To Clear Things Up: SS, Medicare and Medicaid Will Be Looked at by Super Congress

[jtown1123]

There are some people here insisting Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, the VA and other benefits are sequestered and off the table during the Super Committee negotiations. This simply isn't true:

New York Times

Lawmakers in Both Parties Fear That New Budget Panel Will Erode Authority

Lawmakers from both parties expressed scorn on Monday for a central feature of the deficit-reduction deal that creates a powerful 12-member committee of Congress to recommend major changes in entitlement programs and the tax code. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/02/us/politics/02panel.html?emc=tnt&tntemail0=y

TPMDC

Pelosi: My Deficit Committee Members Will Oppose All Entitlement Benefit Cuts

The debt limit fight is over, but the fight over entitlement programs will continue for months. In the weeks ahead, the leaders of both parties in both the House and Senate will name three members each to a new committee tasked with reducing the deficit by at least $1.2 trillion.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/08/pelosi-my-deficit-committee-members-will-oppose-all-entitlement-benefit-cuts.php


Boston Globe

That would be followed by creation of the super committee to recommend an additional $1.8 trillion or more in deficit cuts, targeting benefit programs such as Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security or overhauling the tax code. http://articles.boston.com/2011-08-01/news/29839317_1_committee-members-debt-limit-deficit-cuts

[meow mix]

1. yay, now we have super-funds from super-pacs to buy the super-congress

what super-changes we fought for.

[Ruby the Liberal]

8. But think how much more efficient for the Super-Lobbyists to only have to buy out 12 people!

Double-plus super duper! :party:

(As they scurry like cockroaches in the light away from their votes for this monstrosity).

[johnaries]

54. The plans still have to pass votes in both Houses. nt.

[Zenlitened]

2. K&R. - n/t

[Leopolds Ghost]

50. Can someone post a similar OP clarifying that the people praising the TRIGGER provisions are wrong?

They are (witting or unwitting) part of an organized disinformation campaign --

the same campaign that Democratic policymakers wage upon the rank-and-file every time they pass a bill that is designed to fail and be replaced with another, lard it up with their constituents' liberal provisions, and advertise it to the low-information rank and file as Democratic achievements.

They did the same thing with HCR and the so-called "public option".

Get this straight -- the TRIGGER provisions are NEVER INTENDED to pass. They are based on the ones used in Gramm-Rudman.

Obama himself described the trigger mechanism as an unacceptable alternative to the Commission report.

Then he sent out his PR flacks to praise the details of the trigger mechanism here on DU and other blogs.

That is called blatant falsehood, deception and contempt for the Democratic rank and file.

The Trigger is a cudgel to force the passage of whatever the Commission comes up with. (hardly needed since when Congress is forced to pass something without amendments, they always do. You don't have real democracy when dealing with a crowd of 500 paid shills who are low-information voters to boot, and can't organize amongst themselves -- Congress -- like a studio audience, they are a directionless mob. They will vote for whichever soda the ad executive tells them to.)

Also note that the Commission will be 3/4 Republican since Reid will be choosing 1/4 of the members from his Blue Dogs.

[johnaries]

55. I haven't seen the trigger provisions described as anything

but an incentive. It has been well represented as having provisions that neither party will like, primarily half and half cuts to both defense and domestic spending. But, SS, VA benefits, and Medicaid are exempt from any domestic spending cuts, and any cuts to Medicare can only be on the provider side. It is specifically designed to make sure that revenue increases are included as well as cuts in the committee's plans.

[flamingdem]

57. You don't think there will be a stalemate in the comission?

That's what is sounds like.

[jtown1123]

60. +1

[Ruby the Liberal]

3. Yet "lawmakers from both parties" voted for the damn thing.

[Big Blue Marble]

9. Isn't that classic.

Now they hate what they voted for. They get to have it both ways.

[LaydeeBug]

32. Oh, yeah, that strongarming was the thing that makes it ok. nt

[William769]

4. That is correct.

Thats what some people try as they might can't sweep under the rug.

