home

WaPo: Obama Says No To Cuts In Social Security

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Obama Administration
Posted on Mon Jan 24, 2011 at 01:19:19 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

WaPo reporter Lori Montgomery:

President Obama has decided not to endorse his deficit commission's recommendation to raise the retirement age, and otherwise reduce Social Security benefits, in Tuesday's State of the Union address, cheering liberals and drawing a stark line between the White House and key Republicans in Congress.

Good decision.

Speaking for me only

< The Benign Neglect Of Tax Policy | Monday Night Open Thread >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    WaPo: Obama Says No To Cuts In Social Security | 59 comments (59 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    I will note (5.00 / 11) (#2)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jan 24, 2011 at 01:25:34 PM EST
    that in fact Obama is not reported as saying No to cuts, just no to endorsing cuts.

    I'll be honest, this is my meager attempt to try  smoke him out. If it gets reported this way, either Obama's folks walk it back or confirm.

    Either way, we might get a better idea of which way the wind is blowing.

    For (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by lentinel on Mon Jan 24, 2011 at 04:14:11 PM EST
    a moment there, I thought that maybe there was a line that even Obama would not dare to cross.

    But you reawakened me to the reality that all that the article is saying is that Obama is staying out of it for the moment, while the real action is going on elsewhere.

    Parent

    That, alone, would be reassuring (5.00 / 4) (#28)
    by Makarov on Mon Jan 24, 2011 at 07:57:56 PM EST
    if we didn't know what we know about how Obama handled health care reform.

    While he ostensibly waited to see what Congress came up with, he was negotiating independently to kill the public option, prescription drug price negotiation and drug re-importation.

    Of course, polling is ever consistent on social security. There is no mandate to cut present or future benefits. Quite the opposite.

    For now, I'm with Atrios in that I can stop worrying about SS for a month. When the next "hostage situation" emerges (hi, Debt Ceiling vote), all bets are off.

    Parent

    That's the Key Distinction (none / 0) (#8)
    by The Maven on Mon Jan 24, 2011 at 02:12:23 PM EST
    and one I would have raised had you not already done so.

    It's relatively easy for Obama to say that he won't endorse such cuts, but a far different thing to rule them completely off the table as a non-negotiable point.  I suspect that he would avoid the latter as part of an attempt to show his negotiating bona fides by being willing to discuss anything and everything.  The GOP, knowing this, may well take him to the cleaners yet again, and we the people get fleeced.

    Parent

    I don't know where this ends up (none / 0) (#36)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Mon Jan 24, 2011 at 10:35:40 PM EST
    but if he shields SS a lot of people here should acknowledge the lack of faith they had in him.

    I tend to think that he'll give on something SS related (maybe a one year raise in the age).  I just want him to get something for it.

    Parent

    Typically, the way this works is (5.00 / 4) (#44)
    by Anne on Tue Jan 25, 2011 at 07:05:29 AM EST
    that the popular stuff gets the prime-time, national platform, and the not-so-poular stuff continues to be worked on outside the limelight.

    Remember Obama's out-in-front insistence that he supported the so-called public option?  What was going on in the meantime, out of camera and media range?  Yes, that's right, closed-door, back-room meetings with industry honchos to craft "deals" that would guarantee no such thing ever happened.

    "Shielding" the nation from a discussion of entitlements during the SOTU is not the same as shielding Social Security itself from the sharp knives of those who have waited years for a chance to start carving it up.  Someone intent on shielding entitlements would have taken them off the table for his Deficit Commission, don't you think?  Someone intent on shielding entitlements would not keep talking about "fixing" them, would not keep praising some of the "good ideas" related to means-testing and partial privatization.  While one can't always go by what someone says, one can connect words to actions to get a better sense of where someone is headed.

    I have every expectation that Obama will "give" on Social Security - with an assist from the conservative Dems and the GOP - but I think it less likely that he - and more importantly, we - will get anything of real consequence for it.

    And I have to say, you have a rather cavalier attitude about the possibility that people might have to work longer than they had originally been promised before being able to collect Social Security; when you're looking at that year from your 20's or 30's, it doesn't seem like such a big deal, but trust me when I tell you that when you're in your 50's or early 60's, those years loom a lot larger, and you don't get from one year to the next as easily as you used to.

    But, hey, what do you care when you're only concern seems to be what's best for Barack Obama?

    Parent

    It's called (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by jbindc on Tue Jan 25, 2011 at 10:55:56 AM EST
    "Whistling in the wind".

    SOTUs are nothing more than pep rallies. The speech is leaked hours before, so we all will know basically what he's going to say (minus a few little "surprises").  There is never any substance - it's about one side trumpeting "success" and the other sitting silently (no matter how many SOTU bi-partisan "dates" happen tonight).  Then there will be hours of analyzing by pundits.  Political junkies will watch the networks they agree with, hear the cheerleading, and learn nothing more substantive than was in the speech.

