You Gotta Wonder — Did Washington Hear What Voters Told Them About Social Security & Medicare on Election Day?
As Congress begins its lame duck session, the deficit-crisis drumbeat is thumping at a rapid pace. Both the Washington Post and USA Today pounded their drums for cuts in both Social Security & Medicare in editorials today. Nothing really new there, as the mainstream media continues to be little more than a communication channel for Washington’s billion dollar anti-“entitlement” industry. Media complicity is critical if these deficit scolds have any hope of persuading the average American that he needs to give up the Social Security and Medicare benefits (they’ve paid for) so that the wealthy can keep their tax cuts or pay even less taxes.
NCPSSM President/CEO, Max Richtman, wrote a rebuttal to the USA Today editorial. In it he said:
The billion dollar national campaign to cut Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid to reduce the deficit is an example of the old political saying: “Never let a good crisis go to waste.” America doesn’t face an entitlement crisis. However, cutting benefits for middle-class and poor Americans remains the go-to solution for fiscal conservatives who see the congressionally created “fiscal cliff” as their golden opportunity to target these vital programs.
The true challenges facing our nation include growing our economy, creating jobs and reducing health care costs systemwide (not just in Medicare and Medicaid). This is where the American people want Washington to focus its attention. They made that clear on Election Day.However, many politicians continue to push for cutting Social Security’s earned benefits by raising the retirement age, reducing the cost of living allowance, or changing the benefit formula. That doesn’t create jobs. It doesn’t grow our economy (just the opposite), and it makes it harder for seniors to afford their Medicare coverage. Social Security is prohibited by law from contributing to the deficit and simply does not belong in this debate. Voters of all ages and political stripes understand this and oppose cutting benefits.
The challenges facing Medicare and Medicaid are different. The health care reform law has proved that Medicare can be reformed without hurting beneficiaries. Thanks to health care reform, seniors have saved billions in prescription drug costs and received extra benefits, and Medicare gained eight years of solvency. Ironically, many of Washington’s most vocal fiscal hawks have voted to repeal these reforms, which would have severely worsened our deficit and Medicare’s fiscal health. To control the cost of federal health programs, we must control spending in the entire health care sector.
Congress and the president should listen to the vast majority of Americans who support reforms such as allowing Medicare to negotiate for lower prescription drug costs, which would save billions, and lifting the Social Security payroll tax cap, which would solve most of Social Security’s long-term problem. Not surprisingly these proposals, which impact large corporations and wealthier Americans rather than the middle class, are seldom mentioned by the deficit-crisis crowd.
So much for “shared sacrifice.”
Max Richtman is president and CEO of the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare.
Today we also released results from new national polling commissioned by NCPSSM with Lake Research Partners which shows the disconnect between middle-class Americans and Washington on how best to put our fiscal house in order has never been larger.
While many in Congress want to cut Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid to reduce the deficit, strong majorities of voters across party lines disagree with that approach.
- 85% of those polled say Social Security and Medicare were important factors in casting their 2012 vote
- By a 3-1 margin, voters overwhelmingly support preserving the traditional Medicare program rather than giving retirees a voucher, even a plurality of Republican voters preferred this approach
- Voters strongly oppose cutting Social Security benefits with 71% opposed to means-testing and 67% opposed to raising the retirement age
- 64% strongly oppose cutting Medicare benefits for future retirees and 59% oppose cutting payments to Medicare providers
While cutting the deficit ranks far below the economy and jobs as a priority for Americans polled, they do support two reforms impacting Social Security and Medicare:
- 64% support raising the Social Security payroll tax cap so that higher income earners contribute on all of their earnings, just as lower wage workers do. That includes 75% of Democrats, 63% of Independents and 54% of Republicans
- 86% of those polled want Medicare to negotiate lower prescription drug prices, saving the program billions of dollars each year.
The National Committee also delivered letters from more than 100,000 members and supporters nationwide urging their representatives to reject middle-class benefit cuts in the name of deficit reduction are also being delivered to Congress this week.
It’s not too late for you to join our letter campaign. Just go online here and we’ll connect you with your members directly via email. You can also send our petition from the same link.
NCPSSM Talks to the White House about Social Security, Medicare & Medicaid
National Committee President/CEO, Max Richtman, attended a White House meeting today with labor and progressive leaders in advance of this week’s lame duck Congressional session and the so-called “fiscal cliff” debate.
