Obama to offer Social Security cuts in new budget — in exchange for tax hikes

posted at 10:01 am on April 5, 2013 by Ed Morrissey

No wonder it’s taking so long for Barack Obama to send his budget proposal to Congress.  The budget is almost two months overdue, but Republicans may find it worth the wait.  The Washington Post reports that Obama will offer cuts to Social Security in exchange for tax hikes to close the deficit — in effect, the grand bargain he and John Boehner nearly made two years ago:

President Obama will release a budget next week that proposes significant cuts to Medicare and Social Security and fewer tax hikes than in the past, a conciliatory approach that he hopes will convince Republicans to sign onto a grand bargain that would curb government borrowing and replace deep spending cuts that took effect March 1.

When he unveils the budget on Wednesday, Obama will break with the tradition of providing a sweeping vision of his ideal spending priorities, untethered from political realities. Instead, the document will incorporate the compromise offer Obama made to House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) last December in the discussions over the so-called “fiscal cliff” – which included $1.8 trillion in deficit reduction through spending cuts and tax increases. …

While Republicans are certain to be skeptical of Obama’s call for more taxes, the president also is likely to face immediate heat over his budget proposal from some Democrats and liberal supporters. Obama proposes, for instance, to change the cost-of-living calculation for Social Security in a way that will reduce benefits for most beneficiaries, a key Republican request that he had earlier embraced only as part of a compromise. Many Democrats say they areopposed to any Social Security cuts and are likely to be furious that such cuts are now being proposed as official administration policy.

“While this is not the president’s ideal deficit reduction plan, and there are particular proposals in this plan like the [cost-of-living] change that were key Republican requests and not the president’s preferred approach,” the senior administration official said, “this is a compromise proposal built on common ground, and the president felt it was important to make it clear that the offer still stands.”

Strictly from a political standpoint, the public offer is surprising, almost shocking.  Without a doubt, Democrats in the 2014 cycle would have used the senior-scaring tactics of the last decade or more when it comes to Republican demands for entitlement reform and deficit control.  Most of those efforts have focused on Medicare and its greater threat to the nation’s fiscal health.  When Paul Ryan offered two budgets to turn Medicare into an exchange program not dissimilar to ObamaCare for the rest of the nation, Democrats ran ads that pictured a Ryan stand-in pushing Grandma over a cliff.

That strategy is useless now that Obama has essentially endorsed entitlement reform, and proposed his own Social Security cuts — and also to Medicare, as the Post notes deeper in the piece:

The budget proposal slices $200 billion from already tight defense and domestic budgets. It would cut $400 billion from Medicare and other health programs by negotiating better prescription drug prices and asking wealthy seniors to pay more, among other policies. It would also generate $200 billion in savings by scaling back farm subsidies and federal retiree programs, among other proposals.

The proposal to change the formula to calculate Social Security payments, also originally part of the offer to Boehner, would generate $130 billion in savings and $100 billion in revenue, a result of the impact of the formula change on other government programs. But it is the change in Social Security payments to most recipients that is likely to generate the greatest outcry from the Obama administration’s traditional allies.

The change in Social Security actually is more modest than in Medicare. The former appears to be the adoption of chained CPI to calculate increases in payments, which will result in lower increases rather than cuts, which means that the savings are based on future projections rather than current rates of expenditures.  The cuts to Medicare look like actual cuts, and perhaps even more significant, use means testing to generate revenues, a strategy that both parties have avoided in order to maintain the illusion that Medicare (and Social Security, which acts as a qualifier) aren’t welfare programs.

This proposal puts both parties on the political hook for proposing entitlement cuts and higher fees.  A good entitlement reform package might be worth a trade for tax hikes, although comprehensive tax reform would be a better idea, which this proposal nibbles at but doesn’t deliver.  Unfortunately, while the SSA reform on chained CPI is a good idea, the Medicare reform goes in the wrong direction — or at least in an ineffective direction.  Ryan’s strategy to introduce choice in the form of public/private exchanges and most importantly a defined-contribution relationship of government to the system is the most effective way to solidify Medicare and solve the fiscal disaster than looms in the program. Perhaps this admission by Obama of the need to restrain costs in a real way will open the door to the Ryan/Wyden approach, which would be worth a tax hike to get passed.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

And pigs will fly!

trs on April 5, 2013 at 10:03 AM

I am OK with a 50% tax hike on gays, illegals and people who fail gun background checks..I am flexible that way.

hillsoftx on April 5, 2013 at 10:06 AM

Negotiating with thieves.

petefrt on April 5, 2013 at 10:07 AM

hillsoftx on April 5, 2013 at 10:06 AM

Right, and a tax on French restaurants, Starbucks, Ben & Jerry’s, Volts, and GE too.

petefrt on April 5, 2013 at 10:09 AM

At this point NOTHING is worth another tax hike !

