Everyone Knows Obama Supports Entitlement Cuts — Here’s What They Are

[babylonsister]

Everyone Knows Obama Supports Entitlement Cuts — Here’s What They Are
Brian Beutler March 15, 2013, 2:42 PM 407



snip//

Setting aside whether McConnell’s characterization of the country’s fiscal situation is accurate, his comments present an opportunity to take stock of what policy measures Obama does and does not support.

Broadly speaking, the entitlement spending cuts at the center of the budget debate fit into four categories: policies Obama openly supports; policies Obama supports, but won’t outwardly champion unless Republicans agree to tax increases; policies Obama doesn’t support, but nevertheless persist in negotiations with the GOP; and GOP wish list items Obama will never support.

In the first category are a number of provider-side cuts to Medicare spending listed in Obama’s budget (.pdf).

The most significant of these would align the rebates Medicare receives for prescription drugs with higher rebates that Medicaid receives for the same drugs. That would save $156 billion over 10 years. But the budget also calls for a variety of payment reforms, the elimination of waste, fraud, and abuse, and for strengthening the health care law’s Independent Payment Advisory Board, empowering it to cut provider payments if the per capita growth rate of Medicare spending exceeds GDP growth plus 0.5 percent.

In the second category are two key benefit cuts.

One, called Chained CPI, would use a less generous measure of inflation to calculate Social Security cost of living adjustments. Obama administration officials have expressed support for the idea on the merits, but Obama won’t officially back it except as part of a broader budget agreement that includes limiting tax expenditures for high income earners.

Separately, Obama supports greater means testing for Medicare outpatient and prescription drug benefits. Those provisions are included in Obama’s budget, but would likely have to be part of broader deficit legislation for Obama to sign them into law.

more...

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2013/03/everyone-knows-obama-supports-entitlement-cuts----heres-what-they-are.php

[MotherPetrie]

1. "Obama administration officials have expressed support for the idea on the merits"

What merits?

[babylonsister]

2. I don't know.

I guarantee I will find out. You, too!

[woo me with science]

3. +100000 Such Orwellian bullshit. "Merits."

"Merits."

Stealing the subsistence income of millions who have already been plundered and impoverished,

when SS adds NOTHING to the deficit,

when austerity DAMAGES economies,

and when the wealth distribution in this country already looks like THIS:

There are no "MERITS" here. This is unconscionable robbery by purchased, corporatist politicians doing the bidding of thieves.

It is an indefensible betrayal. It is obscene.

[Bluenorthwest]

4. Supports cuts 'on their merits'?! What merits are those? The use of vague jargon is intentional.

Hard to take as sincere a piece using such a lexicon.

[Soliveindenialthen]

5. After the HC fiasco I fully expect the President to protect the 1% and corporate profits

by sacrificing SS and Medicare.

Perhaps this would not be an issue if more people accepted the reality of who he really is and what he really supports and believes in.

Words are nice but deeds and actions show what a person is really all about.

[MjolnirTime]

6. I bet $100 that your other post was anti-Obama.

[politicasista]

9. +1

Facts never get in the way of Obama bashing.

[SidDithers]

7. Back again already?...

thetruthhurtsforsome

Sid

[intheflow]

8. That explains a lot.

There were two incoherent, stalkerish posts replying to cali in the last 24 hours which made me look up this dude's other posts. He's a troll for sure. It's times like this that make me miss the moderators because so many jurists just. don't. get it.

[Jakes Progress]

10. Trolling for what?

[intheflow]

12. Flames, disruption.

What do you think internet trolls troll for?

[Jakes Progress]

14. Who's paying?

Most trolls are a) wack jobs b) ideologically motivated c) paid for economic and political purpose.

You seem to think this one is type c. Who pays someone to just disturb?

[intheflow]

16. No one has to pay.

People do it for kicks, people do it to be assholes. What's it to you, anyway?

[Jakes Progress]

17. That would make it an a) type.

You brought the subject up. Then you get all huffy when someone comments. Touchy just a little.

There is a lot of "troll calling" on DU whenever someone questions Obama's purity. Was that your reason?

[intheflow]

18. I can call trolls as I see 'em.

And considering the particular troll we've been discussing has been PPR'd, I'd say I was spot on. What's your excuse for defending a troll?

[Jakes Progress]

22. Without recourse to reason or thought?

Show me where I defend anyone in this thread.

