Obama Vows To Protect Social Security & Medicare: 2008 Campaign Promises!

Obama to shield Social Security in deficit-reduction

President Barack Obama will shield Social Security from cuts in his new deficit-reduction plan, the White House said Thursday, pulling back on a key concession from his failed “grand bargain” negotiations with House Speaker John Boehner.

“The president’s recommendation for deficit reduction will not include any changes to Social Security because, as the president has consistently said, he does not believe that Social Security is a driver of our near and medium term deficits,” White House spokeswoman Amy Brundage said in a statement. “He believes that both parties need to work together on a parallel track to strengthen Social Security for future generations rather than taking a piecemeal approach as part of a deficit reduction plan.”

Obama’s decision means changes to the inflation calculator for Social Security will not be in the package, according to the White House.

It also will allow him to avoid a clash with his Democratic base over the popular retirement program at a time when he needs their support more than ever, both to push for his $447 billion jobs program and to buck up his lagging poll numbers.

Medicare could be a different story, though, as the White House revisits some unpopular ideas from the talks with Boehner (R-Ohio).

Obama angered Democrats when he agreed to slice more than $250 billion from Medicare, in part by gradually raising the eligibility age from 65 to 67 and hiking premiums for wealthier recipients. Those ideas remain under discussion, according to officials familiar with the White House deliberations, but progressives have been pressing the White House to avoid addressing Medicare all together.

The president’s political challenge is acute. He has pledged repeatedly to offer a “very specific” plan Monday, but that means touching popular entitlement programs, infuriating his Democratic base and diverting attention once again from his jobs push.

Senior administration officials said this week that the deficit plan would not resemble a legislative compromise. Instead, it would follow the framework Obama released in April, a proposal that detailed only in broad strokes how he would cut $4 trillion over 12 years. It did not include specific recommendations on Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security.

Only a few weeks ago, the White House had signaled that Obama could endorse some controversial deficit-cutting measures that he had previously backed only behind closed doors, the officials said.

As part of those talks, Obama and Boehner decided that Congress would make changes to Social Security that boosted its solvency. They also agreed to modify the inflation calculator — a move that Democratic critics cast as a benefits cut.

If he sidesteps the most divisive issues, Obama would face a fresh wave of criticism from Republicans, who have needled him for months to go on the record with his plan — a bid to draw him into the entitlement debate, which has stung the GOP after it passed a budget phasing out traditional Medicare.

Presenting his $447 billion jobs bill to a joint session of Congress last Thursday, Obama said his deficit reduction plan would be “ambitious.”

“It’s a balanced plan that would reduce the deficit by making additional spending cuts, by making modest adjustments to health care programs like Medicare and Medicaid, and by reforming our tax code in a way that asks the wealthiest Americans and biggest corporations to pay their fair share,” Obama said.

The president is also likely to renew his call to raise new revenues by increasing taxes on high-end earners and overhauling the tax code. Before the “grand bargain” talks fell apart, Boehner and Obama agreed to raise $800 billion in new revenues over the next decade.

The Wall Street Journal and The Washington Post first reported details of the emerging deficit plan.


View Larger Map

Sources: Americas Future, Politico, Youtube, Google Maps

Franklin D. Roosevelt & Obama On JOBS, Taxes & Social Security: "The New Deal" (Videos)

New Deal

The New Deal was a series of economic programs implemented in the United States between 1933 and 1936. They were passed by the U.S. Congress during the first term of President Franklin D. Roosevelt. The programs were responses to the Great Depression, and focused on what historians call the "3 Rs": Relief, Recovery, and Reform. That is, Relief for the unemployed and poor; Recovery of the economy to normal levels; and Reform of the financial system to prevent a repeat depression. The New Deal produced a political realignment, making the Democratic Party the majority (as well as the party which held the White House for seven out of nine Presidential terms from 1933 to 1969), with its base in liberal ideas, big city machines, and newly empowered labor unions, ethnic minorities, and the white South. The Republicans were split, either opposing the entire New Deal as an enemy of business and growth, or accepting some of it and promising to make it more efficient. The realignment crystallized into the New Deal Coalition that dominated most American elections into the 1960s, while the opposition Conservative Coalition largely controlled Congress from 1938 to 1964.

Historians distinguish a "First New Deal" (1933) and a "Second New Deal" (1934–36). Some programs were declared unconstitutional, and others were repealed during World War II. The "First New Deal" (1933) dealt with diverse groups, from banking and railroads to industry and farming, all of which demanded help for economic recovery. A "Second New Deal" in 1934–36 included the Wagner Act to promote labor unions, the Works Progress Administration (WPA) relief program, the Social Security Act, and new programs to aid tenant farmers and migrant workers. The final major items of New Deal legislation were the creation of the United States Housing Authority and Farm Security Administration, both in 1937, then the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, which set maximum hours and minimum wages for most categories of workers[1] and the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938.

