Obama Promises Bid to Overhaul Retiree Spending; "would wade into thorny politics of entitlements"

[DeepModem Mom]

Source: New York Times, Page One

President-elect Barack Obama said Wednesday that overhauling Social Security and Medicare would be “a central part” of his administration’s efforts to contain federal spending, signaling for the first time that he would wade into the thorny politics of entitlement programs.

As the Congressional Budget Office projected a record $1.2 trillion budget deficit for this year even before the costs of the nearly $800 billion economic stimulus package being taken up by the House and the Senate, Mr. Obama stepped up his effort to reassure lawmakers and the financial markets that he plans a vigorous effort to keep the government’s finances from deteriorating further.

Speaking at a news conference in Washington, he provided no details of his approach to rein in Social Security and Medicare, which are projected to consume a growing share of government spending as the baby boom generation ages into retirement over the next two decades. But he said he would have more to say about the issue when he unveiled a budget next month.

Should he follow through with a serious effort to cut back the rates of growth of the two programs, he would be opening up a potentially risky battle that neither party has shown much stomach for. The programs have proved almost sacrosanct in political terms, even as they threaten to grow so large as to be unsustainable in the long run. President Bush failed in his effort to overhaul Social Security, and Medicare only grew larger during his administration with the addition of prescription drug coverage for retirees....

Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/08/us/politics/08obama.html?_r=1&ref=todayspaper

[patrice]

1. Personally, I don't understand why means testing is soooooo verboten.

I know it's not progressive to say that, but I do not understand why "we" are supporting people who CAN support themselves.

[sinkingfeeling]

2. Because those people are a part of the 'we' and have supported those before themselves.

Where do you draw the line? $500,000K or maybe $50K of income, before you're no longer eligible to receive the benefits, but get to continue to pay into the pot?


Edited to correct spelling.

[Enrique]

4. it changes the nature of the program

currently all retirees are in basically the same class and have a common interest it the program. Means testing would divide people into different classes and undermine Social Security as a common benefit.

[Blue Meany]

5. I think it is progressive to means test, but it reduced

the popularity of programs, because they are then viewed as welfare programs.

[Donnachaidh]

9. CAN support themselves?

Tell that to the thousands who are disabled, due to workplace injuries, who paid into the system for YEARS, and who probably provided money for YOUR older relatives that are now retired. THEY didn't begrudge them the money. THEY didn't whine and automatically ASSUME that your relatives could support themselves.

Tell that to the seniors who are living BELOW poverty levels, having to make decisions EVERY SINGLE MONTH whether to EAT or pay for their medications. Tell THEM to go out and get a JOB, when they cannot afford their rent increase, or the electric bill.

Or you can continue with your "Fuck YOU -- I've got MINE" attitude that is prevalent in every single "I want a means test whiny" pissy post that is continued to be posted here.

[AngryAmish]

17. The question is means testing

Means testing is defined a setting a limit on the wealth or income of people to receive a government benefit.

For example one cannot get food stamps if one is living above the poverty line.

The means test for seniors would presumably be above the poverty line. In fact probably be way above the poverty line. If one has to choose between food or medications, then those people would not be above any means test line.

Let us not forget that as a class the elderly are the most affluent in America. Many are dirt poor. Some are very well off. We should not subsidize the well off.

[sinkingfeeling]

20. Social Security isn't a 'government benefit'. It is a pool of money provided by workers and their

employers to provide 'social insurance' to all who participated in the funding.

[totodeinhere]

22. I'm against means testing.

With the high costs of medical care today, even the relatively wealthy can be wiped out by medical expenses. My mom just had a hospital stay for major surgery that cost $245,000. Thankfully, she had insurance that covered most of it. But if she didn't have insurance due to say a disqualifying preexisting condition, then she could have been totally wiped out even if she had $245,000 in the bank, which she does not.

Remember, with our cockeyed system, not everyone can get health insurance whether they can afford to pay the premiums or not.

I support the notion that health care should be a human right available to all whether they are poor or rich or somewhere in between.

[AngryAmish]

31. So if a doctor refuses to work for free he is violating someone's human rights?

yes?

[totodeinhere]

33. No, it's the fault of the system, not an individual doctor. Doctors need to make a living too. n/t

[AngryAmish]

35. Someone has to provide the medical care

Even under single payer there are choices we have to make

Do we guarantee doctors an income? How much do they have to work to earn a salary? Can they see all their patients in one day and give them the rest of the week off?

Do we pay them piece-work, like medicaid? Each visit worth $X. Many docotrs will not treat medicaid patients because they make more money elsewhere.

Do we increase the size of the medical students trained? More doctors will depress wages.

Just spending more money is stupid. But doctors will not want to take the pay cut.

[patrice]

36. .