And boy have they been trying!

[Big Blue Marble]

5. Thank you for clearing up this confusion.

Many here have confused the restrictions of the trigger with the work of committee.
It is so important that we understand what is happening clearly and concisely.

These programs are at great risk in this process. And we better be ready to fight for what
we want to be protected.

[Ruby the Liberal]

15. LOL!

Fight who? How?

"We" couldn't even get a mundane debt ceiling passed. What on earth makes you think that anyone in this country is going to have sway over this group (who isn't paying them, that is)

[Big Blue Marble]

22. Are you just going roll over and die?

Obviously Ms Pelosi disagrees with you. Dems are not ready t trash their signature issues, and neither or many of us.
I did not say it would be easy. But we better lay some friction in the path to slow this train down. When you have
people all over DU spreading the misstatement that these programs are protected, you are setting up the big fail.

[Ruby the Liberal]

28. I must have missed those threads about 'protection'

then again, I was never under that illusion so probably just didn't bother to open them.

No, I will call, email and scream, but I do that to make myself feel better. Of my 3 reps, only one voted against this bill - because it didn't contain the Balanced Budget requirement. On this, I am also under no illusion.

[Big Blue Marble]

29. I am not under any illusion that contacting my "representatives" in DC means anything.

That is at least under normal circumstances, as my senators are Paul and McConnell with a Blue Dog in congress. I still do call
at least the Blue Dog.

This is such a huge issue that cuts across party lines. Why, my obnoxious right wing brother is actually sending me
emails screaming about how they can not cut his SS or Medicare. The first time I have ever been able to actually
read let alone agree with his content.

There is populist energy in this issue. That is why they are having to wrap it an iron-clad committees. So
this is a little different than most of what you and I are usually advocating. We might find some strange
bedfellows along the way. It is the fight worth having, if there ever was one.

[Ruby the Liberal]

30. Kentucky?

Wow. Beautiful country, but having to deal with the likes of McConnell and Paul would make me insane.

Agreed on the strange bedfellows. Up was down and good was evil this morning when I blasted my Dem senator for his vote and thanked my R senator for his.

:crazy:

[roxiejules]

56. How many people realize SS spending is projected 75 yrs. in advance

and found to be “unsustainable”, while military spending isn’t even projected 5 years in advance.

Show us the numbers for military spending for 75 years in advance!

Military spending is a whole lot less sustainable than social security or medicare are.

So why do you think nobody is looking at the sustainability of the latter, and everyone is looking at the former?




PUT WAR ON THE TABLE, NOT SOCIAL SECURITY!

[rusty charly]

6. SuperHope+SuperChange!

[OhioChick]

7. Thanks for the reminder.....

K&R

[truedelphi]

10. Ah more of the same ol same ol...

Let's really clear things up and look at a discussion by Larry Summers from way back in early 2009:

Perhaps as early as March, they'll launch their biggest lift with the beginnings of a plan to reform Social Security and Medicare, the two entitlement programs that, even before the economy collapsed, were threatening the Treasury with bankruptcy. By any standard, it is a massive three-month agenda fraught with political risk. The key to getting it all done, Summers says, is entering into a "compact" with the country "that this isn't just government as usual throwing money at things." When Obama unveils his annual budget in late February or March, Summers promises that the President "is going to describe the kinds of approaches he wants to take to the entitlement problems that have been ignored for a long time." Some options might include delaying retirement, stretching benefits and lifting the cap on taxable earnings. Could one of these prevail? "Remains to be seen," Summers says...

On that front, Republicans could come to Obama's rescue. Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell has told Obama in person that his party favors entitlement reform and would work for passage if both parties shared the risk.

