Tweet
(image: twolf1)
President Obama’s performance in the first debate has been widely criticized, particularly his answer to a question about Social Security. As a result, the campaign felt the need to put up a blog post clarifying Obama’s position on Social Security. While the campaign uses some very weaselly phrases to put the best possible spin on Obama’s position, they make it perfectly clear that Obama’s plan includes cutting Social Security benefits.
From the Obama campaign website:
Both President Obama and Mitt Romney know that the program is solvent for more than two decades and that there’s a need for gradual reforms to the benefits that millions of seniors have worked for, paid for, and earned. [...]
The President knows that guaranteed Social Security benefits are not handouts, but a bedrock of the commitment to retirement security America makes to our seniors. He believes that no current beneficiaries should see their basic benefits reduced, and he will not accept any approach that slashes benefits for future generations.
Note that use of the world “slashes.” Obama promises not to reduce benefits for current seniors but promises only to not “slash” benefits for future generations. The only reason to make these two separate promises is if the phrasing mean two different things.
Obama simply promised not to “slash” benefits, which the President defines as making really big cut. Just to make clear that Obama considers “slashing” different from cuts or reductions the campaign included a set of bullet points.
- While all measures to strengthen solvency should be on the table, the administration will not accept an approach that slashes benefits for future generations.
- No current beneficiaries should see their basic benefits reduced.
Cuts are on the table but not for current retirees, although there are indications Obama does not consider a cut in cost of living adjustments (COLA) to be a “cut,” which would certainly impact them. Obama hopes to cut future Social Security benefits, as long as the cut are not big enough to be considered “slashes.” Given that Obama has wide latitude when it comes to interrupting what the word means, Obama can agreed to any level of cuts and still claim to have kept his promise.
The Obama campaign made it perfectly clear that Obama did not misspeak during the debate. Obama wants to “tweak” Social Security, i.e. cut benefits. There should be no doubt about what is on Obama’s agenda for his second term.
63 Comments
Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About FDL Action
I’ll bet 99% of the 3.1 million small donors to the Obama campaign don’t know this. If they did, would they give this guy money? Would they even bother to go to the polls?
Seniors (retirement beneficiaries) aren’t the only beneficiaries of SS benefits.
Ending COLA’s for the 1% sounds pretty reasonable.
We need to find out how many people in Congress are collecting SS – by name.
How do Obama supporters spin this one? It’s not like this is really new either. Obama was telegraphing this stuff before he was even inaugurated. Recall this from the WaPo in mid-January of 2009?:
The only thing that saved us from this stuff during Obama’s pursuit of his “grand bargain” last year was Republican intransigence, venality and dishonesty. (Maybe we should than the Republicans for their intransigence, venality and dishonesty.)
Anyway…nothing new. And if Obama gets his second term (as he is likely to do), he will get his way on this.
It may be cliché to say this at this point, but it took a Republican to go to China. It will take a Democrat to gut Social Security and what’s left of the New Deal.
Gotta love that ad over there ->
Yeah right “volunteer yer ass fer O”
Actually, treating people differently based on income (think “means testing”) undermines part of the basic political calculus behind Social Security. So no, not a good idea.
If you remove higher benefits for high income earners and disconnect final benefit payments from income earned, and then provide a ‘basic benefit’ (a bare-bones amount) for low income earners, and then hollow out the middle and upper middle income earners by reducing their benefits by 10%, you have described the Diamond-Orszag plan.
But the D-O plan achieves half of its reduction in revenue increases: higher payroll taxes, lifting the cap and a legacy tax. But you are also close to what Simpson Bowles does.
S.B. only provides a subsistence benefit for all income groups between 9-15K a year when they graph out the reductions over time. S-B also achieves a steep cut up front by raising eligibility ages from 67 to 69. They also add in the chained CPI.
Romney appears to be a big slash up front, individual accounts and a benefits cut, but I don’t take his plan seriously so I have not looked into it. . R.’s looks scarey because his does not have the payroll tax increase and other increases in taxes. I view R’s plan as a foil for Mr. Reasonable to actually cause permanent damage to Social Security after he is re-elected. That is my bias.
The upcoming war with Iran will be another excuse to dick over the entitlement programs.
Bombs for AIPAC, jack sh*t for the rabble.
Austerity planning under end-term capitalism so rules… not.
