General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsDems fear Obama Social Security cut will haunt them in 2014 races
A growing number of House Democrats are concerned that President Obama's proposal to cut Social Security benefits will haunt the party at the polls in 2014.
Although Democrats have long-championed the retirement program, they say Obama's plan to reduce payments for future beneficiaries through a chained consumer price index (CPI) has weakened their stance and opened the door for Republicans to vilify the president.
The leader of the campaign arm for House Republicans, Rep. Greg Walden (Ore.), on Wednesday called Obamas plan a "shocking attack on seniors."
Rep. Chris Van Hollen (Md.), the former head of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, said Walden's comments foreshadow a line of attack the GOP will use on the campaign trail next year. It's a reason, he added, for Democrats to worry.
<snip>
http://thehill.com/homenews/house/293703-dems-fear-obamas-social-security-cut-will-haunt-them-in-2014
theaocp
(4,223 posts)they should just change their affiliation to (R), run on protecting SS, and then change back to (D) when they're voted into office. Makes as much sense as the other excuses I've seen around here for this bumbling shit lately.
ebbie15644
(1,208 posts)TheCowsCameHome
(40,161 posts)This is stupid beyond belief. I've never been so disgusted with this party.
duffyduff
(3,251 posts)He's made a mess out of the party with his many reckless proposals and policies.
Having a "D" after his name shouldn't inoculate him from criticism.
Melinda
(5,465 posts)Everyone upset about the fiasco that is the current Democratic party and its leadership should get off their asses and work to dump these 3rd wayers; let's replace them with liberal/progressives candidates at the LOCAL CONGRESSIONAL LEVEL. That's change I can believe in!!!
Samantha
(9,314 posts)Billionaires who want lower taxes, cuts in Social Security, continued tax subsidy for shipping jobs overseas, and many other planks which contribute to the hurting now on the poor and middle class in the United States.
Sam
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)Liberalynn
(7,549 posts)Dems in the House and Senate should just vote no to Chained CPI should it come up in a bill. Those that vote against it will be okay with me and I will still vote for them and donate if I can afford it, but I can only speak for myself.
I am not at the point yet, where I am willing to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)Liberalynn
(7,549 posts)Wellstone ruled
(34,661 posts)of News Banners. Geez,does this White House not see what we see. If this is some of the old DLC shit,Mitch McTurtle is laughing his ass off. Talk about biting your nose off to save your face. I realize Obama has drug in a ton of Clinton Conservatives,but,these turds won't win any elections in 2014. Most of these dopes caused us to loose the House in 94'. Then caused total give away of or started the give away of the New Deal. Austerity has never help the majority populaces,only benefits the the landed Gentry.
What a miscalculation,Danny Boy Phieffer needs some Wood Shed action here. McTurtle is loving all the Dem infighting,screw all the Triangulation shit.
shanti
(21,670 posts)very afraid.
WillyT
(72,631 posts)ProSense
(116,464 posts)this thread (http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022670890):
Could chain CPI become more toxic than it currently is?
Rep. Chris Van Hollen (Md.), the former head of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, said Walden's comments foreshadow a line of attack the GOP will use on the campaign trail next year. It's a reason, he added, for Democrats to worry.
<...>
"I don't underestimate the degree to which they'll be disingenuous," Rep. Mark Takano (Calif.), a freshman Democrat who has emerged as one of the loudest critics of Social Security benefit cuts, said Friday. "It harkens back to the charge that $700 billion was taken from Medicare and put into ObamaCare, and [they] told all the seniors it was a [benefit] cut. That was very deceptive, [and] this is another instance of that."
Rep. Alan Grayson (D-Fla.), another staunch defender of Social Security, echoed that charge Friday.
"I never underestimate Republican hypocrisy," he said.
Not all Democrats fear Obama's chained CPI proposal will be a liability for the party during the midterms. Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.), head of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, argued that the president proposed the change, so any political fallout should be directed at him...Rep. Ted Deutch (D-Fla.), another fierce critic of chained CPI, offered another reason he thinks GOP attacks on Obama's budget wont stick: Republicans, he said, have crusaded for similar entitlement cuts for too long to reverse course convincingly.
I love this!
bvar22
(39,909 posts)from the Obama Cuts!
Vote REPUBLICAN
...which will be accompanied by endless video of President Obama campaigning for the Chained CPI.
The Republicans would never do THAT, would they?
Summer Hathaway
(2,770 posts)It's like a physically abusive husband saying, "Hey, remember that one shining moment in time that I didn't beat the shit out of you, bitch?"
And just as an aside: Funny how this issue has gone from a non-binding 'proposal' from Obama, to being his "PLAN to cut SS benefits", to "CAMPAIGNING for chained CPI" in a mere of forty-eight hours - not in the real world, of course, but in the world of DU.