Despite Roosevelt campaigning heavily against anti-New Deal Republicans and anti-New Deal Democrats, Republicans gained many seats in Congress in the 1938 midterm elections and the Democrats opponents of the New Deal retained their seats, resulting in the WPA, CCC and other relief programs being shut down during World War II by the Conservative Coalition (i.e., the opponents of the New Deal in Congress); they argued the return of full employment made them superfluous. As a Republican President in the 1950s, Dwight D. Eisenhower left the New Deal largely intact.

In the 1960s, Lyndon B. Johnson's Great Society took New Deal policies further. After 1974, laissez faire views grew in support, calling for deregulation of the economy and ending New Deal regulation of transportation, banking and communications in the late 1970s and early 1980s.[3] Several New Deal programs remain active, with some still operating under the original names, including the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation (FCIC), the Federal Housing Administration (FHA), and the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA). The largest programs still in existence today are the Social Security System and the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).

Sources: White House, Wikipedia, Youtube, Google Maps

George W. Bush On Privatizing Social Security (Videos)

Sources: CNBC, Youtube

Perry Or Romney If Elected WILL Adopt G.W. Bush's Social Security Privatization Plan!

All eyes on Social Security

With Rick Perry instantly assuming the top spot among candidates for the Republican presidential nomination, it is no surprise that nearly every other man and woman on stage with him at last night's debate took aim.

Citing his executive order mandating inoculations against a sexually transmitted disease that can lead to cervical cancer, Michele Bachmann expressed outrage that Perry, she said, had "forced" "government injections" of 12-year-old girls. Jon Huntsman archly claimed that Perry's skepticism about a border fence was nothing short of "treasonous." Ron Paul accused Perry, his fellow Texan, of raising his taxes, increasing the state's debt, and expanding the state government's workforce.

The most extended critique of Perry, though, came right out of the gate, from Mitt Romney. Romney accused Perry of trying to scare senior citizens and ruin the Republican Party by calling Social Security unconstitutional, a Ponzi scheme and a failure.

Of all the jabs at Perry last night, these mattered most. Social Security stands out as the most important topic generating substantive disagreement among the top Republican contenders. In a debate that vacillated between broad principles of national defense and the rule of law on the one hand, and small government initiatives conducted at the state and federal levels on the other, this particular exchange featured disagreements about one of the oldest, largest and most popular entitlement programs in the country.

Just as important, the exchange between Romney and Perry over Social Security underscored their competing views about the meaning of limited government. In their first sentences about entitlement reform, these candidates stand together for reducing waste, slashing fraud and trimming the federal government. It is in the second and third sentences, though, that the differences become clearer.

For Perry, power should devolve to the states, and the federal government should maintain operations over only those policy domains for which it has a clear constitutional responsibility. As he noted in his opening remarks last night, the very reason he wants to be president is to make Washington less consequential in the lives of Americans. When asked later about Social Security, Perry went out of his way to offer assurances that the benefits for current and near retirees would remain intact -- "slam dunk, guaranteed," as he put it. But he persisted in characterizing the issue of Social Security reform primarily as one of increased state control. "The issue is, are there ways to move the states into Social Security, for state employees or for retirees."

Romney, by contrast, has proposed a variety of measures that in his view will shore up Social Security without either increasing taxes or reducing the federal government's involvement. Though he didn't lay them out Monday night, the components of Romney's plan include the raising of the retirement age, the creation of personal retirement investment accounts for younger workers, and the indexing of benefits to prices rather than wages, as is currently done.

Between the two at last night's debate, Perry was the clear audience favorite. But should Perry win the nomination, we can expect President Obama to pick up right where Romney left off on Social Security. On the other hand, if Romney can survive a Republican primary season in which the median voter is vastly more conservative than in the general election, then the terms of next year's debate about Social Security will be vastly more conventional -- to the great relief of moderates and frustration of the tea party sponsors of last night's debate.


View Larger Map

Sources: CNBC, CNN, Youtube, Google Maps

GOP 2012 Candidates NOT Interested In JOBS During CNN's Tea Party Debate!

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Quote of the Day: Axelrod on why GOP debate lacked real substance

David Axelrod, senior strategist for President Obama's re-election campaign:

“I think if you are an independent voter watching that debate last night, you’d kind of scratch your head and say ‘How can we spend 10 minutes talking about whether we should have created Social Security and not one minute on education?’ ‘How can we spend all this time talking about the inoculation program in Texas and not talk about how we get research development and innovation going in this country?’ There was nothing there. The only thing they seem to agree on is that we ought to roll back Wall Street reforms and give Wall Street the right to write its own rules again, and I don’t think anyone believes that’s the answer to our economic problems."


