Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

AARP opposes Obama-backed commission, "likely..reductions to Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid"

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
Bluebear Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 12:01 AM
Original message
AARP opposes Obama-backed commission, "likely..reductions to Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid"
The influential seniors group AARP late Saturday voiced its opposition to the fiscal commission backed by President Barack Obama.

In a statement, AARP Executive Vice President Nancy LeaMond said that the commission could make cuts to Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. The former two are large entitlement programs for people over the age of 65.

"AARP is disappointed by the Obama Administration's support for a provision that would likely result in significant reductions to the Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid programs - affecting millions of Americans - without the benefit of full and open debate by accountable Members of Congress," LeaMond said...

But Senate Budget Committee ranking member Judd Gregg (R-N.H.) has said that an executive commission would lack proper authority to make changes while chairman Kent Conrad (D-N.D.) has said it is better than nothing.

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/77683-...

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
leftstreet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 12:02 AM
Response to Original message
1. You'd think AARP would be happy. They could sell more insurance
:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bluebear Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 12:05 AM
Response to Reply #1
2. They have certainly baffled me with some of their endorsements...
but piss them off at your peril!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
shraby Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 12:10 AM
Response to Original message
3. They sure didn't mind Bushco trotting out the Part D drug
program..endorsed it in fact.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bluebear Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 12:11 AM
Response to Reply #3
4. see #2 - agreed. I care less about AARP than Social Security & Medicare being diminished, though!
Edited on Mon Jan-25-10 12:11 AM by Bluebear
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DJ13 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 12:14 AM
Response to Original message
5. Now they criticize Obama?
Where were they when this administration froze COLA for Social Security for this year under the phony excuse they couldnt see any inflation?

(While the US government employees got a 2.5% COLA because there was inflation where they were concerned.)

And the administration is already making noises about freezing it again for another year, as if Kreskin was telling them ahead of time what inflation will look like a year from now.

I agree this commission is a new low coming from a Democratic administration, but the AARP needs to get on their case about their entire agenda, which seems to think the elderly are a new means of revenue reduction so the administration wont have to raise taxes on the wealthy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madfloridian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 12:20 AM
Response to Original message
6. The party is making a huge mistake by cutting Social Security and Medicare.
There will be great wrath from seniors, and from those who will be responsible for their parents care when they are cut back.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Make7 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 12:26 AM
Response to Original message
7. Congress isn't going to debate on any recommended proposals before voting on them? nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
laughingliberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 12:36 AM
Response to Reply #7
10. Correct. An up or down vote on the whole package.
Another screw job on the American people behind closed doors and no debate from those we elected to represent us. In addition to being really cowardly, it borders on dereliction of duty.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Make7 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 01:10 AM
Response to Reply #10
14. Isn't this about the 'Bipartisan Task Force for Responsible Fiscal Action'?
 
The language in the bill says that the bipartisan panel must have a vote of at least 14 of the 18 members to approve it before it goes to Congress, where it must be referred to the appropriate committees, and then if it gets out of committee can have up to 100 hours of debate each in the House and the Senate, and then must be passed by a three fifths majority of each house.

In addition to the legislative process outlined in the bill, it also states that the panel's report will be made public once it is voted on whether or not it reaches the required 14 panel member votes for approval.

Or is this thread about some other budget review panel?
 
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
laughingliberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 01:24 AM
Response to Reply #14
16. That's the one. Guess I used the word 'debate' erroneously.
They can not offer amendments which gets tied in my mind to debate. At any rate the package that gets to the Congress must be voted up or down in its entirety. I hate it. This is what we elect people to do. Taking a look at the Senators who urged the President to do it this way, I'm not thinking we're going to see much good for the people of the country.

Doesn't really much matter, anymore, I don't guess. It's obvious the oligarchs have won and will not stop as long as the citizens still have a couple of nickels they have not stolen from us, yet. And I should go easier on the President. I don't think he has the power to do anything about it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Make7 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 01:58 AM
Response to Reply #16
18. I don't agree with the requirement to vote on the report as is either...
... but I doubt if anything controversial could get passed since it requires a super-majority of the originating panel, the House, and also the Senate.

My thought was that they would just need to vote down the original proposal from the panel and then reintroduce anything worthwhile as normal legislation so they can debate, amend, make procedural motions, and filibuster as usual. That is if the bill creating the panel even passes. An executive order creating a similar panel would likely not be able to fast track the approval process in the same way.

This particular issue isn't as high on the priority list as others right now (Health Care, Wall Street reform, the Wars, etc.), but it is certainly something to keep an eye on to see if it gets off the ground.

Unfortunately for the citizens of this country and the world, the corporations have been in charge for many years. Although it used to much less obvious. I'm still not sure if most people are even aware of that yet - the bailouts on Wall Street certainly woke up quite a few people. Hopefully more and more people will start paying attention and demanding that things change - perhaps we can reach a tipping point where pushing back will accomplish something.
 
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
laughingliberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 02:12 AM
Response to Reply #18
19. It definitely is set up for an up or down vote without amendment
And it will not require a supermajority to pass, In the commission, yes 14 of the 18. Once their report reaches the legislature it is up or down for the whole package and a simple majority to pass. It was at Conrad's insistence that it be set up this way.