Lucano on April 5, 2013 at 10:10 AM

“this is a compromise proposal built on common ground, and the president felt it was important to make it clear that the offer still stands.”

Even deals with the devil have expiration dates and the one Boehner almost made should be ignored.

Happy Nomad on April 5, 2013 at 10:11 AM

Can we please all stop referring to CPI reform as a Social Security cut?

CPI reform is a technical correction in something the system is supposed to be doing already — adjusting annual Soc Sec benefits for general price inflation.

From the standpoint of Soc Sec finances it is a pittance — it would improve Soc Sec finances over the next 75 years by less than the system’s finances have deteriorated over just the last two. Even after CPI reform Soc Sec will be on shakier footing than it was just two years ago.

The Obama WH is successfully spinning this as some kind of major entitlement reform, which is beyond ridiculous. It is nothing.

CPI changes also affect income tax bracket indexing — do we call them “tax reform?” This has gone beyond absurd.

Chuckles3 on April 5, 2013 at 10:11 AM

Charlie Brown. Lucy. Football.
Just another head fake from the HeadFaker-in-Chief.

SheVee on April 5, 2013 at 10:11 AM

What sort of tax hikes are you endorsing, Ed?

Buy Danish on April 5, 2013 at 10:13 AM

Can we please all stop referring to CPI reform as a Social Security cut?

Chuckles3 on April 5, 2013 at 10:11 AM

I don’t think you understand that the term “cut” has changed. The rat-eared devil refers to the draconian sequestration cuts when the reality is that the rate of spending was decreased by 1% over the current fiscal year. Why wouldn’t a change in the SS formula be treated as a cut given the new definition?

Happy Nomad on April 5, 2013 at 10:14 AM

It’s a trap. You know how the sequester turned into a nothingburger? The same WON’T be true for a straight-up cut to Medicare. People likely *will* feel the pain, and right away, and will blame the Republicans.

Renegotiating prices for prescription drugs, in any case, is a red herring–it’s a promise of future spending cuts, which never actually materialize. Instead, we need some *actual* spending reductions. Like raising the eligibility age.

Mohonri on April 5, 2013 at 10:14 AM

So he is a uniter: everyone is going to hate this and no one will vote for it.

rbj on April 5, 2013 at 10:17 AM

If your mother gives you an allowance and year after year you squander it and start borrowing to fund your lavish and wasteful lifestyle and find yourself in a mountain of debt with no plan on how to pay it back do you think you’re entitled to keep on getting the allowance or ask for more? NO. Screw the US Government. Until they can prove a willingness to solve the financial problems before them they don’t get more taxes. We’ve been listening to them whine all week about the sequester, and you think they’re going to make more cuts? I don’t trust them, not one bit. They’re liars and thieves.

scalleywag on April 5, 2013 at 10:18 AM

NO MORE TAXES – OK?

Zero you’re a jackass. Stop pigging out at the public trough.

dogsoldier on April 5, 2013 at 10:19 AM

NO FURTHER TAX HIKES until the items below are sufficiently addressed:

$125 Billion Per Year In Improper Federal Payments

$400 Billion Spent Each Year On 1,500
Duplicative, Fragmented, Inefficient Programs

Take care of those two things, then we can talk about taxes.

Common Sense Floridian on April 5, 2013 at 10:20 AM

What is the point of submitting a ten year budget to a two year Congress?

Let me guess…the tax increases happen now, and the cuts happen “later”, right?

BobMbx on April 5, 2013 at 10:21 AM

If they secured the border, repealed obamacare, defunded planned parenthood, the Dept. of Education, Energy, and laid of the gun control then I would maybe perhaps consider the tax hike ok.

RDE2010 on April 5, 2013 at 10:22 AM

What sort of tax hikes are you endorsing, Ed?

Buy Danish on April 5, 2013 at 10:13 AM

I hope he means tax hikes that are offset by massive spending cuts. Kinda like that hypothetical scenario proposed at one of the GOP debates in the last election where they were asked if they’d support 1 dollar in tax hikes for every 10 dollars in spending cuts.

Doughboy on April 5, 2013 at 10:22 AM

Anyone notice that the only thing Obama wants to cut are things that will mostly affect old white people? And hilariously, the GOP will go along with it.

ninjapirate on April 5, 2013 at 10:22 AM

No mention of the fraud and waste in ALL the entitlement programs?