View Larger Map

Sources: CNN, The Guardian, MSNBC, Google Maps

Mitt Romney Heckled At 2011 Ames Iowa Event: "Corporations Are People My Friend"

Romney says 'corporations are people,' heckled at Iowa event

On Thursday, Mitt Romney faced the joys and political perils of a frontrunner in the Republican presidential race: at times feeling his supporters' political crush - but also fending off catcalls and heckles by critics.

The spontaneous drama at the Iowa State Fair in Des Moines took several bizarre turns.

In one instance, the candidate declared "corporations are people" - a line surely to become ammunition for political opponents eager to cast Romney as a wealthy corporate raider unfamiliar with the concerns of average Americans.

At times Romney sounded populist themes, at one point saying: "If we're going to turn around the economy … Let's send some citizens to Washington." And yet, in another breath, the former Massachusetts governor defended big business against high taxes.

"Corporations are people, my friend," Romney said. "Everything a corporation earns ultimately goes to people."

Critics in the crowd laughed at Romney for the comment though his intent was unclear.

That hasn't stopped the Democratic National Committee from already seizing on the line.

"It is a shocking admission from a candidate-and a party-that shamelessly puts forward policies to help large corporations and the wealthiest Americans at the expense of the middle class, seniors, and students," DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz said in a statement.

In opening remarks, Romney reiterated familiar slams against President Obama.

"We're led by a man who's a fine fella. But he's out of his depth and doesn't understand how the economy works," Romney said.

It's when Romney ended his speech, and took questions from the audience, that things turned ugly.

Among the first questions shouted at Romney: "Do you support scrapping the Social Security payroll cap so that rich people pay their fair share into the trust fund?"

Romney's response: "You know there was a time in this country that we didn't celebrate attacking people based on their success. And we didn't go after people because they were successful."

Another questioner belted away at Romney.

"Sir, I am on Social Security," he said.

"My wife is on Social Security. You came here to listen to the people. How are you going to strengthen Social Security for the future?"

As the man continued to shout, Romney cut him short.

"You asked your question and now I am going to give my answer. If you don't like my answer then you can vote for someone else," Romney chastised. "But now it is my turn to give my answer."

The man later identified himself as Joe Fagen, a 71-year old former Catholic priest. He is the founder of the liberal community activist group Citizens for Community Improvement. In the past, Fagen has similarly heckled other Republican politicians.

As Romney insisted he would not raise taxes, the exchange became testy not unlike a defining moment in 1980 as then presidential hopeful Ronald Reagan demanded access to a Republican debate and at one point shouted at a moderator, "I am paying for this microphone."

In perhaps the most tense moment of the event, yet another man shouted that Romney should support scrapping the Social Security payroll cap.

"You want to raise taxes? You want to raise taxes," Romney shouted back at the man.


View Larger Map


Sources: CNN, C-Span, TMPTV, Youtube, Google Maps

Debt Ceiling Bill Passes 269-161! Dems Held Noses To Save Nation's Economy!

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

House passes debt ceiling agreement

The U.S. House on Monday passed the debt-ceiling deal worked out by President Barack Obama and congressional leaders, sending it to the Senate for consideration a day before the deadline for the government to face possible default.

A Senate vote was expected Tuesday, according to multiple Senate leadership aides from each party.

The agreement reached Sunday by President Barack Obama and congressional leaders from both parties calls for up to $2.4 trillion in savings over the next decade, raises the debt ceiling through the end of 2012 and establishes a special congressional committee to recommend long-term fiscal reforms.

The legislation needs to reach Obama's desk by Tuesday at the latest. If the current $14.3 trillion debt limit is not increased by that point, Americans could face rapidly rising interest rates, a falling dollar and shakier financial markets, among other problems.

By a 269-161 vote, the House overcame opposition from liberal Democrats and tea party conservatives for ideologically different reasons.

A number of Republicans worried about cuts in defense spending and the lack of a required balanced-budget amendment to the Constitution. Progressive Democrats were livid over the extent of the deal's domestic spending cuts, as well as the absence of any immediate tax hikes on wealthier Americans.

House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, was able to round up the support of most of his GOP caucus, while the chamber's two top Democrats -- Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi of California and Minority Whip Steny Hoyer of Maryland -- voted for the plan along with more than 90 of their caucus members.

Still, emotions ran high after months of grueling negotiations that pitted the small-government, anti-tax ideology of conservative Republicans against Obama's call for balancing spending cuts and entitlement reforms with increased tax revenue to spread the pain of necessary deficit reduction steps.

This "may be the single worst piece of public policy to ever come out of this institution," declared liberal Rep. Maxine Waters, D-California, while Pelosi noted the measure "makes these big cuts and has ... not one red cent from the wealthiest people in our country -- no revenue."

At one point, more than a dozen protesters caused a disturbance in the House gallery by chanting against Speaker John Boehner until Capitol Police officers removed them.

Vice President Joe Biden spent much of Monday on Capitol Hill, trying to persuade unhappy Democrats to back the proposal.

