Hasn't 'chained cpi' been a dead issue in the Senate for some time now since the Pres. proposed it?
___________________
Is there even a remote chance that there will be some budget bill that comes out of the Senate that includes Social Security cuts for beneficiaries; much less, any other aspect of the program?
Wouldn't the President be acutely aware of that opposition? I can't see any scenario where President Obama tries to force Senate Democrats to adopt chained cpi; or any thing else that cut SS. Those types of items in the President's budget won't get past committee, and I can't see Reid allowing anything like these reported proposals of the President getting anywhere near the Senate floor for a vote.
That's why I think the discussion today is focused on whether these are serious proposals, or just a bluff in an ongoing negotiation with a functionally deaf opposition party. Hasn't the consensus been for MONTHS that chained cpi and other SS cuts were DOA in the Senate? Haven't enough Democrats signaled they were determined to block these, if they came before them?
I'm pretty sure that's the case. For me, knowing that (or believing that) would make it superfluous and a bit silly to act shocked and dismayed that he'd actually include these cuts in his budget proposal. They've been on the WH website for months now.
I get two impressions from the fury and gravity of the criticisms of the President since the report that his budget would include these cuts. First, there is a correct and necessary pushback from 'cpi' opponents which is well-advantaged by the spotlight the President has put on his proposals. He has to realize both the opposition and the virtual unreality of his initiatives. He's definitely hearing a boatload of criticism from supporters and detractors, alike. I don't imagine, for a minute, that he's expecting to broach that level of opposition from his own party. I could be wrong, but that would appear to be a losing battle.
Secondly, there are merely proposals. I wonder if folks realize just how many of the WH budget proposals are regularly ignored when congress fashions their legislation. I've said from the beginning of these negotiations that Congress would be the indicator on any sequester deal; not the President, no matter what he and the republican opposition agree to.
Look to the Capitol to measure the impact on seniors, etc.. Lobby Congress and the Senate to shape the outcome of any sequester compromise (if there is to be one). Focusing criticisms on the President may well be good politics, good practice, but he's not as pressed by our votes anymore; legislators are the ones in the hot seats on this. They need to hear from us. The WH, less so, imo.
On the substance . . . where do I stand?
The President has as much of a chance of getting a full compliment of what he wants from republicans as he does insisting and extracting revenue from them. He's looking to compromise to resolve 'core disputes?' That's some rookie shit there. With budgets, you either get what you want at first bite, or accept getting shafted in the future by succeeding Congresses. It's no wonder so many are using the term 'sold out.' Very few have any faith at all in Washington doing what it takes to preserve our social safety net, much less enhance it. We all know who is going to be the ultimate beneficiaries of belt-tightening; the rest of the government largess, not the poor and working class. We starve off of these compromises, while they experience a slight bit of temporary indigestion.
It's a foolish proposal, to target already vulnerable and much in-demand programs for cuts to continue to pay for the rest of the bloated, privileged mess. It's a kick in the shin, right now, when those elements (people) of our society have already sacrificed so much. In fact, in this sequester, it is that faction of Americans who are already feeling the pinch of this deliberate republican embezzlement. I don't think it's too much to ask that the president fights that battle before he comes to us with his hat in his hand.
I daresay, if he'd fight and win that battle to end the wealthy and corporate privilege gained from our hard-earned contributions to government, he wouldn't have a need to make the poor and working-class accountable for this deliberate mess Congress has engineered for decades now.
= new reply since forum marked as read
