Posted on 01/21/2010 6:12:29 AM PST by Libloather
Obama Cuts Deal that Will Reduce Social Security, Medicare and all Entitlements
by James Ridgeway
20 January 2010
The Obama administration literally collapsed yesterday. Any pretense of liberal change was washed away in a closed door deal to cut entitlements. While the Massachusetts voters were casting their ballots to install the upstart Republican Scott Brown to Ted Kennedy’s Senate seat, President Obama was hammering out an agreement with Democratic leaders to support a plan to issue an executive order to cut entitlements, including Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.
The effect of this plan, if accepted by Congress, will be to override the already weakened health care reform legislation.
It represents a capitulation to conservatives in both parties, and would leave Democratic liberals accepting unconditional surrender not only on health care, but on the most basic of all New Deal programs. It reaches far beyond actions by the Reagan and Bush administration.
As the Washington Post explains this morning:
Under the agreement, President Obama would issue an executive order to create an 18-member panel that would be granted broad authority to propose changes in the tax code and in the massive federal entitlement programs — including Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security — that threaten to drive the nation’s debt to levels not seen since World War II.
(Excerpt) Read more at baltimorechronicle.com ...
This is just a ruse to get the GOP to let them raise the debt limit again, by $1.9 trillion.
It sounds to me like Obama is going to replace congress with an 18 member panel that he appoints. That sounds really great doesn’t it! /s.
Absolutely. I don’t see any evidence that this 18 member panel will recommend CUTS - they could as easily recommend massive expansion of existing entitlements.
This sounds like incrementalism to me. Obama gets the conservatives to go along with this plan under the pretense that it will cut entitlements, but once established, the new 18-member panel will instead increase taxes and use SS/Medicare/Medicaid to provide universal healthcare coverage entitlements, based on the panel’s broad authority.
Why would the panel need even authority over taxation if the only purpose of the panel was to cut entitlements and save money?
We have to raise the debt limit to avoid defaulting, but the 1.9T amount is supposed to cover them through the 2010 elections.
No presidential panel has any “authority” over taxation. Even the Dems would not be stupid to allow this giant leap over the constitution.
You don’t think George Soros has a direct line to Obama’s blackberry?
Lets not raise the debt limit and spend less.
Great post; OUTSTANDING thread. Thanks to all posters/linkers/researchers/educators. BTTT!
Seems to me the cuts should be applauded. They are bankrupt.
You don’t think the democrats would do something shady just to get more spending, do you?
(Yes, tongue firmly planted in cheek)
This is the Onion, right?
This can’t be happening....
They’re going to cut Social Security payments? I agree, but that will cause riots.
By the Trustees:
What a novel idea! I'm sure that thought has never entered into the brain of a US politician. If it did, they busted out laughing.
I totally agree with you.
Except they are using the cuts as a trap and a way of lashing out at the voters. I also think that their game plan is one of brinkmanship daring the Republicans to go along.
There are many hundreds of programs that could be slashed instead, before we get to the meat. We’ll need to trim the meat also once the fat is gone. Our course is unsustainable.
I will be shocked and amazed if there is one word of truth in any of this.
I have met a former Public Trustee, Tom Savings, who was appointed by Bush. I would also add that the report itself is really non-partisan as far as the data are concerned. You can compare previous reports. The facts don't lie. Both SS and Medicare are essentially bankrupt and something must be done or the country will go further into the hole. The entitlement programs consume almost half the budget now and will be over 70% by 2060 if nothing is done.
In 1950 there were 16 workers for every retiree; today there are 3.3; and by 2030 there will be 2. And in 2030, one in five Americans will be 65 or older or twice what it is now. The entitlement programs as currently structured are unsustainable.
Maybe they can just send a birthday card containing a cyanide pill with instructions to take it on your 65th birthday.
A similar "Commission" to make recommendations for entitlement reform is the ONLY way that reform (read REDUCTIONS) can possibly take place. That said, I suspect that entitlements will not be placed on a firm economic basis in my lifetime....
Politicians will continue to drive every aspect of the federal budget (and national debt) to astronomical heights. Eventually, the sale of federal and state bonds will require ever increasing interest rates and the dollar will become ever worthless (a dollar in 1913 has lost 97% of its value due to inflation.) Benefits will continue to be paid, as promised, but they will purchase less with each passing year!
and as sweetcaroline pointed out- SS has been takign in surplus $$ but congress has been spendign that money- it’s NOT SS that needs to be ‘fixed’ it’s congress and their out of control spending that needs to be fixed- people paid into SS al ltheir lives (and it’s a false clai mthat people get more from SS than they put in) and it’s NOT their fault that the money they were FORCED to pay into hte program was mismanaged and spent recklessly- they ARE entitled to that money when they retire as it was taken from them under the FALSE pretense that it was goign into a fund to help support htem when they retired- they had NO choice but to pay into it- so YES- Seniors ARE entitled to that $$
“The National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare has been fighting the commission idea recently sent a letter to congress, saying in part:
“We appreciate the concerns of legislators who are looking for a means of reducing the federal deficit and slowing the growth in the debt. However, we have significant concerns about any process – including the Conrad-Gregg Commission – that would disenfranchise American voters and subject Social Security beneficiaries to harmful cuts in benefits. As supporters of Social Security, we are surprised to see the federal deficit and the federal debt cited as the reason a commission needs to be established to make cuts in Social Security. The truth is that neither the $1.4 trillion deficit nor the nearly $12 trillion debt has anything to do with Social Security benefits.
For nearly three decades, Social Security has taken in more revenue each year than it has paid out in benefits. These excess funds have been invested in special issue U.S. government securities. Thus, Social Security has effectively been loaning its excess funds to the federal government to spend on other programs. Rather than increasing the federal deficit, Social Security’s annual surpluses have actually been covering up the true size of the deficit in the general fund.”
http://www.baltimorechronicle.com/2010/012010Ridgeway.shtml
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.