President did a great job setting up the debate on reforming the tax code, fixing Soc. Sec.

[ProSense]

President Obama

<...>

Some of this spending we’ve begun to tackle in this budget -– like the $78 billion that Secretary Gates identified in defense cuts. But to get where we need to go we’re going to have to do more. We’ll have to bring down health care costs further, including in programs like Medicare and Medicaid, which are the single biggest contributor to our long-term deficits. I believe we should strengthen Social Security for future generations, and I think we can do that without slashing benefits or putting current retirees at risk. And I’m willing to work with everybody on Capitol Hill to simplify the individual tax code for all Americans.

All of these steps are going to be difficult. And that’s why all of them will require Democrats, independents, and Republicans to work together. I recognize that there are going to be plenty of arguments in the months to come, and everybody is going to have to give a little bit. But when it comes to difficult choices about our budget and our priorities, we have found common ground before. Ronald Reagan and Tip O’Neill came together to save Social Security. Bill Clinton and the Republican Congress eventually found a way to settle their differences and balance the budget. And many Democrats and Republicans in Congress today came together in December to pass a tax cut that has made Americans’ paychecks a little bigger this year and will spur on additional economic growth this year.

<...>

No doubt the President keeps invoking Clinton and Reagan because they raised taxes.

Krugman on Reagan in 2004:

<...>

The first Reagan tax increase came in 1982. By then it was clear that the budget projections used to justify the 1981 tax cut were wildly optimistic. In response, Mr. Reagan agreed to a sharp rollback of corporate tax cuts, and a smaller rollback of individual income tax cuts. Over all, the 1982 tax increase undid about a third of the 1981 cut; as a share of G.D.P., the increase was substantially larger than Mr. Clinton's 1993 tax increase.

The contrast with President Bush is obvious. President Reagan, confronted with evidence that his tax cuts were fiscally irresponsible, changed course. President Bush, confronted with similar evidence, has pushed for even more tax cuts.

Mr. Reagan's second tax increase was also motivated by a sense of responsibility -- or at least that's the way it seemed at the time. I'm referring to the Social Security Reform Act of 1983, which followed the recommendations of a commission led by Alan Greenspan. Its key provision was an increase in the payroll tax that pays for Social Security and Medicare hospital insurance.

<...>

The President has advocated increasing the income cap. So as the debate over strengthening Social Security and reforming the tax code gets underway, reiterating that he'll follow Clinton and Reagan's examples means he's putting Democrats who are on the fence and Republicans who praise all things Reagan on the spot to come up with a solution.

[gratuitous]

1. Y-yeah, sure.

How deep does a benefit have to be cut before it becomes a "slash" in benefits? And, since we're not putting "current" retirees at risk, would it be horribly cynical of me to think that means "future" retirees are about to get the axe? Or see another bump upward in the retirement age? That would divide retirees and those nearing retirement quite nicely, as both groups would think the other group is threatening their well-being. Darn my cynicism! I feel just horrible, thinking such unkind thoughts.

[ProSense]

3. What? n/t

[Name removed]

7. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[gratuitous]

15. Sorry

I'll type slowly: Obama, in the excerpt you quoted said, "I believe we should strengthen Social Security for future generations, and I think we can do that without slashing benefits." So, how much can benefits be cut before someone says they're being "slashed"? And might there be a difference of opinion depending on just how much a person relies on those benefits to stay afloat?

Additionally, Obama said, "I think we can do that without . . . putting current retirees at risk." My cynical nature says that means we're going to see changes that apply to future retirees rather than current retirees. People nearing retirement age should be alarmed that there's going to be some jiggery-pokery that means they get to keep working for a few more years if they want full social security benefits. The major media, as well as their pals among the elected officials, will try to persuade folks that the reason they have to put off retirement will be because of those current retirees and their lavish social security benefits. Similarly, there will be a parallel argument put forth to try to convince current retirees that even their meager social security benefits are at risk because of those greedy, about-to-retire baby boomers. Current retirees will be pitted against near retirees, all in an effort to justify the aforementioned "cuts" in benefits, which no on in an official position will characterize as a "slash" in benefits, because all the reasonable people who are very serious about deficit reduction agree that it isn't a "slash."