How are the GOP going to show "endless videos" of Obama CAMPAIGNING for it, when no such videos exist?
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)Rex
(65,616 posts)Was a stupid move.
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)To be fair, Obama taking up Chained CPI as a "Shiny Object" to dangle in front of the Republicans was indeed a risky move, and one which does have a chance at backfiring at that.
BUT, here's the thing: either way, it also exposes Republican hypocrisy on the subject. Remember, it was the GOP that first insisted on Social Security cuts, and not the Dems. Democratic candidates in next year's elections can point to that fact, and that will make the Repubs scramble to try to spin it all away.....which they couldn't.
So, it's beginning to look like that this may actually be a stealth victory of sorts.....
salib
(2,116 posts)And the Democrat who proposed it.
It is fundamentally inconsistent with our own party platform, and if we are to win anything in 2014, we must reject them as strongly as possible right now.
MisterP
(23,730 posts)for the loss? if they don't pass Republican policies, how else can they blame those opposed to those Republican policies for the passage of Republican victories?
AllyCat
(16,031 posts)madfloridian
(88,117 posts)dgibby
(9,474 posts)C-CPI and sequestration are going to haunt the Dems. Just last night, our local CBS affiliate started off the news with how "Obama's Sequestration" was going to hurt TAP and other programs. It's all about the message, and this message stinks more than 3 day old fish left out in the sun to rot.
TekGryphon
(430 posts)Obama was a lame-duck President who proposed Chained CPI as a compromise in a budget that had a 0% chance of passing to an oppositional minority that has committed itself to opposing anything he does.
Obama did what no one else in the Democratic party could do. He brought Chained CPI out from the back-room deals and into the public spotlight. He got Democrats to rip it for moral and economic reasons. He got the Republicans to oppose it out of spite. He got the media to oppose it because they couldn't find anyone in either party to play the other side in their false equivalency game.
Because of that, Chained CPI, the turd of an idea that would never flush, has been flushed. The GOP will never be able to use it again.
Unfortunately Democrats missed their opportunity. While Bernie Sanders championed why C-CPI was immoral and Paul Krugman championed why C-CPI was uneconomical, too many Democrats didn't want to talk about C-CPI and instead took the opportunity to kick Obama and, in so doing, help undermine the Democratic Party's image during a debate that should have been completely in our favor.
Those shit-kickers can mock this as "4th dimensional chess" all they want. The moment I saw Chained-CPI in the budget as a compromise, I knew it was the kiss of death for it. Many others did, too. It wasn't "4th dimensional chess", it wasn't even checkers. It was tic-tac-toe, and it's sad how short-sighted our party is that so many couldn't figure it out even when the majority were calling it out for them.
BumRushDaShow
(127,266 posts)And welcome to DU!
BrotherIvan
(9,126 posts)TekGryphon
(430 posts)bobduca
(1,763 posts)usGovOwesUs3Trillion
(2,022 posts)may I ask...
BumRushDaShow
(127,266 posts)TekGryphon
(430 posts)... worked their asses off to switch the narrative from:
Democrats, seeking popular revenue increases, attempt to compromise with obstinate Republicans by offering them the Chained CPI they worked for years to attain.
to:
Obama hates seniors and wants to cut their benefits to satisfy his bankster buddies on Wall Street.
usGovOwesUs3Trillion
(2,022 posts)TekGryphon
(430 posts)http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251298936
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022655443
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022649074
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022651754
http://election.democraticunderground.com/10022631786
Just glancing through the first 5 pages after searching "Chained CPI" I found plenty of examples of people acting like Obama was the champion of Chained CPI.
You can find plenty more here:
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Chained+CPI+site%3Ademocraticunderground.com
usGovOwesUs3Trillion
(2,022 posts)that doesn't make any sense.
:shakes-head:
TekGryphon
(430 posts)It makes perfect sense if you actually pay attention instead of playing hyper dimensional chess.
If Obama wanted Chained CPI he would have told Boehner so in a phone call, shut his mouth, and never mentioned it again until it was in the budget during backroom negotiations.
It's silly beyond belief that you guys take what's happened as "proof" that Obama supports Chained CPI. If that's true then he is the absolute biggest idiot in the world, because the way he brought the topic into the public spotlight have utterly demolished its public approval.
I guess that's the trick though. You have to imagine Obama as being a colossal idiot to make this conspiracy work, and apparently that's an easy assumption for many people here to make.
bobduca
(1,763 posts)If you spin fast enough you might just convince others that you also believe the spin!
