Harry Reid's Debt Proposal Will Leave Entitlement Benefits Untouched

[jefferson_dem]

Harry Reid's Debt Proposal Will Leave Entitlement Benefits Untouched



WASHINGTON -- Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's (D-Nev.) $2.7 trillion debt ceiling proposal will not include reforms to the benefit structure of entitlement programs, several Democratic sources confirmed on Monday.

The plan, which is being crafted as a last-minute attempt to break through the political impasse on a deficit reduction package, would instead lean heavily on cuts to discretionary spending. The package will also reportedly include roughly $1 trillion in savings that will come from the drawdown of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan (which the Congressional Budget Office does score). Reid's office was notably hesitant to confirm that detail, cautioning reporters to wait until the final package is unveiled. That said, if entitlement programs remain more or less untouched in the plan, there would be few other areas from which to draw ten-year savings.

Word that Reid is taking entitlements of the table will come as welcomed news to Democrats who are still smarting from the idea that the party has gone from demanding a "clean" debt ceiling bill to willingly backing $2.7 trillion in cuts without measures to increase revenue. The Obama administration had offered to support an increase in Medicare's eligibility age, the means-testing of certain Medicare programs, cuts to Medicaid benefits and a restructuring of the payments of Social Security benefits as part of a grand bargain with Republicans. GOP leadership ultimately rejected that proposal over complaints that the president was insistent that additional tax revenues be added to the mix to round out the plan.

A top Democratic aide confirmed on Monday that none of those specific entitlement reforms will be included in the party's most current debt-ceiling proposal. As for cuts to Medicaid or Medicare suppliers -- namely hospitals and pharmaceutical companies -- that remains less clear. According to House Majority Leader Eric Cantor's (R-Va.) office, both parties agreed to $334 to $353 billion in health savings during talks organized by Vice President Joseph Biden. Those talks, which never resulted in a formal agreement, do serve as one pillar of the $2.7 trillion proposal that Reid has put forward. But one Democratic source, who has been plugged into negotiations, says that Medicaid, at the very least, will not be touched under the Reid plan.

In addition to the policy specifics, there remain questions about the politics of the proposal: namely, can Reid's package of cuts pass through Congress? As the Nevada Democrat constructs his plan, House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) is charting a decidedly different path, one that would require two votes and the creation of a powerful deficit reduction committee to suggest future entitlement reform. While Democrats have insisted that they will oppose any measure that did not get the debt ceiling raised through the 2012 elections, Republicans have responded by saying that Reid is giving Obama a "blank check" to raise the debt ceiling.

<SNIP>

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/25/harry-reid-debt-ceiling_n_908596.html

[flamingdem]

1. Wonder if the rethugs will go for it! nt

[vi5]

2. If he can get it through, then great....

I'm o.k. with not cutting taxes if SS/Medicare/Medicaid remain untouched.

I'm not o.k. with even the slightest trims to those programs if taxes are not raised especially on the wealthy and corporations. Not at all.

[polmaven]

10. As am I, for now.

There are several bills introduced to close loopholes and not allow companies like GE to get away with paying $0 taxes. The Bush tax cuts are now scheduled to expire at the end of 2012. Revenue will, over the next couple of years, be addressed. It doesn't have to be addressed in the debt limit talks, but securing SS/Medicare/Medicaid is much more important.

[LongTomH]

3. If Harry Reid stands fast on this, more power to him, says I!

However, there should be a BS alert on this one line:

That said, if entitlement programs remain more or less untouched in the plan, there would be few other areas from which to draw ten-year savings.

I could think of a lot of areas that could be cut: Multi-billion dollar defense programs, subsidies to corporate interests among others. Can you think of a few?

[Mz Pip]

4. Let the Bush tax cuts expire

and take a long and hard look at all the waste in the funding of the military industrial complex.

OF course someone would have to actually do a lot of work going over the gazillion pages of what that budget entails. THere is so much waste.

[leveymg]

5. Here's the headline: "Reid plan calls for $2.4T cut in descretionary programs." Still like it?

[jefferson_dem]

6. $1,000,000,000 is for cuts to military war making.

I guess that is discetionary.

If you are talkling about a trillion or so in spending cuts over ten years, coupled with the planned elimnation of the bush tax cuts for revenue... Yes, I like that deal very much.

[leveymg]

8. Most of the war spending has been off-budget "supplementals". Sorry, this

doesn't touch that sort of "emergency" spending.

Isn't it nice to know that we can still afford optional wars?

[high density]

11. It cuts $1 trillion from future warfare

Seriously, what is wrong with that?

[leveymg]

14. No. It cuts some procurement, salaries, benefits, but not war spending - that's off-budget

"emergency" supplemental bills. That's how the US pays for its optional wars - just add it to the debt, so it can be taken out of future social spending which is being cut to pay down said war debts. Nice racket, don't you think?

[Lasher]

13. Overseas Contingency Operations in Iraq and Afghanistan are included in the budget.

Starting in FY2010.

