iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Obama Won't Include Social Security Reform In Recommendations To Super Committee

Obama Social Security

First Posted: 09/15/11 01:08 PM ET Updated: 11/15/11 05:12 AM ET

WASHINGTON -- Jilted by Republican leadership during the deficit-reduction talks that accompanied the debt ceiling debate, the Obama administration is now pulling back an offer to put Social Security reform on the negotiating table.

The president will not include changes to that program in the series of deficit reduction measures that he will offer to the congressional super committee next Monday, administration officials confirm.

During talks with House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) this past summer, President Barack Obama had discussed changing the way that Social Security benefits were paid so that a lower level of benefits were paid over time. Boehner walked away from that deal, which was part of a much broader package, because of concern over a corresponding tax increase. Now, Obama is putting off support for that idea of changing the inflation formula of Social Security to chained consumer price index (CPI).

“The president’s recommendation for deficit reduction will not include any changes to Social Security because, as the president has consistently said, he does not believe that Social Security is a driver of our near and medium term deficits," said White House spokeswoman Amy Brundage. "He believes that both parties need to work together on a parallel track to strengthen Social Security for future generations rather than taking a piecemeal approach as part of a deficit reduction plan.”

"There will be no Social Security in the recommendations," Brundage added.

The White House's decision to take Social Security reform off the table for the time being, which was first reported by the Wall Street Journal, is largely consistent with the president's viewpoint that the program is not a contributor to the deficit and should be dealt with in separate discussions. The administration brought it in to the "grand bargain" talks with Boehner, an official relayed, because the president was a party to those talks. With respect to the super committee's negotiations, he will have no seat at the table and is merely outlining his preferences for reform.

The move also makes obvious political sense. Democrats have long worried that they would upset their base should they be seen as the ones chipping away at retirement benefits, certainly after House Republicans took heat for passing a budget that would convert Medicare into a voucher-based program.

Already suffering from an enthusiasm gap, Obama's decision to put off Social Security cuts will win him plaudits from his own party. But it still remains to be seen what type of recommendations he will make with respect to Medicare. During the negotiations with Boehner, the White House signed off on a recommendation to increase the eligibility age of Medicare from 65 to 67. Administration officials refused to say whether that recommendation would be part of the president's proposal to the super committee. On Thursday, the Washington Post reported that the White House would call for "at least $340 billion in savings from Medicare and Medicaid" alongside $800 billion in tax increases.

The 12-member committee has no obligation to act on the president's proposals, though it seems likely that its six Democratic members will hew to the administration's line. The committee's recommendations will be unveiled sometime around Thanksgiving, with hopes of a vote in Congress toward the end of December.

FOLLOW HUFFPOST POLITICS
Subscribe to the HuffPost Hill newsletter!
 
 
  • Comments
  • 8,962
  • 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 »  (129 total)
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Leah Watts
07:12 PM on 09/19/2011
This reporter is one dishonest piece of c hit. The way he's contrived this article is a l-i-e. The President never intended that SSI be put on the table. In another place and time, this dilettante writing this would be strung up and sued.
photo
RepublicanDepression
Of the1% by the1% for the Gerrymandering One% =GOP
03:32 PM on 09/18/2011
Here's how Republicans peddle false claims about Obama:

Republicans commenters her have repeatedly (and SPAMMINGLY) claimed that "Obama simply has no scruples or backbone" because Obama won't re-offer the Republicans the Social Security offer that they rejected.

But read the article above:

"Boehner walked away from that deal, which was part of a much broader package, because of concern over a corresponding tax increase."

You snooze you lose, Boehner. You FAIL to take a plum offer like that, you can't go crying to Mommy when you no longer get that offer.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
js0860
09:32 AM on 09/18/2011
First, pensions have been taken away in the private sector. It's the Democrats who want to keep propping up Gov't workers with taxpayer money as a payment for Union support.

Secondly, it was OBAMA who SUGGESTED Social Security reform as a means of negotiating with Congress on the deficit.

http://articles.businessinsider.com/2011-07-06/politics/30007573_1_debt-ceiling-debt-limit-support-cuts

Now, in a purely POLITICAL move to get Seniors on his side, Obama is AGAINST Social Security cuts.

Obama simply has no scruples or backbone at all. He's for or against something simply based on his current agenda and poll numbers.
11:06 AM on 09/18/2011
Agreed it was him. To boot he is also the one who threatened SSI and Disabled Vets checks won't go out in August whe he was pushing debt ceiling debate. He has no integrity at all
photo
RepublicanDepression
Of the1% by the1% for the Gerrymandering One% =GOP
02:59 PM on 09/18/2011
js: "Secondly, it was OBAMA who SUGGESTED Social Security reform as a means of negotiatin­g with Congress on the deficit. Now ...Obama is AGAINST Social Security cuts."

LOL! Reading FAIL!

Try reading the article you are commenting on!

