That is a pretty simple and important question. Unfortunately most voters are likely to go to the polls this fall without knowing the answer.
If the backdrop to this question is not immediately clear, then you should be very angry at the reporters who cover the campaign. One of the items that continuously comes up in reference to the budget deficit is President Obama's support for the plan put forward by the co-chairs of his deficit commission, Morgan Stanley director Erskine Bowles and former Senator Alan Simpson. On numerous occasions President Obama has indicated his support for this plan.
One of the items in the Bowles-Simpson plan is a reduction in the annual cost-of-living adjustment of roughly 0.3 percentage points. This would be accomplished by using a different index that, by design, would show a lower measured rate of inflation. It is important to recognize that this is an annual cut that would accumulate over time. After a retiree has been receiving benefits for 10 years the cut would be 3.0 percent, after 20 years it would be 6 percent. If a typical retiree lives long enough to get benefits for 20 years the average benefit cut over their years of retirement would be 3 percent.
This is the most immediate cut to Social Security in the Bowles-Simpson plan but not the only one. The plan also would gradually raise the age at which retirees receive full benefits to 69. It also phases in a reduction in benefits for workers whose earnings averaged more than $40,000 a year over their working lifetime.
When President Obama indicates his support for the Bowles-Simpson plan, he is indicating his support for all of these measures. Of course he is not required to accept the plan in its entirety, but if he does oppose the cuts that the plan imposes on Social Security it would be reasonable to expect him to state this explicitly.
In principle this would be exactly the sort of issue where we would expect reporters to be grilling President Obama and his staff. After all, while President Obama has been proclaiming his support for the Bowles-Simpson plan, his vice-president has been assuring the public that Social Security will not be touched in a second Obama administration.
Last month in Virginia, Joe Biden said in the strongest possible terms that there will be no cuts to Social Security in a second Obama administration. He repeated the statement with the additional line that "I guarantee it." This would seem to be a pretty clear contradiction with President Obama's support for Bowles-Simpson.
The media should be trying to resolve this contradiction. Then voters could go to the polls knowing whether they are voting for someone who wants to follow Bowles-Simpson and cut Social Security benefits or alternatively would pick up the gauntlet thrown down by Vice President Biden and be a rock-solid defender of the program.
One of the reasons that the media may be neglecting its responsibilities in this situation is that many of them favor the cuts laid out in the Bowles-Simpson plan. They don't want to put the Obama administration on the spot because they know that Social Security is hugely popular across the political spectrum. If President Obama were forced to commit himself on whether he supported cuts to Social Security before the election he would almost certainly say "no," since openly supporting cuts could lose him millions of votes.
This sort of attitude was reflected in a recent Washington Post editorial that endorsed the 3 percent cut in Social Security benefits by describing it as a "tweak" to the inflation index rather than a cut in benefits. But it is not the job of the media to conceal the meaning of policy changes so as to better advance an agenda.
Last week many reporters prided themselves on forcefully asking President Obama's surrogates a question handed to them by the Romney campaign: "Are the American people better off today than they were four years ago?"
That made for a great clown show, since the economy was in a state of collapse when President Obama took office four years ago. How is someone supposed to answer a question like that?
Reporters have a chance to do their job and ask President Obama and his spokespeople a real question whose answer will have real meaning to tens of millions voters: "Do you support the Bowles-Simpson cuts to Social Security?"
No one should have to go the polls this fall not knowing whether or not President Obama wants to cut Social Security. If reporters were treated like school teachers, and tens of millions of voters go to the polls not knowing the answer to this question, then they would all be fired. But in a country where "double standard" is increasingly the national motto, we shouldn't expect incompetent reporters to be held accountable for the quality of their work.
Follow Dean Baker on Twitter: www.twitter.com/DeanBaker13
Barbra Streisand: Obama vs. Romney: A Clear Choice
 |
 |
|
| Obama | Romney | |
|---|---|---|
| Electoral Votes (270 to win) |
332 | 206 |
| Obama | Romney | |
|---|---|---|
| Total | 65,899,660 | 60,932,152 |
| Percent | 51.1% | 47.2% |
| Democrats* | Republicans | |
|---|---|---|
| Current Senate | 53 | 47 |
| Seats gained or lost | +2 | -2 |
| New Total | 55 | 45 |
| Democrats | Republicans | |
|---|---|---|
| Seats won | 201 | 234 |
But, really, presidents say one thing and then do precisely the opposite with zero accountability. Happens again and again.
