How Can Democrats Run as the Defenders of Social Security & Medicare?

[jtown1123]

Since President Obama, arguably the most high profile Democrat in the country, is on record offering these programs up for cuts in the debt negotiations. It doesn't matter that they weren't cut off the bat. Offering them up in the first place is going to reflect poorly on Democrats in their Senate and Congressional races for reelection.

From Democratic Pollster Celinda Lake:

Her bottom line: It is an even more important political issue now than in the past. “It’s not just a seniors’ issue by any matter or means,” she said. The Medicare changes in the budget plan advanced by House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan, R-Wis., “really elevated it, because it was such a clear distinction” between the Democratic and Republican positions. ”You saw it play out in the N.Y. special . And it is the top testing message in congressional races right now,” Lake added.

She’ll be watching how aggressively Democrats rally around protecting Medicare but believes it will be harder for the party “to draw the distinction that many of us believe in” because President Barack Obama talked about Medicare cuts in the context of the budget deal. “So I think it’s going to depend on how strong a stance Democrats take or whether they muddle it.” Regardless, she adds, “it has the potential to be THE voting issue in 2012.” http://capsules.kaiserhealthnews.org/index.php/2011/08/pollster-medicare-not-just-a-seniors-issue/

From an RNC mailer being distributed:

For The Record…It Was Obama Who Offered To Cut Hundreds Of Billions In Medicare During The Debt Debate

OBAMA AND DEMOCRATS PUT MEDICARE CUTS IN DEBT CEILING DEAL

USA Today: “Cuts in Medicare and other entitlement programs are on the table.” (Susan Page and Fredreka Schouten, “Political Damage Even If A Debt Deal Is Done,” USA Today, 7/31/11)

Obama Agreed To Medicare Cuts In Debt Ceiling Deal. “The deal announced on Sunday by Congressional leaders and the White House would make across-the-board cuts in military spending, education, transportation and Medicare payments to health care providers if Congress does not enact further deficit-cutting legislation by the end of the year.” (Robert Pear, “Congress Must Trim Deficit To Avoid Broader Cuts,” The New York Times, 7/31/11)

Obama Said “Adjustments” Must Be Made To Medicare. OBAMA: “Yes, that means making some adjustments to protect health care programs like Medicare so they’re there for future generations.” (President Barack Obama, Remarks On Budget Control Act, Washington, D.C., 8/2/11)

DURING DEBT CEILING DEBATE, OBAMA OFFERED $650 BILLION IN CUTS TO MEDICARE, SOCIAL SECURITY, AND MEDICAID

Obama Put “Major Changes” To Medicare On The Table During Debt Ceiling Negotiations. “To hit the $1.5 trillion in spending cuts, the congressional committee is likely to reconsider major changes to Medicare that the White House and congressional leaders put on the table during this summer's debt-ceiling negotiations.” (Janet Adamy, “Debt Deal May Hit Medicare,” The Wall Street Journal, 8/2/11)

Read more: http://www.gop.com/index.php/briefing/comments/reach_out_and_touch_medicare#ixzz1US9aru7F

From White House Press Secretary Jay Carney:

That's what the president wants. And he is willing to cut deeply in discretionary spending, carefully; he is willing to cut significantly in defense spending, if you do it carefully and maintain our national security interests. He's willing to reform entitlements and find savings there. And he's absolutely willing, of course, to make sure that it's balanced and that we find savings in our tax code. I think that --http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2011/07/making-the-presidents-position-on-entitlements-public-and-mcconnells-complaint-todays-qs-for-os-wh-7.html

I think Republicans are going to hammer Democrats on this...I know it's ironic as hell, but a lot of people are easily swayed and the truth is, they're not really lying this time. Sure their Republican cuts would be worse, but it doesn't change the fact a Democratic President is on record offering "reforms" "adjustments" or whatever cutesy way you want to describing raising the Medicare eligibility age or changing the COLA formula for Social Security to Chained CPI in the first place.