Cut benefits for seniors
Increase taxes for wage earners

That is their plan? Are they increasing the tax contributions of wage earners specifically directed to medicare and social security?
Everyone forgets that those who work pay into this system for decades. 15%+ for social security and 2.9% for medicare I think. An entitlement program my behind.

It may be an entitlement for those who never worked or hardly worked, however, it isn’t for the rest of us. I want my hard earned money I gave (and still give) these govt. idiots back!!

Amjean on April 5, 2013 at 10:22 AM

If memory serves, switching the SocSecurity COLA to chained CPI only gives the “Trust Fund” about 3-5 years of life (coincidentally covering roughly the life expectancy of a certain SCOAMT). More importantly, it won’t take OASI, much less the combined OASDI, out of its permanent primary deficit mode.

Steve Eggleston on April 5, 2013 at 10:23 AM

Why should anyone trust what this president has to say? He certainly hasn’t earned it.

scalleywag on April 5, 2013 at 10:23 AM

Amjean on April 5, 2013 at 10:22 AM

It’s 12.6% on roughly the first $110,000 of wages for SocSecurity and 2.9% on every dollar of wages for Medicare.

Steve Eggleston on April 5, 2013 at 10:25 AM

This is also in his budget.

Another proposal likely to draw attention would block individuals from accumulating more than $3 million in tax-preferred retirement accounts such as IRAs. Administration officials believe amounts above this threshold enable people to take advantage of tax rules.

Oil Can on April 5, 2013 at 10:26 AM

Obama to offer Social Security cuts in new budget — in exchange for tax hikes

We already got new tax hikes at the beginning of the year.

HotAirian on April 5, 2013 at 10:26 AM

So anything cut HAS to be “balanced” with a tax hike? Why can’t they just cut spending AND taxes because that is the only way out of the looming disaster.

Bishop on April 5, 2013 at 10:27 AM

We already got new tax hikes at the beginning of the year.

HotAirian on April 5, 2013 at 10:26 AM

Yet we’re still looking at trillion dollar annual deficits. The Fed can’t print forever, so we either cut spending(for real) by massive amounts or we jack up taxes on everyone.

Doughboy on April 5, 2013 at 10:28 AM

So when will the MSM start publishing cartoons showing Barry pushing grandma and grandpa over the cliff?

GarandFan on April 5, 2013 at 10:28 AM

untethered from political realities

Ha, ya right /sarcasm

…cut to Medicare. People likely *will* feel the pain, and right away, and will blame the Republicans.

Mohonri on April 5, 2013 at 10:14 AM

Exactly.

The Obama WH is successfully spinning this as some kind of major entitlement reform, which is beyond ridiculous. It is nothing.

CPI changes also affect income tax bracket indexing — do we call them “tax reform?” This has gone beyond absurd.

Chuckles3 on April 5, 2013 at 10:11 AM

Right too. I never get how the Dems get away politically with supporting social security, the most regressive tax possible. A straight flat tax no matter how little you make and a cutoff for high wages. But it’s coming proof that socialism doesn’t work.

Fenris on April 5, 2013 at 10:29 AM

So anything cut HAS to be “balanced” with a tax hike? Why can’t they just cut spending AND taxes because that is the only way out of the looming disaster.

Bishop on April 5, 2013 at 10:27 AM

Because the Alinskyites ru(i)ning things don’t want out of the looming disaster.

Steve Eggleston on April 5, 2013 at 10:29 AM

It may be an entitlement for those who never worked or hardly worked, however, it isn’t for the rest of us. I want my hard earned money I gave (and still give) these govt. idiots back!!

Amjean on April 5, 2013 at 10:22 AM

That’s right, I’ve paid into the system for over 40 years and when the time comes it’s time for me to get paid back. If they want to cut something they ought to better scrutinize the people getting handouts, because while there are a lot of people who legitimately qualify for benefits, there are probably at least a million or so that don’t. Cut them, not the elderly. Simple stuff! Doh.

scalleywag on April 5, 2013 at 10:29 AM

And if Republicans can’t make the simple, plain case that it is “taxes” which are already killing our economy, we should replace every last one of them with someone who can articulate basic math.

This is not a compromise. It’s a ruse which does not even begin to address the fundamental issues with our economy and budget.

It’s politics as usual and provides no relief to people in need or others who will lose their Social Security and healthcare coverage if we don’t act wisely.

