Steny Hoyer advising Democratic candidates to not dismiss any ideas to cut Social Security

Social Security's defenders wary of deficit reduction commission
By Lori Montgomery
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, June 9, 2010

The heated rhetoric is an ominous sign for Obama's deficit-fighting task force, which is charged with developing a bipartisan plan to stabilize the soaring national debt. Adjusting Social Security benefits is a likely point of consensus, commission members say. Now, some of the same activists who helped derail a 2005 GOP plan to restructure the program are threatening to rally the public against any proposal to cut benefits.

"It will hurt Democrats if Democrats are seen as the party cutting Social Security benefits," said Roger Hickey, co-director of the Campaign for America's Future. "We're trying to prevent them from doing bad policy and bad politics."

Over the past month, deficit commission members have begun meeting in small working groups, including one subpanel, chaired by former Clinton budget director Alice Rivlin and Sen. Judd Gregg (R-N.H.), dedicated to Social Security. Other panels are focusing on other entitlement programs, such as Medicare, an even bigger budget problem, as well as discretionary spending and the tax system. If 14 of the commission's 18 members reach agreement on a deficit-reduction plan, congressional leaders have pledged to put it to a vote after the fall elections.

Commission members have declined to say what options they are considering, repeating the Obama mantra that everything is "on the table." But options for Social Security are no secret: In addition to boosting taxes, the lengthy list includes raising the retirement age for people now in middle age and trimming benefits for the wealthy. (Means testing? How would the commission define "wealthy"? Perhaps a couple who has home paid off or who might be also getting a private employer paid pension? BBI)

House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.), a vocal supporter of the commission's goals, said he is advising rank-and-file Democrats not to dismiss any of those ideas as the campaign season gets into full swing.

"My advice to members is: Do not sign yourself into a corner," said Hoyer, who has been candid about the ugly choices involved in rebalancing the budget. "That's not because anybody intends to cut the benefits of any Social Security recipient today or tomorrow. But given the magnitude of the problems that confront us, do not limit your options." (Right. I can hear it now. Nobody "intends" to cut benefits, however, members of Congress may have no choice in order to cut the deficit. They just didn't realize, until they got the commissions report and recommendations AFTER the election, how bad the deficit really is! BBI)

Five years ago, when then-President George W. Bush proposed carving out a portion of Social Security taxes to create private retirement accounts, a coalition of progressive groups and advocates for the elderly organized to smother the plan. Even in a Republican Congress, the idea went nowhere. In 2006, Democrats campaigned against the plan and regained control of Congress.

Now some of the same groups are watching Obama's commission closely. They note that many of its members have publicly advocated cutting Social Security, including co-chairman Alan Simpson, a former GOP senator from Wyoming, who has chastised "greedy geezers" for fighting to protect their retirement checks while their grandchildren face a towering debt.

The program's defenders argue that there is no crisis: If Treasury would repay billions of dollars in surplus Social Security taxes borrowed over the years, the program could pay full benefits through 2037. But many budget experts question whether supporting the existing benefit structure should be a cash-strapped nation's first priority.


Read the full article at:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/08/AR2010060805081.html?sid=ST2010060805380

Where is Al Gore and the lock box?

Its like NAFTA all over again.

Im starting to think our party is Democratic in name only.

will be proposed by the commission must become enormous in order to prevail.

They will vote on the cuts right after the election. That timing will make it easier for members of Congress who lose this fall (mainly Democrats) to vote for the cuts.

The two Parties have become no more than flip sides of the same corporate coin. :(

n/t

Feel free to whack away at the "entitlement programs" for citizens...but keep your hands off the military entitlements!

"experts question whether supporting the existing benefit structure should be a cash-strapped nation's first priority."

No, clearly our first Priority is blowing up rocks and wedding parties in the middle east. Second is providing gigantic bailouts to crooks. Third is providing huge checks to agribusiness... supporting the major thing keeping large numbers of americans out of abject poverty? That's 99th!

Remove the cap on Social Security taxes. Everybody pays precisely the same rate on every penny they earn. The only cap is on what you can be paid in SS benefits after retirement.

Problem solved forever.

double-dare them . . . .

That's the only way they can get the cuts in. If they did it before the elections there would be no cover for Congress and they are relying on people's short memories. I WILL be watching!!

NOT ON OUR SIDE!

Kicked, but too late to recommend.

Thanks for the thread, Better Believe It.