Is Obama Preparing To Join With Republicans In Cutting Social Security?

The short answer, via Dylan Scott at TPM: Obama won't say:

When House Republicans signaled last week that they would provoke a fight over Social Security in the next two years, progressive stalwarts like Ohio Sen. Sherrod Brown and Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren decried the action, with Brown alleging the GOP wanted to "set the stage to cut benefits for seniors and disabled Americans.”

Who's our friend?
Neither one!

But notably silent on the Republican stance, which prevents what has been a routine transfer of revenue between the retirement and disability funds, upping the chances of a crisis for the latter in late 2016, was the Democratic official who might actually be at the table if conservatives succeed in forcing negotiations in the next Congress: President Barack Obama.

TPM asked multiple times last week for the White House's position on the House action, but never received a formal response, a stark contrast to the loud public pronouncements of Brown, Warren, and others. It also invokes the uneasy relationship between the White House and Social Security advocates, who were dismayed by Obama's willingness to accept cuts to the program during the 2011 grand bargain talks with House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH).

,,,

(Bolds mine. - SB)

I live mostly on Social Security retirement benefits. Forced to retire five years early by the Baby Bush recession, I was inevitably compelled to begin using my carefully accumulated retirement savings for living expenses long before I anticipated having to retire. But I wasn't too worried: not only had I saved for the rainy day that arrived early and just kept raining, but Social Security retirement benefits had my back, so to speak. I had paid into SocSec all my working life (actually, all but the 10 years I worked for the State of Texas), supporting earlier generations in their retirement years in the good-faith understanding that younger generations would, in part, support me in my own "golden" (yeah, right) years.

But as we all are discovering, the "contract across generations" was never based on anything more substantial than good faith... and our current government officials, in both parties and at least two branches, seems ready and willing to break faith with me and everyone like me. Why? Good question; the best answer I can come up with is a combination of "because they can" and "because it better serves the exceedingly wealthy," who provide elected officials with the obscene amounts of money they need to run for office.

Fv<k them all, and fv<k the horses they rode in on. If we can disrupt this vicious cycle, we certainly should do so. And if we can't... well, there's no telling what a hungry person will do, is there?

COLA And Chained CPI: What Are They? What Impacts Would Obama's Proposed Changes Have?

A New York Times editorial discusses these (at greater length than most editorials) and concludes that President Obama, having not gotten his tax concessions from Republicans as they did not get their lowered cost-of-living adjustments (COLAs), still seems "determined to include the COLA cut" in forthcoming negotiations... a policy evidently harmful to seniors currently receiving Social Security benefits and liable to be even more harmful as years go by.

If someone can give me a good answer why any Democrat should advocate striking such an obvious blow against seniors... the population cohort overwhelmingly most supportive of the Democratic Party (and quite possibly directly responsible for Mr. Obama's re-election)... I'd really like to hear it. Otherwise, this "chained CPI" approach is nothing but another failure of Democrats to act like Democrats... and thus another sharp stick in the eyes of senior citizens who have supported that party.

Avedon Carol And Stuart Zechman: Vote To Make A Statement, Knowing The New Deal Is Going Down No Matter How You Vote

Please read. Ms. Carol (interleaving quite a bit of Mr. Zechman's prose) has contemplated the same bone-chilling possibilities I foresee, whoever is elected. She comes to a different conclusion on whom to vote for, but only by a hair. You'd better start thinking about what life will be like without the crux of the New Deal to civilize the jungle that is America today, because neither major party candidate will keep it safe, and no minor party candidate has a chance in Hell. Go vote, and Dog preserve you all from the worst possible results.

I Am One Of The 89 Million

There was considerable argument last night over Rmoney's unsupported statement that his proposed replacement for Obamacare assured coverage for individuals with preexisting conditions.

Well, apparently, he held that position for the duration of the debate and a few hours on either side of it. Via Paul Krugman, we have Sarah Kliff on Ezra Klein's Wonkblog:

...

Pants on Fire!

It started with the Republican presidential candidate saying during an appearance on “Meet the Press” that he liked the Affordable Care Act’s provision that requires insurers to cover preexisting conditions, and would support something similar. Hours later, his campaign clarified he did not, however, support a federal ban against denying coverage for preexisting conditions. Around 10 p.m., the Romney camp had circled back to the same position it held back in March: that the governor supports coverage for preexisting conditions for people who have had continuous coverage.

...

Please read both Krugman's and Kliff's posts; both are informative... and eyebrow-raising. In short, Rmoney lied about favoring coverage of preexisting conditions. How many Americans would fall through the cracks if continuous coverage were required to obtain coverage of preexisting conditions?

About eighty-nine million... 89,000,000.

I am among the 89 million. Many of my friends are among the 89 million. How many of those people watched the debate, but did not stay tuned for long enough to hear Rmoney's staff issue the correction? In essence, Rmoney used the way the debate is framed to swindle the American people out of preexisting condition coverage... while telling them the exact opposite.

Older Republicans and Republicans with chronic illnesses must be desperate to capture the presidency if they can vote for this chronic liar.

AFTERTHOUGHT: this phenomenon may explain in part why Rmoney effectively won the debate. Obama saw it as his duty to explain how things are and how they can be repaired. Rmoney, not the first politician to do so, feels free to promise anything... anything, true or false... if it gains him votes. Republicans promise pie-in-the-sky; what they deliver is all too often pie-in-the-face. But some Americans inevitably believe them. Suckers!

