Baker -- Why Is President Obama So Anxious to Cut Social Security?

[Donnachaidh]

http://smirkingchimp.com/thread/dean-baker/38048/why-is-president-obama-so-anxious-to-cut-social-security

On his tour of the Midwest last week, President Obama again indicated his interest in cutting Social Security. He repeated a proposal that his administration first put forward in the debt ceiling negotiations: he wants to cut the annual cost of living adjustment by 0.3 percentage points.

This cut may sound small, but it adds up over time. A person in their 70s who had been getting benefits for ten years would see a reduction of 3 percent. By the time they were in their 80s, the cut would be 6 percent. And if they lived into their 90s, their benefit would be more than 9 percent lower as a result of President Obama's proposal.

For an average retiree who can expect to get benefits for 20 years, President Obama's plan would cut their lifetime Social Security benefits by roughly 3 percent. By comparison, his much feared tax increases on the rich would reduce the after-tax income of someone earning $300,000 a year by just 0.5 percent. In this case, a beneficiary who will be mostly dependent on their Social Security income in retirement will take about six times as large a hit relative to their income under President Obama's plan to cut Social Security than a couple earning $300,000 would from his plan to raise their taxes.

This cut to Social Security seems especially inappropriate since the near retirees who would feel the full impact of this cut have just seen most of their wealth destroyed by the collapse of the housing bubble and the plunge in the stock market. The typical near retiree (ages 55-64) has just $170,000 in net wealth, including the equity in their home.

More at the link --

[whathehell]

1. This, like nothing else,

reveals him for what he is: A fraudulent democrat and a stealth republican.

It makes me sick.

[Carolina]

14. exactly

his BS about shared sacrifice and everything being on the table ALWAYS means SS and Medicare! Never a word about the root causes of the deficit. And hey, since when did deficits matter! Certainly not during the Bush years when Bush was driving it up the deficit and the repukes scoffed at any mention of the word.

[WinkyDink]

19. Obama has never criticized the policies of Dubya.

[whathehell]

35. Yes...I'm not normally a conspiracy theorist, but how in hell

did he pass himself off as a "democrat"?..I guess we (the rank and file of the party)

should have asked more questions, but I can't help but wonder if they're

weren't "hidden actors", so to speak, who somehow "cultivated"

his candidacy so he could pass himself off as a dem, but secretly have this hidden corporate agenda.

[truedelphi]

40. And then to have a Commission or Committee to look into

The malfeasance of the Big Banks and that Commission tosses Schneiderman, Attorney General of New York, off of said Commission.

I used to get upset because of Obama having Tim Geithner work at his command. But I have come to beleive that it is Obama who works at Geithner and the Other Big Money People's command.

Which explains why, way back in December of 2008, Kissinger himself was all smiles and happy about Obama and the plans for the "New World Order" to go fast apace. (Video is still up at YouTube if you need proof.)

[Raksha]

18. "A fraudulent Democrat and a stealth Republican." Pass it on. n/t

[SammyWinstonJack]

2. DINO!

x(

[JoePhilly]

3. If Obama is so "anxious" to cut social security ....

why hasn't it happened?

I mean, if his goal is to cut / gut / dismantle Social Security ... he clearly sucks at it.

[Dragonfli]

7. Because he is not a Dictator! He tried to put it on the table and the R's wouldn't accept it

Don't worry, he will keep plugging away, with any luck the super special congress will get him a littled closer.

[indepat]

10. And once a chink is made in the armor, the RW will drive their tanks through until the whole program

is destroyed: it'll be like the early months of Operation Barbarossa. :patriot:

[bvar22]

27. The Republicans already have THAT campaign commercial in the can.

"President Obama tried to cut your Social Security,
but Republican John Beohner Saved Social Security by refusing Obama's offer,
and walked out of the meeting."

That is going to play well in Middle America,
and the sad part is that it has a foundation in the truth.
Obama did put Social Security On the Table,
and admitted doing so in the following Press Conference.
Boehner DID walk out of that meeting.
This will be hard for the Democratic Party to deny.



Who will STAND and FIGHT for THIS American Majority?

You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their excuses.

Solidarity!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[hifiguy]

4. It sure beats investigating his BFFs

on Wall $treet, I guess.

[jaxx]

5. Where are the quotes?

I don't see any, only this persons comments.

[hfojvt]

17. Huh, I seem to have struck out - how odd

Back in 2003, I was compiling a list of Bush's lies about his tax cuts and went to Whitehouse.gov where they had transcripts of every speech Bush gave on his tour to promote his tax cuts in 2003.