"I am confident that this will pass," Biden asserted. "We have to get this out of the way" in order to turn Washington's focus to job growth, he said.

Boehner and other House leaders said the deal would start reshaping how Washington spends taxpayer money, which was the goal of conservatives who elected Republicans to a majority in the House last November.

"The bill is not perfect ... but changing the way that Washington spends tax payers dollars is often a lot like redirecting or turning an aircraft carrier." said House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, R-Virginia. "It's a monumental task."

Boehner acknowledged that Republicans on the Armed Services Committee were concerned about cuts to military spending in the agreement, but he told reporters he believed they would support the proposal.

"As I told them, this is the best defense number we're going to get, and frankly if we don't pass the bill, it's pretty clear to me what'll happen ... the defense number will go down," Boehner said.

The agreement revolves around a two-stage process.

The first stage includes $917 billion in savings, including a roughly $420 billion reduction in the national security budget. The cuts would be accompanied by a $900 billion increase in the debt ceiling.

Because of the pending Tuesday deadline, Obama would have immediate authority to raise the debt ceiling by $400 billion, which will last through September, according to the White House.

The other $500 billion increase in the debt limit would be subject to a congressional vote of disapproval that can be vetoed by Obama.

In the second stage, a special joint committee of Congress would recommend further deficit reduction steps totaling $1.5 trillion or more, with Congress obligated to vote on the panel's proposals by the end of the year.

The committee would comprise 12 members: Six from each chamber, equally divided between Democrats and Republicans. The panel's recommendations would be due by November 23 and guaranteed an up-or-down vote without amendments by December 23.

The committee is expected to consider politically sensitive reforms to the tax code and entitlement programs, though Democrats and Republicans disagree on the likelihood of any eventual revenue increases.

If the committee's recommendations are enacted, Obama would be authorized to increase the debt ceiling by up to $1.5 trillion. If the recommendations are not enacted, Obama can still raise the debt ceiling by $1.2 trillion. At that point, however, a budget "trigger" would kick in, imposing mandatory across-the-board spending cuts matching the size of the debt ceiling increase.

The cuts would be split between defense spending and non-defense programs, an unpopular formula intended to motivate legislators to approve the committee's recommendations.

"You want to make it hard for (lawmakers) just to walk away and wash their hands," Gene Sperling, the director of Obama's National Economic Council, said Sunday. "You want them to say, if nothing happens, there will be a very tough degree of pain that will take place."

The final debt ceiling increase in the agreement would also be subject to a congressional vote of disapproval that can be vetoed by Obama.

The agreement calls for both houses of Congress to vote on a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution, though it does not make a further increase in the debt limit subject to congressional passage of such an amendment -- something tea party conservatives were initially demanding.

In a key concession to Democrats, benefits from entitlements including Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare -- as well as veteran's benefits -- will be exempt from any immediate cuts.

Leaders on both sides of the aisle have conceded that the deal is far from perfect.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nevada, emphasized that "no one got what they want" and "everyone had to give something up."

But this "is a great stride forward" that shows "we can succeed not in spite of our divided government but because of it," he said.

A recent CNN/ORC International Poll reveals a growing public exasperation and demand for compromise. Sixty-four percent of respondents to a July 18-20 survey preferred a deal with a mix of spending cuts and tax increases. Only 34% preferred a debt reduction plan based solely on spending reductions.

According to the poll, the public is sharply divided along partisan lines; Democrats and independents are open to a number of different approaches because they think a failure to raise the debt ceiling would cause a major crisis for the country. Republicans, however, draw the line at tax increases, and a narrow majority of them oppose raising the debt ceiling under any circumstances.


View Larger Map

Sources: CNN, MSNBC, Google Maps

Democrats & Liberals Should Support Debt Ceiling Deal! 5 Reasons Why

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Five Things for Liberals to Like in the Debt Ceiling Deal

As the broad strokes of the debt ceiling deal began to leak out over the weekend, progressive groups filled reporters’ in boxes with outraged e-mails. “Seeing a Democratic President take taxing the rich off the table and instead push a deal that will lead to Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid benefit cuts is like entering a bizarre parallel universe — one with horrific consequences for middle-class families,” Progressive Change Campaign Committee Co-Founder Stephanie Taylor wrote. “This deal is the exact opposite of what the majority of Americans support, and all Democrats in Congress should oppose it.”

“MoveOn’s 5 million members, along with the vast majority of Americans, will not stand for Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid benefit cuts–not now, and not six months from now,” wrote Justin Ruben, Executive Director of MoveOn.org, “Congress should reject both ‘triggers’, and a ‘Super Congress’, and pass a clean debt ceiling bill that doesn’t force the middle class and the poor to bear the brunt of this crisis.”

