Nadler On Obama's Medicare Proposal: 'There Won't Be Any Democratic Votes For That'

[cal04]

Source: Huffington Post

President Obama's vision of a grand deal on raising the nation's debt ceiling may have been scrapped by a skittish Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio). But as the details of the arrangement trickle out, it seems increasingly likely that congressional Democrats would have presented their own set of political difficulties to the administration.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) has insisted throughout the debt ceiling debate that her caucus would oppose any proposal that included benefit cuts to Medicare and Social Security recipients. On Monday, The Huffington Post reported that Obama's deal would have done just that, raising the Medicare eligibility age from 65 to 67.

A Democratic official familiar with the discussions sought to defend the proposal shortly after the news broke, explaining that the age would be raised gradually over time (ending in 2036). The official also stressed that the effect on seniors would have been mitigated by reforms implemented under the president's health care law.

(snip)
"There won't be any Democratic votes for that," Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.) told The Huffington Post when asked about a bill that raised Medicare's eligibility age. "There will be almost no Democratic votes for anything like that under any circumstances. Medicare and Social Security, as Nancy said, are not on this table. We may lose some other programs ... but we're not going to use Medicare or Social Security in any way to impact the deficit."

Read more: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/12/rep-nadler-obama-medicare-proposal_n_895788.html

[21st Century FDR]

1. Hell, even Ben Nelson has come out opposed to this bullshit.

And that son of a bitch rarely votes like a Democrat on ANYTHING.

And yeah, I realize Nadler's probably talking about the House, but if even the fakest of fake "Democrats" in the Senate aren't buying this crap, then I take that as a positive sign.

[Ruby the Liberal]

4. So have Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins

Theres the 3 needed to kill this in the Senate.

[Taft_Bathtub]

9. Obama is more right-wing than Olympia Snowe

So sad.

[No Elephants]

23. Self delete.

[chill_wind]

6. Correct. Including the SS Cola cuts. n/t

[No Elephants]

25. I think Nadler may be engaging in an attempt to endgame his colleagues.

I suspect that Democrats are annoyed that Obama keeps cutting deals--or trying to--with Republicans, then present them with a fait accompli, ala Bubba with Hillarycare.

Nonetheless, if f Obama presented Congress with a package that including the age increase, I bet most Senators would pass it and the House would go however Republican leadership (whoever that really is these days) want it to go.

I admire Nadler's motives, but I would not take this statement to the bank just yet. Among other things, the OP mischaracterizes Pelosi's positions. When asked if the COLA change was a cut in benefits, she said no, cuts are cuts, period. I suspect she would say the same about an age increase.

[Vincardog]

2. Is Obama running for the GOP nomination?

[DJ13]

3. No, he already has that in the bag

[rhett o rick]

8. No, that wouldnt be smart. If he did that would open the Democratic ticket for a progressive.

Our Corp-Overlords like it as it is. Pres Obama has moved far enough to the right to push any hopeful Republican moderate out of the picture. Obama doesnt need the left.

What will be interesting is his choice of running mates. I'm thinking Lieberman.

[No Elephants]

26. You think he will elbow out Jolting Joe Biden?

[rhett o rick]

36. In a heart beat. I am betting on Lieberman. Or better yet, how about Jeb Bush.

Now that's bi-partisan. Of course if he did that, his life would be seriously in jeopardy.

[gateley]

5. There are just many legitimate ways to address the debt (and we

all know what they are). This shouldn't even be an option.

[Hoyt]

7. So Obama throws out ridiculous suggestion, GOP quickly backs off and we don't give Obama any credit?

Sounds like brilliant maneuver to me.

[tcaudilllg]

11. I don't like people manuevering with my future.

just saying.

[Hoyt]

14. Well, as long as it doesn't happen, I don't care if we all have to tap dance to make it so.

I really don't think he's maneuvering with your -- or my -- future, except that undue criticism might just get a right winger elected who won't even try to maneuver on your/our behalf.

Further, let's just say the age were raised, but not until 2014 (which is much sooner than the supposed "leaked" proposal). At that point, most of the poor in this country are going to have government subsidized health insurance -- many will not pay a penny. I don't think the chance of falling through the cracks at that point will be much, if anything. . . . . . Unless, right wingers gain control, revoke what health care legislation and protections we got (obviously, not as good as single payer, but better than nothing).

Again,I don't care how Obama accomplishes something. He can throw it back in the fact of the Republicans and watch them scatter as he has here. Or he can just say "No you fucking pigs." Which, in this case, is not likely to accomplish much beyond a short-term celebration as we yell, "yea we showed you pigs."

The fact it is, it's right wingers proposing the bad things. I think Obama is doing the best he can short of arresting them and throwing them in jail. And, so far, the only "bad" thing that has happened is some rich people got to keep some tax breaks that would be but a drop in the bucket toward balancing the budget. They will pay for it soon enough in my opinion. Even Republicans are now acknowledging that's got to change.

[No Elephants]

28. You're mistaken. By even putting OASDI and Medicare out there, Obama

has hurt Democrats, seniors and the disabled.