To move your spin into truth, you just need repetition!
mopinko
(69,803 posts)hope you have a good raincoat.
magellan
(13,257 posts)...to keep the pledge he ran on in 2008.
"John McCain's campaign has gone even further, suggesting that the best answer for the growing pressures on Social Security might be to cut cost-of-living adjustments or raise the retirement age. Let me be clear: I will not do either."
myrna minx
(22,772 posts)somehow blamed on liberals.
John2
(2,730 posts)the same politics of the Past in a changing country. The Politics of President Clinton and triangulation will not work in today's environment, because the country has demographically. It is changing more every day. Obama's coalition, that he won with is not Clinton's coalition. Obama got trounced by white Americans.
Like I said before, I doubt very few of the 39 percent of white Americans which voted for Obama are constituents of Blue Dog democrats. And most voters he won were in urban areas. I wonder if he believes that he needs soccer moms, to win elections? They would go into minority areas and get votes, but move further to the right in national elections. They feel they had to diss a rapper or a Reverend wright. It was the same strategy people used with the far right. I think Hillary Clinton expected it also in 2008.
The problem was, Obama never moved towards the right. He was against the War in Iraq and promised to bring troops home. He was for working with our Allies and Healthcare. In neither campaign did Obama win on proposing the current Policies, that he is now. He would have never won if he bought up CPI or cutting medicare. Sure he bought up cutting the Deficit but he proposed something entirely different. It was his suggestion to invite Romney to the whitehouse but I don't think any of the people who voted for him cared. As far as I'm concerned, it was good riddance to Romney and his ideas.
The Republicans need to be dealt with once and for all period because the numbers are not on their side period. We can do a tap dance around the issues until 2014 while the country is crumbling, but 2014 will be here before you know it. As Boehner jokingly said, I would have took what the Republicans were proposing with Social Security and Medicare and proceeded to annihilate their Party in 2014. Short term pain for long term gain. Our problem is not the Debt or the Deficit, but Congress itself and a certain obstructionist political Party. They own the corporate media. Sure they went out and confused the Public in 2010, but the people targeted the wrong Party. That was the problem with President Obama. He tried to do things on his own and make himself look good, instead of supporting his own Party. I voted for the man twice, and I take it personally when his advisers call me some radical after begging for my vote. And they think I wasn't working to get people to vote for them too? I've heard plenty of times people telling me it wouldn't make any difference to vote because they are all the same. So my advice to Obama is to respect the people who stood in those lines and voted for you! Voters in those red districts, media pundits or Wall Street did not put you in office. If they can stand in long lines, then they sure have the stamina to wait for 2014. I just hope he hasn't put the Democratic Party in angry voters sights. The way he is going, I fear the worst. Listen to those Progressives, they are giving you good advice. Those others will throw you under the bus. And I would never trust Erskine Bowles with anything. He ran away from the Clinton Administration, University of North Carolina and was too scared to run for governor. It is very typical of a Wall Street guy. They always cut their losses and run when it gets hot.
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)A cool cat turns out to be an animal that plays dead when progressives speak up.
forestpath
(3,102 posts)into the article it becomes clear that some of them plan to try to make Chained CPI look palatable by comparing it to what the Republicans want to do instead of completely standing up against it.
emsimon33
(3,128 posts)RKP5637
(67,030 posts)AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)Louisiana1976
(3,962 posts)Orsino
(37,428 posts)Do they fear it as much as the Republicans do, ensuring that it can never come to be?
treestar
(82,383 posts)Unless you're going to keep emphasizing it and talking of nothing else and giving it maximum publicity, without talking about anything else in that same budget. And every other issue you can latch onto. Work hard enough at it and you might get more Republicans in Congress so you can be happy.
AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)magical thyme
(14,881 posts)Lifting the cap.
Lowering the age to get full retirements.
Fixing Medicare Plan D.
Strong jobs program.
Distance themselves from the President NOW before they are tarred and feathered with him.
If they do the above, maybe they can mitigate the damage.
grahamhgreen
(15,741 posts)Can't do that with a Dem house and senate.
City Lights
(25,171 posts)Daniel537
(1,560 posts)Combine this with gerrymandering and it'll be a while before we get to see progressive legislation getting passed again.
kentuck
(110,947 posts)Why would they worry about that??
bocephus0706
(27 posts)If you all would stop long enough to actually read up on our problem with our fiscal house you would stop posting this nonsense. We will have to make changes and modernisations to the big 3. Reagan did in the 80s we need to to do this now, or we will have a bankrupt Medicare system by 2024, and SSN will not be able to pay full benefits anymore after 2037 I believe. At that time there will only be enough money in the trustfund to pay about 78% of benefits I believe. For those of us that will still be alive and in the middle of our retirement like myself that will be a hell of a lot tougher to swallow than 6.00 in COLA cuts every month. Come on already. Be smart and stop it. Nobody is loosing their base benefits....nobody. There was not even a cost of living increase until Nixon. And there were a few years during the Bush administration where there were no COLA payments. If you all would just stop and think for a minute. Here is a link to "The Third Way" why it makes sense to come to a grand bargain. And if we don't support him and work to let these Dems know that we have their backs, the next republican administration will destroy the 3....