But as the details of the compromise emerged, it seemed there was actually a lot for liberals to like about this bill. If and when the House passes the bill on Monday, it will likely be with the help of a lot of Democrats. Here’s why some liberals are actually happy with this deal:


1) The 2012 budget: At one point in the negotiations, the 2012 budget was to be slashed by $36 billion. The final number of cuts: just $7 billion. And just to ensure we don’t have another bruising government shutdown fight over cuts in September, the deal deems and passes the 2012 budget. Yes, that’s right, the old Gephardt Rule or Slaughter Solution, is back. What’s deem and pass? It’s a legislative trick that essentially means that Congress will consider the budget passed without ever actually having to vote on it.

2) The trigger: This is counter intuitive, but the trigger is actually pretty good for Democrats. For all that MoveOn thinks that it would force benefit cuts to Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, it actually wouldn’t trigger benefit cuts to any entitlements. The only cuts it would force would be a 2% or more haircut for Medicare providers. And House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, along with most Democrats, has never opposed provider cuts. Not only that, most progressives actually want the Pentagon cuts. So if the committee deadlocks and the trigger is pulled, Democrats won’t be miserable.

3) The commission: Again, for all the liberal carping about a “Super Congress,” the commission of 12 members — three from each party in each chamber — set up to find the second phase of $1.5 trillion in cuts by Thanksgiving is actually rigged to force some revenue increases. Yes, the Bush tax cuts are off the table. But there are plenty of loops holes, subsidies and other corporate welfare programs that are on the table. And with such a strong trigger, it’s hard to imagine at least one Republican not voting to kill corporate jet subsidies over slashing $500 billion from the defense budget – even if the revenues aren’t offset. The question is: who are Republicans more afraid of, Grover Norquist or the joint chiefs? Democrats’ money is on the joint chiefs.

4) The immediate cuts: It may seem like a lot, but the $917 billion in the first phase of cuts were carefully negotiated by Vice President Joe Biden and his group. They include $350 billion in Pentagon cuts – a win for liberals. They don’t touch entitlement benefits, another win. And they set top line numbers for the next decade of budgets that aren’t draconian. It still cuts where liberals might prefer to spend, but most of the savings are backloaded to avoid extreme austerity in next few years of fragile economic recovery. Just $7 billion would be cut in 2012, and only $3 billion in 2013. And of that combined $10 billion, half would come from the Pentagon.

5) The debt ceiling: Raising the debt ceiling through 2013 will not be contingent on the second round of cuts. There will merely be a vote of disapproval. This avoids another messy fight in January and another round of painful forced cuts.

In a world where the Tea Party didn’t exist, would this be a good bill for Democrats? Absolutely not. But considering that the trigger, commission, two-step process and discretionary budget cuts could’ve been a LOT worse – and actually were in Boehner’s version of the bill – this deal will be easier to swallow. The commission will likely mean a long-term win for Democrats: they’ll get either their revenue increases or achieve significant Pentagon cuts. It could mark a political victory as well: If Pelosi passes this bill on primarily Democratic support, they’ll look like the adults in the room who can compromise and govern, a stark contrast to the Tea Party freshmen.


Sources: CBS News, CNN, MSNBC, TIME

GOP Never Required Balanced Budget Amendment Under Bush Or Reagan (Hypocrisy!)

Republicans Never Voted On A Balanced Budget Amendment When They Controlled Congress Under Bush

House Republicans last week insisted on passing their radical “cut, cap, and balance” plan, which would allow the federal debt ceiling to be raised only if a balanced budget amendment (complete with a federal spending cap and a super majority requirement for tax increases) is approved by Congress and sent to the states. The Senate tabled the bill by a vote of 51-46.

Despite their plan failing to receive even a majority in the Senate — far less than the two-thirds required for a constitutional amendment — Republicans have continued to demand, as they have for months, that a balanced budget amendment be a part of any deal to raise the debt ceiling. And the GOP is framing its BBA push as some kind of favor for the next generation. For instance, Rep. Jeb Hensarling, who chairs the House Republican Conference, said today that the balanced budget amendment is “not about the next election. It’s about the next generation.”

However, when the Republicans held both chambers of Congress from 2003 to 2006, and had a Republican in the White House, they not only didn’t approve a balanced budget amendment, they never even held a vote on it. In fact, the last vote on a BBA was in 1997, when Bill Clinton was president; the Senate defeated it by a single vote.

As we’ve extensively discussed, a balanced budget amendment is one of the worst ideas in Washington. It would force the government to make economic downturns worse by actively slashing spending in the face of falling revenue. Republicans are now claiming, in the name of the next generation of Americans, that enacting a balanced budget amendment is the price of averting economic catastrophe, but their utter indifference to the idea when they actually had the power to advance it shows that it’s nothing more than a political ploy.

Sources: Fox News, MSNBC, Think Progress, Youtube

Obama's Tilt To Far Right Alienates His Left Wing Base

Rightward Tilt Leaves Obama With Party Rift

However the debt limit showdown ends, one thing is clear: under pressure from Congressional Republicans, President Obama has moved rightward on budget policy, deepening a rift within his party heading into the next election.