Okay, now I found it in a separate section on speeches.

Here's Obama endorsing the Catfood commission and the gang of six proposals on social security.

"that we look at how we can make modifications that strengthen Social Security and Medicare for the next generation, and how we raise additional revenue so that we bring the overall budget into a sustainable place.

And the truth of the matter is, is that the commission recommendations are ones that not only I, but the so-called Gang of Six, these senators in the United States Senate, agreed to as well. And that was bipartisan; you had Democrats and Republicans."

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/08/17/remarks-president-town-hall-meeting-atkinson-illinois

Here Obama only hints at it, not specifying what changes he would fight for.

"If we make some modest changes now, the kind of changes that Ronald Reagan and Tip O’Neill agreed to back in 1983, we can preserve Social Security, make sure it’s there for the future 75 years out. So Social Security is something that we can solve relatively easily."

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/08/17/remarks-president-town-hall-meeting-alpha-illinois

Here, again, he only hints at it with no specifics.

"So don’t let folks fool you by saying that in order to get a handle on our debt we’ve got to slash Social Security. There are some modest adjustments that can be made that will make it solvent for 75 years -- and that’s about as long as you can think ahead as a country.

And the way to do it is similar to the way that Ronald Reagan and Tip O’Neill fixed Social Security back in 1983. They said, okay, we’ll make some modest adjustments that are phased in over a very long period of time; most folks don’t notice them. But if we do that, and all the money goes back into Social Security -- it doesn’t go anywhere else -- then there’s no reason why Social Security won’t be there for future generations. But, again, this is an example of where everybody gets so dug in on their positions.

And I have to say, in fairness -- because I’ve commented on the other side not always being flexible -- there have been times where our side -- when Democrats aren’t always as flexible as we need to be. I mean, sometimes I do get frustrated when I hear folks say, you can’t make any changes to any government programs."

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/08/15/remarks-president-town-hall-meeting-cannon-falls-minnesota

That's all I get from searching four or five of his speeches.

Not exactly what Baker said, except in the one case, depending on what was in the gang of six proposal, but he keeps praising what Reagan did in 1983. What did Reagan do? Mostly 3 things - 1) raised the retirement age, 2) raised taxes on low income working people and only 3) gradually raised the cap (although some of that might have been automatic from older legislation, I know the cap has gone up a lot since the 1980s).

[jaxx]

24. Looks like Baker is making up stuff.

[hfojvt]

33. not really Baker only said Obama said it once

and I did not thoroughly search all of his speeches.

"President Obama again indicated his interest in cutting Social Security. He repeated a proposal that his administration first put forward in the debt ceiling negotiations:"

[jtown1123]

52. Person asked if he is looking at Chained CPI and Obama said yes.

[Bryn]

6. He will probably lose in 2012. Remember Harry Truman's warning?

"The people don't want a phony Democrat. If it's a choice between a genuine Republican, and a Republican in Democratic clothing, the people will choose the genuine article, every time..." -- Harry Truman

and also Ike Eisenhower's warning about Abolishing Social Security

"Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history..."

President Dwight D. Eisenhower, l952

[lumberjack_jeff]

8. We're a long way down the rabbit hole, aren't we?

Changing the CPI for SS will "save"* $300 billion and everyone hates the idea.

Returning taxes on the rich to what they were 10 years ago will save $700 billion and everyone loves the idea.

Which one does he stake his political futures on?

*SS is a separate entity. Every surplus SS tax dollar becomes debt to the government.

[leveymg]

9. Two reasons: Wall Street.

Global banks and multinational corporations. They want every country to cut social programs. Obama just happens to be one of several national "leaders" who is cheerfully complying.

Now, roll over and get your belly scratched.

[kenny blankenship]

16. Yep. Same two reasons other Republicans plot against Social Security

There's no real mystery about it.

[leveymg]

32. No mystery, at all. I'm kinda surprised about how many people are still in denial

about who's really President of both political parties in America: Benjamin Franklin.

[girl gone mad]

36. When you understand the resons why, it will only make you angrier.

Not only do they want their fees, they want to force people to buy their sleazy financial products. The less public money in the economy, the more dependent people are on private (bank) money creation, iow: debt.

[kenny blankenship]

39. It's probably just a matter of time before they get a sweetheart deal like the insurance mafia got

you know, where we HAVE TO buy their sleazy financial products, or else the govt comes down on us.

