Archive for weak

"If Obama wants to help Social Security, he should start by lifting the cap on taxable earnings."

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare

grand bargain social security

Today's L.A. Times letters to the editor, because our voices matter:

Re "Obama's entitlement gambit," Opinion, April 10

The current calculation used to determine adjustments to Social Security benefits is based on the cost of living for an urban worker, not a senior. Therefore, it doesn't account for the greater percentage of income the average senior spends on healthcare. Because the cost of healthcare rises faster than other necessities, even the current formula does not adequately protect seniors from inflation.

Switching to the "chained CPI" to determine payouts, as President Obama proposed to do in his 2014 budget, would only make a bad situation worse.

Steve Mehlman

Beaumont

***

This debate over entitlements is about a long-term solution to a long-term problem. Much more important than getting a deal is getting a good solution.

Can we get a good solution now? Of course not. The partisan divide is deep.

If the president is so concerned with his legacy, maybe he should start doing more of the right things, like restoring traditional tax rates on the wealthiest. Today, CEOs and financiers pay much lower effective federal tax rates than doctors. That is socially unsound.

And if Obama wants to help Social Security, he should start by lifting the cap on taxable earnings.

David Greene

San Pedro

***

Doyle McManus suggests the president is doing "the kind of thing a second-term president can do." Later, he says the president's proposal is evidence that he "still yearns for a grand bargain."

The former declaration is an empty explanation, while the latter justification provokes the question: A grand bargain for whom? Certainly not for the elderly and disabled dependent on Social Security.

Ben Miles

Huntington Beach

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare

White House and Senate Dems Should Eliminate Social Security Tax Cap for the Rich: Stop CPI Scam on Elderly

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare

social security tax cap

Your Daily Dose of BuzzFlash at Truthout, via my pal Mark Karlin:

[B]ecause the Obama White House has adopted the austerity meme of the Republicans, the option to the cat food chained CPI doesn't get discussed much.  That is because Obama, as is often the case, is accepting the GOP and Wall Street "frame" of the deficit being reduced, in part, on the backs of the middle class and poor.  As we've noted recently; the president may even believe the false meme.

... Remapping Debate, in an April 10 article, Remapping Debate disclosed:

For all the talk of the Social Security system running out of money, it is well established that raising or eliminating the cap on the wages subject to payroll taxes would guarantee a healthy Social Security system for many decades, and do so without cutting benefits or raising the retirement age.

Public support for elimination of the payroll tax cap is high.  [...]

Nevertheless, these routes to ensuring the promises made to workers that they could rely Social Security benefits are kept is little discussed on Capitol Hill. [...]

... That is probably because they don't want to be undercutting the position of their party's president. [...]

In The Nation, William Greider developed an interesting theory:

In fact, there is an even bigger lie concealed by the fiscal scolds and ignored by witless media, too. Again and again, self-righteous critics have portrayed Social Security as the profligate monster borrowing from the Treasury and sucking the life out of federal government.

Guess what? It's the other way around. The federal government borrows from Social Security.  [...]

That is the real crisis that makes the financial barons and their media collaborators so anxious to cut Social Security benefits. They would like to get out of repaying the debt—that is, giving the money back to the people who earned it. The only way to do this is cut the benefits—over and over again. Count on it...

Please read the entire post here.

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare

Elizabeth Warren on Pres. Obama's chained CPI proposal: "We cannot allow Social Security to be dismantled inch by inch."

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare

elizabeth warren banks

chained cpi social security 2

From my inbox (bolding is mine):

Elizabeth Warren for Massachusetts

Hi Laffy,

My brother David has always had the special spark in our family.

Like our two older brothers, David served in the military. When he got out, he started a small business -- and when that one didn't work out, he started another one. He couldn't imagine an America where he wasn't living by his wits every single day.

Year after year, my brother paid into Social Security. He never questioned it. He figured he was paying so that he -- and a lot of other people -- could have a secure retirement.

Today my brother lives on his Social Security. That's about $1,100 a month. $13,200 a year.