Entering a campaign that is shaping up as an epic clash over the parties’ divergent views on the size and role of the federal government, Republicans have changed the terms of the national debate. Mr. Obama, seeking to appeal to the broad swath of independent voters, has adopted the Republicans’ language and in some cases their policies, while signaling a willingness to break with liberals on some issues.

That has some progressive members of Congress and liberal groups arguing that by not fighting for more stimulus spending, Mr. Obama could be left with an economy still producing so few jobs by Election Day that his re-election could be threatened. Besides turning off independents, Mr. Obama risks alienating Democratic voters already disappointed by his escalation of the war in Afghanistan and his failure to close the Guantánamo Bay prison, end the Bush-era tax cuts and enact a government-run health insurance system.

“The activist liberal base will support Obama because they’re terrified of the right wing,” said Robert L. Borosage, co-director of the liberal group Campaign for America’s Future.

But he said, “I believe that the voting base of the Democratic Party — young people, single women, African-Americans, Latinos — are going to be so discouraged by this economy and so dismayed unless the president starts to champion a jobs program and take on the Republican Congress that the ability of labor to turn out its vote, the ability of activists to mobilize that vote, is going to be dramatically reduced.”

While Mr. Obama and Republicans have been unable to agree on a debt reduction plan for spending cuts and revenue increases to cut $4 trillion in the first decade, on Saturday they were negotiating a deal with fewer spending cuts that would ensure the government’s debt ceiling would be increased into 2013 to avoid another deadlock in the heat of campaign season.

No matter how the immediate issue is resolved, Mr. Obama, in his failed effort for greater deficit reduction, has put on the table far more in reductions for future years’ spending, including Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, than he did in new revenue from the wealthy and corporations. He proposed fewer cuts in military spending and more in health care than a bipartisan Senate group that includes one of the chamber’s most conservative Republicans.

To win approval of the essential increase in the nation’s $14.3 trillion borrowing ceiling, Mr. Obama sought more in deficit reduction than Republicans did, and with fewer changes to the entitlement programs, because he was willing to raise additional revenue starting in 2013 and they were not. And despite unemployment lingering at its highest level in decades, Mr. Obama has not fought this year for a big jobs program with billions of dollars for public-works projects, which liberals in his party have clamored for. Instead, he wants to extend a temporary payroll tax cut for everyone, since Republicans will support tax cuts, despite studies showing that spending programs are generally the more effective stimulus.

Even before last November’s election gave the Republicans control of the House, Mr. Obama had said he would pivot to deficit reduction after two years of stimulus measures intended first to rescue the economy and then to spur a recovery from the near collapse of the financial system. With Republicans’ gains in the midterm elections, that pivot became a lurch. Yet Congressional Republicans say Mr. Obama seeks a debt limit increase as “a blank check” to keep spending.

“The Republicans won, and they don’t know how to accept victory,” said Robert D. Reischauer, a former director of the Congressional Budget Office.

In his budget proposal in January, Mr. Obama declined to suggest a plan along the lines proposed by a majority of his bipartisan fiscal commission, which in December recommended $4 trillion in savings over 10 years through cuts in military and domestic programs, including Medicare and Medicaid, and a tax code overhaul to lower rates while also raising more revenue.

Even though Mr. Obama was widely criticized, administration officials said at the time that to have embraced that approach then would have put him too far to the right — where he ultimately wanted to end up in any compromise with Republicans, not where he wanted to start.

But by this month, in ultimately unsuccessful talks with Speaker John A. Boehner, Mr. Obama tentatively agreed to a plan that was farther to the right than that of the majority of the fiscal commission and a bipartisan group of senators, the so-called Gang of Six. It also included a slow rise in the Medicare eligibility age to 67 from 65, and, after 2015, a change in the formula for Social Security cost-of-living adjustments long sought by economists.

“He’s accommodated himself to the new reality in Washington,” said Tom Davis, a former House Republican leader from Virginia. “That’s what leaders do.”

But Congressional Democrats and liberal groups objected.

“The president’s proposing cuts to Social Security and Medicare has the potential to sap the energy of the Democratic base — among older voters because of Medicare and Medicaid and younger voters because of the lack of jobs,” said Damon A. Silvers, policy director of the A.F.L.-C.I.O. “And second, all these fiscal austerity proposals on the table will make the economy worse.”

Mr. Obama’s situation has parallels with the mid-1990s, when President Bill Clinton shifted to the center after Republicans took Congress and battled them on deficit reduction and a welfare overhaul. Many Democrats were angered by his concessions, by a sense of being left out of negotiations and by a fear of alienating Democratic voters. Mr. Clinton was re-elected in 1996.