:crazy:

get a clue.

[davekriss]

45. It's clear Donnachaidh has more than a clue

However I hope you have Medicare to pay for care for that eye malady you seem to have.

[bananas]

23. Because it's an INSURANCE program, like CAR INSURANCE

The official name is the "Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance" program.
If someone slams into your car after you've been paying insurance on it for years and years, would it be fair for the insurance company to say, "oh, you can afford a new car", and refuse to pay for getting your car repaired or replaced?
You're confusing insurance payouts with charity.
They are not the same thing.

[customerserviceguy]

28. You've explained it with crystal clarity

And the person being told they could afford their own car would start thinking about not buying the car insurance. Give the well-off enough incentive to skip the Social Security System, and they'll gladly oblige you.

[YvonneCa]

43. Exactly. This whole thing about it only being a pension ...

...'retirement' program has to be debunked. It is more than that. That doesn't mean some changes aren't needed...but the changes need to not undermine the program. THAT'S what Bush was trying to do.

[damntexdem]

25. Because Medicare, being for all seniors, has widespread support.

Means testing could be the first step on the way to elimination, by driving wedges into political support for programs.

[happyslug]

34. In the mind of FDR, means testing would KILL Social Security

The main difference between the massive support for Social Security and the lack of support for welfare is that people believe they will get Social Security and also believe they will NEVER need welfare. FDR saw this in the 1930s when he rejected mean testing Social Security. FDR saw a means test for what it was, a way to get the majority of Americans to accept the view they will NEVER get it for most people do not think they will ever fall on bad times (i.e. not live off their savings in bad times). With the prospect of NEVER getting the benefit, support for that benefit dies. Thus Welfare in my home County pays $174 per person (But only for two months in a two year period, unless you have Children), when the standard of Need is $637 per month (Plus additional money for any children in the household). Social Security is paid based on what you put into it, so it pays even better. The reason for this higher payment for Social Security is to make sure the vast majority of Americans GET SOMETHING FOR THEIR SOCIAL SECURITY TAX.

Means testing would be the majority of Americans will NOT get Social Security Benefits, and since most people will NOT get Social Security Benefits, Social Security will have the same support as Public Welfare i.e. NO SUPPORT. This is what FDR feared for Social Security and why he opposed mean testing. Social Programs are only adequate funded if it has support from the vast majority of Americans. Welfare has NEVER had that level of support and mean testing Social Security will also reduce the support for Social Security by reducing the people who see themselves getting Social Security in the Future. Mean testing has long been viewed as the best way to kill the public's support for Social Security, it sounds good when you first hear about it for the long term effects of means testing are ignored. It is the long term effect of reducing the number of people who believe they will get the benefit which then leads to the reduction in support for Social Security and then the death of Social Security. Welfare is the classic example of the effects of means Testing, where is the demand that Welfare at least match the federal "Standard of Need"? In most states welfare has ALWAYS been less then the "Standard of Need". The reason is most Politicians know the people of their state do NOT support Welfare for the majority of Voters do not think they will ever be on it. FDR opposed means testing in the 1930s and people who understand what Mean Testing will do to the support for Social Security and other Government Entitlements programs oppose Means Testing today.

[Hugin]

3. Social Security is -not- 'welfare'...

So, I wish the Corporate Media would refrain from calling it an 'entitlement program'.

[DeepModem Mom]

7. Good point. nt

[acmavm]

6. I want this guy to keep his hands of SS just like I wanted bush** and

every president before him to keep their damn hands off that money.

We are gonna get a royal screwing on this one. Maybe we should have just let bush** put it all in the stock market.

[CountAllVotes]

10. I agree

Obama needs to keep his hands OFF of this money that belongs not to him, but to the American people that have paid into it!

He is digging himself into a hole that he won't be able to crawl out of.

He is promising all of this stuff and I don't think it is highly feasible to do any of it in the immediate future.

As for handing out checks again to people, I have to ask what good will $1,000 do for a married couple on Social Security or $3,000 do for a family? Not much IMO.

:dem: :kick:

[acmavm]

11. Oh hell. Obama promised everybody something. He lied. I knew he was

lying. Now all the fools who thought he was their savior are finding out the man is not what they think he is, what they were 'led' to believe.

But if they would have looked up the guy, checked him out, they'd have seen he's not what they thought he was. But he sure was a hell of a lot better than the other side. That's why I worked for his campaign.

But the guy holds no surprises for me.

[suston96]

8. Lemme say this as plainly as I can.....

It's about the lost jobs and the fact that Obama will not be able to grow neither the economy nor the new jobs he is promising.

So.....? Next best thing? Attack the recipients of those entitlements - the elderly and the sick who are contributing very little to taxes and other government revenues

Now where have we heard this bullshit before?