Marcus Traianus on April 5, 2013 at 10:29 AM

Let me guess – these “cuts” will be to future budgets in exchange for tax hikes NOW.

And, of course, when the time comes to implement the cuts (assuming they aren’t ignored), Obama and the Dems will demonize Republicans for “drastic” cuts to SS and Medicare, despite the fact that Obama proposed them….because, as they well know, the MSM will never call them on it.

In other words, I’ll believe Obama is serious about reforming entitlements when I see it.

DRayRaven on April 5, 2013 at 10:29 AM

I hope he means tax hikes that are offset by massive spending cuts. Kinda like that hypothetical scenario proposed at one of the GOP debates in the last election where they were asked if they’d support 1 dollar in tax hikes for every 10 dollars in spending cuts.

Doughboy on April 5, 2013 at 10:22 AM

Heh. This budget proposes a brand spanking new entitlement: “[It] would fund several new priorities, including the creation of a new program offering preschool to all four-year-olds from low- and moderate-income backgrounds”.

It talks about scaling back federal workers retirement programs, which would be a good thing, but there are zero details provided. I’m inclined to believe those cuts would be insignificant.

Buy Danish on April 5, 2013 at 10:31 AM

It may be an entitlement for those who never worked or hardly worked, however, it isn’t for the rest of us. I want my hard earned money I gave (and still give) these govt. idiots back!!

Amjean on April 5, 2013 at 10:22 AM

Your money was stolen by the jackasses whom you voted to “lead” you. You can’t get your stolen property back; demanding someone else’s property as a compensation is not a solution.

Archivarix on April 5, 2013 at 10:32 AM

We need another stimulus!

Rovin on April 5, 2013 at 10:35 AM

Mr. Obama getting “killed” is part of the plan and coming largely from people who are reactionary.

Look at the proposal, how miniscule a gesture it is and then tell me what the purpose is?

Spoiler warning. It’s a negotiating ruse intended to make it look like he’s taking heat for the proposal. In reality, his proposal does very little and will never be enacted. Just like his previous promises.

My guess is the Vichy Republicans will fall for it.

Just wait for it. Another “Gang of Extra-Constitutionalists” is about to be formed.

Marcus Traianus on April 5, 2013 at 10:35 AM

The Obama WH is successfully spinning this as some kind of major entitlement reform, which is beyond ridiculous. It is nothing.

CPI changes also affect income tax bracket indexing — do we call them “tax reform?” This has gone beyond absurd.

Chuckles3 on April 5, 2013 at 10:11 AM

I knew my memory (aided by Social Security: The Unfinished Work </plug>) was good. Something tells me that Obama wants to chain only 2/3rds of what is affected by inflation adjustments (the benefits and the AIME), and leave the bracket adjustment untouched.

Steve Eggleston on April 5, 2013 at 10:38 AM

If this nation is in dire need of entitlement reform, shouldn’t that include the latest bloated entitlement—ObamaCare?

Rovin on April 5, 2013 at 10:38 AM

Negotiating with thieves.

….will still get you robbed.

hawkeye54 on April 5, 2013 at 10:39 AM

republicans MUST take this deal, as they’re not going to get a better deal. and with the backlash obama is going to get from his liberal base, this deal might very well have a rapid time limit.

nonpartisan on April 5, 2013 at 10:39 AM

It may be an entitlement for those who never worked or hardly worked, however, it isn’t for the rest of us. I want my hard earned money I gave (and still give) these govt. idiots back!!

Amjean on April 5, 2013 at 10:22 AM

Your money was stolen by the jackasses whom you voted to “lead” you. You can’t get your stolen property back; demanding someone else’s property as a compensation is not a solution.

Archivarix on April 5, 2013 at 10:32 AM

Did you ever hear the expression “no sh*t Sherlock”?

Amjean on April 5, 2013 at 10:40 AM

We need another stimulus!

It’s a shame Lil Kim’s missiles don’t have the range to reach DC.

hawkeye54 on April 5, 2013 at 10:41 AM

My guess is the Vichy Republicans will fall for it.

Head over heels. No doubt.

hawkeye54 on April 5, 2013 at 10:42 AM

The GOP will fall for this again. They’ll raise taxes now in exchange for cuts “…later.” Anyone for Rochambeau?

The GOP deserves the label “Party of Stupid.”

SAMinVA on April 5, 2013 at 10:43 AM

Amjean on April 5, 2013 at 10:22 AM

It’s 12.6% on roughly the first $110,000 of wages for SocSecurity and 2.9% on every dollar of wages for Medicare.