Make any more sense? Or is my raging cynicism just too far out there?

[ProSense]

20. He was speaking, and, you know,

he laid out it position his proposal.

[gratuitous]

26. Yes, and as we all know

Presidential proposals will sail through Congress with nary an amendment or change, to land back on his desk all ready for signature, just as he proposed it.

Nope, sorry. I read Obama's statements, and mindful of the giveaways of the past (cf., investigation into the alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity of his predecessor; and single payer health care, which gave way to the public option, which the administration folded on faster than Superman on laundry day), I hear quite clearly a man amenable to cuts in benefits (as long as they aren't "slashes" in benefits), and willing to keep current retirees' benefits safe from risk at the specific expense of near retirees.

Now, I may be projecting too far into the future, but I think it's reasonable to assume that in the race to cut (not slash) benefits or to raise the retirement age, current retirees will be persuaded to think that their benefits are at risk because of the people coming along behind them. People just about ready to retire will be told that they can't count on the benefits they might have calculated are due them because of the greedy geezers in line ahead of them. This will be a very convenient fight to have, as it will distract folks from a couple of items: (1) monkeying with social security benefits will do nothing to reduce the deficit; and (2) the deficit will continue to go up because nobody wants to raise taxes on the wealthy or cut the defense budget.

[ProSense]

38. "Presidential proposals will sail through Congress with nary an amendment or change"

That's never been my understanding of the process.

[jtown1123]

4. Yes a "cut" is not a "slash..." I am still not convinced he wont reduce COLA, raise the retirement

age or means test. I want to hear it from the horse's mouth those are OFF THE TABLE.

[ProSense]

6. Well

here, to answer any suspicion.


The President has nothing to do with the COLA formula.

[jtown1123]

8. The Bowles Simpson proposal, which is being proposed by a group of Senators

proposes to change the formula to a chained CPI instead of CPI-W, which would be very miniscule lean COLAs for seniors. I know the president has nothing to do with COLA, it is calculated by law. What some are proposing, is changing this law to screw seniors even more. I hope Obama doesn't agree with them.

[ProSense]

13. "I hope Obama doesn't agree with them. "

The OP suggests nothing remotely related to Bowles Simpson. In fact, the point was the complete opposite.

[jtown1123]

16. Yes, but Obama wants to work with Republicans to "reform" entitlements

http://www.cnbc.com/id/41600555

This concerns me because the GOP only wants to cut cut cut.

I am concerned that Obama brings up Social Security in the first place. It has $2.6 trillion in surplus and its minor future shortfall should have no place in these deficit reduction proposals.

Right now, a group of "Bipartisan" Senators, led by Mark Warner and Saxby Chambliss are using the Bowles Simpson proposals for some sort of grand bargain deficit reduction package (Kent Conrad is on this bandwagon too).

What worries me, is that Obama will be shown this package of proposals and could potentiall sign it because he for some reason, wants to "fix entitlements."

Harry Reid is the only leadership Democrat who has stated all cuts are OFF THE TABLE. I would like to hear the same from President Obama that if a budget proposal comes across his desk that raises the retirement age, means tests, or changes the COLA formula, that he will veto it. I have no problem with raising the FICA tax cap. I hope that is the only change he is open to.

[ProSense]

18. Everything the President does

for the next two years will involve Republicans. He's still waiting on a 2011 budget.

[jtown1123]

19. He has the veto power though. I hope he uses it. It will behoove him

politically to reject Social Security cuts. I hope he doesn't squander a great opportunity to paint the Republicans as cold hearted fuckwads that don't want to pay up the SS Trust Fund. We could win back a bunch of House seats and boost the Democratic brand if we come out strong against these cuts.

[ProSense]

21. Veto

doesn't come before the debate and a proposal reaching his desk. The OP is about setting up the debate. Is everyone going to disengage and wait for him to threaten to veto a non-existing proposal?