[Javaman]

15. you are still numb from 8 years of moron*...

do you honestly believe that Obama is going to cut into the poor of this nation? really?

given the landscape as it stands, I think that if there is any overhaul it will be more along the lines of income based on tax returns.

if Mr. X made A amount last year, he gets his SS cut.

that money that is cut goes to programs for the poor and needy or a raise in other peoples SS benefits.

[JHB]

12. There'a a bit of shit-stirring there by the Times

From the Daily Howler:
http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh010809.shtml
So how about it: Did Obama make a promise to overhaul Social Security? After reading Zeleny’s full report, we still weren’t entirely sure. You see, we read all the way to the end of his piece, and we didn’t find a single quotation of anything Obama had actually said about this matter! Three lonely words (“a central part”) were quoted in that opening paragraph. But that turned out to be the only quotation about this promise provided in the report!

Obama “provided no details” about his approach? Judging from this front-page report, he also provided no words!


However, despite some clucking about "chicken littles", be sure to let your congresscritters and the incoming administration know that cutting Social Security amounts to theft from those who've been paying into it for years, so if anything should be "not on the table", this is it. And the problems with medicare stem from out-of-control skyrocketing health care costs. Make a comprehensive fix to the basic problem, and the "entitlement" problem is solved at the same time.

The very fact that the article is spun the way it is indicates that SOMEONE is still gunning for Social Security.

[KoKo]

13. An excellent point! I heard Obama's Presser and the reporter

asked about "reining in entitlements." (a leading question) Obama very carefully dodged it. Reading the NYT's article I had your same reaction: "Who is pushing for cutting SS & Medicare...who has the agenda." I imagine it's the usual suspects. You are correct. We need to stay on top of this just in case some of Obama's advisors start to push him into the direction of cutting these programs.

Only thing I recall Obama saying was that we need to look at the 'Prescription Benefits Program' that Bush put in place because it's driven up the cost of drugs for seniors by bringing in the insurance companies. I got the impression he wants to tinker with what Bush did and he's also talked about cost savings by having computer generated medical records and more standardized treatment criteria.

Thanks for your post...

[Hugin]

19. Thanks to both of your posts.

Way to read behind the lines! :thumbsup:

Nice on-the-spot critical thinking.

[KoKo]

29. Thank "YOU" for noticing that both of us were trying to be fair!

It's rare to see that on DU these days...

[donco6]

27. If by "tinkering" with prescriptions, let's hope he . . .

does what everyone actually WANTED in the first place, and open markets to Canada so we can just buy cheaper drugs ourselves. I still remember Bush talking about how he had to make sure the drugs were "safe" - which was so totally laughable at the time.

[KoKo]

30. I hope so, too. n/t

[mantis49]

42. Another thing that many wanted.....

is to be able to negotiate drug prices like the VA does.

[AtomTan]

14. I wish he would wade into the thorny politics of corporate agriculture subsidies.

and leave our social services the fuck alone -- especially at the time they're needed most.

[Hugin]

16. How about the thorny politics of Corporate Welfare?

Y'know like bailing out Mega-banks and such.

[AtomTan]

18. That too! Definitely.

[ProgressIn2008]

38. Absolutely, I haven't forgotten that Dems pushed and lauded the crony capitalist bail-out.

That worked out well.

[w4rma]

21. Never mind. It's BS by the newspaper. This is all about Bush's prescription drug discount card. (nt)

[damntexdem]

24. There are a couple or three reforms needed in such entitlements:

1) raise or eliminate the income cap on FICA taxes, so Social Security will be solvent for the foreseeable future;
2) replace Medicare Part D with a reasonable drug benefit that contains costs, provides pharmaceuticals to seniors, and doesn't just enrich drug companies;
3) stop outsourcing Medicare to private insurance companies, especially at higher costs.

That won't take care of everything, but it will go a long way toward adequately financing the entitlements while containing some costs.

[Vinca]

You just nailed it. nt

[2Design]

26. until they cut benefits to congress critters and any government benefits

don't touch ours - take it from theirs first all of them feds, states, and cities

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

32. Start with the military entitlement first.

First.

[ProgressIn2008]

37. Why is Obama using right-wing frames like "entitlements"? nt

[DeepModem Mom]

41. I think that's in the text only from the reporter, and not quoted from Obama. nt

[JeanGrey]

39. And I still have a friend who insists that social security is just

fine, thank you and that to say otherwise is ridiculous. She's in serious denial.

[ryanmuegge]

40. They took your job with "globalization," and, because of the bailout, they will have to take the

safety net entitlement programs.

[davekriss]

44. Uh, Obama, can I have my vote back now?

IMPEACH Obama on January 20, I say!