Steve Eggleston on April 5, 2013 at 10:25 AM

Thanks for the clarification. I was close!!!
And many don’t realize that their employers pay for half of social security. Most have no clue what they pay to feds, state, county,
city, etc. taxes. If they did they would be screaming!!!!!!!

Amjean on April 5, 2013 at 10:43 AM

Yet we’re still looking at trillion dollar annual deficits. The Fed can’t print forever, so we either cut spending(for real) by massive amounts or we jack up taxes on everyone.

Doughboy on April 5, 2013 at 10:28 AM

A thriving, pro-growth, private-sector economy can also do much to cut the deficit. Alas, that scenario is not in the picture.

Buy Danish on April 5, 2013 at 10:45 AM

this deal might very well have a rapid time limit.

yawn

DanMan on April 5, 2013 at 10:47 AM

The GOP deserves the label “Party of Stupid.”

Well earned, sadly.

hawkeye54 on April 5, 2013 at 10:49 AM

It’s a trap.

In 2010 it’s my understanding that seniors went somewhat Republican owing to the Medicaid/care money moves after Obamacare was passed — what are they going to do in 2014 after R.’s pass a half-way entitlement overhaul and the Congressional Dem’s back off support for it?

This is a ‘fall on the sword’ move by the President to get his party back in the saddle after the midterms. He doesn’t expect it to pass and does expect his party to drum up a lot of angst over it. I imagine his support for this will ‘evolve’, and his Congressional allies will back away.

BritCarGuy on April 5, 2013 at 10:49 AM

So, let me see if I have this straight: I will get less in SS and Medicare when I retire in about 10 years AND I get to pay higher taxes NOW? Oh, boy! Where do I sign up?!

princetrumpet on April 5, 2013 at 11:01 AM

The REB’s grand bargain with Boehner included big tax increases. The REB abandoned the grand bargain but got his big tax increases in January of this year without the grand bargain’s spending cuts.

Now he pretends that simply didn’t happen and wants to go back to the well and ask Boehner for the original deal. Sorry Reb, you got your big tax increases already.

slickwillie2001 on April 5, 2013 at 11:03 AM

Heh. This budget proposes a brand spanking new entitlement: “[It] would fund several new priorities, including the creation of a new program offering preschool to all four-year-olds from low- and moderate-income backgrounds”.

It talks about scaling back federal workers retirement programs, which would be a good thing, but there are zero details provided. I’m inclined to believe those cuts would be insignificant.

Buy Danish on April 5, 2013 at 10:31 AM

The progs pre-K programs aren’t about ‘education’, it’s about free daycare. They couldn’t call it government-paid daycare though, so they shroud it in the ‘education’ disguise.

Have to start programming at as young an age as possible to make good little progressives.

slickwillie2001 on April 5, 2013 at 11:07 AM

I will get less in SS and Medicare when I retire in about 10 years AND I get to pay higher taxes NOW? Oh, boy! Where do I sign up?!

No problem…..the thieves in DC will do that for you.

hawkeye54 on April 5, 2013 at 11:07 AM

Good lord why do we continue to pretend that CPI is remotely realistic to begin with ?

All that does is provide sorry cover for the basic premise of benefit cuts. SS is already woefully behind ACTUAL inflation which is many times higher than the unrealistic CPI says it is.

Why apply means testing to Medicare, but not SS ?

deadrody on April 5, 2013 at 11:16 AM

Boehner will accept this, the taxes will be hiked, SS will get messed with, and then, come close to 2014 elections, Obama will blink prettily into the cameras, say he never, never, never would have messed with SS and it was those mean ol’, nasty ol’, EVIL ol’ Republicans that Made Him Do It! against his fervent wishes, and all those little dailykoskidlets in nonpartisan’s link…

Obama’s getting killed at dailykos over this

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/04/05/1199363/-Chained-CPI-and-More-Austerity-are-Back-On-the-Table-in-Obama-s-Fresh-Budget-Plan-Offer

nonpartisan on April 5, 2013 at 10:29 AM

…will eat up Obama’s words like milk and honey and will turn to those vicious Republicans and say, “how DARE you make our beloved President Obama mess with SS! You evil, evil people! We’ll take back the House and make sure you never have a chance to do that again!”

theotherone on April 5, 2013 at 11:19 AM

That’s right, I’ve paid into the system for over 40 years and when the time comes it’s time for me to get paid back. If they want to cut something they ought to better scrutinize the people getting handouts, because while there are a lot of people who legitimately qualify for benefits, there are probably at least a million or so that don’t. Cut them, not the elderly. Simple stuff! Doh.

Don’t you get it yet? You’re being played. Social Security was never about giving hard-working honest folks like you a little peace of mind in your golden years. It was about giving the politicians an endless slush fund to buy votes with. And use it they have. All the low-info voters who refuse to work and think Uncle Sam has an endless supply of money that the EEEEEEVIL RIIIIICH want to keep from them are the real rationale behind Social Security and Medicare. Don’t depend on them. Once they lose their usefulness, they will be quietly replaced and suddenly none of your contributions will exist. But the payouts to losers will continue till the merry-go-round stops completely.

JoseQuinones on April 5, 2013 at 11:19 AM

Non-Part I don’t think I would agree. I think the GOP has a model right now that they can fall back on. Endlessly. You use that to force tax increases into the context of greater tax efficiency by wiping out loopholes and lowering rates – of course that will get his donor base upset – because most of them use the loopholes extensively.

The SS reform is really not enough and SS is still a terrible deal for everyone. Medicare is the big nasty – will be intersted in what he means in his reform proposal.

Zomcon JEM on April 5, 2013 at 11:22 AM

May I make a modest proposal ?

From now on, any term that appears similar to the following:

“Low information voters who think…”

Are hereby banished. By definition, “low information voters” DON’T think or know much of anything. They don’t think Uncle Sam has anything, because they don’t think. They are told by the media that the GOP is evil. Period. Stop trying to pretend there is some kind of root cause for their low information votes. There isn’t.

Except for the corrupt, liberal media.

deadrody on April 5, 2013 at 11:23 AM

No problem…..the thieves in DC will do that for you.

hawkeye54 on April 5, 2013 at 11:07 AM

Who said anyone cares about you?

We have over 375,000 important super grade folks with six figure pay and benefits befitting a magistrate in an oil rich state. Most of them do nonsense all day but, hey, this is a high cost of living area! And you didn’t vote for him or contribute.

Focus group results show the right will be blamed for whatever “cuts” he makes. The Repubs are like jail B!thces with the guards asleep!

Bet you missed this:

hehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/280925-mcconnell-democrats-call-for-ending-tax-loopholes-is-poll-tested-gimmick

He has got IT ALL GOING ON and it just depends how he wants to take it!

IlikedAUH2O on April 5, 2013 at 11:25 AM

We need another stimulus! (Rov)
It’s a shame Lil Kim’s missiles don’t have the range to reach DC.

hawkeye54 on April 5, 2013 at 10:41 AM

Guess I needed a sarc tag hawkeye…….. :)

Rovin on April 5, 2013 at 11:26 AM

I’m telling you. Someday they will just take your money then give you an allowance.

I will will lose that if you buy big drinks, hamburgers, cigarettes, gas hog cars, big motorcycles..

IlikedAUH2O on April 5, 2013 at 11:30 AM

So, let me see if I have this straight: I will get less in SS and Medicare when I retire in about 10 years AND I get to pay higher taxes NOW? Oh, boy! Where do I sign up?!

princetrumpet on April 5, 2013 at 11:01 AM

It’s right there on page 61 of your ObamaCare application.

stvnscott on April 5, 2013 at 11:32 AM

Anyone notice that the only thing Obama wants to cut are things that will mostly affect old white people? And hilariously, the GOP will go along with it.

ninjapirate on April 5, 2013 at 10:22 AM

I think Social Security cuts across ethnic lines, but the cuts will indeed affect old people. But the trade should be for our children’s future — an increase in the allowable amounts and types of tax-deferred savings for our children.

unclesmrgol on April 5, 2013 at 11:35 AM

Good lord why do we continue to pretend that CPI is remotely realistic to begin with ?

All that does is provide sorry cover for the basic premise of benefit cuts. SS is already woefully behind ACTUAL inflation which is many times higher than the unrealistic CPI says it is.

Why apply means testing to Medicare, but not SS ?

deadrody on April 5, 2013 at 11:16 AM

I would like to see some independent organization report inflation honestly. Yes, they would become an instant target of both parties, but it would be nice if someone spoke the truth.

slickwillie2001 on April 5, 2013 at 11:36 AM

It’s a shame Lil Kim’s missiles don’t have the range to reach DC.

hawkeye54 on April 5, 2013 at 10:41 AM

Guess I needed a sarc tag hawkeye…….. :)

Guess I could have used one too. :)

hawkeye54 on April 5, 2013 at 11:36 AM

It’s a trap.