[leveymg]

15. Any defense cuts will come out of green and blue, not red - that's open-ended.

Want to get into a war with Iran, next? The red becomes the size of the blue overnight. Sky's the limit, really.

[high density]

16. I don't understand your argument

Congress can spend infinitely on wars if it wants to, so we might as well just spend this $1 trillion that Reid is talking about? If we have $1 trillion in planned war spending that we can cut, I really don't see the issue with cutting it. If congress then wants to pass more supplementals to somehow make up that gap, we can have more huge arguments over it like we currently are over the debt ceiling.

[leveymg]

19. The cuts in defense spending don't necessarily mean less wars - that's my point

Huge arguments over supplemental Bills to pay for another set of invasions after the wars begin don't really impact the decision to go to war. Financing the cost is an afterthought, and the assumption is that Congress will always authorize another war. No matter what - the rare exception is Libya, where the GOP can try to foul up a Democratic President's foreign policy.

[high density]

23. So throwing up our hands and doing nothing is a better option

Got it.

[leveymg]

26. What would be better would be a budget process not conducted under the gun. Reid's plan stinx

The GOP won't go along anyway, so might as well present a real Democratic proposal - one that doesn't cut the hell out of what's left of the "discretionary" safety net. Here's the discretionary budget pie chart. You tell me what should be cut, and in what proportion:

[Lasher]

18. War spending can be stopped by Congress.

That's how the Vietnam war was finally shut down - Congress cut off the cash. I'll give Obama credit for including these supplementals in the Pentagon's budget, in sharp contrast with the way Junior always like to spring annual war costs as surprises.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0933935.html

It would be simple to end our deficits by eliminating two things that caused them in the first place: The Bush tax cuts and the Bush wars. Further, the military budget needs cut in about half, in addition to the $171 billion to be saved annually by ending the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

We have plenty of money for our domestic social programs. We've just got to get our priorities in order.

[jefferson_dem]

17. A significant part of the $2.x trillion in cuts is for military spending.

That's just facts.

[leveymg]

20. You're not listening - this doesn't mean that future optional wars are any less likely.

All the President has to do is ask for a supplemental Bill, and Congress will hand it to him or her. That's just facts.

[vaberella]

24. Your argumen has no point or reason.

Why? Because the only way a war can stop is for a nation to not declare war. It has nothing to do with spending or budget. Because if war is going to happen--nothing will stop it. So what's the point of your argument?

[jefferson_dem]

27. You jumped into this thread complaining that Reid was recommending $2.x T be cut ...

from discretionary spending. That amount was calculated based, in part, on $1 T being cut from defense. Future supplementals are irrelevant in terms of these calculations. Unless your concerned about defense cuts, we are talking about $1.X T not $2.X T.

[woolldog]

7. It's amazing how much Obama has weakened Dems' negotiating hand

2 weeks ago Dems were insisting that there be some revenue in the deal. Now we're overjoyed that social security, medicare, and medicaid aren't in the deal, and will give the Republicans anything (cuts + no revenues) to make sure the 3 don't get included in a deal.

[vaberella]

25. Sadly the House had the negotiatiing hand, it was the American people who voted for the House.

In effect, you must wonder how the American people weakened the hand of reason.

[woolldog]

28. bullshit

It was Obama's choice to include cuts to the big 3 in negotiations. That's what's weakened the democrat's hand to the point where *not cutting entitlements* is seen as some sort of victory, when 1 month ago, the thought of cuts to entitlements in exchange for passing the debt ceiling was unthinkable. Many Obama worshipers on DU refused to believe those cuts were even on the table.

Would the situation be better if the house was majority democratic. Sure. But you play the hand your dealt. And Obama has played his hand horribly. He doesn't have what it takes to deal with Congress. Other Presidents have faced Congress in the hands of the opposition party and done a much better job.

Ultimately the Republicans don't respect this President because he constantly caves to them. They feel he'll cave in this time as he's done in the past. He's enabled that attitude by his own behavior, and you have to face up to that.

[Lasher]

9. "...if entitlement programs remain more or less untouched in the plan,

"there would be few other areas from which to draw ten-year savings."

Bullshit!

[grahamhgreen]

22. Social Security is a seperate pool of money - here is the real chart!

All the cuts should come from the military.

[Lasher]

31. All cuts should come from the military and the draconian Bush/Obama tax cuts.

It is almost entirely the fault of Mr. Reasonable Centrist Why-Can't-We-All-Get-Along that we are even having this self-destructive 'debate' at all.

[LiberalFighter]

12. The writer of the story needs to learn the difference between the words of and off.

[Myrina]

21. No Revenues? HELL NO.

Harry, you're breakin' my heart, man. Cut the military budget by half and stop the freakin Top 1% tax cuts. TODAY.

[swilton]

29. So we keep get to keep our ss savings

but we have to breath toxic air and drink polluted water?

[SpartanDem]

30. Like that they aren't touching benefits

but that still alot of cuts