He says today’s meeting marks the beginning of an old debate…in a very new and improved political environment. That could be very good news for Americans who voted to preserve vital programs, like Social Security and Medicare, serving millions of average Americans and their families:
“Today’s meeting with President Obama, Vice President Biden and their economic team signals a new beginning in our national debate about America’s economic priorities. I left today’s meeting very encouraged about the Obama administration’s goals for the lame duck Congress and the upcoming debate of the so-called ‘fiscal cliff’. The truth is America does not face an ‘entitlement crisis.’ We should not be cutting Social Security and Medicare benefits to put our fiscal house in order. Instead, Washington should be focusing on the true challenges facing our nation – growing our economy, creating jobs, and reducing healthcare costs system-wide (not just in Medicare).
Social Security has not contributed to this economic mess and should not be used as a bargaining chip in the deficit reduction debate. President Obama agrees and he has the support of the American people to back him up.” …Max Richtman, NCPSSM President/CEO
Will We Honor Our Veterans by Cutting Their Benefits?
compressed.jpg)
How ironic that, as our nation prepares to honor those who’ve served in America’s military on this Veterans Day, some in Washington are proposing benefit cuts targeting millions of military retirees and disabled veterans. A coalition of veterans, seniors, and disability organizations has mobilized in opposition to proposals which would change the annual cost of living adjustment (COLA), cutting benefits to pay down the debt.
– Social Security is the largest program serving veterans and their families. Over 9 million veterans receive Social Security benefits—four out of ten veterans. The chained CPI will be a double benefit cut for veterans who receive both Social Security and VA benefits.
– The Chained CPI cuts benefits and raises taxes, largely on the poor and middle class, totaling $208 billion over ten years. $112 billion in benefits cuts come from Social Security alone with up to $24 billion coming from VA benefits and civilian and military retirement pay cuts.
The National Committee has organized a coalition of more than 50 national organizations to urge Congress to oppose passage of the Chained CPI. Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) joined us on a media conference call to detail the real-life impact this COLA change would have on millions of average Americans, especially retired military.
“This Sunday is Veterans Day – a special day to honor the men and women who have bravely served our country. It is also a time to remember the promises we have made to our nation’s wounded warriors and to keep those promises,” said Sanders. “The chained CPI has been referred to by Republicans and some Democrats in Washington as a ‘minor tweak,’ but let’s be clear: for millions of disabled veterans and seniors living on fixed incomes, the chained CPI is a significant benefit cut that will make it harder for permanently disabled veterans and the elderly to make ends meet,” Sanders continued.
“A chained CPI has a very insidious effect on retired pay by reducing cost-of-living adjustments by about one-quarter of a percentage point each year. Although that doesn’t sound like much, the compounding effect over a retiree’s lifetime is significant, especially for military and disabled retirees because they start drawing inflation-adjusted pay at relatively younger ages.”… Herb Rosenbleeth, National Executive Director, Jewish War Veterans of the USA
“A Chained CPI would cut important benefits to disabled veterans, military retirees, their families and their survivors from the World Wars to the current conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. As a nation, we share a solemn obligation to help those who honorably served and their families keep pace with inflation, not to erode their quality of life.” Rick Jones, Legislative Director, National Association for Uniformed Services
More than 50 national organizations representing veterans, military retirees, retired federal workers, seniors, and people with disabilities have also signed a letter to members of Congress urging them to oppose cutting benefits through passage of the chained CPI. In addition to cutting veterans benefits, the chained CPI would mean a benefit cut of $130 per years for the typical 65-year old retirees growing exponentially to a $1,400 cut after 30 years of retirement.