"During talks with House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) this past summer, President Barack Obama had discussed changing the way that Social Security benefits were paid so that a lower level of benefits were paid over time. Boehner walked away from that deal, which was part of a much broader package, because of concern over a corresponding tax increase. Now, Obama is putting off support for that idea of changing the inflation formula of Social Security to chained consumer price index (CPI)."

"Boehner walked away from that deal!" Obama took it off the table after Boehner FAILED to accept the offer! Why would Obama be obligated to offer a deal that the REPUBLICANS FAILED to accept?

LOL!

Do you understand anything about negotiating? In business or in government?

If the second party FAILS to accept an offer, the first party has no obligation to offer it again.
11:10 PM on 09/17/2011
Ever notice the dems hide on these articles
photo
RepublicanDepression
Of the1% by the1% for the Gerrymandering One% =GOP
03:04 PM on 09/18/2011
I'm right here, tough guy.

I'll tell you what I told your buddy js. Obama is under no obligation to re-offer his Social Security offer now that the Republicans foolishly rejected it.

You snooze you lose.

And based on the pack of SNOOZERS in the Republican primary, we're looking at a second Obama term. Thanks for keeping your A Team on the benches this election cycle.

The only researcher who is 100% accurate in predicting elections has data showing that Obama wins.

So we get HOPE instead of your NOPE.
photo
rjh252a1
Not Empty. Just Private
06:55 PM on 09/18/2011
Laughing all the way to you got to be kidding, dream on and bye!
11:09 PM on 09/17/2011
Obama needs to have his own comedy hour,of coarse after he gets his a.. clipped in 12
photo
RepublicanDepression
Of the1% by the1% for the Gerrymandering One% =GOP
03:04 PM on 09/18/2011
The only researcher who is 100% accurate in predicting elections has data showing that Obama wins.

So we get HOPE instead of your NOPE.
photo
rjh252a1
Not Empty. Just Private
06:58 PM on 09/18/2011
Old joke already.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
herbertpop
11:05 PM on 09/17/2011
Mr. President, you made another wise decision.
10:00 PM on 09/17/2011
There is nothing seriously wrong with Social Security ! It is solvent for many years to come if the politicians would keep from raiding the trust fund to pay for other give-away programs. As far as Medicare is concerned , why isnt anyone speaking about creating more doctors, nurses, technicians and healthcare facilities? No matter what you do financially the availibuility of medical care depends on the number of medical professionals and workers. No doctors, no medical care. And the subject of tort reform keeps getting swept under the rug. You go to the hospital these days and you get more paperwork than medicine. Everyone has to cover thier asses. Sixty percent of Americns are satisfied with their health coverage. Obamacare is a grab for money and power.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
06:42 PM on 09/17/2011
Obama proposed cuts to SS & Medicare with his attempt to reach a "grand bargain" in the debt ceiling fiasco. It is ironic that in the last 2 weeks as Romney went after Perry, Romney has done more to defend SS than Obama and most democrats have.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
js0860
09:34 AM on 09/18/2011
So true, but the winds are blowing a different way now; so Obama will change his position.

President spineless is at it again!

http://articles.businessinsider.com/2011-07-06/politics/30007573_1_debt-ceiling-debt-limit-support-cuts
photo
RepublicanDepression
Of the1% by the1% for the Gerrymandering One% =GOP
03:09 PM on 09/18/2011
js: "President spineless is at it again!"

LOL! Just like you mistakenly believe Obama is obligated to continue making an offer that the Republicans FAILED to accept, you now confuse "spinelessness" with flexibility, a willingness to work with the opposition, and a willingness to take on his own party for the good of the American people.

A willingness to challenge his own party and to work with the opposition is why Obama will be re-elected.

The Republicans mostly refuse to challenge their party and often refusing to work with the opposition for the good of the country. in 2010, Republicans will crash from driving with tea bags on their eyes.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
advchaser
I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery.
02:38 PM on 09/17/2011
The author above makes a big deal of what the president recommends to the super committee. It really is not up to him. I think the committee can discuss what ever they want and in the end, the president will cave and will sign whatever the committee recommends just like he has in the past.
11:48 PM on 09/17/2011
That is Sooooo True, he let us down by trying to get along with Repubs, and everybody knew they were playing with the "Boy" in the WHITE house. I ask,"what happens when the IDIOTS win the election and take this country's work class back 100 years. They no longer call them selves rich corp. far cats-----they want to be addressed as "JOB PREVIDERS" and Man do they got all the money.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
advchaser
I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery.
08:49 AM on 09/18/2011
Just because someone disagrees with the president does not mean they are racist and suggesting that it is detracts from your comment.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
AceNewsServices
Changing The World One Step At A Time
12:32 PM on 09/17/2011
Having mostly lived in the UK all my life l have many times criticized our National Health Service and sometimes have been brought up sharp to realize now my mother is seriously ill, she would not be treated in hospital without private health insurance. This was due to my father being a factory worker for Ford UK and in 1980`s when he died private health care was just for the rich and bosses and people like me dad relied on the good old health service.

In this new and evolving world of change we are being led down the path of privatization by the government presently in power and l am seeing the advent of how big business can get a strangle hold on our most valued of assets fought for by many hard working men to keep free at the point of delivery for many years,until now.

God help us if we end up adopting private health care for the privilege few and not for the many.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
advchaser
I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery.
02:50 PM on 09/17/2011
I read the heart breaking story of Dr Becky Smith who was denied treatment by her health care trust that other trusts in the UK have approved. Of course you know that health care trusts are local entities with the power of life and death over their beneficiaries like Dr. Smith.

That is not going to happen under 0bamaCare.

Now her parents are considering mortgaging their house to help her get the treatment.

You are so right, private insurers would probably find a way to make it worse.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1270160/Betrayed-NHS-Doctor-gave-life-health-service-refused-vital-cancer-drugs-save-her.html
11:12 PM on 09/17/2011
You tellem your right
09:10 PM on 09/20/2011
ROFLMAO you might want to actually read his post brightboy.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
tttt9erfan
gov't gave my bio to someone who doesn't post here
06:59 AM on 09/17/2011
Well if we only need the "super committee" to make decisions, I say we keep those 12 and dump the rest, as a good place to start saving money. It's like getting 100 of your co-workers together and deciding which 10 of you will actually work while the other 90 just get paid.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
advchaser
I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery.
02:52 PM on 09/17/2011
So true!! Typical government job! Haven't you ever driven by a construction site and seen a bunch of guys standing around and watching one or two work??
08:48 AM on 09/18/2011
"Typical" government job? Do you have the statistics to back your claim that a "typical" government job is one where you can be a slacker or not do your job and just get paid? I have been a federal government worker for over 15 years now, and I can claim with an absolutely clear conscience that I have earned every single cent I've been paid. In fact, my coworkers and I respond to back-to-back requests for public informationand assistance, taskings from government officials--both Democrats and Republicans--and other jobs that require us (because we're severely understaffed) to work over 9 hours a day, many days. Do we get paid? No, we get comp time, but we earned every minute of it. In fact, I'm home this morning because I worked 6 hours on Saturday. I love my job, and I'm grateful I have a job, so I'm not whinng...just expressing how tired I am of comments and cr@p about your "typical" "cushy" government jobs held by no-good slackers. Are there slackers? Of course there are, but aren't there slackers in every job situation? I worked for a private company where many workers surfed the net several hours a day. Try doing that in your "typical" government job where your Internet usage is being monitored all day.
09:13 PM on 09/20/2011
Typical response from a low information voter who has zero clue about the lifelong benefits he has received on the backs and blood of the unions.

Ignorance is not a virtue sport.
photo
HUFFPOST BLOGGER
R.W. Sanders
Numerous questions, too little expertise
05:26 AM on 09/17/2011
My wife is a very healthy 52 year old lady. I recently tried to purchase health insurance for her. The best price I could find for a policy with a 10,000 deductible was around $250/month. This was a totally bare bones policy where almost nothing was included except very catastrophic hospital coverage. It was no where near as good a policy as medicare, which is also no great shakes. And that $250 premium will increase greatly every year, due to her age of 52.

If my wife's cost for a bad policy is already prohibitive, how does making her wait an extra 2 years for decent care make sense? What will a 66 year old pay, if a person 14 years younger already cannot afford decent coverage? One of her coworkers pays 1500/month for a premium on an employer provided policy.

What a perfect example of how totally out of touch our government is with regular people. With friends like these......
08:39 PM on 09/16/2011
How long until he caves on this one. 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5,.....
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
js0860
09:36 AM on 09/18/2011
This is a cave...to the polls.

He was for it, but now he's against it....

http://articles.businessinsider.com/2011-07-06/politics/30007573_1_debt-ceiling-debt-limit-support-cuts
photo
RepublicanDepression
Of the1% by the1% for the Gerrymandering One% =GOP
03:15 PM on 09/18/2011
More spammy posts from js:

"Boehner walked away from that deal!" So Obama took it off the table after Boehner FAILED to accept the offer! Why would Obama be obligated to offer a deal that the REPUBLICAN­S FAILED to accept?

LOL!

Do you understand anything about negotiatin­g? In business or in government­?

If the second party FAILS to accept an offer, the first party has no obligation to offer it again.
WWYTA
We disagree, it does not mean you are correct
05:31 PM on 09/16/2011
Just a little logic here. If SS is off the table, and the mandatory cuts kick in if the "Super" whatever can't get the job done. There are precious few choices left. Feel free to add to the list.

Cut Military to 1/5 it's current level
Shut down nearly all gvmt except military (you would still be short)
Nationalize 401k and IRA plans as a mass recapitalization of the SS fund
Mochilero
Have backpack, will travel
05:10 PM on 09/16/2011
It must be hard growing a spine from the ground up. Where has the Obama we all thought we were voting for been hiding?
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
nomorenames
02:47 AM on 09/17/2011
you were duped
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
tttt9erfan
gov't gave my bio to someone who doesn't post here
07:01 AM on 09/17/2011
He wasn't hiding...he never was what you thought. Can't you see that yet?