In early December, the fears on the left about Medicare were acute and widespread. Reports indicated that President Obama was so eager to cut a "grand bargain" debt-reduction deal with Republicans he was prepared to raise the program's eligibility age from 65 to 67. It's a terrible and unpopular policy, which GOP leaders wanted desperately.
In time, House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) walked away from another overly generous White House offer, and the threat faded. Any chance we might see the proposal make a comeback? Apparently not.
For those who can't watch clips online, this was the exchange in yesterday's White House press briefing between press secretary Jay Carney and ABC's Jonathan Carl (via Joan McCarter).
Q: Jay, yes, can you just clarify for me very clearly -- is the President open to raising the eligibility age for Medicare?
CARNEY: No.
Q: Absolutely not?
CARNEY: The president has made clear that we don't believe that that's the right policy to take.
Boehner's office condemned the remarks, but (a) they had their chance; (b) if they want to fight for a wildly unpopular policy, I don't imagine the White House will mind; and (c) since we're still waiting for the Speaker's debt-reduction plan, it's a little tough to take the outrage seriously.
But for proponents of the social insurance programs, the news wasn't all good.
In the same press briefing, there was also this exchange:
Q: What about reducing the annual cost of living increases for Social Security recipients?
CARNEY: Again, as part of a big deal, part of a comprehensive package that reduces our deficit and achieves that $4-trillion goal that was set out by so many people in and outside of government a number of years ago, he would consider that the hard choice that includes the so-called chain CPI, in fact, he put that on the table in his proposal, but not in a cherry-picked or piecemeal way. That's got to be part of a comprehensive package that asks that the burden be shared; that we don't, as some in Congress want, ask seniors to bear the burden of further deficit reduction alone, or middle-class families who are struggling to send their kids to college, or parents of children who are disabled who rely on programs to help them get through.
That's just not fair and it doesn't make economic sense -- because the choice would be, let's do that, but hold harmless the wealthy; let's do that, put the burden on seniors alone, but not close loopholes in our tax code that are available to wealthy individuals or corporations, but not to average folks or small businesses. And that doesn't make any sense.
How do you explain to a senior that we're doing this, asking you to sacrifice, but we're not saying that corporate jet owners should lose their special tax incentive; we're not saying to oil and gas companies who are making record profits that they should forego these huge subsidies that taxpayers provide? That's not fair and it's not good economics.
So, Medicare's eligibility age is off the table, but chained CPI remains on it.
As for why the White House was open to the Medicare change in December but no longer, keep in mind that the intentions surrounding a "grand bargain" have changed -- since then, Democrats picked up an additional $650 billion in new revenue. President Obama wants/needs more, but he expects to get it through tax reform, making the Medicare cut entirely unnecessary.
Besides, just because Obama was willing to stick his neck out that far two months ago, and Boehner wasn't in a position to appreciate just how good the offer was, there's no reason for the president to do it again.
Leave a Comment:
Obama has put cutting Social Security benefits on the table again.
Send an email to the White House telling President Obama to immediately stop proposing any cuts to Social Security.
The Good Emperor gives with one hand while taking away with the other. The fact that this Rockefeller Republican we are forced to support is "better than the other guy" is a crappy damn argument to have to make and support. What crappy times we live in I never thought I'd see.
Leave Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security alone. They are not the problem, military spending is our biggest problem and it needs to be controlled.
You know the one thing that I never understand why it is not pointed out more is that Social Security is its own program. It adds exactly 0 to the deficit. 0! Changing how much in benefits are paid out will only affect that program and not the deficit. Yes it may extend its solvency, but not achieve any of the stated Republican goals of reducing the deficit.
Does anyone completely trust The Obomination?
I don't completely trust my momma. But I trust him infinitely more than any of the halfwits, sociopaths and cowards that the only people who can get through Republican Party's primary process these days.
To answer SOV, no. After four years of reckless fecklessness in the clear face of Republican obstruction, he should have been making the political arguments exposing them for what they are instead of offering up red meat to their voracious, insatiable appetite for destruction.
Obama needs to prove with actions that he knows how to deal with the existential threat that the GOP represents.
As for trusting him more than the nasty Republicans, duh. Is that a high bar to get over?
Based on what I've seen so far? Barely.. You work with what you've got..
The fact that this Rockefeller Republican we are forced to support is "better than the other guy" is a crappy damn argument to have to make and support. What crappy times we live in I never thought I'd see.
It is sad, no doubt about it.
SOV, you play into the hands of the Far Right John Birching Libertarian Tea Party Republicans when you use their language to describe this President. Please stop. I expect the disrespect from them, as Ann Richards used to say, "they can't help themselves." But you, sir, know better than they, even if this President isn't perfect.
it amazes me that obama seriously considered this in the first place. i'm no actuary, but common sense and simple observation tells me that there are a helluva lot more 65 and 66 year olds than there are, say 72 and 73 year olds. in other words, if you put the segment that would have found themselves cut out of old age social programs in percentage terms, i suggest it would be striking. how about this for a headline--obama agrees to cut 25% of the elderly from social security and medicare! ?
My take on it was that he was not serious. He knew the GOP was going to reject the other part of the deal: new revenues. So it cost him nothing.
Mine too. By that time, it was clear there was no chance of a deal and the objective was to do whatever it took to push awarness that the the Republicans were neither rational nor bargaining in good faith out to the non-politically obsessed people through an MSM that is basically wired six ways from Sunday to keep facts like that from leaking through to the viewers.
the problem is that by even pretending that its a serious idea does two bad things. one, it legitimizes wacky ideas. the msm performs that all too well. second, it moves the center of political gravity. paul ryan is a great example. even the gipper would have rolled his eyes at his privatization schemes. whenever reference is made to these kinds of ideas, it should be with no more than well deserved ridicule. the president is the last person on earth who ought to appear to think the looney tunes are worthy of consideration.
SOV won't stop Judy but I agree with you. As for me, despite Pres. Obama's obvious lack of infallibility, I have not had a day since his re-election that I have not been grateful and relieved that the lying plutocrat Mitt Romney isn't sitting in the White House. While we need to lobby the president to be true to progressive values, I save my vitriol for those who failed to vote in 2010. Thanks to them, we have John Boehner as Speaker of the House, the sight of whom, with his faux outrage and his lack of brain power and leadership skills and humanity, judging from Rachel's show last night, polluting our air waves and Congress.
Very well put Md. I believe the POTUS has our backs, but he is far from perfect. I voted for Hillary, even though Obama had it pretty locked up by the time the California primary hit.
I believe Obama has our backs as long as we have his feet to the fire. You can't turn your back on him for 20 seconds without him coming up with another sell-out. Whether the Republicans are too stupid to say yes to success or not, the fact he keeps this up is proof he does not "have our backs."
He might take the age thing off the table, but he's still put chained CPI, which will take about $30,000 from me if I live to the age males in my family have for the past six generations. That is a CUT. It is NOT "having our back."
I've always understod it to have been the our (the voters') responsibility to "keep their (politicians') feet to the fire".
But then, we're not perfect either...
By the way, has anyone done any research about what a CPI based solely on retirees' consumption would look like? Would it be better or worse than the present CPI?
Raising the eligibility age for Medicare is a bad idea because the human body begins to wear out after about 60 years no matter how hardy you are or how well you take care of yourself. Because of that fact the cost of insurance for anyone over 50 starts going up rapidly. This is one reason it is so hard for anyone who loses his/her job after age 50 to get another one. It also costs employers to keep people working past 65. The eligibility age for full SS has already been raised to 67.
I am 72 and will not be affected if Medicare eligibility is raised, but I know people who cannot afford insurance and cannot afford such things as a knee replacement. The ultimate cost to society of raising the Medicare age are much more than any savings.
As for changing the CPI, that would just take money away from those of us who need it the most and who put that money back into the economy. It would also hurt people with elderly parents because the children will have to make up the difference for their parents. Those of us who do not have children are just out of luck.
The only reason that SS is a part of the mix is that the government has been supporting its war habit by raiding the SS trust fund. One thing that does not get enough attention is the fact that a very large part of the debt the Repubs are screaming about is owed to the SS Fund. They just do not want to have to pay it back.
What I need an explanation for, and maybe Paul Krugman to hold my hand through it, is why cutting a program that isn't a budget item will help so much in cutting the deficit. I would also like the President to sit down and honestly explain, to all of us, who the hell told him that such an asinine idea was relevant. I think we deserve to know what moron's logic he's following with chained CPI, when the answer to SS has always been easy as pie, just lift the withholding ceiling to a million or even five or just eliminate it altogether. I guess that makes too much sense to work.
If it's true, and Obama will refuse to raise the Medicare age, this is extremely good news. There is absolutely no reason for it as the savings are trivially puny. And it's extremely, extremely regressive, hurting the most vulnerable. Anybody proposing it is a heartless asswhole.
Now what about Social Security? So many easy ways to deal with it, it's not even funny. Raise to salary cap, and absolutely zero problem.
I have been saying for years, half-kidding, that we could run huge surpluses in Social Security to the end of time if we simply couple accepting Social Security to forfeiting one's drivers license.
The rationale is: if you are too aged and infirm to work, then you are too infirm to drive.
The result would be people routinely working into their early seventies, and very few people keeping their car keys into their eighties. Large numbers of car-less seniors would create sufficient demand for functional mass transit, even in smaller cities.
And I will not have to deal with taking the keys away from my mother-in-law.
It's all about me. ;-)
That's about the dumbest thing I've ever heard. Make the old people walk everywhere. That will fix them.
I was thinking more buses, cabs, and driver services, but whatever works.
In many cities hiring cabs to and from semi-weekly errands is about as expensive as owning, maintaining, and insuring a car.
Better a cab to the farmer's market than driving through the farmer's market.
The reason why Obama is open to the chained CPI is because Republicans and some Dems are opposed to raising the ceiling for SS and Medicare wages which could help put a lot more revenue into the programs. But I see changes to SS and Medicare that lower benefits as being toxic to anyone who votes for such changes. In fact, I think Obama is going to have real problems getting most Dems to vote for any such changes. It would be political suicide because of the number of Boomers who are retiring in greater numbers every day. Dems will agree to some changes in the programs but it will have to include a lot more revenue than cuts in benefits. Otherwise, Republicans can pass the programs with a few Dem votes and take the wrath of the voters.
Thank you trms! That was great