“Targeting the oldest of America’s retirees, including our veterans, for benefit cuts they simply can not afford is neither honorable nor responsible. The chained CPI is a backdoor benefit cut and tax increase which politicians hope to pass off on average Americans to pay for tax cuts the wealthy don’t need. Congress needs to recognize the long term, negative impact this decision carries with it. We’re talking about placing more financial stress on people who have served their country, their communities and their families. Are they really who Congress should be aiming for?”…Max Richtman, NCPSSM President/CEO
“The chained CPI would especially hurt people with disabilities, who often rely on Social Security or Supplemental Security Income to survive and may need benefits for many years. Cuts from the chained CPI will add up over the years at an alarming rate and make it increasingly hard for people with disabilities to live in the community and pay for essentials like housing, utilities, clothing, and food.” … Marty Ford, Policy Director, The Arc of the United States
“The chained-CPI proposal amounts to a tax increase for America’s seniors, who are living on fixed incomes. After our nation’s retired federal employees served their country for decades – including many who also served in the military – it is wrong to shortchange them with lowballed cost-of-living adjustments.” …Joseph A. Beaudoin, President, NARFE
A copy of the joint letter to Congress is posted on the National Committee’s website.
Americans are Tired of Social Security & Medicare Being Used as Debt Debate Bargaining Chips
President Obama addressed the nation for the first time since election night and there was a lot there for America’s seniors and their families to like. The Daily Beast put it this way:
“Obama just finished his remarks on the fiscal cliff, and he was direct and no-nonsense. Yes, I want to work with the other side, blah blah. But let’s pass the middle-class tax cuts now. The Senate has passed a bill already protecting incomes under $250,000 from higher rates. The House just needs to do the same. I have a pen, and I’m ready to sign it [brandishes pen, even!]. The 2009 Obama would not have been that direct and confident. Not even the 2011 Obama. This is new. He’s saying, “I am the president, I won. Deal with it, and deal with me.” Too often in his first term, he let the Republicans set the basic terms of debate. Not this time. He just set them.”
Our favorite line was:
“I’m not gonna ask students and seniors and middle class families to pay down the entire deficit, while people like me making over $250,000 aren’t asked to pay a dime more in taxes.”
We couldn’t agree more. But we’d go even further…let’s get rid of “entire” used by the President here as a qualifier.
“President Obama laid out an economic action plan that mirrors what the American people said loud and clear on Election Day. Americans are simply not willing to cut middle class benefits so that millionaires can keep their record low tax rates. The majority of Americans believe we should not cut Social Security and Medicare benefits to pay down the debt and that the wealthy should finally pay their share. In fact, the vast majority of voters polled report these issues influenced their vote on Tuesday.
America’s seniors, many of whom are living on an average Social Security income of $14,000 a year, are tired of being told they must continue to sacrifice to pay for tax cuts millionaires don’t need and our nation can’t afford. They know Social Security does not even belong in a debt debate because, by law, Social Security can not contribute to the debt. We’ve already seen effective reforms which save billions in the Medicare program while also improving benefits for seniors and adding years to the program’s solvency.
America’s seniors want fiscal sanity returned to Washington but they don’t believe we have to cut the nation’s most successful health and economic security programs to get there. President Obama is right, we should not ask students and seniors to pay down our deficit while the wealthy get another pass. The National Committee looks forward to the President’s outreach efforts here in Washington and nationwide to ensure that the voters’ clear message is heeded and benefits touching the lives of virtually every American family aren’t sacrificed in the name of deficit reduction.” Max Richtman, NCPSSM President/CEO
Boehner Says Nothing’s Changed – Must Cut Social Security & Medicare to Protect Millionaire’s Tax Cuts
We watched House Speaker John Boehner’s news conference yesterday hoping to see signs that the voters’ clear message about their expectations for our nation’s fiscal future has finally been heard by GOP members of the House. Unfortunately, it’s clear nothing has changed. In fact, the Speaker has doubled-down on Republican demands that middle-class benefits in Social Security and Medicare must be cut to pay for tax reforms that will largely benefit the wealthy.
Firedog Lake has this terrific recap:
Boehner Opens Grand Bargain Negotiations By Proposing the Romney Plan
I touched on this yesterday, but let’s take a closer look at John Boehner’s opening offer on revenue, designed to avoid the fiscal slope (it’s not a cliff). I think it will become familiar to you if you look at the exact language.
For the purposes of forging a bipartisan agreement that begins to solve the problem, we’re willing to accept new revenue under the right conditions. What matters is where the increase revenue comes from and what type of reform comes with it. Does the increased revenue come from government taking a larger share of what the American people earn through higher taxe rates? Or does it come as a byproduct of growing our economy, energized by a simpler, cleaner, fairer tax code, with fewer loopholes and lower rates for all? And at the same time we’re reforming the tax code, are we supporting growth by taking concrete steps to put our country’s entitlement programs on a sounder financial footing or are we just going to continue to duck the matter of entitlements, thus the root of the problem?