I'm telling you my brother's story not because it's unusual, but because it's like the story of so many other people. I can almost guarantee that you know someone -- a family member, friend, or neighbor -- who counts on Social Security checks to get by.  

That's why I was shocked to hear that the President's newest budget proposal would cut $100 billion in Social Security benefits. Our Social Security system is critical to protecting middle class families, and we cannot allow it to be dismantled inch by inch.    

The President's policy proposal, known as "chained CPI," would re-calculate the cost of living for Social Security beneficiaries. That new number won't keep up with inflation on things like food and health care -- the basics that we need to live.

In short, "chained CPI" is just a fancy way to say "cut benefits for seniors, the permanently disabled, and orphans."

Two-thirds of seniors rely on Social Security for most of their income; one-third rely on it for at least 90% of their income. These people aren't stashing their Social Security checks in the Cayman Islands and buying vacation homes in Aruba – they are hanging on by their fingernails to their place in the middle class.

My brothers and I grew up in an America that invested in its kids and built a strong middle class. An America that allowed millions of children to rise from poverty and establish secure lives. An America that created Social Security and Medicare so that seniors could live with dignity.

We can't chip away at America's middle class and break the promise we make to our seniors.

Thank you for being a part of this,

Elizabeth

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare

"So the White House can't get even a basically Republican budget passed."

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare

grand bargain social security 2

I expressed my disappointment over President Obama's alleged proposed cutbacks to Social Security and Medicare in my previous post, Sen. Bernie Sanders: “Having [Obama] go back on his word will only add to the rampant political cynicism…”

I also provided a way to contact your Senators.

And with that, your Daily Dose of BuzzFlash at Truthout, via Mark Karlin: 

Obama either continues to believe in the now inexcusably naïve notion of "bi-partisanship" or he is, as some will argue, at heart a fiscal corporate neo-liberal Wall Street true believer [...]

The NYT, which clearly received the leak about the Obama budget from White House sources, is reflecting an Oval Office viewpoint that the president is compromising in order to win over "moderate" Republican votes.  Say what? Earth to planet Obama: have you learned nothing from continually starting negotiations with the Republicans letting them advance to 10 yards of their goal – and them allowing them to walk over into the end zone for a victory twist and shake?

If you want to know the low threshold of weakness Obama is negotiating from, read the viewpoint of his aides, as reported in the NYT:

Neither the president nor senior aides privately hold much hope that Republican leaders — Mr. Boehner and Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Senate Republican leader — will compromise. So Mr. Obama’s strategy of reaching out to other Senate Republicans reflects a calculation that enough of them might cut a budget deal with the Democratic Senate majority. If that happens, the reasoning goes, a Senate-passed compromise would put pressure on the House to go along.

Uh, so the White House can't get even a basically Republican budget passed – with some crumbs of federal spending.  They have to, as they see it, concede grovel and pray.

Bill Clinton said a long time back: "We [Democrats] have got to be strong. When we look weak in a time where people feel insecure, we lose.  When people feel uncertain, they'd rather have somebody who's strong and wrong than somebody's who's weak and right."

Doesn't Obama run the danger, in his budget and many of his legislative proposals of appearing both weak and wrong?

Or is it that he actually believes in what he is proposing? [...]

[H]istory will judge him – and the seniors, unemployed, and poor who watch helplessly -- as President Obama thrusts a stake through the heart of the New Deal, while perpetuating a system of systemic oligarchy.

Please read the entire post here.

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare

Sen. Bernie Sanders: "Having [Obama] go back on his word will only add to the rampant political cynicism...”

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare

grand bargain social securitychained cpi social security

Hey, remember this? V.P. Biden “flat guarantees” no changes in Social Security, which “effectively takes Social Security off the table.”

So this happened: Obama budget would cut entitlements in exchange for tax increases:

President Obama will release a budget next week that proposes significant cuts to Medicare and Social Security and fewer tax hikes than in the past, a conciliatory approach that he hopes will convince Republicans to sign onto a grand bargain that would curb government borrowing and replace deep spending cuts that took effect March 1. [...]