In 2010 it’s my understanding that seniors went somewhat Republican owing to the Medicaid/care money moves after Obamacare was passed — what are they going to do in 2014 after R.’s pass a half-way entitlement overhaul and the Congressional Dem’s back off support for it?

This is a ‘fall on the sword’ move by the President to get his party back in the saddle after the midterms. He doesn’t expect it to pass and does expect his party to drum up a lot of angst over it. I imagine his support for this will ‘evolve’, and his Congressional allies will back away.

BritCarGuy on April 5, 2013 at 10:49 AM

The Romney/Ryan ticket took a historically-high percentage of seniors despite Mediscare.

Steve Eggleston on April 5, 2013 at 11:37 AM

Sure. Let the seniors who have paid their fair share while the whitehouse kids vaca in expensive hotels in the Bahamas.

It’s only fair.

Get revenge.

White people sucking the nation dry through social security.

Stoner the second is justifiably proud of our president this day.

davidk on April 5, 2013 at 11:37 AM

Who said anyone cares about you?

Ah, but they DO care about me….I have income and assets to tax! Which is as far as their interest in me goes.

When will the time come when all our income goes directly to government for it to hold, manage and dole out we need as a monthly allowance after its take its share?

hawkeye54 on April 5, 2013 at 11:41 AM

Sure. Let the seniors who have paid their fair share while the whitehouse kids vaca in expensive hotels in the Bahamas.

But they are our own national royalty! They take those widely publicized vacations so we, who are unable to afford such luxuries, may be able to experience them vicariously.

I’m surprised DVDs of the Obama Family vacays haven’t been made available for purchase on the WH website for us all to enjoy…….$39.99 plus postage and handling, on Bluray 3-D.

hawkeye54 on April 5, 2013 at 11:46 AM

Predictable. EVERYTHING Obama proposes will have new taxes.

sadatoni on April 5, 2013 at 11:46 AM

When will the time come when all our income goes directly to government for it to hold, manage and dole out we need as a monthly allowance after its take its share?

hawkeye54 on April 5, 2013 at 11:41 AM

Didn’t that proposal get the Labour Party tossed in Britain? RWM, help?

Steve Eggleston on April 5, 2013 at 11:46 AM

Boehner will accept this, the taxes will be hiked, SS will get messed with, and then, come close to 2014 elections, Obama will blink prettily into the cameras, say he never, never, never would have messed with SS and it was those mean ol’, nasty ol’, EVIL ol’ Republicans that Made Him Do It! against his fervent wishes, and all those little dailykoskidlets in nonpartisan’s link…

Obama’s getting killed at dailykos over this

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/04/05/1199363/-Chained-CPI-and-More-Austerity-are-Back-On-the-Table-in-Obama-s-Fresh-Budget-Plan-Offer

nonpartisan on April 5, 2013 at 10:29 AM

…will eat up Obama’s words like milk and honey and will turn to those vicious Republicans and say, “how DARE you make our beloved President Obama mess with SS! You evil, evil people! We’ll take back the House and make sure you never have a chance to do that again!”

theotherone on April 5, 2013 at 11:19 AM

Exactly. This is a great move by Zero. He gets his tax increase, and he gets to blame the GOP for pushing granny off the cliff when the 2014 races come around. All those House dems will get to bash, bash, bash the GOP for “holding granny hostage,” and maybe – just maybe – Granny McBotox will get her giant phallic gavel back.

If the GOP were smart – which they aren’t – they would turn this on Zero immediately, scream that HE is throwing granny off a cliff because he wants to SPEND, SPEND, SPEND on his cronies, quote from all those left-wing sites to prove it, and tie the whole damn mess around his neck because he cannot do anything but destroy jobs while paying off his campaign contributors with GRANNY’S MONEY. Come on, GOP. FIGHT!

Rational Thought on April 5, 2013 at 11:50 AM

Predictable. EVERYTHING Obama proposes will have new taxes.

Naturally, because in the end game, the Left wants ALL of what we produce so they can control it and us.

Slaves of government. Producers and takers at the government trough. All to be dependent on Big Gov.

hawkeye54 on April 5, 2013 at 11:51 AM

GDP grows at maybe 1%. Spending at 3.5% AND THIS IS WITHOUT ANOTHER CRISIS.

I try to warn people. Then Dems pull out a graph that shows the gov’t spending percent of GDP is stable or declining and it goes till 2016.

Problem is, every bloomin’ chart goes from 2007 or 2008 to the present! That is all the media ever shows!

I think we are plowing back money from the wind down of wars and making freebies but I don’t know.

And the slicksters in the Bush years were no gift either.