[lame54]

1. I seriously don't know what to do this next election

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Vincardog]

3. I know what to do. Primary every DLC/New Dem/Corporate sellout

[merbex]

22. kicked and rec'd for best answer n/t

[JTFrog]

4. Lol

Seriously?

Try stepping away from the new DU for a while. I bet something will come to you. :eyes:

[lame54]

20. I'm not sure how that will make Obama start to fight

[animato]

8. Don't be LAME even Howard Dean says we need to restructure Medicare nt

[Shagbark Hickory]

15. Deans anwers change by the hour depending on what democrats do or don't accompish.

[gkhouston]

30. Sadly true. n/t

[lame54]

19. did he also say cave into the teabaggers...

did he also say prolong the bush tax cuts

did he also say double down on a war we can't win

[MichiganVote]

5. Define "cut deeply" (carefully) vs. "cut significantly". What a bunch of hooey.

[jtown1123]

7. Exactly. Just say what you will and won't do. That Carney "slash" "Cut"

dance is pathetic...

[Safetykitten]

6. Uh, they can't. Not anymore.

[frazzled]

9. Because raising the rate of increase in future years by 0.1% is not the same

as privatizing or dismantling the whole system. And making small adjustments to Medicare provider payments (as Krugman himself suggested today) is a whole lot different than the Republican plan for getting rid of Medicare altogether.

So the better question to ask is: how can voters make an informed decision when hyperbolic bullshit like this hangs out there to confuse them.

There's a clear difference, but the fundamentalists won't acknowledge it.

[jtown1123]

14. True. But if I was a Democrat, this is what I would say:

"Medicare, Social Security and Medicaid are vital programs. Any adjustments or savings must be accomplished separately from the debt deal, as putting them on the table will only result in cuts and not improvements. I am willing to consider improving the systems, without any benefit cuts, once the debt deal is accomplished."

[frazzled]

17. And saying that ...

(in fact, we don't know if he did) does exactly what good when the Republicans refuse to negotiate and hold the debt ceiling hostage?

And by the way, in speech after speech he has said they're vital and that he doesn't want to see benefit cuts.

[EFerrari]

24. It's a difference of degree only.

There's no reason to touch these programs except to satisfy the out of control greed of our owners.

It might comfort you that Obama only wants to take a baby bite but in truth, our safety net was already a POS in comparison to other first world countries and even a baby bite will hurt the people who have nothing else to rely on.

[frazzled]

25. Yeah, the difference in degree between ...

Your boss saying you can only get a 2.5% raise next year instead of a 3% raise and him saying "you're fired."

Secondly, you're dead wrong on there being no reason to touch Medicare. Every economist agrees that health spending is the number one long-term deficit driver. Again, aiming at a capped 2% reduction to providers is a whole lot different than the Ryan plan to do away with Medicare altogether.

[EFerrari]

27. No, I'm not wrong about Medicare.

Medicare is the best and most cost effective delivery system for medical care we have. You're buying into a false premise that counts every penny of benefit to people but allows the Pentagon to "lose" bilions of dollars because it's too big to audit.

And a reduction to providers IS a service reduction to beneficiaries. Medicare already pays doctors cr@P.

[frazzled]

28. Of course Medicare is the best and most cost effective

Who the hell is arguing that? And we already have Defense on the chopping block for historic big cuts, so let's not bring that into the equation. Medicare, however, still has high cost-per-beneficiary rates (especially in certain states) that exceed what is being spent in other countries.

Even Krugman, in a recent column excoriating plans to wholly (Ryan) or partially (Lieberman) privatize Medicare, ends by acknowledging that cost controls in Medicare are absolutely necessary:

Now, none of what I have said should be taken as a reason to be complacent about rising health care costs. Both Medicare and private insurance will be unsustainable unless there are major cost-control efforts — the kinds of efforts that are actually in the Affordable Care Act, and which Republicans demagogued with cries of “death panels.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/13/opinion/13krugman.html

And how do you know what Medicare is paying to providers (P.S. providers means more than doctors; we're talking a large-range of industries here)? It's been secret since 1970. As this article about Ron Wyden's proposed legislation to make Medicare payments to doctors available to the public states:

Payments to doctors and other individual providers in the Medicare claims database has been off limits to the public since the 1970s, when the Florida Medical Association and the American Medical Association sued to keep it secret. The issue has resurfaced in recent months after the Wall Street Journal and the Center for Public Integrity sued the Department of Health and Human Services to get the information.