Exzctly. And once there are income levels and designer COLA’s just for SS, then everything can be sliced and diced by mere regulations, which need nko congressional approval.
Please, you must remember it’s B.S. not S.B. We must keep that straight and not let the general conversation sway from that distinction.
The fact that there is any discussion of what to cut should be a non-starter. SS has always had a means test built in to the payments schedule. Once they get you to adopt the false premise that cuts need to be made you have lost and more and bigger cuts will follow. We are in for a miserable existence except for the 1% and their minions.
I’ve never heard of this, what do you mean?
This could and probably should cost him the election. I just can’t blieve a democratic president is doing this. And it is so completely, utterly unnessary.
i still don’t get it. everything is solved when he fica caps are eliminated.
why isn’t this ever discussed?
Removing the caps initially allows more money to flow into the system.
The problem is, benefits are paid out based on what you paid in. So, if for example we double the cap, some rich guy making $220,000 will have to pay in payroll taxes on the full $220,000 instead of $110,000. Sounds good. But if you don’t change the benefits formula, you just end up doubling his SS check upon retirement, and you haven’t really fixed any shortfalls.
The current cap ensures that no one gets taxed on more than $110,100, and no one gets a check much above $2000 per month. Otherwise Bill Gates would pay hefty payroll tax, and get millions dollar monthly checks.
I won;t vote for OBama.
How about we slash Congressional and eliminate Presidential pensions while we’re at it?
Here’s an interesting little bill H.R. 539.
Summary from Rep. Grijalva’s website
This bill gradually phases out the payroll tax exemption on incomes over $106,800 and keeps Social Security’s tradition of increased benefits for increased contributions. Additionally, this bill would improve the current COLA formula by indexing it to seniors’ costs through the creation of a Consumer Price Index for the Elderly. Finally, the legislation provides a supplemental payment to all COLA-tied retirees when there is no COLA for seniors.
I’m not sure if this THOMAS link
is just temporary – you may need to Google the bill
And if you do change the benefits formula you will have transformed SS from an insurance program into income redistributing welfare.
And how long then before the GOP attacks this unearned welfare?
It doesn’t have to be. In fact there doesn’t need to be any payrolll tax. The treasury temp made up the difference for the lower rates. They could do that forever.
It is not that now. It is an intergenerational transfer system. You are not guaranteed any return on investment.
Not bad idea so long as increased benefits are not based on some investment formula, like a return on investment. That is not what SS is all about.
you are correct, it doesn’t have to be the way it is. I was responding to the claim that “everything is solved when the fica caps are eliminated”. More “tweaks” are needed.
I’m trying to find more info. I don’t know how to read the language of the bill, even though it’s very brief, but it looks as though it just continues the current formula for calculatinhg benefits/contributions. But don’t quote me on that :)
The Dems have left their base for the halls of Wall Street. Vote third party!
times a million!
Alright, Jon!
You GO, dude!!! :o)
“How about we slash Congressional and eliminate Presidential pensions while we’re at it?”
Agreed.
We need to put this one the table.
Can we start a meme here?
How about slashing pensions unless and until they actually do something to serve the majority of citizens of the country? As see it, the pensions were designed as recompense for the disruption in their lives, careers, etc., while they served their country. However, since most of them seem to be serving themselves and their future prospects rather than their country or its citizens, I can’t see that the pensions are in any way necessary or deserved.
As something opposed by 70% of Americans, this should be a winning position.
http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Articles/2012/08/20/The-One-Simple-Measure-That-Would-Save-Social-Security.aspx#page1
There’s a comment here that states surplus revenue in SS can be spent by the feds as they like…anyone know if this is true?
That absolutely needs to happen. Is it possible to petition to force something onto the ballot at a national level?
Obama for America campaign tells me that Wednesday night was a mistake (the tweak that needs to be made like Reagan did).
Obama is not going to cut Social Security and I am misreading what he is saying.
Hung up when I mentioned that it was Obama who appointed the Simpson-Bowles Commission.
found this on hr 539. Very legalese. I will go back to see if there is a translation into English.
That 1983 “tweak” included raising the retirement age.
It’s either not true, or sloppy wording.