The door is now open a crack. We're already on a slippery slope. The public is getting innoculated, Democrats now having discussed the undiscussable.

And whenever the Republicans can manage a cut, they will say often, "This is not the doing of Republicans. Even President Obama realized we have no choice but to cut these entitlements. And many Democrats were sane enough to be ready to go along, but the loony far left "tax and spend" wing of that Party killed it."

This will hang around our necks as long as there is a Democratic Party, even if every Democrat in the future votes against every bill proposing a cut--and that's not going to happen anyway now that the undiscussable (by Democrats) has been put on the table (by Democrats).

[Name removed]

13. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Doctor_J]

15. It was the Dems that backed off

The "leader" of our party has abandoned it in favor of grovelling to Boner and McTurtle

[Hoyt]

16. Boehner has backed out of whole entitlement cuts/debt limit debate, as has McConnell (McTurtle).

Right wingers like David Brooks are saying the debt limit has to be raised no matter what. And now Blue Dog Democrats are saying no.

Cantor and similar assholes will keep blowing smoke, but I think support for their proposals will fade.

[No Elephants]

29. I think Obama believes in the cuts. He campaigned on ensuring the

viablity of Social Security for the future and chastised Hillary for not doing the same. (Who knew that meant paving the way for its eventual demise?)

I don't think he was caving into anyone. I think he was using the Republicans for political cover, pretending to be over a barrel, but doing as to Medicare (and maybe OASDI--no one knows) what he's wanted to do all along.

I believe that's why he pulled the 14th amendment issue off the table, even as Chuck Grassley was saying publicly that the 14th am. may require raising the debt ceiling.

I also think Obama and Timmeh did not want to raise taxes during a recession, anathema to a Republican like Timmeh. (If Obama does not believe in Republicon voodoo economics, why hire Timmeh and Summers as his financial team in the first place? And why go "stimulus" instead of doing something closer to FDR's actual job creation program? )

I believe the Republicans would never have faced the backlash of not extending unemployment anyway, just like they don't want to face the backlash of cutting Social Security. Besides, it was lame duck. Democrats could have extended unemployment on their own, via reconciliation, if necessary.

[No Elephants]

31. thank you. Starting with the House and seeping into the Senate.

[robinlynne]

18. GOP quickly backs off? not exactly. GOP puts out a doble edged sword manuever.

[lark]

22. McConnell's new plan is really bad in the long term

For every 2.5 billion of debt ceiling, Obama would have to cut 2.5 billion from spending and no extra revenues allowed. That's totally unacceptable, leading to 7.5 billion being cut on the backs of the poor, the sick, the elderly and the working poor. UNACCEPTABLE!!!!!

[robinlynne]

24. From what i read herre on DU it is unconstitutional and cannot be accepted by Obama.

MCConnell's proposal, according to the BBC news last night, was to allow the PRes to raise the debt ceiling without congressional approval.

[No Elephants]

30. I read a different version in the OP of one of the LBN threads. I wonder how to find out which is

correct?

As far as the Constitutional issue, "can" is different from "should."

If Congress votes against increasing the debt ceiling and he signs it, I cannot imagine who will have standing to sue. No run of the mill citizen or group of citizens would.

BUT, he should not accept it or administer it because it is unconstitutional and he has taken an oath to defend and protect the Constitution.

Then again, half the crap in the Patriot Act is unconstitutional. However, unless and until someone gets arrested under or because of the Patriot Act and has a full blown civilian trial and appeal process, no one can do diddly about it.

[robinlynne]

35. Extending presidential powers means extending presidential powers. NO matter who is

the president. I'm not a scholar, but I can tell there is something wrong with this idea....

[No Elephants]

32. Self Delete

[lark]

20. Is it really ridiculous?

I think he's just giving them what they really want, only their higher priority is to get a totally batshit person in office. Right wing Obama is not sufficient, they want a teabagger so will not settle for success.

[No Elephants]

27. And here I thought the three dimensional chess myth had finally died.

[Vidar]

10. Excepting Blue Dogs, it would be hard to find a Democrat I like less

than Pelosi, but Obama has accomplished it.

[tcaudilllg]

12. I'm with you there. He's next to Leibermann in my book.

[robinlynne]

17. Yeah Nancy! never thought I would be saying that, but great job Nancy!

[No Elephants]

33. Please read the last paragraph of Reply 25 before you make up your mind.

[lark]

19. Sen. Bill Nelson's office is against cuts to Medicare or SSI

too. They wouldn't committ to him protecting Medicaid, but they definitely promised that SSI and Medicare would not be cut.

[vaberella]

21. Obama's never had a proposal on Medicare--what are people talking about. n/t

[No Elephants]

34. Never say never.

A story in LBN yesterday claimed he put raising the age of eligibilty for Medicare from 65 to 67 on the table during recent talks with Republicans about the debt ceiling. Five sources, all anonymous. However, I don't think anyone who was not present at the talks can say anything for certain, one way or the other.