So Boehner is calling for an across the board rate cut, paid for by (and actually with a revenue gain from) closing loopholes and deductions. All the while, he wants to “reform” entitlements to reduce the cost to government.
Now where have I heard that before? Oh yeah, it’s the Mitt Romney platform. The one defeated at the polls. Boehner’s opening bid is just the Romney tax plan, made even more ludicrous by the notion that you can increase revenue with it. Romney was widely mocked during the election for trying to make a large rate cut revenue-neutral; here Boehner wants to add to the fantasy world. He also alludes to the idea that lowering tax rates will increase economic growth and therefore tax receipts.
This is precisely the claim that was debunked by the Congressional Research Service study of 65 years of tax rates, which Republicans found so dissonant and offensive, they got the study torpedoed.Boehner’s lower-the-rates, broaden-the-base gambit has already been rejected by the likes of Chuck Schumer. He’s already blown up the tax reform con. And he got backed up by the Democratic leadership in the Senate. So if it comes back, we know exactly where it came from – the White House.
And this from Think Progress:
Like Romney, Boehner cited the Reagan 1986 tax reform — which included lowering rates and closing loopholes — as proof that his vision of boosting growth (and thus raising revenue) through tax reform is possible. But as Reagan administration economist Bruce Bartlett has noted, the 1986 reform didn’t actually result economic growth: “Real gross domestic product growth was about the same after the 1986 act took effect in 1987 as it was before…By the mid-1990s, it was the consensus view of economists that the Tax Reform Act of 1986 had little, if any, impact on growth.” Other studies came to the same conclusion.
It is theoretically possible to close enough loopholes and deductions to raise revenue in a tax reform package. But Boehner’s insistence that tax reform will cause growth that raises significant revenue is a conservative fantasy. This is the same game Republicans, including Boehner, have played since Obama came into office: promising that they’re open to revenue, so long as taxes never go up.
So that vote you cast on Tuesday? It appears Washington may just be pretending it didn’t happen.
You Gotta Wonder — Did Washington Hear What Voters Told Them About Social Security & Medicare on Election Day?
As Congress begins its lame duck session, the deficit-crisis drumbeat is thumping at a rapid pace. Both the Washington Post and USA Today pounded their drums for cuts in both Social Security & Medicare in editorials today. Nothing really new there, as the mainstream media continues to be little more than a communication channel for Washington’s billion dollar anti-“entitlement” industry. Media complicity is critical if these deficit scolds have any hope of persuading the average American that he needs to give up the Social Security and Medicare benefits (they’ve paid for) so that the wealthy can keep their tax cuts or pay even less taxes.
NCPSSM President/CEO, Max Richtman, wrote a rebuttal to the USA Today editorial. In it he said:
The billion dollar national campaign to cut Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid to reduce the deficit is an example of the old political saying: “Never let a good crisis go to waste.” America doesn’t face an entitlement crisis. However, cutting benefits for middle-class and poor Americans remains the go-to solution for fiscal conservatives who see the congressionally created “fiscal cliff” as their golden opportunity to target these vital programs.
The true challenges facing our nation include growing our economy, creating jobs and reducing health care costs systemwide (not just in Medicare and Medicaid). This is where the American people want Washington to focus its attention. They made that clear on Election Day.However, many politicians continue to push for cutting Social Security’s earned benefits by raising the retirement age, reducing the cost of living allowance, or changing the benefit formula. That doesn’t create jobs. It doesn’t grow our economy (just the opposite), and it makes it harder for seniors to afford their Medicare coverage. Social Security is prohibited by law from contributing to the deficit and simply does not belong in this debate. Voters of all ages and political stripes understand this and oppose cutting benefits.
The challenges facing Medicare and Medicaid are different. The health care reform law has proved that Medicare can be reformed without hurting beneficiaries. Thanks to health care reform, seniors have saved billions in prescription drug costs and received extra benefits, and Medicare gained eight years of solvency. Ironically, many of Washington’s most vocal fiscal hawks have voted to repeal these reforms, which would have severely worsened our deficit and Medicare’s fiscal health. To control the cost of federal health programs, we must control spending in the entire health care sector.