We are being Shock Doctrined into reductions long wanted by the right and by Obama's appointed economic team. Social Security is solvent and requires no change. Instead, what we have is a general budget in crisis. How dare any Democrat, never mind someone from the cabal of blood-sucking Republithugs, try to solve the general budget crisis on the backs of everyday Americans, Americans that were forced to pay an elevated regressive tax since Greenspan's 1983 Social Security fix. I guess in reality that "fix" was meant to disguise the extraordinary tax largess given to our upper class these last 28 years. It is a shell game, a swindle, and a theft from the American people. We are being Shocked into giving up arrangements we made for ourselves during FDR's reign. We decided as a people to implement and continue to support an income security program that keeps many disabled citizens and senior citizens from utter destitution, and that eases retirement for many others who worked desperately hard all their lives. It is one of our most popular programs. Yet our politicians would like to undo that decision.

George Bush's two tax cuts, which overwhelmingly benefited U.S. citizens at the top 1% of our socio-economic hierarchy, are known to cost $2 trillion by 2010. Bush's illegal and immoral adventure in Iraq has cost another $1 trillion. Bush's unregulation of the U.S. financial systems resulted in destruction of tens of trillions in wealth, including the main vehicle of middle class wealth, our homes. Social Security will have built up around $2 trillion in surplus in the form of money extracted from our paychecks and lent to the U.S. Treasury. In return the U.S. people received Special Treasury Bonds paying about 2% interest, held for us through the intermediary of the Social Security Trust Fund. Those bonds are very real, just as real as the additional ordinary U.S. Treasury Bonds the top 1% we're able to buy with the tax money not collected from them by Bush (68% of these Bonds are concentrated in the hands of the top 1%). Why should the U.S. government -- a DINO Democrat, it appears -- default on Treasury Bonds given to everyday Americans (the real meaning of benefit reductions) but not on Treasury Bonds given to the rarefied class of Americans known as the top 1%?

The answer is simple and can be seen in very recent events. The financial predator class is in trouble? Give them $700 billion dollars no questions asked so the executives can continue to be paid their bonuses and hold on to their mountain chalets and beach houses while acquiring competitor banks instead of opening up the spigots of credit. No strings attached. The federal government isn't even keeping track of where the money is going. (Can you spell c o r r u p t i o n? I knew you could!) The auto-industry is in trouble? They're asking for $20+ billion? No way! Not without racking labor over the coals. Use the crisis as an opportunity to tear down the power of the UAW and get anti-strike terms built in and compensatory concessions from the everyday assembly line workers. Now even more of the value created by labor canbe xtracted to pad the pockets of management and shareholders. How can it not be blazingly clear that our politicians, Democrats and Republicans alike, represent only a small class of U.S. citizens? They certainly do not steward the interests of those who, as they say, shower when they come home from work.

Social Security is not in crisis and is NOT in need of a fix. It will continue to build a surplus in the Trust Fund until around 2019. Thereafter, based on 2005 data cited below, and on very conservative assumptions about GDP growth per year (1.8% when the 100 year average has been closer to 3%), the Trust Fund won't be depleted until 2042. After that, if nothing was done and GDP growth remains the assumed 60% of historical average, benefits could still be paid out at a 70% rate until past 2075, the end of the current planning horizon. If GDP ticks up to 2.5% -- still below the historical average -- the Trust Fund is not depleted until 2052. If GDP ticks up to the historical average, benefits can actually be INCREASED! So where's the beef?

The problem, a DINO or Republithug would say, is when the U.S. Treasury has to start redeeming those Special Treasury Bonds to make up the pay-go gap starting in 2020 and thereafter. If you assume GDP growth will remain at 60% of historical norms and assume a straight line depletion of the Trust Fund, that amounts to an additional $80 billion per year of spend from general funds. Lemme see, the bloated security budget (military, HSA, CIA, etc.) is somewhere above $650 billion per year. Tax revenues not collected by Bush that would've been collected by Clinton run some $200 billion per year. Dontcha think we can squeeze out a paltry $80 billion from somewhere? Of course. It's just easier to squeeze everyday Americans than slow down the upward escalator of wealth and privilege our (carefully manufactured) ignorance accords the upper class. It's better for them to reduce us, the vast unwashed masses, to peons dependent on the largess of their wealth. Facing work or destitution, many of us -- especially when observing the destitution of those unable to work -- will choose work and at reduced wages, thereby padding the pockets further of those who would lord over us. Welcome to Twenty First Century Feudal America, the land where the "freedom" of which we sing is actually the freedom of the Master to exploit the Slave.

Our pockets are being picked, ladies and gentlemen. Again. :(

[RCinBrooklyn]

46. Soc. Sec. is not a free giveaway. I've paid into it all my life and I want my full benefits.