[jtown1123]

24. I guess where we disagree is I think it was a very, very bad idea

for him to suggest he wants to "fix" Social Security in the first place. This is not the time or the place to mess with it, especially with all these Republicans and moderate Dems more than willing to dismantle it. SS should be addressed by the proper committees and normal legislative channels when the time is appropriate (say in 15 years or so). It makes zero sense to look at it now. We need a jobs program, not deficit reduction.

[ProSense]

33. I don't agree.

"I think it was a very, very bad idea for him to suggest he wants to "fix" Social Security in the first place."

President Obama can address this. The fix can come now or when he is re-elected. Republicans are not going to give up.

His ideas to increase the income cap will strengthen Social Security and remove it from debate.

[jtown1123]

41. I hope for all our sakes that he is what he does...I don't want any compromises on this

[jtown1123]

11. BTW, I love NCPSSM

[Mimosa]

34. COLA is 'disingenuously' calculated.

I think we all know the costs of food, fuel and other things have risen during the past few years. Yet it is claimed there is noo inflation.

[ProSense]

35. The President still has nothing to do with the formula. n/t

[joeglow3]

43. There should be a means test

SS is an insurance program, NOT a retirement program.

[bullwinkle428]

12. Did you hear the interview with Jack Lew (White House Budget Director)

this morning on NPR? He was pressed by the interviewer on how he defined "not slashing", and was asked if that guaranteed that there would be NO cuts in benefits. He refused to give a definititve answer - "The words speak for themselves". It sounded awfully weaselly to me. :banghead:

http://www.npr.org/2011/02/15/133769001/OMB-Director-Comments-On-Obamas-Budget

[ProSense]

17. He also said

that Social Security doesn't contribute to the deficit

On Social Security, Lew stressed that the program is funded through dedicate taxes and is currently not contributing to the deficit.

"Social Security is a separate issue; we have an obligation to make sure that Social Security is sound for this generation and the next generation and the president has said he wants to work on a bipartisan basis to deal with Social Security," Lew said.

A good thing.

[tallahasseedem]

2. My dear ProSense,

Doncha know we're not allowed to agree with our President right now?

[county worker]

5. We have a solution!

The economy: end the tax cuts for the wealthy, end the wars and cut the defense budget, put a second stimulus in place, and leave fucking social security alone because it is not the problem!

[ProSense]

9. Hmmm?

"leave fucking social security alone because it is not the problem!"

So why is Robert Reich, Bernie Sanders and others proposing an increase in the income cap? It's not a problem, it's a wise move.

Do you have a problem with that?

[Monique1]

10. My first thought

these republics don't want to work with this president because they want him to fail - other republicans would work with a president. There is the difference.

[leftstreet]

14. No Senior Left Behind n/t

[Odin2005]

22. He's throwing the poor under the bus.

[ProSense]

23. Um,

no he isn't.

[tekisui]

27. Can't you make your point in your own words and provide a link

for support?

[ProSense]

29. What point do you want made?

Want me to elaborate: No he isn't throwing the poor under the bus.

Don't be afraid of the links. Facts aren't harmful.

[tekisui]

39. I guess not.

[Odin2005]

30. *YAWN*

[ProSense]

31. Ditto. n/t

[walldude]

25. Yeah and anyone who dares suggest that is

"a stupid fool" as the post suggests.

Alas I already called someone an asshole today for the very same attitude but one asshole a day is my limit.

on edit: See! More food stamps. Obama loves us.

[Bandit]

28. Everybody is going to have to give a bit

Let me know when Republicans give a bit will you?

[Name removed]

32. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[blindpig]

36. Indeed he has

the Cato Institute will be proud. of course they'll deny it and raise the ante, it's what a smart player does.

[ProSense]

37. "of course they'll deny it and raise the ante, it's what a smart player does."

Yeah, a lot of people like to believe they're smarter than the President.

Looking around at how messed up the country was when he took office, I'd say they're full of shit. It's like the Republicans talking up jobs knowing that they have no ideas and don't really give a damn.

[mmonk]

40. Any Democrats that come up with a solution will be ignored.

I support a progressive tax system. Flattening it out will leave billions on the table (from the top) forcing more regressive tax measures locally.

[mmonk]

42. What debate? We're all supply siders now.