Reich writes: "Hands off Social Security. If the Republicans are willing to raise tax rates on high earners but demand more spending cuts in return, the President should offer larger cuts in defense spending and corporate welfare."
Portrait, Robert Reich, 08/16/09. (photo: Perian Flaherty)
The President's Unnecessary and Unwise Concessions
20 December 12
hy is the President back to making premature and unnecessary concessions to Republicans?
Two central issues in the 2012 presidential election were whether the Bush tax cuts should be ended for people earning over $250,000, and whether Social Security and Medicare should be protected from future budget cuts.
The President said yes to both. Republicans said no. Obama won.
But apparently the President is now offering to continue to Bush tax cuts for people earning between $250,000 and $400,000, and to cut Social Security by reducing annual cost-of-living adjustments.
These concessions aren't necessary. If the nation goes over the so-called "fiscal cliff" and tax rates return to what they were under Bill Clinton, Democrats can then introduce a tax cut for everyone earning under $250,000 and make it retroactive to the start of the year.
They can combine it with a spending bill that makes up for most of the cuts scheduled to go into effect in January. Republicans would be hard-pressed not to sign on.
Social Security should not be part of any such deal anyway. By law, it can't contribute to the budget deficit. It's only permitted to spend money from the Social Security trust fund.
Besides, the President's proposed reduction in annual Social Security cost-of-living adjustments would save only $122 billion over ten years. Yet it would significantly harm the elderly.
It defies logic and fairness to give more tax cuts to the wealthy while cutting benefits for the near-poor.
The median income of Americans over 65 is less than $20,000 a year. Nearly 70 percent of them depend on Social Security for more than half of this. The average Social Security benefit is less than $15,000 a year.
Even Social Security's current cost-of-living adjustment understates the true impact of inflation on elderly recipients, who spend far more on health care than anyone else - including annual increases in Medicare premiums.
Hands off Social Security. If the Republicans are willing to raise tax rates on high earners but demand more spending cuts in return, the President should offer larger cuts in defense spending and corporate welfare.
Robert B. Reich, Chancellor's Professor of Public Policy at the University of California at Berkeley, was Secretary of Labor in the Clinton administration. Time Magazine named him one of the ten most effective cabinet secretaries of the last century. He has written thirteen books, including the best sellers "Aftershock" and "The Work of Nations." His latest is an e-book, "Beyond Outrage." He is also a founding editor of the American Prospect magazine and chairman of Common Cause.
|
THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community. |
 20 May 2013
|
 21 May 2013
|
 21 May 2013
|
 22 May 2013
|
 20 May 2013
|
 22 May 2013
|
 20 May 2013
|
 20 May 2013
|
 21 May 2013
|
Comments
We are concerned about a recent drift towards vitriol in the RSN Reader comments section. There is a fine line between moderation and censorship. No one likes a harsh or confrontational forum atmosphere. At the same time everyone wants to be able to express themselves freely. We'll start by encouraging good judgment. If that doesn't work we'll have to ramp up the moderation.
General guidelines: Avoid personal attacks on other forum members; Avoid remarks that are ethnically derogatory; Do not advocate violence, or any illegal activity.
Remember that making the world better begins with responsible action.
- The RSN Team
And here is another thing! How can Boner repeatedly say that the President isn't serious. President Obama should call him out on that crap BS directly.
There are plenty of ways to make up the difference. Capitals gains, Defense cuts, Corporate welfare, and on and on...
Why does the American leadership hate the majority of American people?
I am not as naive as my post may have read. It was written out of frustration about the very items you listed.
B.O is a good, maybe great, President, but one thing he's not is a negotiator (a poker player he's NOT). There's a reason Boner (sic.) wanted to negotiate directly with him. That's because Obama gives concessions without being asked, much less having to. having to.
B.O. needs to recognize that he's not a good negotiator and delegate that job to others. There is absolutely no reason he needs to lower himself to negotiate directly with the Speaker of the House, particularly when that's something he's not good at. He needs to leave the negotiating to his staff and reserve final judgement on the overall package. Handling these negotiations by himself just makes him look like a weak fool to the Repukes.