http://content.thirdway.org/publications/613/Third_Way_Report_-_The_Bargain.pdf
John2
(2,730 posts)to me. I don't think Chinese workers will ever have the same standard of living as Americans. They have very little power to determine wages or even opportunities within that country. And the difference between the wages of the poor and elite are getting worst. Yeah, a few more people are profiting in that country and you have more billionaires, but I doubt the standard living of the ordinary Chinese has improved.
It is strange you mentioned COLA payments in the U.S. under Reagan or Bush. The standard living of Americans have been decreasing ever since and only a few are getting wealthier. If you are selling the trickle down and out source theory, it didn't work. The cost of health care is not because of more people needing it, but because prices going up on the same services Americans got ten years ago. The customers are getting the shaft for the same services, and the providers are getting more profits. Health care cost more in this country than anywhere else in the World for the same services. And do you have statistics on how much military spending has increased compared to the Big three ten years ago percentage wise? And America has a very low tax corporate tax rate. Corporations enjoy huge profits. This document reads like some manifesto from Wall Street.
Tarheel_Dem
(31,207 posts)Alan I. Abramowitz, Senior Columnist
February 7th, 2013
"In order to win back control of the House in 2014, Democrats would have to overcome one of the best known regularities in American politics the tendency of the presidents party to lose House seats in midterm elections. Since World War II, thats what has happened in 15 out of 17 midterm elections, including eight out of nine midterms under Republican presidents and seven out of eight midterms under Democratic presidents. In the nine midterms under Republican presidents, the GOP has lost an average of almost 21 House seats. Democrats have done even worse in the eight midterms under Democratic presidents, losing an average of almost 33 seats, including a postwar record 63 seats in the 2010 midterm election.
There are several reasons why the presidents party almost always loses House seats in midterm elections. One is that opposition party voters are usually more motivated to turn out to express their discontent with the president and his party than voters from the presidents party are to turn out to express their support. In addition, House candidates from the presidents party no longer have the benefit of whatever coattails the winning presidential candidate had two years earlier. Finally, if the presidents party made substantial gains in the presidential election, they have to defend those seats, including some that may typically lean toward the opposition party, in the midterm election.
Given the historical pattern of midterm losses by the presidents party, is there any reason for Democrats to be hopeful about the outlook for 2014? The answer, surprisingly, is yes. First of all, there have been two exceptions to the rule of midterm losses by the presidents party since World War II, and they were both fairly recent. In 1998, Democrats gained four seats in Bill Clintons second midterm election and in 2002 Republicans gained eight seats in George W. Bushs first midterm election. So it is possible for the presidents party to overcome the midterm jinx. More importantly, the circumstances of the 2014 midterm election indicate that this could very well happen again: A statistical forecasting model based on three factors that accurately predict the outcomes of midterm elections indicates that Democrats have a chance to gain seats in the House."
http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/articles/midterm-forecast-democrats-may-gain-house-seats-in-2014-but-majority-probably-out-of-reach/
The party in power almost always loses seats in the midterms, this one probably won't be any different.
blkmusclmachine
(16,149 posts)But somehow, I don't think BHO is all that concerned about it.
Bipartisanship sucks
Swede Atlanta
(3,596 posts)It all comes down to the messaging and communication.
The Republicans have endorsed the Ryan budget over and over again. In it we see what the Republicans would do to Social Security and Medicare. Not only would they savage Social Security, they would turn Medicare into a voucher program.
If the Democrats get the messaging and communication right they can leverage this for the positive. Obama has laid out a budget that recognizes we have long-term deficit issues and attempts to deal with it in a balanced way. I can't recall what the ratio is but he is proposing there be a significant revenue component to any budget deal that involves changes to entitlement programs.
I'm not a fan of the chained CPI. I have saved and invested and had a good job my entire working life. I inherited a not insignificant amount from my parents. So I will not be affected by this change but I know many people who will be.
In my mind the question is do we attempt to get on a path toward addressing the long-term deficits in a balanced way that includes significant new revenues, invests in our infrastructure and jobs, provides for pre-K and has some less than radical changes to entitlement programs or do we sit and do nothing?
We know what the Republicans want. This budget is not ideal but at some point we will need to get a budget that has some prospect of achieving overall goals.