IlikedAUH2O on April 5, 2013 at 11:54 AM

Amjean on April 5, 2013 at 10:22 AM

Two supreme court decisions undercut your argument. When Social Security was first passed SCOTUS and the Robert’s of that day ruled that the government couldn’t have an insurance program and that SS was just another general budget tax. In 1960 it ruled that individuals have no property rights to what they paid in. So all those years most of us worked and paid into the program it was just additional taxes to fund the current budget. All the slight of hand with the IOU’s is just that a slight of hand to get you on a bird walk. If the people really understood the slight of hand tricks hemp and lamp posts would have been put to use a long, long time ago.

chemman on April 5, 2013 at 12:40 PM

The REB’s grand bargain with Boehner included big tax increases. The REB abandoned the grand bargain but got his big tax increases in January of this year without the grand bargain’s spending cuts.

Now he pretends that simply didn’t happen and wants to go back to the well and ask Boehner for the original deal. Sorry Reb, you got your big tax increases already.

slickwillie2001 on April 5, 2013 at 11:03 AM

Boehner is bot biting:

‘House Speaker John Boehner immediately dismissed President Barack Obama’s package of significant new entitlement cuts tied to new tax revenues, calling them “no way to lead and move the country forward.
Boehner said he will not consider new revenues as part of the deal, arguing that “modest” entitlement savings should not “be held hostage for more tax hikes.” (Politico).

jimver on April 5, 2013 at 1:07 PM

Obama still does not get it. No one wants to play cards with a cheater.

pat on April 5, 2013 at 1:08 PM

Obama offers non SS cuts because only the “rate of increase” is cut it is not an actual cut, but the tax hikes will be very real. Why are they hitting the two programs that were paid for with real money by the benefactors and not go after all the freebie giveaways instead? It seems the only ones who are getting hammered are those who worked or paid into benefits but Welfare and give a ways to non Americans, lazy Americans and foreign aid don’t get a glance.

SGinNC on April 5, 2013 at 1:17 PM

The demonrats can kill babies with impunity and now they are going after the seniors. This country has truly gone to he!!

johnny reb on April 5, 2013 at 2:59 PM

Obama to offer Social Security cuts in new budget — in exchange for tax hikes

…JugEars will do anything…for constant tax hikes!

KOOLAID2 on April 5, 2013 at 3:16 PM

Amjean on April 5, 2013 at 10:22 AM

Two supreme court decisions undercut your argument. When Social Security was first passed SCOTUS and the Robert’s of that day ruled that the government couldn’t have an insurance program and that SS was just another general budget tax. In 1960 it ruled that individuals have no property rights to what they paid in. So all those years most of us worked and paid into the program it was just additional taxes to fund the current budget. All the slight of hand with the IOU’s is just that a slight of hand to get you on a bird walk. If the people really understood the slight of hand tricks hemp and lamp posts would have been put to use a long, long time ago.

chemman on April 5, 2013 at 12:40 PM

Well, we all know much of government is a scheme/scam of one kind or another, however, I am starting to understand why our politicians want to have gun control regs leading to gun confiscation. When
the people find the scams exposed there will be a lot of Washington
hightailing it out of town. The people will be VERY angry.

Amjean on April 5, 2013 at 3:23 PM

The GOP needs to insist that any change to the CPI formula apply not only to Social Security, but also to all federal salaries. If it’s good enough for seniors on a fixed income, then it’s good enough for generously-paid/benefitted government workers.

Imagine the PR windfall for the GOP if public employee unions resist it, in essence saying they should get bigger COLA raises than poor seniors!

jeanneb on April 5, 2013 at 3:26 PM

The GOP needs to insist that any change to the CPI formula apply not only to Social Security, but also to all federal salaries. If it’s good enough for seniors on a fixed income, then it’s good enough for generously-paid/benefitted government workers.

Imagine the PR windfall for the GOP if public employee unions resist it, in essence saying they should get bigger COLA raises than poor seniors!

jeanneb on April 5, 2013 at 3:26 PM

Check, and the military.

slickwillie2001 on April 5, 2013 at 5:40 PM

If you can cut SSA, then not only are you going after the 3rd rail with a pick axe… but you then have no reason to raise taxes as its a program that is supposedly funded by its own special tax.

Really, if he is trying to make SSA solvent, then you don’t need any other tax.

And if he isn’t then he is doing it to inflict pain.

Remind me, again, how it is only EVIL REPUBLICANS who want to cut SSA and push granny over the cliff?

ajacksonian on April 5, 2013 at 7:25 PM