I certainly hope people wake up soon. Like maybe while we still have a country left. Not sure we'll reach a tipping point in time. I hope the people surprise me and rise up before it's too late but Americans have never been known for paying attention to the things that are affecting them from afar.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Make7 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 12:45 PM
Response to Reply #19
22. Perhaps you are reading a different bill than I am.
Edited on Mon Jan-25-10 12:46 PM by Make7
"(A) FAST TRACK CONSIDERATION IN HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.—

             <-snip->

"(vi) VOTE ON PASSAGE.—Immediately following the conclusion of consideration of the Task Force bill, the vote on passage of the Task Force bill shall occur without any intervening action or motion, requiring an affirmative vote of three-fifths of the Members, duly chosen and sworn. If the Task Force bill is passed, the Clerk of the House of Representatives shall cause the bill to be transmitted to the Senate before the close of the next day of session of January 20, 2010 (3:24 p.m.) the House. The vote on passage shall occur not later than December 23, 2010.

"(vii) VOTE.—The House Committee on Rules may not report a rule or order that would have the effect of causing the Task Force bill to be approved by a vote of less than three-fifths of the Members, duly chosen and sworn.

             <-snip->

"(B) FAST TRACK CONSIDERATION IN SENATE.—

             <-snip->

"(iv) VOTE ON PASSAGE.—The vote on passage shall occur immediately following the conclusion of the debate on a Task Force bill, and a single quorum call at the conclusion of the debate if requested. Passage shall require an affirmative vote of three-fifths of the Members, duly chosen and sworn. The vote on passage shall occur not later than December 23, 2010.


http://budget.senate.gov/democratic/documents/2010/Bipartisan Fiscal Task Force Amendment Legislative Language_012110.pdf
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OHdem10 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 12:28 AM
Response to Original message
8. AARP has always been against any type legislation that would cut
SS and Medicare.

Why would you need a commission to reform these two programs
then have Congress only vote up or down? Just as for
closing Military Bases, it takes some of the responsiblity
off Congress. Some people feel this is Congress' job
and they should do it. IN DC REFORM is code for cutting
benefits. This is just the way it is seen.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bluestateguy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 12:32 AM
Response to Original message
9. The easiest way to make an issue go away in Washington
is to ship it off to a bipartisan commission, chock full of washed up old insiders.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lasher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 12:48 AM
Response to Reply #9
12. Not if S.2853 gets passed this week.
Edited on Mon Jan-25-10 12:49 AM by Lasher
Or more specifically, not if the Senate attaches S.2853 to H.J.RES.45 (Debt Limit Extension bill) this week. S.2853 would fast track commission recommendations. Congress would be obliged to take the measure up a year from now. At that time the bill would not be subject to amendments or filibuster. It's infuriating to see them even considering this nightmare, particularly after HCR has been dragged out for a year, only to have evolved into a cure that's worse than the disease.

Edit to add link: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s111-2853
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OHdem10 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 01:20 AM
Response to Reply #9
15. In most cases, I would agree. SS Medicare, Medicaid Reform have
not even been brought up. This is a serious commission,
Judd Gregg and Kent Conrad do not play with issues like
this. They are dead serious. As Conservatives, they
believe we must reform these two programs as they are
running out of money.

Of course SS would be in good shape except every President
and Congress have been raiding it since Regan to pay
for other programs. Now the Republicans will be too
cute by half and say--let us get it out from under Congress
so they cannot raid it. Ha Ha they do know how to turn
an issue.

This is serious. Judd Gregg and Kent Conrad make it so, IMO.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
laughingliberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 01:30 AM
Response to Reply #15
17. Yes, the names supporting this commission make it all too obvious where they plan to make their cuts
It's some kind of damned nightmare that after we beat Bush back on privatizing SS we're facing a bigger threat now with a Democrat in the White House and majorities in the Senate and House. They've stolen our money to further enrich the wealthy and now they don't want to pay it back. And, might I remind people, the obnoxious Judd Gregg was Obama's first choice for Secretary of Commerce.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bitwit1234 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 12:46 AM
Response to Original message
11. Tell you one thing..If any member of congress touches
any of those programs, they better find them selves a new job pronto, because they will be voted out of office in a landslide.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DJ13 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 01:01 AM
Response to Reply #11
13. New job? They had better get some bodyguards
Edited on Mon Jan-25-10 01:01 AM by DJ13
People paid all their lives into Social Security, and they wont take kindly to politicians who try to raid their money just to save the wealthy from paying their fair share in taxes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wroberts189 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 02:14 AM
Response to Original message
20. They always use the word "entitlement programs"...
that money came out of our paychecks.. it is no give away.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
truedelphi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 03:15 AM
Response to Original message
21. Oh don't believe for a moment that "reform" is not the word of the
Year for our trusty friends on The Hill.

They do plan on "reforming" Social Security, and one of the HCR bills requires that we whittle some five hundred billion bucks away from MediCare. If they try and do that, I do not know what happens to our seniors - in some counties, it is next to impossible to find doctors willing to take Medicare.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vinca Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 12:50 PM
Response to Original message
23. Bipartisan = Dems cave to Republicans and Grandma eats cat food.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bluebear Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 03:20 PM
Response to Reply #23
24. Seafood medley or savory chicken today, granny?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spanone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 03:21 PM
Response to Original message
25. spanone is disappointed by aarp
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Mon Sep 15th 2014, 12:26 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC