Looking through the Americans Jobs Act I don't see modest modfications to medicare/medicaid

[GOTV]

I see the temporary cuts in FICA taxes but nothing about the outgoing site of the medicare/medicaid equation. I thought I heard Obama mention them when selling his AJA2011 but I don't see them. Granted, I didn't read it word for word, but searching the document I couldn't find any mention of medicare or medicaid.

Anyone know if it's in there and where I should look?

Or is it already well known that AJA2011 makes no changes to those programs?

[vaberella]

1. Many Dem and Repubs don't bother reading before they hate on Obama.

One person hears cuts and assumes the programs are being eliminated. Obama says reform and then he's cutting the program. Note the people on this board. I'm sure you can count the few who sat there to read through this 150 page thing and I'm sure---most of the Obama "holding his feet to the fire" didn't bother but are running on what other's have said. Hence you will notice posts by certain people's who I will assume they assumed read the 150 page thing and are saying Obama is making cuts---so beware of Jobs Act and then you come to find out---when the real details come out--especially on the WhiteHouse.gov page that there are no talks of cutting social programs we love so much.

People like to think Obama's a corporatist but in reality he seems far from it.

[GOTV]

4. I am a frequent critic of Obama but I do like to know the details

I was just surprised as I looked through the document and couldn't find any mention of medicare or medicaid. I swear I thought I heard Obama claim that there were modifications. Now I don't find them in the actual bill. I'm still kind of assuming they're in there but that there but under some more official name or something. Like how Social Security is sometimes called SSI.

If this bill doesn't call for any changes to those programs (except for temporarily reducing funding) then I wonder what it was I heard Obama say? Was he speculating on what would be in the final cut of the bill which was still being tweaked and decided in the end to remove those modifications? Or was he talking about a larger context of legislation and I didn't notice he was no longer talking about the bill?

[flpoljunkie]

2. The president will tell us next week how he intends to pay for the AJA.

The devil will, of course, be in the details, as Nancy Pelosi said of the recent budget deal.

[GOTV]

5. But there are provisions for raising revenue in this bill ...

... and Obama says the bill is paid for. It doesn't seem appropriate to make that claim on the assumption of future legislation being passed.

I assume that the "Offsets" enumerated in the bill are supposed to fund its provisions.

[flpoljunkie]

8. And, how to deal with the long term deficit and debt

[frazzled]

3. It's not in the Jobs Act

The reference to "modest modifications" to Medicare were spoken in reference to long-term deficit reduction.

One thing that needs to be understood: the Jobs Act is a short-term stimulus proposal meant to take place immediately to inject some money into the economy this coming year (though don't call it a stimulus bill, or the Republicans will really go off on it). Deficit reduction issues are meant to kick in not immediately, but in the latter half of a ten-year span. Everybody, except the Tea Partiers, understands we can not be cutting government spending right away but need to do so after the economy gets better. Offsets to the jobs bill (which do NOT include Medicare but rather raising taxes on wealthy and corporations) are part of that longer-range deficit reduction discussion: money out now for jobs and improving GDP, money to pay for it later. That's how almost all reputable economists believe it should be done.

[GOTV]

6. That makes some sense abotu medicare and medicaid but ...

.. if you look at my post #5

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=772420&mesg_id=772473

I think I hear Obama saying that THIS bill contains its necessary funding.

Now I may have misunderstood about medicare and medicaid (I'm beginning to think I did). He might have transitioned away from AJA2011 to talk about broader deficit issues and I missed it.

I want to support this bill and it's easier to do so when it calls for no safety net cuts.

[frazzled]

7. I can assure you it does not contain any safety net cuts

As announced by budget director Jack Lew the other day, the offsets (deficit reductions to pay for the bill) are all from tax hikes to wealthy individuals and corporations:

The White House outlined $467 billion in savings to pay for the American Jobs Act through a series of tax policy changes, Office of Management and Budget Chair Jack Lew announced Monday at the White House daily briefing. While the president’s bill has a $447 billion price tag, Lew explained that the extra $20 billion is designed as a cushion to ensure the bill is “fully paid for” as the president has repeatedly promised.
Among the offsets suggested by Lew:
– New limits on deductions for income over $250,000. This would raise $400b over ten years.
– New formulas for taxing the income of hedge fund managers’ could raise $18 billion.
– Oil and gas measures, Lew said, would raise $40 billion.
– Limiting tax deductions for corporate jets would raise $3 billion.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/09/white-house-suggests-tax-provisions-to-pay-for-jobs-bill/

Of course, this is just their proposal, and Congress doesn't have to follow it. But I think it gives you excellent reason to support this bill as proposed by the White House.