Just What We Need

Krugman:

So, is my timing good or not? Right after I warn about the risk that Democrats, including the president, might betray the mandate they seem likely to get for preserving the safety net, we learn that Senate leaders are at work on a plan based around, well, you guessed it:

[Krugman then quotes Jonathan Weisman at NYT, who examines possible outcomes of attempts to avert the sadly misnamed "fiscal cliff" triggered by last year's budget negotiation failure, and finds an outcome distressingly similar to Bowles/Simpson. - SB]

Just to say, this would be politically stupid as well as a betrayal of the electorate. If you don’t think Republicans would turn around and accuse Democrats of cutting Social Security — probably even before the ink was dry — you’ve been living under a rock.

Bowles/Simpson 'Nest Egg'
Social Security Plan

Yes, Mr. President, that would be politically ill-advised.

If you want to risk your lead in the polls for a real-world result that no one with an income under a half-million bucks a year wants to see, by all means, let this misbegotten effort go forward.

If, on the other hand, you want to keep the "votingest" part of your base... senior citizens... talk to the "Senate leaders" with whom you have the most influence and attempt to avert this catastrophe.

AFTERTHOUGHT: Dean Baker, co-director of CEPR (Center for Economic and Policy Research), has cross-posted an article on CEPR and TruthOut titled "Does President Obama Want to Cut Social Security by 3 Percent?" Sadly, given Obama's repeated advocacy of Bowles-Simpson, the answer appears to be yes:

...

One of the items in the Bowles-Simpson plan is a reduction in the annual cost-of-living adjustment of roughly 0.3 percentage points. This would be accomplished by using a different index that, by design, would show a lower measured rate of inflation. It is important to recognize that this is an annual cut that would accumulate over time. After a retiree has been receiving benefits for 10 years the cut would be 3.0 percent, after 20 years it would be 6 percent. If a typical retiree lives long enough to get benefits for 20 years the average benefit cut over their years of retirement would be 3 percent.

...

Baker notes that these are not the only cuts to Social Security in Bowles-Simpson, which, remember, has Mr. Obama's support:

...

... The plan also would gradually raise the age at which retirees receive full benefits to 69. It also phases in a reduction in benefits for workers whose earnings averaged more than $40,000 a year over their working lifetime.

...

Sixty-nine is an age to which many people simply do not live, especially people in lower socioeconomic classes with less access to health care during their working years. And reducing benefits for workers who earned an average of over $40,000 a year... really a very modest income by today's standards... seems grossly unfair in light of tax cuts for the oligarchy that have been passed since G.W. Bush took office in 2001.

If Mr. Obama wants the support of Morgan Stanley board member Bowles and retired wealthy Republican Sourpuss, er, Senator Simpson, I'm sure he's got it. If he wants the votes of a substantial majority of seniors in November, I'm not so sure. Perhaps he needs to rethink the matter.

Medicare Under Siege: Mitt Rmoney Will Cut Benefits For Current Seniors

... and fuck the "contract across generations" that has bound our society in one form or another for almost a century. Brian Beutler explains:

...

But the ticket also contends that a key difference between Obama and Romney is that Romney won’t change Medicare at all for existing beneficiaries — only future ones. Recent statements from his advisers and surrogates, suggest the claim is false.

As outlined in a memo the campaign released Saturday, Romney plans to repeal the Affordable Care Act in its entirety, and thus to spend over $700 billion more on the program in the coming decade than the government would spend if the health care law stands.

That commitment would leave Medicare poised for insolvency in 2016, years before he proposes to phase in the voucher system. Which means Romney would have two options: find new Medicare cuts or taxes to extend the life of the program, or preside over its demise.

On Fox News Sunday, Romney adviser Ed Gillespie tried to address the conundrum. “There are other reforms as well. As you know Governor Romney supports increasing over time bringing the Medicare eligibility age in line with the Social Security retirement age.”

...

There is a third option Beutler didn't mention: Rmoney could go jump in a lake. It would save the American people considerable grief.

When I paid my taxes for my parents' generation to receive Medicare, I did so in the then-scarcely-questionable assumption that a younger generation would pay my way when my time came. Now Rmoney wants, not merely to whack Medicare, but to funnel that money straight into the greedy hands of the wealthy bastards he thinks he represents. What a deal! It's a lot like what he intends to do to Social Security (see recent post): take all the money we paid into these programs all our working lives, and hand it out to his rich cronies.

Rmoney is threatening to change the rules in the middle of the game, rules on which everyone but the wealthiest 0.001% of Americans depend to stay alive. If Rmoney denies me my well-earned retirement, I will have nothing to lose, through no negligence on my part. We all know what people who are left with nothing to lose do, don't we? Good... I don't have to explain it to you.

He Did It: Rmoney Picked Ryan

... and Democrats are happier than a kid having ice cream for dinner:

...

... Mitt Romney is inextricably tied now to the architect of the GOP’s plan to privatize Medicare, and Ryan’s proposal to slash entitlements is guaranteed to receive more national attention than ever before.

“In naming Congressman Paul Ryan, Mitt Romney has chosen a leader of the House Republicans who shares his commitment to the flawed theory that new budget-busting tax cuts for the wealthy, while placing greater burdens on the middle class and seniors, will somehow deliver a stronger economy,” Obama campaign manager Jim Messina said in a statement Saturday morning.

The Obama campaign had already spent months trying to link Ryan and Romney together in voters’ minds, highlighting every statement from the Republican candidate in which he praised the House Republican budget Ryan created. Democratic officials routinely referred to the “Ryan-Romney” plan in interviews and campaign materials — now it’s the Romney-Ryan ticket.

...

Rmoney says he is not running on Ryan's budget plan. To which I can only reply: ya wanna bet, mofo?

This is the gift of a lifetime. Gawd, I hope the Dems don't fuck it up...