Obama didn't have the leverage over actual liberal Democrats back then to get what he wanted. So he waited to use the debt ceiling. Amazingly, it seems as though Republicans are now so crazy that they'll refuse to vote for a deal that would give them only 98% of the right-wing agenda right away (i.e, it would include some tax increases). So now the most likely outcome seems to be a deal that would give them 60% of the right-wing agenda right now, with the promise of a vote to give them the remaining 40% next year.
####
Of course, it took the removal of key progressive Democrats from office in November 2010 in order for all of this to be employed.

So now the Repulicrats can continue with their charades and Kabuki theater. Pelosi has stuff on the table, then she has it off. Most of us are so familiar with this stance that it is no longer interesting or amusing. The Dems will end the war or at lest defund it, but hey, they need to be a majority. (We saw how that worked when in early 2007, the Dmes in Congress were a majority, but they put their efforts into raising the psotal rates on small businesses rather than defunding the wars.)

All I can say is: Russ Feingold please come back, we need you.

[truedelphi]

16. The citation for the above quoted material is here:

http://anewworldsinbirth.wordpress.com/2011/07/16/larry-summers-in-2009-obama-will-launch-a-plan-to-reform-social-security-and-medicare/

[sasha031]

11. and overhauling the tax code means lowering the corp. tax

how could Obama agreed to such a thing and damn the Dem's that voted for it.

[sabbat hunter]

18. lowering the corp tax

But eliminating the loopholes they use so that some pay no tax at all. If they lowered the rate to 25-28% and eliminated all deductions for corporations it would bring in more revenue as companies like GE would actually be paying taxes.

But that big if is IF they eliminate all the loopholes.

[frazzled]

12. I think everyone understood that

But we also understand that this committee will be extremely likely not to come to agreement on such things and/or Congress will never vote for them (especially in an election year). Ergo, the trigger will kick in, in which all entitlements are fully protected (except 2% cap on reductions in provider side to Medicare).

Finally, the next Congress, which convenes in January 2012 (just 6 months from now) can throw the whole damned thing out, claiming they cannot be bound.

Honestly, all we have right now is some backloaded cuts and further things down the road that may never come to pass. But there's going to be a very big dog-and-pony show in just a few months, with lots of grandstanding meant for public consumption. Full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

That's my guess.

[Zenlitened]

17. Re "I think everyone understood that," sadly, no.

jtown1123 has taken a lot of grief for stating this simple fact elsewhere. I think the OP is a valuable public service announcement. :D

[dana_b]

27. yes

and bookmark it too because you know that discussion is not finished.

[jtown1123]

58. Thanks. I just think people are confusing the trigger protections with the committee

[jeff47]

35. Were you asleep the last two weeks?

"But we also understand that this committee will be extremely likely not to come to agreement on such things and/or Congress will never vote for them"

Somehow, I don't believe that. Obama's gotta salvage his Grand Bargain somehow so he can go down in history as the bestest prezident evar!

[frazzled]

38. Maybe you were

Congress couldn't agree on anything until the sword of Damocles was hanging over their heads. A last minute plan was cobbled together and quickly passed, with opposition from both the left and right. Without the threat of imminent default portending catastrophic economic repercussions, however, they'll agree on even less. Sure, the Republicans are supposed to be afraid of all the Defense cuts in the trigger, but I think they'll figure out pretty soon these may not be exactly what they look like at first (see Klein today). The Democrats have no reason not to want the trigger to kick in, as I see it. All that has to happen is that enough people in one house reject it. It may even be precisely what Obama wants. In which case, it will have been a pretty sneaky deal.

[jeff47]

39. Your theory has one major flaw:

It was Obama who put SS and Medicare "on the table". There's no reason to do that if you're just gonna set up a committee to fail.

[Zenlitened]

13. Also:

Statement on the Selection of the Super Committee Members

August 02, 2011

By Former U.S. Senator Russ Feingold

"The make up of the so-called Super Committee will go a long way in determining its final work product. Democratic leadership will be greatly tempted just to appoint the usual suspects, namely the chairs of committees with arguable jurisdiction or very senior members of the caucus. That would be an enormous mistake.