    The devil is in the details, which will not be mentioned in the speech or in the post-game analysis.  Which is why I haven't watched a SOTU in something like 10 years.  It's all fluff.

    Parent

    It will be impossible to tell from the (none / 0) (#46)
    by observed on Tue Jan 25, 2011 at 09:05:07 AM EST
    SOTU address whether Obama "shields" SS or not.
    You have to look at the actual results.
    I would bet money that Obama either agrees to raise the retirement age, or cuts benefits, before 2012.

    Parent
    President Obama shielding (none / 0) (#47)
    by KeysDan on Tue Jan 25, 2011 at 10:02:11 AM EST
    Social Security should be a given not a question.  Bob Herbert (cf. NYT op ed Jan 25) also expresses his concern which along with commenters here will hopefully serve to provide a voice for the program, among other hostile  voices the president hears.

    Parent
    Agreed. It is a good decision (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by KeysDan on Mon Jan 24, 2011 at 01:44:53 PM EST
    not to include social security cuts in the SOTU, since it will take this needlessly contentious issue off the table.  Otherwise, that portion of his speech would draw fire from all quarters losing in the process whatever else he plans to present. Of course, it may be put back on table, or under the table, later. It would be great if he, instead, proposed investments for job creation and reiterated that the Bush tax cuts were temporary until the economy rebounds. But, if that is not to be case, it will be enough he if just gives the best SOTU, ever, content-free but with inspiration and hope for all.

    Perhaps someone in the WH noticed that social security was among the least worrisome factors facing the country at the moment.

    'least worrisome' might be the reason (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by jeffinalabama on Mon Jan 24, 2011 at 02:06:42 PM EST
    it gets addressed... I hope the president doesn't use it, and doesn't make any changes to eligibility, retirement age, etc.

    If, on the other hand, he comes out for lifting the cap on SS, I'm in favor of it.

    Parent

    Lifting the cap is an equitable (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by KeysDan on Mon Jan 24, 2011 at 03:50:38 PM EST
    fix. But even proposing such a "tax increase" in this Republican/Tea Party environment may just open up the issue in a manner that we would rather not see and result in a concession masquerading as a compromise that we would rather not have.  The urgency is just not there for Obama to be a key party to an ideologic attack in the name of deficit reduction, which, of course, it would not be.

    Parent
    Which really makes you wonder (none / 0) (#18)
    by inclusiveheart on Mon Jan 24, 2011 at 04:54:02 PM EST
    why his Administration was floating the trial balloon last week about changing Social Security.  One would think that the last thing that they could get through a GOP House would be raising the cap; and one knows that all of the most injurious changes to the program are the only ones that he could get through the House.  If Obama were opposed to harming Social Security, one would think that he would understand that now is not the time - and with 26 years to make the fixes there shouldn't be a rush...

    Which makes me think that the fact that they aren't going to endorse is just a political decision that isn't particularly indicative of deep commitment to protecting and preserving the program.

    Parent

    There you go. (none / 0) (#50)
    by Chuck0 on Tue Jan 25, 2011 at 11:15:29 AM EST
    I have believed for years that lifting the cap, or barring that, creating a donut hole, would be the most equitable and reasonable solution for SS. Why should I have to pay SS tax on 100% of my income when the CEO of my company only pays SS tax on about a quarter (or less) of hers?

    Or create a donut hole. Keep the cap, then tax income over, say $250K (that seems to be the popular number).

    Parent

    Appreciate your astute remarks, KeysDan (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by christinep on Mon Jan 24, 2011 at 04:57:24 PM EST
    Social Security is more than a 3rd rail.... For a Democrat, other than removing the cap, its pffft. (Actually, it was that with Bush' "capital" in 2005 also.)  
    I'm looking forward to the vision aspect, and what appears to be the linking of innovation & competitive economy with an expansive investment in education and in transportation/infrastructure renewa. A job creation thrust in the context of renewed unity.


    Parent
    Later in that article (5.00 / 3) (#9)
    by TJBuff on Mon Jan 24, 2011 at 02:14:06 PM EST
    Administration officials said Obama is unlikely to specifically endorse any of the deficit commission's recommendations in the speech, but cautioned that he is unlikely to rule them off the table, either. On Social Security, for example, he is likely to urge lawmakers to work together to make the program solvent, without going into details, according to congressional sources

    So... let the lawmakers (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by jeffinalabama on Mon Jan 24, 2011 at 02:16:31 PM EST
    work on a solvent program's solvency while not addressing, inter alia, medicare?

    Sigh.