Congress and the president should listen to the vast majority of Americans who support reforms such as allowing Medicare to negotiate for lower prescription drug costs, which would save billions, and lifting the Social Security payroll tax cap, which would solve most of Social Security’s long-term problem. Not surprisingly these proposals, which impact large corporations and wealthier Americans rather than the middle class, are seldom mentioned by the deficit-crisis crowd.
So much for “shared sacrifice.”
Max Richtman is president and CEO of the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare.
Today we also released results from new national polling commissioned by NCPSSM with Lake Research Partners which shows the disconnect between middle-class Americans and Washington on how best to put our fiscal house in order has never been larger.
While many in Congress want to cut Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid to reduce the deficit, strong majorities of voters across party lines disagree with that approach.
- 85% of those polled say Social Security and Medicare were important factors in casting their 2012 vote
- By a 3-1 margin, voters overwhelmingly support preserving the traditional Medicare program rather than giving retirees a voucher, even a plurality of Republican voters preferred this approach
- Voters strongly oppose cutting Social Security benefits with 71% opposed to means-testing and 67% opposed to raising the retirement age
- 64% strongly oppose cutting Medicare benefits for future retirees and 59% oppose cutting payments to Medicare providers
While cutting the deficit ranks far below the economy and jobs as a priority for Americans polled, they do support two reforms impacting Social Security and Medicare:
- 64% support raising the Social Security payroll tax cap so that higher income earners contribute on all of their earnings, just as lower wage workers do. That includes 75% of Democrats, 63% of Independents and 54% of Republicans
- 86% of those polled want Medicare to negotiate lower prescription drug prices, saving the program billions of dollars each year.
The National Committee also delivered letters from more than 100,000 members and supporters nationwide urging their representatives to reject middle-class benefit cuts in the name of deficit reduction are also being delivered to Congress this week.
It’s not too late for you to join our letter campaign. Just go online here and we’ll connect you with your members directly via email. You can also send our petition from the same link.
NCPSSM Talks to the White House about Social Security, Medicare & Medicaid
National Committee President/CEO, Max Richtman, attended a White House meeting today with labor and progressive leaders in advance of this week’s lame duck Congressional session and the so-called “fiscal cliff” debate.
He says today’s meeting marks the beginning of an old debate…in a very new and improved political environment. That could be very good news for Americans who voted to preserve vital programs, like Social Security and Medicare, serving millions of average Americans and their families:
“Today’s meeting with President Obama, Vice President Biden and their economic team signals a new beginning in our national debate about America’s economic priorities. I left today’s meeting very encouraged about the Obama administration’s goals for the lame duck Congress and the upcoming debate of the so-called ‘fiscal cliff’. The truth is America does not face an ‘entitlement crisis.’ We should not be cutting Social Security and Medicare benefits to put our fiscal house in order. Instead, Washington should be focusing on the true challenges facing our nation – growing our economy, creating jobs, and reducing healthcare costs system-wide (not just in Medicare).
Social Security has not contributed to this economic mess and should not be used as a bargaining chip in the deficit reduction debate. President Obama agrees and he has the support of the American people to back him up.” …Max Richtman, NCPSSM President/CEO
Will We Honor Our Veterans by Cutting Their Benefits?
How ironic that, as our nation prepares to honor those who’ve served in America’s military on this Veterans Day, some in Washington are proposing benefit cuts targeting millions of military retirees and disabled veterans. A coalition of veterans, seniors, and disability organizations has mobilized in opposition to proposals which would change the annual cost of living adjustment (COLA), cutting benefits to pay down the debt.
– Social Security is the largest program serving veterans and their families. Over 9 million veterans receive Social Security benefits—four out of ten veterans. The chained CPI will be a double benefit cut for veterans who receive both Social Security and VA benefits.
– The Chained CPI cuts benefits and raises taxes, largely on the poor and middle class, totaling $208 billion over ten years. $112 billion in benefits cuts come from Social Security alone with up to $24 billion coming from VA benefits and civilian and military retirement pay cuts.
The National Committee has organized a coalition of more than 50 national organizations to urge Congress to oppose passage of the Chained CPI. Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) joined us on a media conference call to detail the real-life impact this COLA change would have on millions of average Americans, especially retired military.
