iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Progressives Won't Criticize Obama For Proposed Social Security Cuts [UPDATED]

Grijalva

First Posted: 07/07/11 12:36 PM ET Updated: 09/06/11 06:12 AM ET

WASHINGTON -- Progressives in Congress are largely holding their fire at the White House over reports that President Obama is considering deep Social Security and Medicare cuts as part of a debt ceiling deal. Cuts to entitlement programs have been floating for several weeks around the edges of the conversation, but moved to the center of the debate Thursday morning, when a report that Obama would offer to "tackle the rising cost of Social Security" appeared on the front page of the Washington Post. Liberals outside of Congress, however, are wasting no time trying to pop that trial balloon.

Ahead of a meeting with House and Senate leadership, in which President Barack Obama is expected to voice willingness to change entitlement programs, a dozen members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus wrote a letter to the president asking him to refuse cuts to Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. The president is set to discuss a deal to raise the debt ceiling in exchange for deficit reduction, which could include major cuts to programs that help the elderly and the poor.

"We feel the discussions have been skewed up to this point," said Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-Ariz.), co-chair of the caucus, who also said he would not support a final deal if it involves entitlement cuts and does not include revenue-raisers. "It's incumbent upon the president to put what I believe are the real priorities on the table for deficit reduction."

But Grijalva and Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Texas), a vice chair of the caucus, defended the president for signaling he would be willing to take a look at changes to the programs, arguing there are ways to restructure entitlement spending to save money without hurting beneficiaries.

Other Democrats have made a similar shift over the past two weeks, as lawmakers strain to find a deal that raises revenues while at the same time making spending cuts. Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), a top message-maker for Senate Democrats, said on June 24 that Democrats would be open to delivery-side reforms to Medicare, which they have previously said should be kept off the table.

Grijalva said Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid could be "strengthened" by raising taxes on the wealthy, requiring higher contributions for employers or buying prescription drugs in bulk.

"There's restructuring issues ... that could be looked at, absolutely," he said. "But the bottom line is that cuts and reductions to beneficiaries, if that's part of the package, then I cannot support it."

Politico had reported that the progressive members of Congress were "furious" at President Obama, but none of that fury was evident either in their press conference or their letter to the White House.

Jackson Lee said the heat should remain on Republicans who want to take down Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid -- not on the president, because they are still unsure of what changes he will propose.

"We should not let them define the agenda," she told HuffPost. "The president has done something heroic to convene everybody. ... We don't want to get into a mish-mash with the president of the United States when he is clearly on the side of the most vulnerable."

Lee said the president's heart is with the poor, basing that judgment on Obama's background as a community organizer in Chicago before he became a state politician.

"I think the fight must be with the hobgoblin, the ghost, the fear that has been set up by the Republicans to make people think that what is most valuable to the poor can be on the table," she said.

UPDATE 12:48 a.m.: Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), ranking member of the House Budget Committee, echoed the statements of Grijalva and Jackson Lee on CNN, saying he does not think the president wants to make major cuts to entitlement programs.

"What we have said is that if the president wants to adopt a separate track, just as Tip O'Neill and Ronald Reagan did in the 1980s, to strengthen Social Security, that's one thing," he said. "But to try and balance the budget on the backs of Social Security beneficiaries would be unacceptable and I'm pretty confident that is not what the president is referring to."

Meanwhile, progressives outside the Capitol decried reports that the president wants to put cuts on the table.

"This isn't a Grand Bargain -- any cuts to Medicare, Medicaid, or Social Security benefits are a grand destruction of the Democratic legacy," Stephanie Taylor, co-Founder of the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, said in a statement.

The National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare also hit the White House for looking at Social Security cuts.

"AARP will not accept any cuts to Social Security as part of a deal to pay the nation's bills," said AARP CEO A. Barry Rand. "Social Security did not cause the deficit, and it should not be cut to reduce a deficit it did not cause. As the President and Congress work to negotiate a deal to raise the debt ceiling, AARP urges all lawmakers to reject any proposals that would cut the benefits seniors have earned through a lifetime of hard work."

FOLLOW HUFFPOST POLITICS
Subscribe to the HuffPost Hill newsletter!
WASHINGTON -- Progressives in Congress are largely holding their fire at the White House over reports that President Obama is considering deep Social Security and Medicare cuts as part of a debt ceil...
WASHINGTON -- Progressives in Congress are largely holding their fire at the White House over reports that President Obama is considering deep Social Security and Medicare cuts as part of a debt ceil...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 695
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Highlights
Bloggers
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (16 total)
MayaBeach
Tower of Babble
10:10 PM on 07/27/2011
SS does not need to be cut as it is entirely solvent!! Tax the Wealthy!! EVERY rational economist knows that increased revenue via taxes is necessary.
01:18 PM on 07/22/2011
Why can't the government perform drug tests on all beneficiaries existing or new for all programs including food stamps, tanif, social security, medicare, medicaid, retirement, etc. I honestly believe this would save millions. They shouldn't take benefits from those of us that truly need and deserve what they have worked and put into the system. There are those individuals on these programs never worked a day in their life and won't try. They get on welfare and stay even after their children are in school why can't they get a job and then if they need extra help then help them out not let them live off these programs. Thats why our government is in a whole along with individuals on drugs getting benefits and using the money to purchase drugs. Stop the abuse of government programs save money fix the debt problem. Make these people work.
11:27 AM on 07/12/2011
Instead of making budget cuts, more upfront money should be invested in improving the efficiency of the SSA through technology and other means. More money spent now will result in more saved in the long term. Cutting retirement and disability benefits as a means of rectifying the situation should not even be considered as an option.
09:40 AM on 07/09/2011
I have been a rep all my longggg voteing life that said ; I had made my mind up to switch to dem why because being a SR. I wanted someone to stand up not only for me but mine .I do not understand why any decent man woman, or party would try to bal. the budget on the poorest of the poor not just SRS.BUT children, elderly vets. there are people out here through no fault of their own who depend on S.S., MEDICARE, YES EVEN MEDICAID.yes WE NEED TO GET THE FREE LOADERS OFF but for goodness sake dont throw the baby out with the bath water!! S.S WAS NEVER supposed to be part of budget its seperate . If S.S. is in trouble its because other govt agencies have used it like its their private ATM and pd bk with WORTHLESS I.O.U.,s.
both partises need to REALLY listen to the AMERICAN PEOPLE after ALL don,t they work for us not big companys. I cannot speak for others but me and my house are paying attention and will remember at election time.
10:40 AM on 07/09/2011
Don't you get it? - seniors today are on the program and OK. But younger people wont need SS or Med because they're never going to get sick when they get old. And there will be 100+% employment starting "yesterday", so they can work until 69, 70, 75, 80.
photo
JBS
Part time misanthrope & full time curmudgeon
05:56 PM on 07/08/2011
Like HELL!

If he "compromises" to cut social security & medicare to get the debt ceiling raised he should be IMPEACHED!
photo
Barbara DeZan
Knowledge is Power
01:51 PM on 07/08/2011
Why, do you suppose,the Progressives are supporting this?

Simple, there is NO cuts to benefits at all.

Obama has said for years, Medicare and SocSec benefits will never be cut. He will closely inspect both programs to see what is NOT working and get rid of it.

He cut over 300 million last year from Medicare...most of it fraud, double billing, double dipping, by hospitals, doctors, nursing homes, pharmacies and other crooks who get over on the system.

Getting rid of Medicare Advantage will save billions. That was a gift to big Pharma and private insurance by G Bush...it's expensive..and unneeded. As a Medicare/SocSec recipient, I know what it's cost us personally and what it's cost the government. It will go away. Every year premiums double and triple and services are cut. Bushie took good care of his buddies.

Caps on prescription drug costs will also save millions.

SocSec cannot be cut. The idea is to make some needed changes to extend the life of the program and to cut out the fraud. Social Security Disability is a cash cow and many who are recipients aren't seniors or disabled. A means test on SocSec is a great idea. Raising the age to 67 is good. It was raised a few years back and nobody suffered. Most important is removing the FICA wage cap. This would fix the entire program for 75 years or more. Right now, it is capped at about 110,000.00.
09:42 AM on 07/08/2011
Another misleading headline by Huffington Post.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
GoDems2012
YOU are the change!
08:21 AM on 07/08/2011
Wow. "IS OUR CHILDREN LEARNING?"