The Social Security Trust Fund is a fund operated by the Social Security Administration into which are paid payroll tax contributions from workers and employers under the Social Security system and out of which benefit payments are made to retirees, survivors, and the disabled, and for general administrative expenses. The fund also earns interest.
When program revenues exceed payments (i.e., the program is in surplus) the extra funds are borrowed and used by the government for other purposes, but a legal obligation to program recipients is created to the extent this occurs. These surpluses add to the Trust Fund. At the end of 2011, the Trust Fund contained (or alternatively, was owed) $2.7 trillion, up $69 billion from 2010. The fund is required by law to be invested in non-marketable securities issued and guaranteed by the “full faith and credit” of the federal government.
The commenter complains that the SS “surplus” was stolen by congress to spend on their pet projects which helped them get reelected? That money was supposed to be secured and invested for our retirement future income.
That money was “stolen” the same way your money is “stolen” when you put it in the bank and the bank gives someone else a loan. You still expect to get your money back with interest, and so does the Social Security Administration. In fact last year alone the “federal government” paid the SSA $114 billion in interest earnings.
Not stolen.
This is good stuff. In his second term, Obama will trot out Stephanie Cutter and the rest of the “Truth Team” to school everyone on why this or that adjustment is not a “cut” or why this or that cut is not a “slash.”
Agreed.
Another reason to spread this as a meme:
it might wake up the ones who ‘don’t believe’ Obama will slash the safety net, despite the misdirections of the ‘Truth Team’.
I’m voting for Jill Stein. When you look at the long term plans of both candidates of the uniparty, you will only find a difference if you manufacture it yourself. What o hoped to change was the good that had been done by the dims for the social safety net.
I swore to myself that I would NEVER vote for a republican af the desaster they made of this entire century.
Now, shit, seems like I voted for one anyway.
That might depend on what you mean. There is no cash in a lock box anywhere. The taxes collected each year are spent. The treasury just gives a bond or IOU to the SS fund. The bond is held by the trust fund. But if congress decided to cancel them I suppose they could, but that would be rather extreme. So I doubt that.
Yes, I feel like I want to scream when I read this. Imagine a democratic president cutting SS.
Romney up by four points in latest Pew poll per HP.
Hey, we’ve still got the democratic legislaturds on our side.
Uh-oh.
Just a fad.
The more votes Stein and her New Green Deal get in 2012 the better 2016 will be. The majority of Americans have been abandoned by the current two party system and due to corruption, incompetence, and greed I think the majority of voters will abandon them as this austerity economy is rolled out. The uniparty’s long term plans don’t include us so we need to vote third party.
Obama is hell bent on reducing social security, and that will be the footnote in the history books when explaining his failure to win a second term in office.
One has to wonder if the guy is throwing this election away on purpose. Maybe his marching orders were “make it a contest so it seems believable, and we’ll have a big fat paycheck waiting for you up here on Wall Street. Destroy the Democratic Party from within, that’s the only road to privitization.”
Obummer was/is chomping at the bit to undue as many safety nets as possible.
AND by the way, why is everybody calling SS an entitlement – I’ve been paying for it for 45 years!!!!
They can take my SS WHEN they pay back all that I have put in INCLUDING the compound interest it would have accrued!!!!!!
Vote Jill Stein!!!
That is why you are entitled to it. MSM has made entitlement into a newspeak word. If you are entitled to something that you were given or earned that is a good thing; feeling entitled when you don’t deserve what you are feeling entitled to is a bad thing. Auto worker who worked at GM for 35 years and was entitled to his pension is correct. Job creator who made the decisions that bankrupted GM and destroyed the jobs and pensions should no longer be ENTITLED to the title job creator.
Agreed. Just wish people would call SS what it actually is – forced retirement plan – established so the elderly can almost survive the latter years.
entitlement=because you PAID for it…you are ENTITLED TO IT
your beverage of choice?
You are correct. The federal government is required by law to take any social security surplus and issue the social security administration a treasury bond backed by the full faith and credit of the United States.
In order to pay the social security administration back when the time comes to pay for baby boomers, the US gov’t can either, cut spending enough to generate a surplus, raise taxes, or borrow the money needed from another source.
The US gov’t could default on the bonds it has issued to the social security admin. just as it could default on any other treasury obligation. Such an action makes it much less likely that people around the world will invest in treasuries and those that do will insist on higher interest rates.