Obama proposes, for instance, to change the cost-of-living calculation for Social Security in a way that will reduce benefits for most beneficiaries, a key Republican request that he had earlier embraced only as part of a compromise. Many Democrats say they are opposed to any Social Security cuts and are likely to be furious that such cuts are now being proposed as official administration policy. [...]

Overall, the budget request reflects Obama’s stark shift in strategy over the last month, as he has adopted a far more congenial posture toward the opposition...

“Millions of working people, seniors, disabled veterans, those who have lost a loved one in combat, and women will be extremely disappointed if President Obama caves into the long-standing Republican effort to cut Social Security,” Sen. Bernard Sanders (I-Vt.), who caucuses with Democrats, said earlier this week, after reports surfaced that Obama might include the change in his budget.

“In 2008, candidate Barack Obama told the American people that he would not cut Social Security. Having him go back on his word will only add to the rampant political cynicism that our country is experiencing today.”

"Disappointed" indeed.

Why does President Obama still not grasp that Republicans do not like him  (maybe he does), refuse to compromise (maybe he doesn't), and will continue to do everything they can to obstruct sensible Democratic plans and to make mincemeat of his legacy? They've always wanted him to fail, and they continue to want him to fail. They're doing whatever it takes to make that happen. As has always been the case, they have no intention of working with him, only against him, the well-being of the rest of us be damned.

Why does he still insist on bargaining from the center and moving right instead of starting from the left and moving center-left? Well, for one thing, as I've always said, he's no liberal, as I made clear in this post:

...President Obama’s willingness to cut Social Security benefits? Or his strong consideration of signing off on a disaster-in-waiting (see: State Dep’t. draft report looks promising for backers of Keystone XL pipeline)? Or his indefinite detention of detainees at Guantanamo Bay? Or his stance on wiretaps? Or his reluctance to go after Bush, Cheney, and company for lying us into a fraudulent invasion of a sovereign country and torturing prisoners? Or allowing nearly all of the Bush tax cuts to remain in place? Some liberal.

It's one thing to be realistic and understand where a deal will likely end up. It's another to break promises, to doom any chances of keeping the programs intact that those on the left (and most voters) hold dear and rely upon, and to cater far more to those on the right.

The GOP was going to reject Democratic ideas regardless of what the president came in with, so why not begin negotiations with a more Progressive stance and one that is more popular overall?

Here's an idea, why not eliminate the payroll tax earnings cap? Oh, and there's this. The sequester was designed to force Democrats into supporting a Grand Bargain.

The following chart is from StrengthenSocialSecurity.org. Please follow the link to see how proposed changes would also affect veterans, and so much more.You can find more charts and information here, too.

chart social security chained CPI

The important thing to know is that this change would cut the benefits of all beneficiaries, including current retirees, disabled workers, and others–even after politicians promised repeatedly that any changes to Social Security would not affect current beneficiaries. The COLA cut is a real threat to the financial security of every American who does currently or will rely on Social Security.

And please read Why Social Security Recipients Shouldn't Be Shackled With The Chained CPI. More here.

The always astute Dave Johnson (@dcjohnson) had this to say in an email:

The Obama budget is going to offer "Grand Bargain" cuts in Social Security and Medicare, hoping to get Republicans to offer tax increases. We are heading into a retirement crisis. The 401K experiment didn't work. Companies have pulled back on pensions. And the squeeze that has been on regular people for decades means that people also do not have the savings they need to get them through old age. And all the money went to the top. The last thing the country needs is cuts in essential services for the elderly.

Who Could Have Predicted:

"If the president believes these modest entitlement savings are needed to help shore up these programs, there's no reason they should be held hostage for more tax hikes. That’s no way to lead and move the country forward," Boehner said in a statement.

If they say they are offering to "protect"  the oldest and poorest from this, then what does this mean is going to happen to the rest?

Want to try to make a difference? Contact your Senators here. I just did.

grand bargain social security 2

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare

Quickie: "Lacking a partner for peace, war has become the president’s only option."

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare

quickie25

Today's Quickie:

In a Slate article titled "Obama II: Why the president is finally getting tough," Jacob Weisberg describes the New Obama. Let's hope he's on to something, especially in light of the terrible, horrible, no good, very bad GOP dissension-slash-implosion.

