More

Plouffe: Obama Won't "Slash" Or "Reduce" Social Security Benefits

Obama Social Security

First Posted: 02/14/11 10:35 PM ET Updated: 05/25/11 07:30 PM ET

WASHINGTON -- Perhaps the one element of President Obama's budget proposal that pleased progressives the most was the one that didn't actually make it into the final language.

Unveiled on Monday, the budget offered no major changes to Social Security, such as those put forth by the president's deficit commission. In fact, the six principles for alterations in the document's language included no benefit cuts of any kind.

Asked about the absence of those specific entitlement reforms during a conference call Monday evening, White House senior adviser David Plouffe appeared to even further confirm Obama's opposition to drastic alterations.

"[A]s the President said in his State of the Union, he views Social Security primarily as an issue about shoring it up for the long term as opposed to a deficit issue," Plouffe said. "And we talked a lot about this as far back as the campaign, but are very clear that if there are proposals out there that are acceptable, that don't reduce benefits, don't slash benefits, that don't affect current retirees, the President is open to proposals that would shore the system up in the long term."

Plouffe's inclusion of the word "reduce" alongside the pledge not to "slash" may have been an innocent rhetorical addition to a common administration talking point -- one used several weeks ago during the State of the Union address. But for advocates working to make current benefits sacrosanct and fretting that the White House had left the door open to either cost of living adjustments or other benefit "tweaks," it was noteworthy.

"Until now, Sen. Harry Reid was the top Democratic leader on the record saying that cuts to Social Security benefits were off the table in any form -- big or small, slash or tweak," said Adam Green, co-founder of the Progressive Change Campaign Committee. "If Mr. Plouffe's words are true -- that the White House opposes all reductions in benefits for current beneficiaries and future ones alike -- it's huge news. Such a position is overwhelmingly popular with Democratic, Independent, and Republican voters alike, and is the kind of boldness Democrats will need to show to win big in 2012."

Even before the rare PCCC applause for an Obama administration motive, other progressive groups expressed encouragement over how the president approached Social Security in his budget. The Strengthen Social Security Campaign, a coalition of predominantly Democratic-oriented groups, put out a statement Monday night applauding the president both for "refraining from proposing" cuts and proposing an increase in Social Security Administration expenditures, which could be used to help with the backlog in disability determinations.

"Our coalition... is pleased that the President has made and kept a promise to not cut Social Security benefits or raise the retirement age in his 2012 budget, ," said Eric Kingson, co-chair of the Strengthen Social Security Campaign. "We applaud his efforts to seek solutions for our struggling economy while keeping our nation's most successful and popular program intact."

FOLLOW HUFFPOST POLITICS
Subscribe to the HuffPost Hill newsletter!
WASHINGTON -- Perhaps the one element of President Obama's budget proposal that pleased progressives the most was the one that didn't actually make it into the final language. Unveiled on Monday, th...
WASHINGTON -- Perhaps the one element of President Obama's budget proposal that pleased progressives the most was the one that didn't actually make it into the final language. Unveiled on Monday, th...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 2,776
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Highlights
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (39 total)
  1 of 12  
COMMUNITY PUNDITS
photo
LaurieAnn 10:58 AM on 02/15/2011
I am especially concerned for those who are receiving Supplemental Social Security Insurance and MediCare because they are physically, mentally or developmentally disabled and cannot find employment.  My son is 13, has autism, and may fall in that category some day though we are working hard to try to have him develop skills and abilities that promote employment and independent living.  Should  Read More...
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Hank26
12:24 AM on 02/17/2011
The government needs to stop Social Security. Give U.S. citizens a five year 'heads up' that it's ending. Give ALL the money back to the individuals that had their money taken from them and tell everyone that they need to plan ahead....put away their own money for retirement. It's to cut the government umbilical chord.
04:23 PM on 02/17/2011
The majority of people disagree with you.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
worker beenumbed
08:06 PM on 02/16/2011
The top 2% should still get their checks from SS,so their benefits will not be cut.The DEMs need to eliminate the tax exemption on this benefit.Let them pay income taxes on the entire benefit.
06:10 PM on 02/16/2011
Mr. Green of the Progressive Change Campaign Committee said:
[A stance that resists any reduction of benefits in social security is] overwhelmingly popular with Democratic, Independent, and Republican voters alike, and is the kind of boldness Democrats will need to show to win big in 2012."

Thus, the definition of boldness in politics is, to do the thing that all the voters agree with…go figure.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Liberal2009
Jesus was a Liberal.
02:40 PM on 02/16/2011
So Obama finally stands for something, instead of trying to please everyone.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
06:45 PM on 02/16/2011
He only stands for it because it is a political freebie.
photo
Horus45
Liberal Activist, anti-Fascist
01:51 PM on 02/16/2011
Republicans are trying to demonize the word Entitlements like they have done so with the word Liberal.
They are called entitlements because since you pay into the system your entire life, you are therefore Entitled to receive benefits.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
gypsysailor
Things that might have been never were.
05:01 PM on 02/16/2011
Everytime I step in a pile of doggie-do I stop to scrape the republican off of my shoe.
01:36 PM on 02/16/2011
Some of you really need to learn how Social Security works:
http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3299

"Few budgetary concepts generate as much unintended confusion and deliberate misinformation as the Social Security trust funds. Political candidates of both parties have accused their opponents of 'raiding' the trust funds. Some writers disparage the trust funds as 'funny money' or 'IOUs.' All these claims are nonsense. In fact, the Social Security trust funds are invested in Treasury securities that are every bit as sound as the U.S. government securities held by investors around the globe; investors regard those securities as being among the world’s very safest investments. This brief paper provides some basic information about the Social Security trust funds."
This comment has been removed due to violations of our [Guidelines]
BlueDog1
"Taking the High Road"
01:15 PM on 02/16/2011
You don't have the Cojones for that one
11:25 AM on 02/16/2011
The President said yesterday, "The truth is Social Security is not the huge contributor to the deficit that the other two entitlements are." Well the REAL TRUTH is that Social Security is not a contributor to the deficit AT ALL. It contains a 5.2 Trillion Dollar SURPLUS. And though I pay SS taxes on 100% of my income, Rush Limbaugh pays approximately 3/10 of 1% on his income. (280 mil income, taxed to $106,800 cap) and that is just simply an INJUSTICE. And the Constitution mandates right there in the preamble, ..."establish justice... promote the general welfare..." So Mr. President, please stop urinating on my leg and telling me it's raining.
photo
Horus45
Liberal Activist, anti-Fascist
01:53 PM on 02/16/2011
What is also a problem is once Rush turns 65 he will be sucking on that government teet as well, even though he does not need the money.
09:22 AM on 02/16/2011
Obama has signaled just the opposite. He just said that all the phony budget commission recommendations were on the table. This means raising the retirement age or worse. SS is solvent for 36 years! Even if we do nothing at that point it pays 78% of benefits going forward. Having a Democrat cut any SS benefits is abominable. Obama isn't a secret Muslim, he is a secret Republican. He's compromised on EVERYTHING and gotten NOTHING from the Republican Thugs. With regards to Obama, I'm officially out.
08:41 AM on 02/16/2011
Obama will cut SS, especially if he wants to lose in 2012!
08:13 AM on 02/16/2011
With the SS system continual attack to cut, slash, or do away with, it shows the Republican mob is nothing more than another group with the pyramid scheme gone bust. We put funds into the system with the promise of payments from. It is totally solvent until 2037 to pay 100% out to recipients. The problem is they stole from the funds for other things, which is the same thing Bernie Madoff did. Used funds from others for hims own things. They've run a scam on us, and are trying to blow it off as our fault as it's underfunded. Someone should demand an audit and explaination why its being attacked now. Its not part of the deficit, and with very little done still could be solvent without raising ages, decreasing payouts, but they want more. Payable yearly limits should be raised a lot, and minimum years in this country should be raised, and fraud should be sought out more than it is. But they better keep their fingers off my SS that I paid for.
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
lqw
Justmyopinion
10:13 AM on 02/16/2011
This is the Obama administration talking about cutting SS.
10:48 AM on 02/16/2011
You will much more than you ever paid into. I feel they should do means testing as you will get yours, but that doesn't mean they won't use the money to pay down the debt. I would rather take less money from social security and make Medicare more viable for seniors. Not everyone needs a measley social security check monthly. By the time you pay taxes on it...not worth it.
leonel
MA, Pol.Sci.; MA, Ed.; JD. Veteran.
05:03 AM on 02/16/2011
SS is supposed to have 2 trillion or so but it was spent on other stuff. On top of that the feds are collecting, according to reports, less than they are paying out. The details should be tied down, but the point is that the money is gone. Of the 2 trillion or so in IOUs, it will eventually also be gone at the rate of collections.

What the public needs to know is that the problem is the basic attitude of Americans wanting more than they pay for. So what Republicans and Democrats are posturing about is how to tell them without taking the blame.

The more one thinks about it clearly, it has to come out of the military budget and out of taxing people who have the means, i.e., corporations and the rich. Could also use federal sales tax and so on. But the basic problem is just conceptual: the public doesn't want to pay.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Ed Haskell
Sometimes too much drink is barely enough...
01:57 AM on 02/16/2011
What is it about ""..that don't affect current retirees.." that so many just don't seem to get?

Get ready for it folks. The Pres, following his usual form, is signalling what he's willing to concede before the republicans even come to the table - again. And in this case, it means if you're 50 now, better plan on working till you're 70 before getting SS, because that's what he's giving up. And maybe even more - after all, how big does a cut have to be before it becomes the "slash" that he won't accept...

It's so true to form. His last big pre-emptive concession - extending tax breaks for the wealthy - just handed the republicans a bigger club for them to use to force him to make even bigger cuts. Yes, he did get something back - DADT, START, a few other things - all of which had enough political momentum that he would have gotten them anyway.

And on the budget, he's already cutting heating subsidies for the poor, again, before the party of "no" has even come to the table.

It makes me cray-zee...
photo
SmolderingRuin
"All governments lie!" I.F. Stone
03:07 AM on 02/16/2011
Mee too. Fanned.
This comment has been removed due to violations of our [Guidelines]
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
PrometheanSalvation
Bringing fire to cleanse the land.
12:00 AM on 02/16/2011
Hey, 'Baggers, go Gault. Go on, puddup or shuddup, get going. Exit the 'Ponzi scheme', cut your loses and pull up stakes. Go break into one of those 'new emerging markets' and stake your claim. Come on, you rugged individualists, I dare you.
llyd wlsh
bio hazard
01:36 AM on 02/16/2011
it's been centuries since i read atlas shrugged but i think it was Galt, i could be wrong
Helloise
Healthy skeptic admires reason, trusts intuition
09:56 AM on 02/16/2011
I haven't touched the romance novel for decades myself, but I think you could be right. btw, the movie will be coming out soon, so we can expect a lot of adolescent slobbering from the social darwinists amongst us, who expect to be rescued from modernity by a strapping, Aryan corporate warrior.