Far more likely is some kind of “soft” default, where the amount the government pays back is reduced by any combination of changes in the COLA, increased age for receiving benefits, reducing the amount paid out to upper and almost certainly middle class beneficiaries, and so forth.
Note that there is a progressiveness in social security payouts where amounts people get on the first few dollars earned each year is greater than the amounts on increments as you approach the cap. If you increase the cap you could lower the benefit earned on salary amounts above the cap below what people earn at the cap now.
I’ve said since Barry became the nominee that his sole raison d’etre was destroying Social Security for his Wall Street masters. His best qualification for the job was the color of his skin. His second qualification was affiliation as a Democrat.
LBJ said when he signed the Voting Rights Act that he had lost the south for the Democrats for a generation. He was right. Think of how the Republican party will use the fact that a Democratic president took away retirement for future Americans.
And just visualize how people (and I use the term loosely) like Rove will use the fact that a black guy eviscerated the New Deal for white retirees. The political ADD that is endemic in this country will let people forget it’s been the GOP ever since the New Deal who have worked to keep workers stuck in poverty.
You don’t have to do that. You can just eliminate the cap and double the current benefits paid out, so that the break-even point is moved from $110,000 to $220,000.
And I don’t care about those making more than $220,000 “losing” disproportionately, SS works for them as a backup plan if they go broke (which even they do sometimes).
-stewartm
Bad idea.
Better solution: *Make them live on their current pension, and nothing else, for the rest of their lives*. Make it illegal for them to collect ANY income save their pension and SS.
The problem with government nowadays is that the best way to buy politicians is to guarantee them some cushy high-paying “job” after their government service ends with a guaranteed high income for life for serving well their corporate masters. Stop that gravy train.
-stewartm
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/21/us/life-expectancy-for-less-educated-whites-in-us-is-shrinking.html?pagewanted=all
Since lifespans are decreasing, why the rush to cut Social Security benefits? Pure theft, and Obama and the Republicans know it.
Indeed. All Federal salaries and pensions, from President on down, should be heavily increased. Attract the best and the brightest, with one minor caveat…anybody who then has any financial dealings with a company that was subject to regulation or authority by the Federal government is guilty of treason.
Bill “$80,000,000 in graft and counting” Clinton should get a blindfold, a cigarette and a wall to stand in front of, not a keynote address.
Many people agree we cannot support either Obama or Romney. But the altenative green party has a deep flaw embedded in its program, and that is the low energy green investment plan into solar and wind boondoggles, which serve only to increase the cost of electricity. We need an alternative pro growth pro development program to build great infrastructure projects. We need to rebuild the locks and dams on the Mississippi river and it’s tributaries. We need to build the North American Water and Power Alliance to bring water from Alaska and the Yukon down the Rocky Mountain trench to the great plains of Canada and the US, the inter mountain west, the southwest and Mexico. This project was conceived and designed fifty years ago — see NAWAPA.
Our forefathers had the vision and the will to build the great water and power projects which transformed the real economic productivity of America. As John Kennedy said, when dedicating one of these great western dam projects, we need to build this today for the benefit of our grandchildren. This same imperative is directed to us today.
Unfortunately, the green party fails because it’ is ideologically opposed to great physical development projects. Contrary to the green program, we must increase our ability to manage the distribution of water in north America to manage the impact of drought and support our growing population.
Who will advocate today for renewal of the great water projects, which have made possible the growth and existence today of the western United States?
I’m not sure if I understand. I was saying you can’t just lift the cap, you also have to change the benefits formula, and you are suggesting eliminating the cap and doubling the benefits paid out? While different numbers that sounds like the same thing.
But if we examine what you’ve done, you’ve taken our current problem and doubled it. You can’t pay double benefits to the masses who made $50k average with income from the few who make millions per year average. There just aren’t enough of them.
If the politcal will is there to lift the cap, then the politcal will is there to change the formula. If two-tier pay scales can exist to support the 1%’s greed, then there could be a two-tiered SS payout with the higher incomes get proportionally less.
Whew! this stuff is on his website? O is really rubbing our noses in this shit, isn’t he?
For the best take on O in recent history, and possibly for all time, go to ‘Pay in Blood’, cut #5 on Dylan’s new album, Tempest. It’s great sung but just the words on the page will blow the top of your head right off.