Think about "swipe" charges for your debit card, and the government's long established hatred for untraceable cash payments. A slight change in the laws, to "ease the task of law enforcement in the war against drugs!" and banks can start making a percentage on everything you ever buy.

[amborin]

11. Obama wants "unspecified changes to Social Security"

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/11/us/politics/11deficit.html?scp=7&sq=obama%20and%20cut%20and%20social%20security&st=cse

[Romulox]

12. Only Nixon can go to China. Only a Democrat can cut SS without inciting a riot.

[Raksha]

20. Oh, it will incite a riot, and probably more than one,

once a critical mass of the people figure out what's happening. At the moment many are still fooled by that D after Obama's name. When they can't be fooled any longer the shit will hit the fan. Selecting a "Democratic" president to do the dirty work is basically just a stalling tactic.

[WinkyDink]

21. Don't bet on that last part.

[nashville_brook]

22. that seems to be the operating ideology of this administration.

[NNN0LHI]

13. This really pisses me off because it is going to effect me in a few years when I am eligible

If I live that long? :)

But I am not pissed off at President Obama for it. Tried explaining this to people years ago that the workers who manufacture our imported stuff don't contribute to our social programs like Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. Long before Obama became president. But it went in one ear and out the other.

Now here we all are, up shit creek without a paddle.

Don

[EC]

15. I wonder if he finally is treating the repubs like the children

they act like and is trying reverse psychology with them?

[mzmolly]

23. Is there a quote from the President on this?

I apologize if one exists and I've not seen it. Thanks in advance. :hi:

[madfloridian]

25. From CJR, what the president said in Missouri..

http://www.cjr.org/campaign_desk/cjr_holds_a_town_hall_in_missouri.php

"As Barack Obama’s bus cruised through the heartland last week, the media told us a fair amount about what the president said. In Alpha, Illinois, Obama gave a less-than-clear explanation of the amount of wages subject to the Social Security payroll tax, and then let it slip that apparently he supports a change in the way cost of living benefits are calculated, most likely using the so-called chained CPI. In Cannon Falls, Minnesota, the president said that Social Security is “one of our most important social insurance programs that we have,” and argued against calling it an entitlement, since people earn their benefits through deductions from their paychecks. He repeated what he had said in the past: “Social Security is not the cause of our debt and our deficit.” In St. Louis, he told NBC affiliate KSDK that “we could have had a grand bargain that would have reduced our deficit a lot more than the deal that actually emerged.”

Find that speech at the .gov site and you have your quote.

Another source:

"During the President’s negotiations with House Speaker John Boehner in July, President Obama proposed a technical change known as the “chained CPI” that would cut the benefits of those receiving Social Security today. After ten years average retiree benefits would be cut by about $600 a year, and after 20 years they would be cut by about $1,000 a year. President Obama is planning to make a major speech in September that reportedly will include elements from this summer’s failed “grand bargain,” including this chained-CPI and an increase in Medicare’s eligibility age to 67."

Read more: http://www.heraldextra.com/article_69bdd222-c9f6-11e0-8ef8-001cc4c002e0.html#ixzz1VyIxfouZ

[RockaFowler]

26. That still doesn't have quotes from the President

Just because you put quotes around what other people say doesn't mean it's what he said. This is the only Pres Obama quote:

“Social Security is not the cause of our debt and our deficit.”

[madfloridian]

29. Find that speech at the .gov site and you have your quote.

[mzmolly]

31. IMHO, it's up to those making the claim, to provide

the quote in question. Mr. Baker failed to do so.

[madfloridian]

42. I did not put the quotes, the newspaper did.

[Bryn]

28. Ugh! We on SS can't afford those cuts

No COLA for 3 years and food/gas prices are rocketing high. This is crime.

[sarcasmo]

49. Add in the out of control inflation and seniors will be losing way more

than the 3% and 6%. Guess the new American way is to work until you die.

[madfloridian]

30. From July USA Today on CPI and Obama

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2011/07/obama-boehner-debt-talks-off/1

From the WH:

"A deal was never reached, and was never really close," Boehner said.

Obama and aides disputed that sentence, saying they were very close to what the president called a " big deal" that would have cut trillions from federal programs while limiting new tax revenues to only the wealthiest Americans.

"I've been left at the altar now a couple of times," Obama said.

White House aides said the package could have added up to as much as $3 trillion or so in budget cuts and up to $1.2 trillion in new tax revenues, mostly from efforts to revamp the tax code and clear if of unnecessary loopholes, credits, and deductions.

