trust Fund will come from future general tax revenues. If we are paying big bucks for interest on government bonds, the government's ability to tax further is limited. In fact, government's ability to borrow is also impacted. But, keep believing it doesn't matter. As the SS Trustees say, "The Trustees believe that extensive public discussion and analysis of the long-range financing problems of the Social Security program are essential in developing broad support for changes to restore the long-range balance of the program." http://www.socialsecurity.gov/OACT/ProgData/fundFAQ.html

Personally, I'd rather resolve these issues by talking about them and looking for the least painful solutions while we have time. You just choose to "gripe," proving my earlier point.

[MannyGoldstein]

19. Obama's commission recommended a 25% cut

for average recipient, phased over time.

[Hoyt]

25. Can you provide a citation for that, please? I don't think that is correct, but S/B easy to prove.

[MannyGoldstein]

29. For example

http://www.strengthensocialsecurity.org/dead-on-arrival

I recall that the average over all incomes was about a 25% cut.

[Hoyt]

39. It does not say a thing about 25% cuts, except for the 25% cut that comes around 2040

if we do nothing. I think we ought to raise the wage cap, as even the Commission recommends. But, something is needed.

[sabrina 1]

26. Raising the retirement age IS cutting SS.

They've already cut benefits for retirees by not giving them a cost of living raise for two years now. And SS is solvent for the next three decades even without doing a thing and those numbers are based on these bad economic times with low employment rates. Leave SS alone!! I agree with the previous commenter. If this Democratic President goes along with the long held dream of the far right and the DLC which is the lite wing of the far right that somehow infiltrated the Dem. Party, millions WILL stay home.

And aside from all of this, why is SS even being discussed as part of any discussion about a Deficit? Do they think we are all stupid?

[bluethruandthru]

35. [phone] n/t

[upi402]

13. He will snuff the last ember from this party

He's going to force an alternative if we can't take the party back

which looks unlikely

[Poboy]

14. recommend

[lib2DaBone]

16. Watch the SOTU.. there are 2 ways Mr. Obama can go....

He will either announce a "Cut and Gut" of Social Security to the delight of Wall Street..

Or.. he will announce a more stealth laundry list of tax reforms which will take a little longer to gut Social Security.. but it will do the same thing. (with most voters being non-the-wiser)

[Hannah Bell]

17. of course, the stealth option. it's always the stealth option.

cut & gut = resistance.

[dflprincess]

20. And when we question his stealth moves

we'll be told we're jumping to conclusions.

[Hannah Bell]

22. you got that.

[eridani]

21. How about a pre-emptive strike re the SOTU?

Tell our representatives and President Obama that if he can't say something nice about Social Security and Medicare during the State of the Union Address--say nothing at all.

“I do not want to cut benefits or raise the retirement age. I believe there are a number of ways we can make Social Security solvent that do not involve placing these added burdens on seniors.”

We are at another critical moment in the fight to defend Social Security and Medicare as President Obama prepares to deliver his State of the Union (SOTU) speech on Jan. 25th. SOTU provides the President’s analysis of our present condition and gives us information about the President’s plans and priorities. In light of the growing threat to Social Security and Medicare, it is important that the President publicly reaffirm his commitment to Social Security and Medicare in the SOTU.

We have to bring as much pressure to bear as possible to encourage the President to reaffirm in the SOTU his campaign commitments. Democrats still control the Executive branch and the Senate and we need to let it be known that cuts to Social Security benefits and/or raising the retirement age will have very negative political consequences in 2011 & 2012 for the Democrats.

Organizations and individuals: please contact your senators and ask them to communicate with the White House and urge the President to reaffirm his commitment in the SOTU to not cut Social Security or Medicare benefits or raise the retirement age.

Organizations and individuals: please directly communicate a similar message to the White House. A grass roots response is critical. Organizations please call on your grass root members to communicate with Senators Murray & Cantwell & the White House.

Time is of the essence! See additional talking points below.
Here is the contact information:

President Obama: Email: http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact/ Phone:[phone]

Social Security: Talking Points and Key Facts

Main message: President Obama, in your State of the Union address, I (we) urge you to reiterate your pledge to protect Social Security and your promise not to cut benefits or raise the retirement age. Do not force more cost sharing on old sick people.

Additional messages:

-- Social Security is critical to the economic security of Americans of all ages, and is more important now than ever.
--Keeping Social Security strong is a key issue for voters.
--Cutting Social Security will destroy the voters’ trust in all Democrats and guarantee Republican victories in 2011 and 2012.
--There are many ways to deal with the federal deficit that will benefit the American people and our economy. Cutting Social Security is not one of them and should not be part of any plan proposed or endorsed by you.

Key Facts on Social Security:

Social Security Beneficiary Comparison Data by State:
http://www.socialsecurity.gov/policy/docs/statcomps/oasdi_zip/2009/wa.pdf

Key Facts and Talking Points on Medicare

• Among people over 65, as is the case with every other age demographic, 5% of the population accounts for 50% of all costs, and 15% of the population accounts for 85% of all costs. Forcing more cost sharing on this very vulnerable minority is going to kill people

• Many seniors are already skipping drugs and other treatments on the grounds of cost even without the proposed cuts.

• Currently there are no limits on paying for medical care. "Premium aupport" would give Medicare beneficiaries a fixed sum to purchase health care benefits, forcing them into cheaper private plans with far less coverage.

• Proposed changes in Medigap policies would prohibit these plans from covering the first $500 for enrollees, and limit coverage to only 50% of the next $5000/

http://pnhp.org/blog/2010/11/17/jan-schakowsky-and-rivlindomenici-on-the-deficit/
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1490185/

National organizations

Hands Off Our Medicare! http://www.handsoffourmedicare.org/handsoff//
Social Security Works http://socialsecurity-works.org/
Strengthen Social Security http://strengthensocialsecurity.org/

[Hannah Bell]

23. can't hurt.

[WinkyDink]

27. And that his popularity has risen will embolden Obama further.

[Poboy]

31. Yes, this is true. It will embolden him to be more arrogant in his

language, more deceptive in his tone, and more lethal in his proposals.

[fascisthunter]

32. again... what are the wealthy and rich sacrificing?

...why should the rest of sacrifice any more? We have so little to begin with...

[lonestarnot]

34. Easily answered: Us, and US.

[socialist_n_TN]

36. Thank you for asking this simple question............

fascisthunter. Nobody seems to want to even ASK this question, much less answer it.

[WinkyDink]

40. By definition, if the wealthy REMAIN wealthy, there is no "sacrifice."

[fascisthunter]

44. excellent point, which just adds insult to injury

they lose nothing that will even change their lifestyles.... the rest have more than their lifestyle at stake here.

[lonestarnot]

33. And Jan Brewer is cutting medical coverage, education, raising property tax, and who the fuck knows

what else, building private prisons.

[senseandsensibility]

37. KICK!

We should be calling our congress people ahead of the SOTU.

[unkachuck]

43. if Democrats....

....do anything to Social Security except improve it, I will cuss those bastards out and spit wooden nickels until I'm tombstoned....

....at that point, any complicit Democrat or supporter can kiss my white ass and go to hell....