Unlike almost all other legislation considered by Congress, the work product of the Super Committee will not be subject to amendment. The House and Senate will have to consider that legislation on an up-or-down vote. There will be no opportunity to reject provisions, such as potential cuts to Social Security or Medicare benefits. Nor will there be an opportunity to support efforts to bring more balance to the measure by closing corporate tax loopholes...

More:
http://www.progressivesunited.org/blog/statement-on-the-selection-of-the-super-committee-members

[Bandit]

14. targeting benefit programs such as Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security or overhauling the tax co

The key word here being or...as in or overhauling the tax code

[JoePhilly]

19. Why weren't they cut now?

I mean wasn't that the DU prediction? THIS WAS IT!!!!

Any one who reads the details of this deal knows that ...

(1) The commission can look at those programs, and
(2) If the commission comes up with no recommendations, those programs can't be cut ... they are EXEMPT.

Now, as for #1 above ... can you tell me this ... if you want to increase the CAP for income to social security, or say, lower the age for Medicare ... how do you plan to do it?

If you want to argue that changes to those programs can't be on the table, then you can't also argue that you want to change them in the 2 ways I mention.

If you want to drive what happens, start planning now.

Start demanding for certain Dems to be on this commission. Make that your cause.

Complaining that these can be "looked at" ignores reality ... the programs exist, the GOP hates them, and given that, they are ALWAYS on the table.

[proud patriot]

23. Finally some sanity

Thank you!

[EFerrari]

25. Except it's not accurate, unfortunately. n /t

[JoePhilly]

31. So I am "not accurate" but you have "nt" ... wow, way to make a point.

[EFerrari]

33. Try reading the thread.

[proud patriot]

41. whoops it was meant to be a reply to the OP

[proud patriot]

40. whoops this was meant to be a reply to the OP

:dunce:

[EFerrari]

24. If Catfood II gets no result, Medicare gets auto cuts.

The White House has tried to present these as not cuts to benefits but guess what, cuts to providers result in service cuts to beneficiaries so that's just weaseling.

[JoePhilly]

34. Can you prove that?

Cuts to providers aren't simply random. There are Medicare providers who game the system.

I'll give you an example. My mother is on Medicare. And she had bladder cancer. Her doctor had a whole series of tests run on her. They repeated the tests to make sure of the results. They send her to the surgeon. They re-run the same tests. They schedule the hospital time, re-run the same tests.

The tests were not simple blood tests. They were painful. She almost said "nevermind" to the surgery.

Her Doctor said the two sets he ran should have been enough. The Surgeon said the ones he ran would be the last. The hospital said they needed to do them too.

She had to go through the same tests at least 4 times. Each provider got paid for doing it. And my mother got to go through it 4 times.

Each provider asked for the test because they could. My mother didn't ask for the extra tests. She was mad that her doctor made her do it twice just to make sure. The fact that every provider she met along the way required new versions of the same tests.

But set this aside ... you seem sure that the cuts to providers are part of the evil "cat food commission" plan to kill medicare, yes?

I have to ask again, Obama could have done that now. DU has been saying that was his intent. But it didn't happen.

So now, his plan is to get the cuts and kill these programs via this commission, who gets to make recommendations.

If they fail ... what are the specific cuts to providers? Do you know?

[jeff47]

36. Obama tried to do it now, and failed when his party revolted.

For example, take a look at what Conyers has been saying.

Cuts to providers won't stop those extra tests. Instead, they'll be paid about 39% less for each test. So they'll want to run 6 tests instead of 4.

[EFerrari]

37. If your Mother is on Medicare, then you already know Medicare

is struggling as it is.

[fascisthunter]

20. in other words, representation has been cut as well....

[AmericaIsGreat]

21. Yup, and you know what the Republicans will do now

They'll make sure we don't hit the automatically triggered cuts since those exempt SS/Medicaid and force defense spending cuts. That way, they'll get cuts to SS/Medicaid AND avoid any cuts to defense.