Spoiler alert (not really, I just wanted to say "spoiler alert")-- here's how the piece ends:

The real reason we’re seeing the emergence of a different Obama is simply the late-dawning realization that compromise is impossible with the enfeebled Boehner and his perfervid rank-and-file. Lacking a partner for peace, war has become the president’s only option.

That was today's Quickie. Was it good for you?

___________________________________________

If we somehow brighten your day, educate or even irritate you at times, please consider a donation, big or small, to keep us bumping along. If everyone who dropped by on a daily basis dropped a coin in the bucket, we'd be done in no time.  If you'd like a snail mail address, email us at paddy at thepoliticalcarnival dot net. Thank you.



WePay Donate

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare

The terrible, horrible, no good, very bad GOP dissension-slash-implosion

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare

gop terrible horrible no good very bad year

Without even trying, I ran into four-- count 'em, four!-- different articles about how the Republican party is completely full of... dissension. They are imploding before our very peepers, and the whole wide world is watching.

Here are the four pieces I stumbled upon. Enjoy!

First, via my morning L.A. Times, an analysis by Paul West that he titled, Republican Party divide increasingly a matter of region. In it he writes about how the southern states, where the GOP base is entrenched, is increasingly divided from the rest of country:

The budget battles rocking the capital have exposed a deepening fault line within an already fractured Republican Party: the divide between the GOP's solid Southern base and the rest of the country. [...]

Few would dispute that the battle over the fiscal cliff and internecine sniping over Superstorm Sandy aid left Republicans in Washington deeply divided at a time when the party is still trying to recover from a presidential election defeat that many did not see coming.

do go on 1

Why sure! Who am I to refuse a fascinated cat? That brings us to the Washington Post:

There are early signs of division within the Republican Party over how to approach the upcoming debate over raising the federal debt ceiling.

On Friday, a top Senate Republican signaled that members of his party should be prepared to play hardball and be willing to accept the kind of consequences in each previous fight they’ve threatened but managed to avoid.

But other Republicans counseled caution, warning that pressure from the business community and the public to raise the $16.4 trillion federal borrowing limit renders untenable any threats not to do so and will weaken the GOP’s hand if their stance is perceived to be a bluff.

do go on 3

Of course! There will be no cliff hangers in this post. Next up, the New York Times:

From Mitt Romney’s loss on Election Day through the recent tax fight that shattered party discipline in the House of Representatives, Republicans have seen the foundations of their political strategy called into question, stirring a newly urgent debate about how to reshape and redefine their party.

At issue immediately is whether that can be achieved through a shift in tactics and tone, or will instead require a deeper rethinking of the party’s longtime positions on bedrock issues like guns and immigration. [...]

The coming legislative battles are certain to expose even more division in the party. And with establishment Republicans and Tea Party activists at times speaking as if they are from different parties altogether, concern is spreading throughout the ranks that things could get worse before they get better. [...]

But a changed tone alone may not do enough to smooth over the very real disagreements in the Republican Party. And it is not clear how the intraparty combatants can meet in the middle.

All together now: Aww.

aww tiny violin poor you

But wait! There's more!

do go on 2

Well, okay, if you insist. We'll wrap it up with this. Roll Call reveals that the Boehner coup attempt was larger than first thought. Can you spell i-m-p-l-o-s-i-o-n?

A concerted effort to unseat Speaker John A. Boehner was under way the day of his re-election to the position, but participants called it off 30 minutes before the House floor vote, CQ Roll Call has learned.

A group of disaffected conservatives had agreed to vote against the Ohio lawmaker if they could get at least 25 members to join the effort. But one member, whose identity could not be verified, rescinded his or her participation the morning of the vote, leaving the group one person short of its self-imposed 25-member threshold. Only 17 votes against Boehner were required to force a second ballot, but the group wanted to have insurance.

Bonus! Conservatives Annoyed by Christie!

All in all, 2013 promises to be an interesting, if not schadenfreude-filled year in politics.

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare