Daniel Webster, GOP House Candidate, Proposes Budget That Would Cut Social Security Benefits

A Republican House candidate in Florida wants senior citizens to share the burden of reducing the national budget deficit through cuts to Social Security benefits.

"My number one priority would be to cut spending, turn off the spigot. We can do that, and the way we would do that is to roll back the budget to 2007," said Daniel Webster during a Tea Party forum for Republican candidates gunning for firebrand Democrat Alan Grayson's job.

"Just three years ago, if we would take that budget and pass it today just as it was, does it roll back some salary increases? Yes," Webster continued. "Does it get rid of TARP and health care and all of the other things, including the stimulus package? Yes, it does that. Does it take back some of the COLAs for the entitlement programs? Yes, it does that, too. But it's only three years ago. If we took that budget and passed it, it would self-balance in two more years."

Webster is a former Florida Senate majority leader and a frontrunner in the Aug. 24 primary.

Cost of Living Adjustments (COLAs) in 2008 and 2009, of 2.3 percent and 5.8 percent, respectively, amounted to roughly $100 per retiree every month.

"For Webster to propose cuts of $100 per person to a program that has served seniors well for so long is an indication that, if he's elected, seniors will be the first ones to suffer," said Tony Fransetta, president of the Florida Alliance for Retired Americans, in a statement.

The Webster campaign did not immediately respond to a request for comment from HuffPost.

The other six Republican candidates gunning for Grayson also said they want to cut federal spending, but none at the forum put forward proposals as explicit as Webster's.

"We cannot be a European-style nation where we have entitlement programs that suck the money out of hardworking citizens' pockets and we enable those who are not working to continue their lifestyle of sitting at home," said Patricia Sullivan, a homemaker in her first bid for elected office, apparently referring to recent reauthorizations of extended unemployment benefits. "We need to look at those welfare-style entitlement programs."

Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wisc.), the House GOP's point man on the budget, introduced legislation that would partially privatize Social Security and would "modernize" the retirement age, but his proposal has won only 13 cosponsors.

UPDATE 8/20/10: Dan Webster sent a statement to the Orlando Sentinel: "I've never stated that Social Security benefits should be cut or reduced for those who are currently receiving benefits or those near retirement age." Webster insisted that he only meant taking back COLAs for federal employees. He added that Social Security isn't solvent: "Many things must be done to save social security if we ever intend to have the program serve younger Americans. At the rate the program is going now, Social Security will not be around for young Americans who are currently paying into the system!"

So, the Sentinel wonders, did he misspeak when he said his budget proposal would "take back some of the COLAs for the entitlement programs"? HuffPost attempted to get clarification from the Webster campaign.

"Every time I have heard him, Mr. Webster has always tied the entitlement programs directly with the salaries for federal employees," a spokeswoman wrote.

Comments

[OLDDOG65]

05:59 AM on 10/13/2010

Now this is an honest Republican Radical. Make those at the bottom of the economic food chain pay. Why not roll back the budget to say, 1999, the last year there was a surplus? Or better yet roll the tax laws back to 1979. Then watch how long it takes to get out of debt.

[SisterAnn]

01:38 PM on 08/24/2010

The reason they want to give the younger generation­s less Social Security and make them work longer is because they want the younger generation­s to resent paying Social Security to the elderly now and they want them to switch to private accounts.

They may plan on taking the 2.6 trillion dollar surplus the government owes the boomers and putting it in to the costs of setting up private accounts. Wall Street doesn't work cheap.

We should start a list of anti Social Security people..
Republican­:
Mitch McConnell
John Boehner
Rep. Paul Ryan

Democrats:

Alice Rivilin She has wanted to cut Social Security for years, even when times were good.

Robin Carnahan, who also thinks we should extend the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy along with
Kentucky Attorney General Jack Conway.

Rep. Brad Ellsworth (D-Ind.), who is running for Sen. Evan Bayh’s seat wants tax cuts for the wealthy too.

[ex-eye-in-the-sky]

06:10 PM on 08/20/2010

Yes...and there was NO COLA for Social Secuity this year, 2010. And probably won't be any in 2011. Since this also applies to VA Disability benefits..­..there's no COLA for us either. The belt's already been tightened. How much more do they want to take away?

[johnprkr15]

12:29 PM on 08/20/2010

“I’ve never stated that Social Security benefits should be cut or reduced for those who are currently receiving benefits or those near retirement age,” Webster says in a written statement. “Social Security is a mandatory program that is not included in the budgetary process. I simply stated that the budget should be rolled back to 2007 levels to help address our national budget crisis. Rolling back the budget to 2007 will eliminate what is left of the bailouts, stimulus packages, salary increases (COLA) for federal employees — which includes congressme­n, and Obama’s health care plan.”- Daniel Webster

http://blo­gs.orlando­sentinel.c­om/news_po­litics/201­0/08/does-­dan-webste­r-want-to-­cut-your-s­ocial-secu­rity.html

[Gin1234]

06:00 PM on 08/17/2010

I don't understand why people who rely on social security, or who will need it in the future, put up with repuclican­s and their constant attempts to destroy it. Not all republican­s are so wealthy they won't or don't need it. In fact from the looks of the teapartier­s, they are just the obvious. Polls about the partiers say that they tend to be wealthy, but they sure don't look like it. Nor do the militia types. They are all backwoods toothless people for the most part who look like they wouldn't have two pennys to rub together. Those are just some of the people who are apparenlty willing to go along with their own scruwing.

[Gin1234]

06:01 PM on 08/17/2010

That would be opposite, not "obvious".

[Reasonable Man Stan]

04:35 PM on 08/17/2010

Repealing Social Security has been a GOP plan since 1936. There have been many mechanisms­, but the overall plan is the same. End the safety net for blue collar America. Let the peasants each cake. The 2%ers only want to line their own pockets and this poor excuse for a politician would double down on those goals.

WEFT.org

[Gin1234]

04:29 PM on 08/17/2010

This seems so evident to me. Instead of bailing out wall street and the fat cats, they should have bailed out Social Security. A multibilli­on dollar investment in the Social Security would secure it for many, many years to come. And you can believe all that money would go back into the economy immediatel­y. People on social security aren't socking it away in investment­s somewhere. It goes directly to grocery stores, pharmaceut­ical companies, landlords, and the general enconomy.

[lff]

05:45 PM on 08/17/2010

Social Security does not need any money! It is more than paying its bills right now and investing the surplus in T-Bills. When the payroll tax no longer covers current obligation­s - a few years down the road - the Trust Fund will still be able to cover all its costs and maintain benefits at current levels until around 2035.

Don't drink the GOP koolaid! All that is necessary is that the payroll tax be extended to incomes over $161,800 and the Social Security Trust Fund would be secure to mid-centur­y and beyond.

lff

[Balloonman]

02:46 PM on 08/17/2010

Florida candidate DANIEL WEBSTER churns my gut, terribly upsetting, and all REPUBLICAN­S like him. People like him who, just like that, will take earned and legislated entitlemen­ts from the retired old and the poor. Like that, phweet, eliminate Medicare and Social Security. "Work you slackers! Invest Wall Street, make your own pensions! Work you slackers! Make enuf and buy you own health insurance!­" Plenty of Republican­s and some Democrats too think like this. "We 'elite'", the unnamed aristocrac­y of sorts, "you keep your nose clean and work for us and we'll take good care of you. Be very charitable­". Yes ma'am. Stand in free soup kitchen lines instead of filling out those annoying unemployme­nt forms. This 'we know best' righteous, superior attitude folks, beyond community concerns for it's people is why people who expect a fair break from our corporate government can't afford to vote for ANY Republican­s, or a rare few, because they caucus and obstruct fair play and justice for regular working folks. Don't you wonder what in the world kind of people are they? They likely are 'good' religious folks, clean themselves properly, raise their kids according to Wall Street is Hoyle, establish healthy trust funds for them. Donate to their houses of worship and good Wars. Of course these guardians of self interest and thieves pick pocketing other people's support network been around since the beginning of society but please, reduce their number, try to stop them from sticking us up 'all' of the time.

[GrumpyGrandpa]

11:48 AM on 08/17/2010

Good luck with all that! Social Security and Medicare are not called the third rail of American politics for nothing. Coming from Florida you would think he would know that, but then the is Repugnican and I have never credited them with a great deal of horse or political sense.

[lff]

05:49 PM on 08/17/2010

Well by using a compliant media to raise everyone's awareness of critical issues like the Ground zero Mosque, Gay Marriage and terrorists threatenin­g everywhere­, the GOP has managed to get people to vote against their own best interests.

Here is hoping Florida gets it right this time!

lff

[MnCatie]

10:57 AM on 08/17/2010

Why don't most people seem to understand that Social Security has absolutely NOTHING to do with the deficit or the federal budget? It is a wholly independen­t program that is self-fundi­ng. That's why it's in trouble . . . the wealthy don't pay enough of their fair share into the fund and fewer kids are being born. Cutting SS will do nothing to help lower the deficit.

[thumbtax]

11:13 AM on 08/17/2010

Not any more its not. Its included in the federal budget. That is primarily why we had a balanced budget in the Clinton years.

[Appleblossom]

03:53 PM on 08/17/2010

Except the very last year anyway.

[lff]

05:58 PM on 08/17/2010

"Not any more its not. Its included in the federal budget. ..."

Not really. Krugman explains it all very well right here, (http://kru­gman.blogs­.nytimes.c­om/2010/08­/13/social­-security-­finances/)

And the Clinton budget was balanced unless you included the intergover­nmental transfers. One of which was the purchase by the SS Trust Fund of T-Bills with funds that were not necessary to pay for current benefits. However, this was not "borrowing­" in the strictest sense of the word since the SS Trust Fund is required to purchase USG securities with excess funds and the USG is required to sell them.

lff

[vinny]

11:45 AM on 08/17/2010

explain how the wealthy don't pay their fair share...

wasn't their fair share establishe­d in the beginning of this bargain?

what's the logic of changing the game rules now?

[MnCatie]

12:50 PM on 08/17/2010

They change the game rules all the time. They advanced the retirement age for certain age groups (including mine) to 66 back in the '80s. Then to 67 a couple of years later. Currently, the wealthy only pay a small percentage of their incomes up to about $105,000 or so. If they paid that percentage on ALL of their income, like everyone else does, that would solve the problem permanentl­y. Even if they raised that $105,000 to say, $205,000 for people making millions a year, that would extend the life of the program for another 150-200 years.

[lff]

06:08 PM on 08/17/2010

Not a question of fair share. No payroll tax (Social Security tax FICA) is collected on earned income over $161,800. So you see the "fairness" goes the other way. The payroll tax is supposed to fund retirement benefits for those that need retirement benefits and is payed by those that need retirement benefits. These people have payed into this system their whole working lives and there is funding to cover the full benefits package until around 2035.

How could it be fair to now use this money to fund things the income tax is supposed to fund? Funding for the defense department should not come from money saved by people for their retirement it should come from taxes paid by all.

lff

[bogtrotter]

10:41 AM on 08/17/2010

Ah those Republican­s, squeezing the middle class and blaming it on the poor, while the rich get richer bleeding the country dry.

[cleffnote]

10:34 AM on 08/17/2010

My suggestion to Democrats. Run on this issue. Advertise what will happen to social security if the Republican­s win the Congress. Post it everywhere­, run commercial­s everywhere­, even on FOX (they do sell air time DNC.)

[johnprkr15]

12:30 PM on 08/20/2010

http://blo­gs.orlando­sentinel.c­om/news_po­litics/201­0/08/does-­dan-webste­r-want-to-­cut-your-s­ocial-secu­rity.html

[1010TRAVIS]

10:33 AM on 08/17/2010

Aren't the libs using the food stamp program to reward their constituen­ts

[medici]

10:49 AM on 08/17/2010

do you mean children?

[MnCatie]

10:53 AM on 08/17/2010

Whaaaaaaaa­at?! FOX News gives a million dollars to the Republican party and you think THAT?
Exactly how do you think people qualify for food stamps? Do you think there's fraud there? It's one of the tightest-r­un programs there is. And what do you think the Bush tax cuts did for people on food stamps? Uh, nothing! They only helped rich GOPers and that's why they're pushing to make them permanent . . . on the backs of those who get food stamps.

[SYR]

10:32 AM on 08/17/2010

Webster is an extreme religious conservati­ve. Trust me, the elderly and the middle class will suffer if he is put in charge of anything. He is made in the likeness of the Bushes. Stick with Grayson.

[lff]

10:03 AM on 08/17/2010

So retirees are supposed to "share the burden of the recession" so that the people earning over $161,800 a year don't have to suffer?

That is good Republican logic for you!

lff