House Democrats not receptive to Social Security cuts

[ProSense]

House Democrats not receptive to Social Security cuts

by Joan McCarter

The White House had its opportunity to sell its budget, including Social Security cuts, to House Democrats on Thursday. House Democrats aren't biting.

Several top-ranking Democrats — including Reps. Nancy Pelosi (Calif.), Steny Hoyer (Md.), James Clyburn (S.C.) and Xavier Becerra (Calif.) — questioned the wisdom of altering popular seniors benefits in the context of deficit reduction.

"I think there was general consensus that all of that discussion should be something for the table on which we preserve Social Security and not really part of this budget," Pelosi said following a meeting Democrats held with budget experts on the White House plan to reduce future Social Security benefits by adopting a new way of calculating inflation. <...>

Most of pushback from rank-and-file members, she said, stemmed from concerns that the Social Security cut appeared to be "subsidizing ... lesser priorities" rather than bolstering the program itself. That could have negative consequences on future efforts to strengthen the program, Pelosi lamented.

The leadership, Hoyer, Clyburn, and Becerra, all reject the idea of dealing with Social Security in the context of a deficit. A rank and file member, Rep. Bill Pascrell (D-NJ), highlights the political insanity of the proposal: "Seniors vote in even heavier numbers, proportionately, in off-year elections. So just looking at a political standpoint ... I would think that this would be a damning blow to our chances of taking back the House next year."

This reaction shows the way for Democrats to pivot away from cuts to the idea of bolstering the program, and for Obama to pivot away from this idea, already a political loser, to talking about what could actually sustain and strengthen Social Security and to help beneficiaries, starting with raising the payroll tax cap. It's becoming increasingly clear that the retirement crisis facing America is sure as hell not the deficit, and it's not Social Security insolvency. It's an increasing impoverished generation of older people for whom existing Social Security payments are barely adequate. In this economy, that's the conversation about Social Security we should be having.

This is a great opportunity for Democrats to seize that narrative, and start talking about what's really going to matter to older Americans in upcoming elections.

Send an email to President Obama and congressional leadership telling them to strengthen Social Security instead of cutting it.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/04/12/1201299/-House-Democrats-not-receptive-to-Social-Security-cuts

Including this in the deficit negotiations isn't the only problem. The proposal itself sucks.

Obama: I will not make cuts to Social Security (w/ video)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022619436

Still, it's good to see Democrats distancing themselves from this.

Raise the cap to strengthen Social Security.

Spot the question Boehner didn't answer
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022655701

[octoberlib]

1. This illustrates the importance of Congress and 2014. nt

[djean111]

2. Bad whining Democrat Congress critters! Bad! Bad!

[tularetom]

3. We just have to start electing smarter Democratic congresspeople

The ones we have just aren't capable of understanding umpteen dimensional chess.

And I guess they haven't gotten the memo that they work for Wall Street, not the people who actually voted for them.

[Nite Owl]

4. How come leadership

Seems surprised? Not like it hasn't been discussed. Is it ok to do just not now or as part of the deficit reduction?

[forestpath]

5. Since Pelosi HAS been receptive before I will never trust her again.

[whatchamacallit]

6. Chillax everybody

"because congress is unreceptive, Obama can propose all the stupid shit he wants"

[AnotherMcIntosh]

7. He's already damaged the 2014 election chances.

"Send an email to President Obama and congressional leadership telling them to strengthen Social Security instead of cutting it."

Good advice. But you have to make it clear that you are opposed to the proposed chained-CPI.

Aren't all of them going to claim that they want to "strengthen Social Security? Didn't Pelosi already defend Obama's chained-CPI proposal by saying that it would strength Social Security and that using a chained-CPI would not result in cuts?

Those in the leadership positions who want to spin this can say, to the extent that they haven't done so already, that adopting a chained-CPI will strengthen Social Security for future generations. For those who want to spin this, it's a form of bullshit.

The phrase that there "should be something for the table on which we preserve Social Security" is very telling. Aren't they all going to claim that they want to "preserve Social Security"?

The question to ask is whether the top-ranking Democrats are speaking out against the chained-CPI with enough vigor? And, if so, is the public perceiving that?

[ProSense]

8. That really is

"He's already damaged the 2014 election chances."

...wishful thinking. Not only do Republicans have their own problems (http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022657797), they're not going to support chained CPI because they don't want to own the vote (http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022655701)

[AnotherMcIntosh]

9. Obviously, you have not thought this through. If he is not damaging the 2014 election chances,

why are those in leadership positions in the House backing away from this (or at least giving some appearance of doing so)?

Your snarky attack upon me is not supported by the facts. Even you should know that.

[ProSense]

10. Actually

"Obviously, you have not thought this through. If he is not damaging the 2014 election chances, why are those in leadership positions in the House backing away from this (or at least giving some appearance of doing so)?"

...I have. This policy isn't going to pass, and no one is going to care about a policy that isn't law. People are not going to hold their representatives accountable for not supporting a bad policy that doesn't become law.

"Your snarky attack upon me is not supported by the facts. Even you should know that."

Saying that it's "wishful thinking" is a "snarky attack"?