The newspaper and the nonprofit eventually agreed to receive a pared down version of the database containing 5 percent of providers, which they were forbidden from identifying. Even with those restrictions, they were quickly able to identify patterns of likely fraud. http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatch/medicare/147075-wyden-wants-to-make-medicare-payments-to-doctors-public

Now, the across the board 2% cut to providers threatened in the trigger is not about ferreting out fraud. And there are better ways: Obama, for example, has talked about finding savings (and improving care in the bargain) by paying hospitals lump sums for patients in ways that would require more coordinated care among the patient's various doctors (e.g., not repeating expensive tests or giving unnecessary ones, etc.). Finding cost savings in Medicare is not just necessary, as Krugman states, but can lead to improvements. As the famous article in the New Yorker a few years back attested, places spending more on Medicare were not achieving better results (there is wide variation in expenditures per beneficiary). A lot of the problems came in doctor-owned hospitals jacking up profits to themselves, and getting worse results.

[mmonk]

10. Unfortunately this is the conundrum the Third Way put us in

when it didn't have to be put on the table. It puts us in the position of being hypocrites. There are other budget items they could look at if they believe or promote the false idea that the deficit is what we should be concentrating on at this time.

[readmoreoften]

13. And that's why they're a fifth column that should be fought like the Republicans.

[chill_wind]

11. Well we know he can't.

Watch groups and advocates of protecting the safety nets for the sick, poor and elderly were watching the whole debate very intensely.

Wait until the campaign ad clips start showing up with all his musings about all those old "tired ideologies."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P-5Y74FrDCc

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=725554&mesg_id=725625

[readmoreoften]

12. The idiots set themselves up so Repubs can now say Dems want to cut SS and raise taxes.

The Democratic Party's cowardice and piss poor communication skills have basically destroyed them as a party. You can't simultaneously fight the right and BE a llamer version of the right.

[JustAnotherGen]

16. In my case

both my Senators (Lautenberg and Menendez) vote against the 'debt deal'. Menendez is up for re-election in 2012 - and I'll be voting for him again. He was clear as to why he voted against the deal. And his reasons are in alignment with mine.

THINKING the words "Senator Lou Dobbs" makes me feel like I just swallowed vinegar.


My House Critter - is just that. Ed Potosnak (candidate) can run on SS and Medicare because he'll be a Democratic Washington outsider.

I think those who opposed or who were not there for the vote? They have to run on their vote or as the 'outsider'. For them - they just have to distance themselves from the President . . .

[BlueDogsRNOT_Dems]

18. By O Putting SS and Medicate on the Chopping Block

he has sullied the Democratic Name.

Thanks to O the Democratic Party will NEVER again be known for protecting SS and Medicare.

IMHO it will cost him in 12 and will lead to Pubs having control of the Senate and House too.

No amout of Spin will change the FACT that O offered them up for cuts.

[JoeyT]

21. There's always lying and hoping the audience doesn't know any better.

Same way they run as defenders of the middle class and immediately start insisting that what this clusterfuck really needs is moar free trade.

[swilton]

23. Democrats have nothing to run on

[NorthCarolina]

26. I don't think there is ANY way to polish this turd. nt

[gkhouston]

29. If you're against cuts, say you disagree with anyone who's for them.

Including members of your own Party. "Restructuring" is bullshit-speak for benefit reduction. It's putting 10 oz of food in a 12 oz box so you can say the price hasn't gone up. You're still getting less, even if it's not a price hike. Anyone, including Democrats, who wants to play along with that sort of shell game deserves to be called out.

[B Calm]

31. Hell Obama might get more republican votes than democrats. .

But then why wouldn't he, he is a no good, god damn, republican!