Mark this day. For the first time in history, a Democratic president has officially proposed to cut the Democratic Party’s signature New Deal program, Social Security:
(AP Photo / Susan Walsh, File)
President Obama next week will take the political risk of formally
proposing cuts to Social Security and Medicare in his annual budget in
an effort to demonstrate his willingness to compromise with Republicans
and revive prospects for a long-term deficit-reduction deal,
administration officials say.
In a significant shift in fiscal strategy, Mr. Obama on Wednesday
will send a budget plan to Capitol Hill that departs from the usual
presidential wish list that Republicans typically declare dead on
arrival. Instead it will embody the final compromise offer that he made
to Speaker John A. Boehner late last year, before Mr. Boehner abandoned
negotiations in opposition to the president’s demand for higher taxes
from wealthy individuals and some corporations.
The way this was explained to me is that the liberal Democrats in the
House put out a leftward proposal and the Democrats in the Senate put
out a moderate proposal, which the president tacitly endorsed. The Crazy
Republicans then came back with a rightward proposal so now the
president has simply set forth a compromise between the Senate Dems and
the Crazy Republicans. And it’s his final, final offer this time.
God help us if the Republicans wise up and take this deal. After all,
it’s a more conservative budget than even their hero Ronald Reagan ever
submitted.
This is what he proposes:
I’m going to quote Mike Lux here:
If Obama includes it in his budget, he is claiming this as a policy
idea he supports before he even starts negotiations with the
Republicans. This is terrible policy and terrible politics at the same
time. In a budget document that has no actual policy impact but that
symbolically represents what he stands for and who he wants to fight
for, he will alienate senior citizens and the families who worried about
taking care of them, he will split his political party down the middle,
and– by being the first one to formally propose cuts to Social
Security– he will hand Republicans a big political weapon to hurt
Democrats in 2014.
I understand the president has political reasons he wants to do this.
He wants to look like the most reasonable guy in the room, and he wants
the Republicans to look like they are the extremists who won’t
compromise. He doesn’t want the attacks that will come from the deficit
hawk crowd if offers nothing on “entitlement reform,” and he feels like
this is a modest cut compared with the budget ax the Republicans are
threatening. He feels like he can lessen the impact of the Social
Security cuts by adjusting the formula to protect the oldest and poorest
recipients.
But, folks, this is rotten public policy, and all those political
reasons pale in comparison to the damage he is doing here. With the
demise or curtailment of most pensions, the drop in family wealth due to
the collapse of the housing sector in 2008, the big unemployment
numbers cutting into many families’ life savings, the flattening or
decrease of wages for most workers, and the inflation in many essentials
among those who are working driving down the ability to save for
retirement, this is the absolute last time we should be looking at
cutting incomes for retirees.
As to the idea that Obama will keep the most vulnerable low-income
seniors from harm, I am very appreciative of that fact that he cares
about them and is trying to preserve them from cuts. Obama’s compassion
for the poorest of the poor is something to be lauded, one of his best
values. But I used to do a lot of organizing with moderate income senior
citizens, and I know a lot of middle-income seniors. I can tell you
that even for those a little above the cut-off line but still living
mostly on Social Security, they are not living in luxury, they are in
fact just making it. When groceries or utilities or out-of-pocket health
care expenses spike, it hurts and hurts bad. I have been in the
apartments of seniors when utility prices were going on one of their
periodic jumps, have seen what they can afford to eat, have felt the
cold in their apartments in the winter because they can’t heat their
place. I know in my heart, because I have seen the evidence up close and
personal, that for a lot of seniors the $500 a year they will have lost
from chained CPI a few years from now if this cut goes into effect will
result in more seniors dying of hypothermia or malnutrition.
Most Americans, over 80 percent in polls I have seen, understand that
cutting Social Security benefits is a terrible idea, and I believe that
if that is what happens people will be angry. But even if the politics
were not on our side, this is a moral issue pure and simple. The
president should not propose cutting Social Security, and Democrats in
Congress should raise hell and oppose him if he does. As Democrats,
according to all that rhetoric I kept hearing during the campaign last
year, we believe in fighting for the middle class, and this proposal
punches the middle class– both older Americans and the families who care
for them– in the gut.
Ok, so what do we do now?
First, we cannot simply sit back and expect the GOP to do our dirty
work for us. After all, the way things are going, the Prsident or could
start offering up new tax cuts for all we know. He’s either a terrible
negotiator or he really, really wants these cuts. Either way, counting
on him holding the line is probably not a good idea.
So, we have to buck up the Democrats. I know, I know. But they still
have to face voters while the president has run his last election. They
should be made very, very aware of what they are contemplating: attacks
from both the left and the right in the next election. Any incumbent
Democrat who could face a primary challenge will be facing withering
criticism for voting to cut SS, veterans benefits and medicare. And if
they are lucky to fight them off and win they will be attacked by the
Republicans challenger on exactly the same issues. These are very, very
popular programs which,
by the way, don’t actually need to be
cut. Anyone who votes for this will hear about it. If you have a
Democratic congressional rep, give them a call and let them know that
you
will hold it against them. (Also too, if you have a
Republican representative. They have to face voters too and it can’t
hurt to remind them of that. And after all, they are just looking for
reasons to oppose this …)
And call your Senators starting today. The pattern so far has been
that Speaker Boehner will only suspend the Hastert Rule (allowing
legislation to the floor without a Republican majority) if it is already
passed with a bipartisan Senate vote. Best to try to stop it here
first.
Meanwhile prepare for a barrage of savvy, world weary commentary from
your fellow liberals telling you that this is no big thing and that
Democrats will not suffer even a tiny bit if they vote for a common
sense proposal like this one. You will be shushed and told to calm down
and take a chill pill. In other words,
you will be gaslighted
by fellow liberals who are embarrassed that you aren’t being coolly
accepting of something that is completely unacceptable. This is how this
works. Tell them to STFU and move out of the way.
And recall
this:
Responding to a flood of angry phone calls and letters from their
elderly constituents, a growing number of Congressmen and Senators are
seeking to repeal or revise the “Medicare Catastrophic Coverage Act of
1988″ enacted in June of that year. The amount and the tenacity of
elderly opposition to the law, particularly to the new taxes that will
fund it, took many Congressmen by surprise. It also has provoked an open
and widespread grass-roots rebellion within the nation’s largest senior
citizen lobby, the American Association of Retired Persons (AARP),
whose national office pushed hard for the original legislation. Already,
some 30 bills have been introduced to repeal the catastrophic act in
whole or in part or to change the way it is financed. More bills are
expected.
The cool kids should think twice before predicting a complacent
acceptance of this proposal because sometimes the people do stand up and
object. Especially when it comes to these programs. They don’t call it
the third rail for nothing.
© 2013 Campaign for America's Future
Digby is the pseudonym of progressive political blogger Heather Parton from Santa Monica, California who founded the blog
Hullabaloo.
No comments:
Post a Comment