You hit the nail on the head as to my frustration. I know he gets it. But, I cannot help but believe that he is so headstrong determined to make a deal, that is usually marginally better than anything the Republicans would do, that he forgets that he can do better. The American public is not stupid. We know he is not telling the entire story as to why the Republicans are full of poop in their heads. He has nothing to lose, by just calling their bluff and holding out for the gold. As long as he uses the bully pulpit and tells it plain and straight.
And, as you say, delegate the negotiations.
1) Because the best interests (graft) of the leadership is in conflict with the best interests of Americans;
2) Because you must objectify people before you abuse them (in this case, turn the American people into cheap labor slaves for global industry);
3) The leadership has a guilty conscience about all the looting of Americans that they have been and are systematically doing;
4) They also have guilty consciences over how the looted money is being spent (no-bid government contracts, war, imperialism, etc.), and
5) The American leadership doesn't work for the American people, they work for the global industrialists (but just lie about who they work for in order to get into office);
6) The American leadership is comprised mostly of sociopaths (with a few exceptions like Bernie Sanders, Alan Grayson, Elizabeth Warren...).
This is why we should all Occupy the Green Party (have you ever even bothered to look at their party platform?) Just think what the next couple of elections would look like with crooks and criminals out and a Green New Deal in! It's long past due to dump the Corporate Party (Rethuglicons and Demorats Incorporated). When is it going to become clear to people that these thugs are NEVER going to do anything positive for us and stop living on wishes and prayers?
is upon us.Our government has wished for control of our Social Security and Medicare funds for a long time. The good fairy must have answered the wish through Obama.
Social Security has been looted from the get-go, by politicians, and now they are trying to make further cuts rather than paying anything back to the programs they have tried to gut.
Stop buying into the right wing's lies about free stuff; we have earned the right to our Social Security while many of the poorest among us have little recourse but to make use of programs protested by the uber-rich.
Free stuff, indeed!
So tell me how increasing the excess wealth of the rich that is sitting idle in some offshore account is going to provide a living wage to the newly hired, factory worker? You know the one that has been forced to work for minimum wage? These rich people are getting paid way more than they are worth to society. And its no wonder, because they control the market. Opportunity to do well is being sucked away by greed, blind greed.
And, by the way, when I called the Speaker, "Boner", I noted that it was sarcastic. It may be rude, but it is not low class.
but tell me what jamie dinon has contributed to the world that he should get a multi million $ bonus while almost destroying the economy.
tell me why the CEO of enron who basically looted his employees retirement DESERVED his fantastic salary.
how can you talk about opportunity when so many are so poor? people don't necessarily fail because they are lazy or because they have no incentive for failure. sometimes they get sick and they live in a country with the worst health insurance system in the world and they go bankrupt! should they be punished further for it?
when you are old and of no more use, shall we put you out on the street?
Indeed! And I might say that if you do not take care of those less capable, then, you have NO country! Why, for example, are teachers, who often get people such as Jobs and Gates to the point that they come up with ideas that are huge life-changers, paid SO little??@#$$%^^&*&
You sound like such a thoughtless person when you refer to those who are struggling as "mediocre, or feeble." How dare you? It's overt Goebbels propaganda: The Big Lie.
N.
Okay, so how would you handle capital gains which often would apply to "those who just wish to do nothing and take from the rest of us".
do you really believe that the Waltons worked hard and earned $80 billion- NO, that was an entitlement, a subsidy
have you ever been to europe where people aren't obese and sick and tense and fighting over ever diminishing resources? where they are educated and cultured and speak their own language and ours better than we do and can discuss art and politics over fine food?
where they realize that they are a nation, a whole- and not a collection of motley very man out for himself antagonists
my god, how can you live with yourself
i run a business. when it does well, everyone gets a raise. when it does poorly, i take the hit. that's the good old fashioned way.
i earn every penny i make. please don't compare me to hedge fund managers who make tax free interest in their sleep
And that money comes from the working stiffs otherwise known as the need-to spend-it-to-liv e economy, not the rich who make up the main hoarder economy. Simply put, the only real money to hire us peasants comes from other peasants spending their money for life's daily needs and small pleasures.