[Chimichurri]

26. Yes! I'm listening to Randi Rhodes be a total Obama apologist and she's yet to bring this up.

This is dangerous beyond reproach. Especially since Obama love bipartisanship. Can you imagine the dopes appointed to this very powerful few?

[alcibiades_mystery]

42. You obviously don't understand the mechanism

The Joint Committee can of course examine each of these programs for cuts. Indeed, they could recommend that all of these programs be completely gutted.

The sequestration is on the trigger side. If the Joint Committee does nothing, or if the Congress fails to pass their bill, or if the President vetoes it and his veto cannot be overridden, THEN nothing happens to Social Security and Medicaid and a host of other programs that are exempt from across the board cuts. Medicare will NOT be exempt, but the cuts are capped at 2% of provider payments.

Stop pretending that because you don't understand the difference between the Joint Committees recommendation and the "trigger" sequestrations, that other people don't. You are misrepresenting the argument completely, either through ignorance or deceit.

[Zenlitened]

44. Did you mean to post in reply to the OP?

If so, then I'm afraid George Orwell himself would be stunned by your statements, just for the sheer nerve.

Jtown has been tireless in trying to explain exactly that: "the difference between the Joint Committees recommendation and the "trigger" sequestrations."

It seems to me it Jtown was prompted to post this OP precisely because some here have been repeatedly "misrepresenting the argument completely, either through ignorance or deceit."

How in the world could you possibly accuse her in this way?

Unbelievable.

:wow:

[alcibiades_mystery]

47. Fine...show me such representations

I'm happy enough to be wrong here if there are multiple people making such misrepresentations.

[Zenlitened]

48. Check your inbox. I've PM'd you links to several examples...

... of people arguing that SocSec and Medicare are off-limits now.

[alcibiades_mystery]

49. OK, some people are confused

Here's my analysis of your links:

(name redcated) is stating that the Joint Committee itself can't automatically cut these programs, since whatever they recommend has to be approved by Congress. That said, it's the only one that's close through the statement that SS/Medicare are "off the table." Clearly, they are not. Jpak does not understand the difference between the trigger and the Joint Committee recommendations.

(name redcated) asked a question. He or she did not make a claim one way or the other related to the Joint Committee's ability to examine cuts to SS/Medicaid/Medicare. It is clearly not a misrepresentation in any way.

The (name redcated) link is weak. She seems to be referring to the trigger, not the recommendations, and she is in a conversation about what actual cuts were guaranteed to happen. So, I'll give you a half-point there.

(name redcated) is clearly incorrect, and refusing to distinguish between the trigger and the recommendations.

So, fair enough. I suppose four people confused about the difference between what the Joint Committee can consider and the sequestrations on the enforcement (trigger) side is sufficient to warrant the clarifying OP. It's also a virtual certainty that the 6 GOP members WILL look at SS/Medicaid/Medicare for part of the $1.2 trillion just as if you will admit the Democratic members WILL look at revenue increases to get to that $1.2 trillion. If you say one is certain, you must admit the other is certain. Correct?

[peace frog]

43. You bet they're on the table

Anyone who thinks this super-duper team will have a snowball's chance in hell of reaching any agreement that will benefit the people had better get off the pipe, pronto.

[suffragette]

45. Delete - duplicate

[suffragette]

46. Thanks for this important clarification about what the Super Dupe Committee

is capable of doing and is emphasizing by addressing first.

K&R

[blkmusclmachine]

51. Super Sell-Out.

n/t

[RB TexLa]

52. Why wouldn't they be looked at?

[johnaries]

53. They are exempt from the TRIGGER. Any recommendations from

the committee has to pass votes in both Houses, and are still subject to veto. Please get it right.

[jtown1123]

59. Yes, I should have stated that earlier but this does need to be passed by house and senate.