But Mr. Obama is likely to face the voters with a weaker economy and higher unemployment than during Mr. Clinton’s era. Still, his advisers express confidence that voters will reward Mr. Obama either for winning a bipartisan deal, if that were to happen, or for at least having a more balanced approach that does not remake Medicare and Medicaid and asks for more revenue from the wealthy. And they suggest another potential parallel with the Clinton years of divided government: that Republicans risk a voter backlash with their uncompromising stands.

“Democrats created Social Security and Medicare, and we have fought for decades against Republican attempts to end these programs,” said Dan Pfeiffer, Mr. Obama’s communications director. “And President Obama believes that now is the time for Democrats to be the ones to step up and save Social Security and Medicare.”

Mark Mellman, a Democratic pollster, said polling data showed that at this point in his term, Mr. Obama, compared with past Democratic presidents, was doing as well or better with Democratic voters. “Whatever qualms or questions they may have about this policy or that policy, at the end of the day the one thing they’re absolutely certain of — they’re going to hate these Republican candidates,” Mr. Mellman said. “So I’m not honestly all that worried about a solid or enthusiastic base.”


Sources: CNN, NY Times

Gang Of Six Plan Cuts Social Security & Lowers Corporate Tax Rates

Gang Of Six Plan Reduces Social Security Benefits By $1,300 A Year, Cuts Corporate Tax Rates

Yesterday, President Obama all but endorsed the deficit reduction plan outlined by the Gang of Six senators. The plan still faces numerous obstacles — it’s incredibly vague on the details, has critics on both sides of the aisle, and may not even be ready by the Aug. 2 default deadline. Liberal Democrats have pointed out the plan is far from a balanced approach, asking seniors and the working poor to bear the brunt of the pain without asking the wealthy or corporations to sacrifice at all.

Two members of the Gang of Six, Senators Saxby Chambliss (R-GA) and Kent Conrad (D-ND) were positively crowing about the conservative bona fides of their plan yesterday on MSNBC. Because the proposal will actually be scored as a $1.5 trillion tax cut under current law (with the Bush tax cuts set to expire in 2012), they are confident that House Republicans, who have vowed never to vote for a tax increase, will go for it.

The Congressional Budget Office will score the plan as a $1.5 trillion tax cut, as it lowers the corporate tax rate from 35 percent to between 23 and 29 percent, eliminates the alternative minimum tax, and lowers personal income tax rates. But by closing loopholes, the Gang of Six says they’ll raise $1.3 trillion in revenue.

The disparity can only be explained because they employ an accounting gimmick — the two projections use different CBO baselines. The tax cut number is compared to current law, which assumes the Bush tax cuts will expire and the AMT will take effect, neither of which seems likely to happen. The revenue number is compared to a “plausible baseline” (which assumes expiration of the high-end Bush tax cuts).

The plan also recommends “reforming” Social Security in ways that will even affect current retirees. But not a penny of the money saved will go to deficit reduction, which begs the question — why include Social Security at all? The Gang of Six has said all the changes will go toward securing the long-term financial security of the program, but Social Security is already solvent until 2037 and does not contribute to the deficit.

The cuts in the Gang of Six plan aren’t minor, either. It proposes a chained CPI adjustment to Social Security, which may not be a bad idea when combined with other measures to boost benefits and strengthen the program, but on its own is tantamount to a $1,300 cut each year for recipients over their lifetimes. Strengthen Social Security co-chair and former Obama adviser Nancy Altman has denounced the idea as an overly harsh cut. “The chained-CPI is poor policy, and given that seniors vote in disproportionately high numbers, it is equally poor politics,” she said.


View Larger Map

Sources: MSNBC, Think Progress, The Young Turks, Youtube, Google Maps

GOP Offers Obama 2012 GOP Win-Win Debt Deal! Gov't Shutdown Looms!

Senate GOP Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) Has Just Offered Pres. Obama A "Baby Steps", Crooked, Lopsided Debt Ceiling Deal.

This Deal Which Stinks To High Heaven Is A No-Brainer, Easy Win-Win For The GOP In 2012.

GOP Leaders Have Drawn A Line In The Sand & Have Basically Pushed Pres. Obama's Back Up Against A Wall With NO Real Good Faith Effort To Avoid A Shutdown.

In Fact They've Been Hoping & Praying For A Complete Gov't Shutdown!

Why?

To Hurt Our Nation's Most Vulnerable Citizens, Eliminate The Black Middle Class & Paralyze Minority Voters Just For The Sake Of Winning In 2012!

How Diabolical!

And Yet Most Of These Republican Leaders Call Themselves "Christians"!!

For Shame!






Mitch McConnell offers non-deal deal

The Washington Post reports that Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell is pitching a non-deal on the debt ceiling. The proposal is fairly far into the legislative weeds, but it involves having President Obama ask for a request in the debt ceiling, which Republicans would reject. President Obama would veto the rejection, and Republicans would let the veto stand.