Touchy?

[intheflow]

23. Hey, you're the one who assumed I was an Obama cheerleader

jumping unjustly on a DUer. I didn't start our discourse, you did. By making wrong assumptions on two fronts: a) that I'm some Obama cheerleader who routinely goes around calling anyone who doesn't walk in lockstep trolls, and b) that this guy deserved the benefit of the doubt for what was pretty obvious (to me, and others) trollish posts. So I don't really think I'm the instigator of touchiness. But now I'm getting strong troll vibes from you - though you're not egregious enough to alert on or interesting enough to research some of your other post - so I guess I'll just put you on ignore and forget you exist. Buh-bye.

[Jakes Progress]

24. Call a troll

and you better back it up. No one made you the grand imperial patrol chief.

Anyone could come in on any of your posts and say the same shit you dumped. If you call a troll, have the nuts to say why. Or maybe we would start to think you're the troll. See how that works. It's called backing up what you spew.

Ignore is the refuge of the inept. Or maybe, following your lead, it's the refuge of trolls.

[Dr Fate]

20. Another out-of-the-mainstream voice from the Far Left and or Tea party.

When is the far left going to realize that everyone knows that anyone who claims to disagree with our highly successful Democratic strategy are all just Republican disrupters and or far, far left malcontents?

Either way, there is no point in bringing up the literally hundreds (thousands?) of facts or examples to prove you are wrong- all we have to do is call you out for hating Obama, as you must.

Fact is, DU supports what ever it is that we are going to cut or not cut, so we dont even need to listen to you, even if you could still post! So there!

[Jakes Progress]

11. So you favor these cuts?

You think these are good ideas to lead with in bargaining with republicans?

Why are they good? How is leading with giving in a good negotiation strategy?

Can you name one thing that Obama has said or done that you don't adore? For each one you name I'll name two that I like.

[hopemountain]

13. thank you for the link, babylonsister

the president is a believer in honest and just compromise. i can respect these "entitlement cuts" if they are made with compromise along with increased taxes for the 1%.
of course, i am patiently waiting for single payer and affordable medical & prescription costs.

[Generation_Why]

15. I support cuts to seniors that have alternative income streams.

Especially those in the upper tax brackets.

I don't really care if that makes me a bad person.

[Dr Fate]

19. Military Waste and subsidies for oil companies and other corporations are on the top of his list.

Or not. I'm cool either way. If the cuts need to be all these entitlements for old folks, then that is better anyway.

[Hekate]

21. Thanks for the info, Babs. Seems some here are deliberately misunderstanding

... what it means. Unless I myself am completely misunderstanding the meaning of "provider-side."

What I'm getting from p.o.d DUers is that "provider-side cuts to Medicare spending" automatically hurt old people. I'm not sure how. One of the biggest and most heinous areas of abuse in the US is in the cost of prescription drugs -- and we all know it. Is there ANY dispute there?

"Elimination of waste, fraud, and abuse" doesn't sound like it hurts recipients either -- since most of those things take place on the provider-side.

"On the merits" is a legalistic term that gets tossed around among lawyer-types. Google is your friend here, as in so many other instances. Like your teacher used to say: Look it up.

on the merits adj. referring to a judgment, decision or ruling of a court based upon the facts presented in evidence and the law applied to that evidence. A judge decides a case "on the merits" when he/she bases the decision on the fundamental issues and considers technical and procedural defenses as either inconsequential or overcome. Example: An attorney is two days late in filing a set of legal points and authorities in opposition to a motion to dismiss. Rather than dismiss the case based on this technical procedural deficiency, the judge considers the case "on the merits" as if this mistake had not occurred.
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/on+the+merits

The case will be decided on the fundamental issues.

Means testing and Chained CPI will only get support from Obama if they are part of broader deficit legislation. They're not at the top of his list.

Under "GOP wish list items Obama will never support" is this summary in the article:
Finally, there are the centerpiece reforms in the GOP budget — voucherizing Medicare and turning Medicaid and food stamps into block grant programs. Obama has outright rejected these ideas, and they won’t conceivably happen unless and until Republicans unify control of government in the future.

The only part that bothers me is the possibility of raising the Medicare eligibility age, even though WH Press Secretary Jay Carney says it is now off the table. Again, we'll see how it goes as the political composition of the House and Senate change (5 Dems are retiring from the Senate).