“This Sunday is Veterans Day – a special day to honor the men and women who have bravely served our country. It is also a time to remember the promises we have made to our nation’s wounded warriors and to keep those promises,” said Sanders. “The chained CPI has been referred to by Republicans and some Democrats in Washington as a ‘minor tweak,’ but let’s be clear: for millions of disabled veterans and seniors living on fixed incomes, the chained CPI is a significant benefit cut that will make it harder for permanently disabled veterans and the elderly to make ends meet,” Sanders continued.
“A chained CPI has a very insidious effect on retired pay by reducing cost-of-living adjustments by about one-quarter of a percentage point each year. Although that doesn’t sound like much, the compounding effect over a retiree’s lifetime is significant, especially for military and disabled retirees because they start drawing inflation-adjusted pay at relatively younger ages.”… Herb Rosenbleeth, National Executive Director, Jewish War Veterans of the USA
“A Chained CPI would cut important benefits to disabled veterans, military retirees, their families and their survivors from the World Wars to the current conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. As a nation, we share a solemn obligation to help those who honorably served and their families keep pace with inflation, not to erode their quality of life.” Rick Jones, Legislative Director, National Association for Uniformed Services
More than 50 national organizations representing veterans, military retirees, retired federal workers, seniors, and people with disabilities have also signed a letter to members of Congress urging them to oppose cutting benefits through passage of the chained CPI. In addition to cutting veterans benefits, the chained CPI would mean a benefit cut of $130 per years for the typical 65-year old retirees growing exponentially to a $1,400 cut after 30 years of retirement.
“Targeting the oldest of America’s retirees, including our veterans, for benefit cuts they simply can not afford is neither honorable nor responsible. The chained CPI is a backdoor benefit cut and tax increase which politicians hope to pass off on average Americans to pay for tax cuts the wealthy don’t need. Congress needs to recognize the long term, negative impact this decision carries with it. We’re talking about placing more financial stress on people who have served their country, their communities and their families. Are they really who Congress should be aiming for?”…Max Richtman, NCPSSM President/CEO
“The chained CPI would especially hurt people with disabilities, who often rely on Social Security or Supplemental Security Income to survive and may need benefits for many years. Cuts from the chained CPI will add up over the years at an alarming rate and make it increasingly hard for people with disabilities to live in the community and pay for essentials like housing, utilities, clothing, and food.” … Marty Ford, Policy Director, The Arc of the United States
“The chained-CPI proposal amounts to a tax increase for America’s seniors, who are living on fixed incomes. After our nation’s retired federal employees served their country for decades – including many who also served in the military – it is wrong to shortchange them with lowballed cost-of-living adjustments.” …Joseph A. Beaudoin, President, NARFE
A copy of the joint letter to Congress is posted on the National Committee’s website.
Americans are Tired of Social Security & Medicare Being Used as Debt Debate Bargaining Chips
President Obama addressed the nation for the first time since election night and there was a lot there for America’s seniors and their families to like. The Daily Beast put it this way:
“Obama just finished his remarks on the fiscal cliff, and he was direct and no-nonsense. Yes, I want to work with the other side, blah blah. But let’s pass the middle-class tax cuts now. The Senate has passed a bill already protecting incomes under $250,000 from higher rates. The House just needs to do the same. I have a pen, and I’m ready to sign it [brandishes pen, even!]. The 2009 Obama would not have been that direct and confident. Not even the 2011 Obama. This is new. He’s saying, “I am the president, I won. Deal with it, and deal with me.” Too often in his first term, he let the Republicans set the basic terms of debate. Not this time. He just set them.”
Our favorite line was:
“I’m not gonna ask students and seniors and middle class families to pay down the entire deficit, while people like me making over $250,000 aren’t asked to pay a dime more in taxes.”
We couldn’t agree more. But we’d go even further…let’s get rid of “entire” used by the President here as a qualifier.
“President Obama laid out an economic action plan that mirrors what the American people said loud and clear on Election Day. Americans are simply not willing to cut middle class benefits so that millionaires can keep their record low tax rates. The majority of Americans believe we should not cut Social Security and Medicare benefits to pay down the debt and that the wealthy should finally pay their share. In fact, the vast majority of voters polled report these issues influenced their vote on Tuesday.