Producer Mike Yarvitz forwards this rough verbate of Senator McConnell talking to reporters just now:

[W]e will have available a sort of back-up plan that would operate as follows: I would advocate that we pass legislation giving the President the authority to request of us an increase in the debt ceiling that would take us past the end of his term ... in this legislation, if it were to pass, he would make three separate requests of us.

The first request would be initiated by passing the legislation in the next few weeks. He would send up a request of us to raise the debt ceiling, probably by $700 billion. That would be subject to a resolution of disapproval ... that resolution of disapproval, if passed, would then go to the President. He could sign it or he could veto it. Presumably, he would veto it. If that were the case, that veto would be sustained by one-third plus one in either the House or the Senate.

The legislation would also require him to list spending cuts he would make in the same amount as the debt ceiling request he's making of us. Then there would be a second request in the fall that would follow the same procedure. He would ask us to raise the debt ceiling. I think it's highly likely that both houses would consider and probably pass resolutions of disapproval, which he would veto. And his veto would be sustained by one-third plus one. That would happen one more time in June.

So this is, again, not my first choice. I had hoped all year long that the opportunity presented by his request to raise the debt ceiling would generate a bipartisan agreement that would begin to get our house in order by reducing spending. That may still happen. I still hope it will, but we're certainly not going to send the signal to the markets and the American people that default is an option.

Senate Republicans would be able to pass three separate resolutions of disapproval, the Washington Post reports. They'd also get $2.5 trillion in cuts -- the Biden deal, in essence. And they wouldn't have to take the heat for Social Security checks not going out if the government can't pay its bills. The Republicans would win what's there for them to win. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid says he's open to considering Mr. McConnell's idea.


View Larger Map

Sources: CBS News, MSNBC, Politico, Rachel Maddow Blog, TPMDC, Washington Post, Youtube, Google Maps

Social Security & Disability Checks In Jeopardy After Aug. 3rd! GOP 2012 Tactic

This Afternoon On CBS News Pres. Obama Announced If A Deal To Raise The Debt Ceiling Is Not Reached By August 2nd, Social Sec. & Disability Checks Will NOT Be Paid Because Our Nation's Debts Must Be Paid First. Do You Think GOP Leaders Care? NO! They're Hoping For A Gov't Shutdown!





Obama says he cannot guarantee Social Security checks will go out on August 3rd

President Obama on Tuesday said he cannot guarantee that retirees will receive their Social Security checks August 3 if Democrats and Republicans in Washington do not reach an agreement on reducing the deficit in the coming weeks.

"I cannot guarantee that those checks go out on August 3rd if we haven't resolved this issue. Because there may simply not be the money in the coffers to do it," Mr. Obama said in an interview with CBS Evening News anchor Scott Pelley, according to excerpts released by CBS News.

The Obama administration and many economists have warned of economic catastrophe if the United States does not raise the amount it is legally allowed to borrow by August 2.

Lawmakers from both parties want to use the threat of that deadline to work out a broader package on long-term deficit reduction, with Republicans looking to cut trillions of dollars in federal spending, while Democrats are pushing for a more "balanced approach," which would include both spending cuts and increased revenue through taxes.

Democratic and Republican lawmakers are expected to hold another round of negotiations with Mr. Obama at the White House Tuesday afternoon on long-term deficit reduction, though talks have yielded little results to date.

Mr. Obama told Pelley "this is not just a matter of Social Security checks. These are veterans checks, these are folks on disability and their checks. There are about 70 million checks that go out."

The interview will air Tuesday evening on the CBS Evening News with Scott Pelley.

Mr. Obama's comments followed remarks from the Senate's top Republican, who said Tuesday that he did not see a way for Republicans and Democrats to come to agreement on meaningful deficit reduction as long as Mr. Obama remains in office.

"After years of discussions and months of negotiations, I have little question that as long as this president is in the Oval Office, a real solution is probably unattainable," Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell said in remarks on the Senate floor.

Still, McConnell said Republicans would "do the responsible thing" to avoid default, suggesting that a deal on the debt ceiling could be reached without a "real" deficit reduction package.

"The president has presented us with three choices: smoke and mirrors, tax hikes, or default. Republicans choose none of the above. I had hoped to do good, but I refuse to do harm. So Republicans will choose a path that actually reflects the will of the people, which is to do the responsible thing and ensure that the government doesn't default on its obligations," he said.

Mr. Obama has repeatedly said he wants a deal that would allow the U.S. to avoid confronting the issue again until after the 2012 elections and vowed on Monday that he would "not sign a 30-day or a 60-day or a 90-day extension."

"This the United States of America and, you know, we don't manage our affairs in three-month increments. You know, we don't risk U.S. default on our obligations because we can't put politics aside," Mr. Obama told reporters at the White House yesterday.

Sources: CBS News, CNN