What the heck is wrong that people cannot look this up! Obama does not support Simpson Bowles and while we're at it, VOTERS WILL GO INTO THIS ELECTION NOT KNOWING IF THEY CAN VOTE BECAUSE REPUBLICANS STOLE THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO DO SO!
SAVE THE DEMOCRAT'S SS/MEDICARE PROGRAM, SAVE OUR SENIORS THAT DEMOCRATS HAVE KEPT ALIVE AND LIFTED OUT OF POVERTY GENERATION AFTER GENERATION, VOTE OBAMA 2012!
Go read the transcript of Obama's acceptance speech at the Democratic Convention, either as prepared or read.
Then come back here and state so confidently that "Obama does not support Simpson Bowles"...
together sharing the benefits. I doubt that the human race would have survived without mutual
cooperation and community.
If Republicans are screaming KEEP YOUR HANDS OFF MY MEDICARE, why are they voting for Republicans who give them nothing and want to give them even less???
Save yourselves, save the country VOTE OBAMA 2012!
Without Conscience", it offers some interesting ideas about peoples willingness to blindly follow
even when it goes against their own interests.
That 2.7 trillion in the SS fund is about the only funds the GOP hasn't gotten their hands on and they're determined to empty that account just like they emptied the Fed over 8 years and bailed out their foreign banking pals and friends with 29 trillion dollars of taxpayer money!
SAVE THE COUNTRY & SAVE YOURSELVES, VOTE OBAMA 2012!
I really wish Obama would do some kind of fireside chat. I think it would have gone a loooong way the last 4 years and even the last 2. I've been reading up on the Depression and found Republicans used the same failed policies from 2000 - 2008 as they did from 1922 - 1929! Tax cuts for the rich in 1922/24/26 and 28 let to the crash in 1929 and they had 3 years to repair the damage but they were incompetent at governing and incapable of running a lemonade stand back then too!
Problem solved.
"Retirement planning involves sacrificing a portion of what we earn today and investing that money in the hope that one day we'll have enough assets from which we can draw an income. But the Social Security and Medicare systems operate differently, taking a portion of earnings from today's workers to pay for the needs of today's retirees.
Just how much do we pay out in Social Security and Medicare taxes over a lifetime, compared to how much we receive in benefits? The answer depends on several variables, including gender, earnings, household configuration, the age at which we retire and our health. But generally, we receive far more in benefits than we pay into the system, according to new figures released by the Urban Institute.
.
No matter how much you pay into the system, whether you earn the average wage over a lifetime ($43,100 in 2010 dollars) or if you're in a two-income household where one earns a high wage and the other earns an average wage, you get back substantially more than you pay in."
http://www.bankrate.com/financing/retirement/social-security-benefits-vs-taxes/
One - You say the 3% cut will affect the annual COLA. This is not the same as the total annual benefit dollar amount. So how does this add up to what looks like a 3% cut in a Social Security check of $1000? If the cost of living increase next year is two percent, then that COLA 2% amount is cut by 3%. You get less of a raise. But you still get the $1000. The article makes it seem as if the base $1000 is being cut by 3%. $1000 - ($1000 x .03) = $970.
What gets cut? The COLA or the annual benefit AMOUNT?? Please clarify.
Two - The headline says "3 Percent". That's 0.03. Three cents on the dollar. A sentence in the article states "...a reduction in the annual cost-of-living adjustment of roughly 0.3 percentage points." Is it 3 percent (0.03) or 3 tenths of one percent? Now I've confused myself.
I'll just post this before my head explodes.
NO Dem would ever cut SS/Medicare! Only Republicans want to toss seniors, the sick, the disabled and kids on the street so they can raid that 2.7 trillion dollars in the fund!
Only Republicans have said Obama will cut these programs trying to scare seniors, but frankly the ONLY ones that have proposed it are Republicans!
http://www.factcheck.org/2011/07/factchecking-dueling-debt-speeches/
In fairness to Mr. Baker, he did achieve some balance with the small reference to the disaster Mr. Bush left to America.
If we used our house or auto insurance the way we use health insurance, we would get a warning letter from our insurance provider. It is simply unsustainable, and we have to comprehend that it is better to get on the stick and stop making ourselves ill and start healing ourselves. This consumer cooperation is the only thing that will bend the curve to silence the calls for cuts.
Do I have a volunteer??
Mr. Issa's committee hearing on women's health wouldn't even let a woman speak.
Those of us on Social Security paid our FICA taxes out of every pay check and those people expect to steal that money from us.
Since he won't show his income tax records, how do we know he paid his taxes?