Debt-ceiling debate goes nuclear with accusations over Social Security

[struggle4progress]

By John Kennedy
Palm Beach Post Staff Writer
Updated: 10:36 p.m. Wednesday, July 13, 2011
Posted: 6:54 p.m. Wednesday, July 13, 2011

... The Government Accountability Office has long said it is "generally recognized" that if the debt standoff leads to default, the government would be precluded from honoring some obligations - including Social Security benefits.

More recently, the Congressional Research Service reported last month that the Treasury Department can delay Social Security payments in the case of a default ...

Democratic U.S. Sen. Bill Nelson introduced legislation Wednesday aimed at allowing the U.S. Treasury to cover Social Security payments in the event of a federal default. A similar measure was used in 1996 during the standoff between President Clinton and the Republican-controlled Congress.

Ryan McCormick, staff director for Nelson's Finance Subcommittee, said Obama is correct in his interpretation of the GAO report ...

http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/state/debt-ceiling-debate-goes-nuclear-with-accusations-over-1606291.html

[nykym]

1. Delay Congresional pay

indefinably instead!

[Divernan]

2. Wow! The quotes from seniors in the article & the comments are indeed nuclear!

That "third rail of American politics" phrase is from an earlier era. It would be more accurate to describe failing to send out the SS checks on time to a nuclear core meltdown. All hell WILL break loose, and incumbents from both parties, including the president will see the results in November's election.

Most of these seniors do not begin to understand the nuanced macho posturing of the various sides - which at this point include fractured factions in both the Dem and GOP parties. And most of these seniors do not really give a shit. They want those in Washington to work this out and make sure the checks are in the mail (or electronically transmitted).

[Bluenorthwest]

3. You say they don't begin to understand, I do not agree

I think they understand the posturing, it is not uncommon this macho bullshit, live long enough and one just no longer finds it to be 'nuanced' so much as finding it to be petulant, tantrum throwing from a bunch of over paid cry babies who argue about each other rather than doing their jobs.
I think they understand it and also reject it. It should be rejected once understood. 'Posturing' is posturing, nuanced or not, it is just an affectation, a posture, there is nothing at all to understand about that, kiddo. Fakery. Grandstanding. That is no more nuanced than a toddler screaming for a toy. Not much to understand about that.

[Divernan]

4. I agree they recognize that posturing is going on.

I don't think most people understand the underlying intricacies of the social security system, or medicare or medicaid, i.e, what the various sides are really arguing about. I took a continuing legal education class on Medicare/Medicaid, and the panel of attorneys teaching the class agreed that the statutes and regulations of these programs, particularly Medicare, were so voluminous and complex that, as one federal judge had stated, it was the worst and most confusing of all laws to try to interpret and enforce. When a politician tells you he is only interested in "fixing" or "adjusting" or "improving" social security and/or medicare and/or medicaid , you'd better batten down the hatches, because he will distract you with some flashy and appealing bit of change, while slashing your lifeline in ways which are not immediately or easily identifiable. One popular bit of legalese drafting flim-flammery, for example, is use of the word "may" instead of "shall". Another is do draft regulations with no meaningful penalties attached to violations thereof. For example, a provider violates a regulation or law, and the result is that their rating is changed from A to B, but there are no financial penalties. Or the financial penalties are so de minimus that the provider still comes out far ahead to violate said law or regulation.

I failed to make clear earlier that my term, subtle nuancing, should refer to the substance of the various proposed positions, and not the flamboyant and dramatic posturing of the parties.

On edit: Lucky you living in beautiful Oregon. I spent some time in Astoria and Portland and driving down the coast and then into the high country, if that's what it's called. Great variety of breathtaking natural environments.