Republicans Admit They Are Too Scared to Cut Social Security

[Nbadan]

Obama Called Their Bluff: Republicans Admit They Are Too Scared to Cut Social Security


You may have missed it, but over the weekend congressional Republicans admitted that they are terrified that any Social Security cuts will lead to their defeat.

If you have been paying attention to the politics of Obama’s chained CPI offer, you may have noticed that Republicans have been running away like their hair’s on fire away from his proposal.

The reason why is that Republicans are afraid that the president is setting them up. Roll Call reported, “The debate Walden’s remarks has set off inside the GOP shows many Republicans harbor deep-seated fears about publicly supporting the entitlement cuts they supposedly back and have demanded Obama and other Democrats embrace since taking control of the House in 2011…Many GOP operatives fear Obama’s embrace of chained consumer price index, a mechanism to slow the growth of Social Security benefits over time, is a trap — a means of getting Republicans to support the policy on the record only to see Democrats savage them for it down the line.”

The Republican strategists who suspect this are partially correct. President Obama is using Chained CPI to set up a win/win/win situation for Democrats. Republicans have to choose between raising taxes in order to get the Chained CPI, arguing for Chained CPI without the tax increase, or rejecting Chained CPI. If Republicans express any desire to cut Social Security, Democrats will savage them for it during next year’s election. If Republicans agree to raise taxes at all, the base of their party will erupt in rage. If Republicans split and some of them reject Chained CPI, it will never become law. (Chained CPI probably won’t become law anyway, because Harry Reid and many Senate Democrats have promised to oppose any changes to Social Security.)

-snip-

Full article here: http://www.politicususa.com/obama-called-bluff-republicans-admit-scared-cut-social-security.ht

Anyone who would believe that the GOP have suddenly become the champions of the SS program is a dumbass but SS should never be on the table

[Wild Cobra]

Anyone who would believe that the GOP have suddenly become the champions of the SS program is a dumbass but SS should never be on the table
You have it all wrong Dan.

The republicans do not want to cut SS. They just want to give us workers the option to opt out of SS and fund our own retirement, and in doing so, not contribute the 6.2% we put in SS, so we have more for our own retirement accounts. The employer match of 6.2% would still go to the SS program.

[Winehole23]

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-0KSNyITihnQ/UWhGV5NNopI/AAAAAAAAMOo/sbFTFRkKWWY/s1600/Toles.jpg

[boutons_deux]

"public transportation, like the deterioration of health care, education, social services, public utilities, bridges and roads,"

are mainly due to the VRWC/1% cut-throat tax cutting, and privatization.

WC still believes, in his blind ideoogy, that giving SS $Ts of retirement funds to the criminal, fee-stealing, corrupt, muppet-screwing financial sector will produce better results than govt SS? You can't lose with SS, but you can certainly and WILL lose with the financial sector.

[Winehole23]

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/04/12/188413/obamas-2014-budget-has-more-new.html

[RandomGuy]

You have it all wrong Dan.

The republicans do not want to cut SS. They just want to give us workers the option to opt out of SS and fund our own retirement, and in doing so, not contribute the 6.2% we put in SS, so we have more for our own retirement accounts. The employer match of 6.2% would still go to the SS program.


Security For Those Who Need It:
Ensuring Retirement Security
While no changes should adversely affect any
current or near-retiree, comprehensive reform
should address our society’s remarkable medical advances
in longevity and allow younger workers the
option of creating their own personal investment accounts
as supplements to the system. Younger Americans
have lost all faith in the Social Security system,
which is understandable when they read the nonpartisan
actuary’s reports about its future funding
status. Born in an old industrial era beyond the mem-ory of most Americans, it is long overdue for major
change, not just another legislative stopgap that postpones
a day of reckoning. To restore public trust in
the system, Republicans are committed to setting it
on a sound fiscal basis that will give workers control
over, and a sound return on, their investments. The
sooner we act, the sooner those close to retirement
can be reassured of their benefits and younger workers
can take responsibility for planning their own retirement
decades from now.
Unlike Social Security, the problems facing private
pension plans are both demographic and
ethical. While pension law may be complicated, the
current bottom line is that many plans are increasingly
underfunded by overestimating their rates of return
on investments. This in turn endangers the
integrity of the Pension Guaranty Benefit Corporation,
which is itself seriously underfunded. In both
cases, the taxpayers will be expected to pay for a
bailout. As the first step toward possible corrective action,
we call for a presidential panel to review the private
pension system in this country of only those
private pensions that are backed by the Pension
Guaranty Benefit Corporation and to make public
its findings.
The situation of public pension systems demands
immediate remedial action. The irresponsible promises
of politicians at every level of government have
come back to haunt today’s taxpayers with enormous
unfunded pension liabilities. Many cities face bankruptcy
because of excessive outlays for early retirement,
extravagant health plans, and overly generous
pension benefits. We salute the Republican Governors
and State legislators who have, in the face of
abuse and threats of violence, reformed their State
pension systems for the benefit of both taxpayers and
retirees alike.

GOP doesn't seem to say what they want here. Vacuous in the extreme, but to be expected. I think the OP pretty much has it right.

Quite frankly, privitizing SS, which seems to be the favored, if not overly explicit, solution doesn't seem to be a good way to go.


I would find it very hard to stomach your proposed solution, simply because I don't think the private sector could do better.

Given the pervasiveness of corruption and overall contempt most investment bankers have held their clients, the suggestion that we should give them more money to suck on is indefensible.

The largest banks have been found to trade on their own behalf right before executing large orders for their clients. In effect, skimming returns from the people who trusted them on a massive scale.

Given that for-profit banking institutions have to have large overheads, just like any goverment, AND have to have profit margins, and profit sharing provisions for their upper management and traders, I don't see how this added expense could justify the extra risks that they would have to incur for returns better than what SS gets now.

The vast majority of mutual funds don't do better than the market. That is a dirty little secret. That also implies that any promise of returns tied to the market overall are sales pitches by used car salesmen who are drooling over the commission you represent.

Sorry to burst the "Free market" dogma here.

If you like, I'm sure WH can find enough anectdotal evidence to suggest more than a bit of caution for this idea.