And where is evidence of this great peasant-money source? Wal-Mart of course, they get all their money from us peasants which makes them the richest company in the world (or close to it, I think). The day Wal-Mart puts up Wal-Mart yacht stores to make money from rich folks is the day I will know that the rich are part of the spending economy in the same percentages as us in the peasant economy.
The Republicans - during Bush-Cheney - give tax breaks and taxpayer funds so that companies went to China and India where they could pay Chinese employees 1/5 of American wages -
the economy crashes, 11 million Americans thrown out of work thanks to Republican - send the jobs overseas - agenda -
And now, the Republicans blame the people they made unemployed.
The Rich are useless - they live off of debt payments, they store their cash in offshore accounts hiding their cash from paying taxes due on it.-
2/3s of the economy is driven by people buying things. When people are unemployed - no buying happens.
The way to fire up the economy is to put the "bailout" money into the hands of the people made unemployed - through job creation programs, job training, expanding new technologies which hire more people -
the Republican fraud way to do nothing is to give more tax breaks to the idle rich and pay excessive attention to the criminal bankers who made the mess.
"The U.S. has a lot of credibility. This does not imply their credibility can last forever," IMF fiscal affairs director Carlo Cottarelli said as he released the IMF study. It concluded that the United States is falling behind on a promise it made to other top economic countries to halve its budget deficit by 2013.
"This is a problem many years in the making and will take a concerted effort by Democrats and Republicans working together to find a solution," White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said in answer to a question about the IMF report.
He noted that President Obama called for a freeze on discretionary spending during this week's State of the Union address. IMF officials have welcomed the step but said that spending cuts in pension and health entitlement programs are also needed."
I think the president knew Boehner wouldn't take any deal, but offered social security just to make Boehner look bad.
(Not that The Drunken Orange Boner needs any help looking bad, but...)
I'm also sure The President knows the Senate would never approve ANY SS benefits cut.
It astonishes me that anyone, especially in this comments group, would "thumbs down" this obvious analyis.
I am ready to march, call politicians, email, confront, yell, rant ... how much longer are we all going to sit by and watch the country slide out of our grips and into the hands to those who have stolen most of it already and clearly mean to steal the rest in the name of a phony interpretation of the Constitution, or in the name of BS economics, or in the false name of God.
I have written the President 3 times in the last week alone .... it takes more than just me folks!
Maybe I need new ideas, or to hook up with other people or groups, but this is the coup de gras of the Republicans 40 year plan to turn back and the clock and by God I want to do whatever it takes to help it fail and tio help Americans succeed.
How can "We The People" make enough noise and get enough attention to affect this ...
---We already did. It was called an "election".
I'm with ya bro'!
I'd get my "back to the streets" gear out. I've been writing the President on a couple of other issues for a while but would be happy to add my voice on this too. Batter them at the barricades folks!
This is politicin' at it's worst: shame on those who will NEVER have to struggle for work or have to try and live on S.S. especially as they get older and feel increasingly discarded. In other words, those who know how to play the Beltway game.
If that does not do it, then we need to shout louder until it does.
The majority of working taxpayers in this nation pay Social Security and Medicare taxes on 100% of their income their entire lives to earn the modest benefits of these programs that sustain them when they are no longer able to work. The 2% vigorously resisting paying less than 7 cents per dollar above $250,000.00 pay these taxes on less than 45% of their income, while those receiving $1,000,000.00 pay on barely more than 11%, and those collecting 10,000,000.00 are taxed on only 1.1% of their income for Social Security and Medicare. To address entitlement reform, eliminating the 99%+ tax break received by the wealthiest 1%er's would essentially eliminate the unfunded liabilities in Social Security and reduce the federal deficit and national debt substantially by equitably funding Medicare. (Social Security and Medicare taxes applied to approximately 1/2 of 1% of Mitt Romney's income.)