Let's wait to see what deal is unveiled before we throw a hissy.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
waynesmyer
08:07 AM on 07/08/2011
WTF makes you think we won't critizize POTUS Obama for selling us out? I WILL VOTE TO RECALL ANY POLITICIAN WHO SCREWS WITH MY SS, MEDICARE. RETIREMENT, UNION OR VETERSANS RIGHT!,
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
rneigh9880
"They call me Mr. Friendly"
05:01 AM on 07/08/2011
To cut benefits to the people who have paid into the system for 40+ years is like stealing their money. The money was not put into their social security account. It was put into the General Fund and spent, much of it on people who put no money in at all. The people being talked about are the parents of each of us. If reductions are made in benefits the people involved should be charged with running a fraud and put into jail. What is next, picking you up at your house and taking you to a camp where you will be executed for being too old. I fear we are headed to a time and place where we might be ashamed to be Americans.
photo
Barbara DeZan
Knowledge is Power
01:57 PM on 07/08/2011
There are not nor will there be cuts to benefits. Nothing in anyinformtion coming from the President or anyone else mentions benefits at all.

And, money is NOT put into the General fund. It is a Trust Account. How about you read what SocSec is and how it's administered. Here's a link. Remember, knowledge is power. and will keep you from getting your knickers in a twist:

http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/51264.pdf
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
DJleary
12:29 AM on 07/08/2011
Obama sucks!
10:23 PM on 07/07/2011
Don't be dazzled by slight of hand. This is still about wealthy people deciding how much money poor people need to live on. It is also about changing the rules again on those who have neither money nor true representation. This is our money not a gift from the government. We paid for it. Washington D.C. is a pit of VIPERS.
02:26 AM on 07/08/2011
actually it's not completely your money. fact is a great portion of it was paid by wealthy people's taxes. another great portion of it was paid by employers matching social security with his or her employees (out of his business's pocket). then another portion of it is fiat printed money, and another borrowed money.

so ... you see. some of it is your money plus interest. but more than half, for some all, it's charity and borrowed money.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
devildog21
"War is a Racket" -Smedley D. Butler MajGen USMC
11:50 AM on 07/08/2011
No, it has NOT been paid for by "wealthy people's taxes". The wealthiest person in the country only pays SS on the first $142,000 of their income, which needs to change. That employers paid into it also doesn't nullify the original posters argument. If you pay into the system, it IS your money. Don't fall for the right wing talking point about SS being an "entitlement program". It is NOT.
02:05 PM on 07/08/2011
whatever helps you sleep at night. when i give to a charity. that money does then belong to the recipient. but that doesn't mean it isn't charity anymore.
photo
Barbara DeZan
Knowledge is Power
01:58 PM on 07/08/2011
Point out to me and others exactly where anyone has said that either SocSec or Medicare BENEFITS will be cut.

Preferrably someone who is involved in this budget negotiation mess.
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
jmpurser
See My micro-bio
10:18 PM on 07/07/2011
The ONLY "Progressive" in the United States Congress is Senator Bernie Sanders.
photo
Cyn63
Every day I wake up is a great one
09:44 PM on 07/07/2011
What I'd like to know is why are we even having this discussion. The topic at hand is raising the debt ceiling limit to maintain the full faith and credit of the United States of America, right? Once again, the retalibanicans have been allowed to make the argument about debt negotiation and holding America hostage to their demands of "my way or the highway". Dems stop! Stop playing their game. Stop trying to negotiate with terr0r!sts. Bring the argument back to what it actually is...raising the debt limit.
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
jmpurser
See My micro-bio
10:19 PM on 07/07/2011
If the Democrats didn't want the same thing in the long run that's EXACTLY what they'd do.  Instead they play along with the GOP.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Dan Crabtree
09:35 PM on 07/07/2011
Ahhhh miss lee a national treasure....