The proposal featured major changes to popular entitlement programs, including a gradual increase in the Medicare eligibility age from 65 to 67, and adjustments to the Consumer Price Index formula used to calculate Social Security benefits -- the kinds of ideas that angered some congressional Democrats when they surfaced."

[Whisp]

34. which Baker? Tammy Fay?

[chill_wind]

37. Ah yes. Obama in the good old days..

On the matter of social security..

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=1497099&mesg_id=1497099

[WillyT]

38. K & R !!!

:kick:

[_ed_]

41. Because he's a conservative?

.

[QC]

43. Sometimes the most obvious answer is the correct one. n/t

[_ed_]

44. Really

I'm so sick of all these posts about "Why did Obama do XXX?" He does these things because he wants to, because he's a center-right religiously conservative politician, and he'd rather enrich Wall Street than do a fucking thing for main street. End of story. We're wasting our time with this armchair psychology. Just take the man at what he actually does in office, and go from there.

[ProSense]

45. Here's the interesting part of Baker's commentary

<...>

And the date where this could be an issue is still relatively distant. The Congressional Budget Office just released new projections showing that the Social Security trust fund is fully solvent through the year 2038. Even after that date, the program would have enough money to pay 81 percent of scheduled benefits for the rest of the century. The folks who say that there will be nothing there for our children or grandchildren are just making it up or repeating the nonsense promulgated by some political hack.

Furthermore, this gap is not hard to close. Currently, the tax on the wages subject to the tax is capped at $107,000. The upward redistribution of income over the last three decades has caused a large share of wage income to escape taxation, as more money ends up in the pocket of CEOs and Wall Street types than ordinary workers. If all wage income were subject to the tax, then it would leave Social Security fully solvent for its 75-year planning period.

We could also go the route of increasing the tax on ordinary workers to cover the shortfall. After all, part of the story is that people are enjoying longer retirements, even if the wealthy have benefited much more from the increase in longevity than the typical worker. By 2040, average wages are projected to be 45 percent higher than today, adjusting for the impact of inflation. If just 5 percent of the projected wage growth over this period was used to finance Social Security, the program would be fully solvent for the rest of the century.

<...>

After 2038, there would be a 19 percent drop in benefits unless the tax adjustments Baker suggests are enacted. He even mentions why there is a shortfall.

One thing is certain, as long as Baker and others continue to point to a shortfall, there will be calls to strengthen Social Security and make it fully solvent. The other thing that's certain is no one who seeks to preserve the program wants the solution to come from a Republican administration and Congress.

Also, the President has said often that Social Security doesn't contribute to the debt.

Remarks by the President in a Town Hall Meeting in Cannon Falls, Minnesota

THE PRESIDENT: Well, Social Security -- here’s my commitment -- I don’t know about the other folks, but I’ll make a commitment as long as I’m President of the United States -- Social Security will not only be there for you, but it’s also going to be there for the next generation and the generation after that because it’s one of the most important social insurance programs that we have. (Applause.) And by the way, you pay into Social Security. They call it an entitlement, but it’s not an entitlement; you’re paying for it. It’s getting taken out of your paycheck.

So it is true that as the population gets older there’s going to be more and more pressure on the Social Security system. But the Social Security system is not the cause of our debt and deficit. (Applause.) So don’t let folks fool you by saying that in order to get a handle on our debt we’ve got to slash Social Security. There are some modest adjustments that can be made that will make it solvent for 75 years -- and that’s about as long as you can think ahead as a country.

<...>

[Major Hogwash]

46. They don't care about that sort of stuff, they want to spin it the other way -- to the right.

That's what half of these so-called "op-eds" are about.

[madfloridian]

47. But if they keep cutting the FICA tax, we WON'T be paying for it....

then they can claim it is an entitlement, more like charity.

Obama's words from your post:

"it’s not an entitlement; you’re paying for it. It’s getting taken out of your paycheck."

[ProSense]

50. Remember this:

"Debt Ceiling Deal Will Cost 1.8 Million Jobs In 2012...In particular, the immediate spending cuts and the 'failure to continue two key supports to the economy (the payroll tax holiday and emergency unemployment benefits for the long term unemployed)...'"

[madfloridian]

53. Please don't infer that cutting FICA tax will save 1.8 million jobs.

That's stretching things a wee little bit.

[sarcasmo]

48. When Democratic Presidents want to cut social security we are all screwed.

[DirkGently]

51. Beltway wisdom. Seems like anything accepted as fact in D.C. is a fact for this President.