The SignOn.org petition below might suggest the solution to many of these problems by providing the greatest detriment to the Republican obstructionists talking points: TRUTH!!!
http://signon.org/sign/equitable-and-logical?source=c.url&r_by=1279693
Add your support to the petition if you agree this is the appropriate means to frame the debate and redirect the discussion.
To President Barack Obama, House Representatives , and Senators,
Whereas there is great concern for the sustainability of Social Security and Medicare due to unfunded liabilities, and in consideration of demands for reform to strengthen those programs for future generations, and in consideration of the burden on our budget deficit and national debt due to persistent high unemployment:
Be it proposed that all exemptions of income subject to Social Security and Medicare taxation be immediately eliminated and the $110,100.00 cap on income subject to such taxes be permanently removed, thus equalizing the percentage of income upon which all income brackets are fairly paying to support these programs that benefit all the citizens of our nation.
Furthermore, be it proposed that the Social Security retirement age be returned to 65 years for 2 years in order to simultaneously reduce both the deficit and unemployment through eligibility of more than 2% of the workforce to voluntarily relinquish their jobs to be filled by the unemployed, while massively increasing the economic impact of their Social Security benefits spending from the increased funding resulting from taxing all income brackets equally.
http://signon.org/sign/equitable-and-logical?source=c.url&r_by=1279693
Another simple solution.
With the Boner, probably not.
The line was drawn in the last election but it remains to be seen what side of it the President will take. The middle ground has been revealed as an illusion, simply a form of public appeasement, an offering of as little as possible to shut us up. This is true because Democratic power exists to force unilateral concessions-- unless opponents are willing to openly topple the country. (Then we're talking conspiracy theories.)
If Obama is at heart an oligarch, the more charitable explanation says he is imprisoned in an ivory tower of delusion (the isolation of power) that blinds him to not only the consequences of what he does, but also the viability of alternatives.
Sharsand, I guess you don't pay into Social Security...the more you make the more you pay until a certain very high threshhold. I guess you mean that no matter how much you earn you should pay more, even if you will never get that benefit back. You mean that the ultra high earners should continue to pay for something that nothing will come back so the poor can get more, eh? Those that work hard to earn a high salary should take care of those who don't earn anything, or less by a large margin...is that what you want??? OK, go head to Europe and maybe live in Spain, Portugal, or Greece...PLEASE head on over there.
That 122 Billion over ten years works out to a hundred dollars a year per payroll tax payer. It is insane to "save" a hundred dollars a year while you are working and then have to live on a thousand a year when you are old and not working.
Moreover.. the 122 Billion has NOTHING TO DO WITH THE DEFICIT. Social Security is paid for by the people who will get the benefits.
This "deal" is not only cruel is is stupid beyond belief.
it's two dollars a week.
and because it would be phased in.. the same as the effect of the effect of the CPI cut... it would be more like thirteen CENTS per week each year, while wages would be going up 8 dollars per week each year.
so congratulations folks. your President is so smart he wants to save you thirteen cents per week every year, even if it means you have to eat cat food when you get old.
@brux
"we the people" no longer count. pay attention to what they do. they don't give a damn about we the people. elections are just something like the super bowl. every four years they pretend to care and get us all worked up believing what we think matters. then they go back to what they were going to do anyway... both parties.
His "liberalism" exists only in the minds of wishful-thinkin g Democrats.
Give me a break - I know who he is... I know who Geithner is... Their parents worked together in Indonesia - long time connections. We're screwed either way - but I'd rather have the Dems in the Senate than Romney's crew.
True, Obama is facing a tough challenge from the GOP NOs, But, as pointed out in earler posts, these cuts to beneficial programs aren't necessary. There is that over-bloated military budget, which is "ripe" for significant cuts; it's gone way beyond self-defense.
But the Right, given their political nature, prefers an ass-backwards agenda. All the more to oppose them relentlessly.
RSS feed for comments to this post