    Parent

    "let the lawmakers do it" (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by diogenes on Mon Jan 24, 2011 at 07:00:33 PM EST
    We all saw how the "let Congress do it" hands-off approach was so successful with the design of the stimulus bill and the health care reform bill.

    Parent
    He may not be "endorsing" them, or (5.00 / 3) (#11)
    by Anne on Mon Jan 24, 2011 at 02:21:56 PM EST
    even mentioning them by name on Tuesday night, but I don't think anyone should believe that means he is saying "no" to cuts or changes.

    Tomorrow night is the unofficial launch of Obama 2012, so the last thing he's going to want to do is go heavy on austerity and "shared sacrifice."  No, I think we're going to get a heavy dose of Hope - you remember that one, right? - and a lot of WTF, which is apparently not the acronym you think it is, but the new, improved Obama version that stands for Win The Future.  I kid you not.  I bet Jon Favreau is still giggling over his brilliance.

    Yay...

    I feel better already.

    And won't we all be cheered by the commingling of Dems and Republicans in the chamber; we really can all get along!

    No, there may be a brief moratorium on entitlement-talk, but rest assured the issue is alive and well.

    And, hey, even if he came out and flat-out stated that he is opposed to cuts/changes to entitlements, supports an increase in the cap on payroll taxes, and will fight to the end to maintain the programs, do we have any reason to believe he means it?

    I don't think so.

    Oh it's the acronym I think it is, alright. (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by sj on Mon Jan 24, 2011 at 03:37:25 PM EST
    Other than that, I agree with what you say here.  He already has successfully put a major nail in the SS ship with the 2% coming from the general fund.  He can afford to say nothing now.  Costs him absolutely nothing.

    And if I'm wrong about this I will be delighted to eat crow.  But I don't think I'll have to.

    Parent

    The more I think about that (5.00 / 3) (#20)
    by inclusiveheart on Mon Jan 24, 2011 at 05:00:40 PM EST
    2% cut, the more I think that it is and was a cruel joke on people who are most in need of the program's support.  The wealthiest Americans who really would not ever miss their cut were it taken away - not in any meaningful way - could have paid more to pay for an additional stimulus - but instead they asked the middle and working classes to borrow from their own retirement in order to create a stimulus.  

    Parent
    Delay hurts entitlement reform (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by MKS on Mon Jan 24, 2011 at 06:19:20 PM EST
    The bad economy makes people feel more alarmed about government spending....as in, everyone feels there is less money--I have to cut back, so should the governement....

    If the economy continues to improve, much of the panic mentality about government spending should ease....

    Eric Cantor wanted no part of any discusssion about changing Social Security on MTP yesterday.  The more time goes on, the more squeamish the Republicans will get....

    Parent

    That's what I think anyway (none / 0) (#38)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Jan 25, 2011 at 12:36:47 AM EST
    Any pol who even suggests cutting SS benefits, even way down the road, in an economic climate of massive insecurity like this, with everybody's 401(k)s, IRAs, etc., having taken huge hits, needs a psychiatrist.

    I think if there's going to be a serious SS battle, it will be years down the road, not now.

    Parent

    I'm not getting drawn in again (5.00 / 4) (#14)
    by ruffian on Mon Jan 24, 2011 at 04:02:59 PM EST
    There is no way to know where he stands until the final days of the negotiation for the legislation. That is an 'as designed' feature of his approach, not a bug.

    I don't like it, but that's the way he operates.

    It sure is (5.00 / 2) (#39)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Jan 25, 2011 at 12:37:46 AM EST
    Do you suppose he has the slightest clue why nobody believes what he says anymore?

    Parent
    But I bet that we still will hear (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by Towanda on Mon Jan 24, 2011 at 04:03:26 PM EST
    the term "entitlement" in the SOTU, at least once.  

    We have seen before that Obama can be adroit in signalling conservatives in ways that still allow him deniablity with liberals.

    And it works so well (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by ruffian on Mon Jan 24, 2011 at 04:05:30 PM EST
    that the headline in my paper this morning was 'GOP waiting for 'centrist Obama'.

    Conservatives will never admit they hear the signal.

    Parent

    Harrry Reid (5.00 / 2) (#21)
    by MKS on Mon Jan 24, 2011 at 05:58:55 PM EST
    flatly said on MTP a week ago that there is no problem with social security, and that people should stop picking on social security when talking about the debt/deficit.

    David Gregory was shocked.  Reid stood his ground and said that those who talked about changing social security didn't like government at all.

    Yesterday, on MTP, David Gregory when interviewing Eric Cantor, played the Harry Reid clip from the week before.   Cantor did not directly dispute Harry, and wanted to get out of the conversation as quickly as possible.

    If people keep repeating what Harry said, just as MTP replayed his comments, then the attempts to harm the program can be defeated before they get off the ground.

    Exactly. Good strategy. (