America’s seniors, many of whom are living on an average Social Security income of $14,000 a year, are tired of being told they must continue to sacrifice to pay for tax cuts millionaires don’t need and our nation can’t afford. They know Social Security does not even belong in a debt debate because, by law, Social Security can not contribute to the debt. We’ve already seen effective reforms which save billions in the Medicare program while also improving benefits for seniors and adding years to the program’s solvency.
America’s seniors want fiscal sanity returned to Washington but they don’t believe we have to cut the nation’s most successful health and economic security programs to get there. President Obama is right, we should not ask students and seniors to pay down our deficit while the wealthy get another pass. The National Committee looks forward to the President’s outreach efforts here in Washington and nationwide to ensure that the voters’ clear message is heeded and benefits touching the lives of virtually every American family aren’t sacrificed in the name of deficit reduction.” Max Richtman, NCPSSM President/CEO
Boehner Says Nothing’s Changed – Must Cut Social Security & Medicare to Protect Millionaire’s Tax Cuts
We watched House Speaker John Boehner’s news conference yesterday hoping to see signs that the voters’ clear message about their expectations for our nation’s fiscal future has finally been heard by GOP members of the House. Unfortunately, it’s clear nothing has changed. In fact, the Speaker has doubled-down on Republican demands that middle-class benefits in Social Security and Medicare must be cut to pay for tax reforms that will largely benefit the wealthy.
Firedog Lake has this terrific recap:
Boehner Opens Grand Bargain Negotiations By Proposing the Romney Plan
I touched on this yesterday, but let’s take a closer look at John Boehner’s opening offer on revenue, designed to avoid the fiscal slope (it’s not a cliff). I think it will become familiar to you if you look at the exact language.
For the purposes of forging a bipartisan agreement that begins to solve the problem, we’re willing to accept new revenue under the right conditions. What matters is where the increase revenue comes from and what type of reform comes with it. Does the increased revenue come from government taking a larger share of what the American people earn through higher taxe rates? Or does it come as a byproduct of growing our economy, energized by a simpler, cleaner, fairer tax code, with fewer loopholes and lower rates for all? And at the same time we’re reforming the tax code, are we supporting growth by taking concrete steps to put our country’s entitlement programs on a sounder financial footing or are we just going to continue to duck the matter of entitlements, thus the root of the problem?
So Boehner is calling for an across the board rate cut, paid for by (and actually with a revenue gain from) closing loopholes and deductions. All the while, he wants to “reform” entitlements to reduce the cost to government.
Now where have I heard that before? Oh yeah, it’s the Mitt Romney platform. The one defeated at the polls. Boehner’s opening bid is just the Romney tax plan, made even more ludicrous by the notion that you can increase revenue with it. Romney was widely mocked during the election for trying to make a large rate cut revenue-neutral; here Boehner wants to add to the fantasy world. He also alludes to the idea that lowering tax rates will increase economic growth and therefore tax receipts.
This is precisely the claim that was debunked by the Congressional Research Service study of 65 years of tax rates, which Republicans found so dissonant and offensive, they got the study torpedoed.Boehner’s lower-the-rates, broaden-the-base gambit has already been rejected by the likes of Chuck Schumer. He’s already blown up the tax reform con. And he got backed up by the Democratic leadership in the Senate. So if it comes back, we know exactly where it came from – the White House.
And this from Think Progress:
Like Romney, Boehner cited the Reagan 1986 tax reform — which included lowering rates and closing loopholes — as proof that his vision of boosting growth (and thus raising revenue) through tax reform is possible. But as Reagan administration economist Bruce Bartlett has noted, the 1986 reform didn’t actually result economic growth: “Real gross domestic product growth was about the same after the 1986 act took effect in 1987 as it was before…By the mid-1990s, it was the consensus view of economists that the Tax Reform Act of 1986 had little, if any, impact on growth.” Other studies came to the same conclusion.
It is theoretically possible to close enough loopholes and deductions to raise revenue in a tax reform package. But Boehner’s insistence that tax reform will cause growth that raises significant revenue is a conservative fantasy. This is the same game Republicans, including Boehner, have played since Obama came into office: promising that they’re open to revenue, so long as taxes never go up.
So that vote you cast on Tuesday? It appears Washington may just be pretending it didn’t happen.