And Senator Kyl, one of the select Super-Congress, has threatened to veto cuts in the entitlement program called "defense" by quitting the committee.
Gene Coyle On Sep 9, 2011, at 8:57 AM, Louis Proyect wrote: > NY Times September 8, 2011 > A Bipartisan Move to Tackle Benefits Programs > By JACKIE CALMES and ROBERT PEAR > > WASHINGTON — In a significant shift driven by bipartisan concern > about the looming long-term debt, Republicans and Democrats are no > longer fighting over whether to tackle the popular entitlement > programs — Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security — but over how > to do it. > > In the presidential race, Gov. Rick Perry of Texas, the Republican > front-runner of the moment, took the debate over entitlements to a > level never before seen from a major candidate, calling for the > end of all three programs as currently structured. In his debate > with Republican rivals Wednesday, he amplified his claims that > Social Security is a Ponzi scheme and a “monstrous lie” to younger > Americans counting on the money for retirement. On Thursday, he > circulated similar past criticisms from his chief rival, Mitt > Romney, who defended Social Security in the debate. > > At the same time, Republicans and Democrats on Capitol Hill > expressed a willingness to wring savings from the long-untouchable > programs during the first meeting of the special committee that is > charged with recommending $1.5 trillion in deficit reductions over > the decade. Then President Obama, in his address to a joint > session of Congress on spurring job creation, reiterated his call > for a plan reducing long-term debt with both changes in > entitlement programs and taxes from the wealthy. > > It is far from clear whether the comments from Mr. Perry, a > self-proclaimed provocateur, will speed or stall early moves > between the White House and Congress to deal with the costly > benefit programs at the heart of the debt problem. The parties’ > repositioning on the New Deal and Great Society pillars is leaving > both sides on shaky ground, uncertain of where to stand. > > To the chagrin of many in his party, this summer Mr. Obama > proposed changes in Medicare and Social Security that once would > have been unthinkable for a Democratic president during his > unsuccessful talks with the House speaker, John A. Boehner, for a > “grand bargain” on cutting deficits. In return for the > Republicans’ agreement to raise taxes after 2012 for the wealthy, > Mr. Obama indicated that his party would support slowly increasing > the eligibility age for Medicare to 67 from 65 and changing the > formula for cost-of-living increases in Social Security to a less > generous one that some economists consider more accurate. > > Now Mr. Perry’s comments could cause Congressional Democrats to > dig in against changing the entitlement programs, sensing a > political advantage in 2012 — especially if Mr. Perry is the nominee. > > For all of Mr. Perry’s bravado, many Republicans are anxious about > his stand on entitlement programs, Social Security especially, > given their popularity and the disproportionate number of seniors > who vote. Even his advisers tried to temper the remarks before Mr. > Perry made plain he was standing his ground, and some Republican > lawmakers on Thursday were distancing themselves from his remarks. > > Many Congressional Republicans remain haunted by the experience of > former President George W. Bush’s futile effort in 2005 to partly > privatize Social Security, which contributed to the party’s loss > of its House and Senate majorities the next year and convinced > Congressional Democrats of the power of the issue. > > More than half of Americans, 56 percent, would be less likely to > vote for a presidential candidate who favored phasing out Social > Security so that workers could invest their payroll taxes in the > stock market, according to a nationwide poll in June by The Wall > Street Journal and NBC News. That included 64 percent of Democrats > and 57 percent of independents, whose swing votes decide > elections, and even a 45 percent plurality of Republicans. Only > one-third of Republicans said they would be more likely to vote > for someone who espoused ending Social Security. > > Until Mr. Perry’s recent entry into the Republican contest, the > debate over reining in the projected growth of the entitlement > programs focused on the health programs, Medicare and Medicaid. > Their projected costs, given the aging of the population and > fast-rising medical expenses, are greater and growing faster than > those for Social Security. > > While House Republicans boasted in April of the boldness of their > budget — it would turn Medicare into a voucher program for private > insurance and Medicaid into a reduced block grant to states — they > steered clear of changing Social Security. > > Now they have a potential presidential standard-bearer who is > taking on Social Security — the so-called third rail of American > politics — with both hands. > > The collapse of the budget negotiations between Mr. Obama and Mr. > Boehner, with their tentative trade-off between savings from > entitlement programs and new revenues, left many in both parties > convinced that no significant debt-reduction bargain is likely > before the 2012 elections. Unless Republicans accept higher taxes > on the wealthy, and they swear they will not, Democrats will not > support reductions in future entitlement benefits. > > Yet both parties are feeling the pressure to act sooner. That > reflects not only the seriousness of the nation’s looming debt > crisis as baby boomers age, but also the possibility later this > year that just as in this summer’s fight over raising the debt > limit, the financial markets and the economy in general will be > shaken by dysfunction in Washington if no plan can be mapped out > by the new deficit-reduction committee and enacted by Congress. > > The turn in both parties toward tackling the cost of the > entitlement programs has been building. In 2010, Congressional > Democrats approved about $500 billion in future savings from > Medicare to help pay for the new health care law, though > Republicans attacked them for it in last year’s midterm elections. > But the onset of the new deficit committee’s work and Mr. Perry’s > scathing critique of social spending has added a new dimension. > > At the first meeting of the House-Senate committee on deficit > reduction, which is to make recommendations by Nov. 23 for a quick > up-or-down vote in Congress, several Republicans said that > entitlements were the main cause of annual deficits and should be > the panel’s focus. > > “In order to succeed, I know this committee must be primarily > about the business of saving and reforming social safety-net > programs that are not only failing many beneficiaries, but going > broke at the same time,” said Representative Jeb Hensarling, > Republican of Texas and co-chairman of the committee, which is > evenly divided between Republicans and Democrats. > > James E. Clyburn of South Carolina, a House Democratic leader on > the panel, said that he was for “smart and compassionate budget > cuts” and “ending military adventurism,” but that Congress must > not shred Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid benefits. > > Separately, the senior Democrat on the House Ways and Means > Committee, Sander M. Levin of Michigan, circulated a memo listing > two dozen options that could squeeze more than $500 billion out of > Medicare in the next 10 years. Aides to Mr. Levin said that he was > not endorsing the ideas but helping other Democrats understand the > sorts of actions that could be taken. > _______________________________________________ > pen-l mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
