RSS Feed Menu
Back when conservatives were fighting the good fight for private accounts in Social Security, we often pointed to the Supreme Court ruling that individuals had no legally enforceable right to Social Security benefits.
I quote the Cato Institute’s Michael Tanner:
Many people believe that Social Security is an “earned right.” That is, they think that because they have paid Social Security taxes, they are entitled to receive Social Security benefits. The government encourages that belief by referring to Social Security taxes as “contributions,” as in the Federal Insurance Contribution Act. However, in the 1960 case of Fleming v. Nestor, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that workers have no legally binding contractual rights to their Social Security benefits, and that those benefits can be cut or even eliminated at any time.
Ephram Nestor was a Bulgarian immigrant who came to the United States in 1918 and paid Social Security taxes from 1936, the year the system began operating, until he retired in 1955. A year after he retired, Nestor was deported for having been a member of the Communist Party in the 1930s. In 1954 Congress had passed a law saying that any person deported from the United States should lose his Social Security benefits. Accordingly, Nestor’s $55.60 per month Social Security checks were stopped. Nestor sued, claiming that because he had paid Social Security taxes, he had a right to Social Security benefits.
The Supreme Court disagreed, saying “To engraft upon the Social Security system a concept of ‘accrued property rights’ would deprive it of the flexibility and boldness in adjustment to ever changing conditions which it demands.” The Court went on to say, “It is apparent that the non-contractual interest of an employee covered by the [Social Security] Act cannot be soundly analogized to that of the holder of an annuity, whose right to benefits is bottomed on his contractual premium payments.”
The Court’s decision was not surprising. In an earlier case, Helvering v. Davis (1937), the Court had ruled that Social Security was not a contributory insurance program, saying, “The proceeds of both the employee and employer taxes are to be paid into the Treasury like any other internal revenue generally, and are not earmarked in any way.”
In other words, Social Security is not an insurance program at all. It is simply a payroll tax on one side and a welfare program on the other. Your Social Security benefits are always subject to the whim of 535 politicians in Washington. Congress has cut Social Security benefits in the past and is likely to do so in the future.
Conservatives are blasting President Obama for “scare tactics” when he suggests in interviews that Social Security payments will not in fact be secure in the event of a hard crash with the debt ceiling.
Actually Obama is here channeling 100% classic conservative theory. Conservatives have argued for 20 years that Social Security is a pure gratuity, vulnerable to change at the whim of Congress. That’s why we wanted to change it! But the consequence of Social Security being a pure gratuity is that Social Security recipients must stand at the back of the line if it becomes necessary to slash spending by 44% . Bondholders collect first. People with other contracts and other legally enforceable claims collect next. Those without legally enforceable claims collect last. That last category includes not only Social Security recipients and the unemployed, but also, for example, soldiers in the field.
It can’t be right that the Secretary of the Treasury has the discretionary power to pay anybody he likes. Some people have legally stronger claims against the federal government than others. Unfortunately for the GOP’s strategy in this bizarre game of threat and counter-threat, the claims that are most politically powerful also happen to be legally weaker.
Actually Obama is here channeling 100% classic conservative theory. Conservatives have argued for 20 years that Social Security is a pure gratuity, vulnerable to change at the whim of Congress
Bingo.
You can’t argue that Congress can slash Social Security benefits … and then argue that SS checks will continue to be cut when we slam into a debt ceiling.
Unfortunately for the GOP’s strategy in this bizarre game of threat and counter-threat, the claims that are most politically powerful also happen to be legally weaker.
And you can bet that those other parties in line ahead of Social Security will be bringing some awful high priced lawyers to the game. And by the way, we have a Supreme Court very inclined to favor corporate interests over those of the general public.
**************
Interesting recent speculation. Apparently the GOP sees that they’re not going to get a deficit reduction bill without tax increases on the wealthy … so they’re about to walk away from deficit reduction. Instead there will be a series of resolutions scheduled on debt ceiling increases over the next 18 months requiring a veto-proof majority to stop the the increases.
Thus the GOP may live to grandstand for another day, without getting a chance to wreck the economy further.
Of course Social Security payments, unemployment payments, Social Security Disability payments, and Veterans Disability payments are the currency used by millions to pay for goods and services. In the abstract it’s great to say that those payments are made at the whim of Congress. It’s quite another when the money that you are expecting to live on is not coming. If we fail to pay what the American people feel is what is owed to them, rightly or wrongly, Eric Cantor and the rest of the Republican party is once again going to be the minority party for a very, very long time.
If those checks don’t mail, there will be hell to pay on both sides of the aisle, and you can count on hundreds of recalls.
Obama goes there…meanwhile they are going crazy over in Republican Land…
Mitch McConnell Just Proposed the “Pontius Pilate Pass the Buck Act of 2011″
Posted by Erick Erickson (Profile)
Tuesday, July 12th at 2:35PM EDT
49 Comments
Editor’s note: I decided to make the title less incendiary.
Consider the Associated Press’s headline right now: “GOP Leader McConnell proposes giving Obama new power for automatic debt limit increase”
————————————
Mitch McConnell is right now talking about making a historic capitulation. So fearful of being blamed for a default, McConnell is proposing a compromise that lets Barack Obama raise the debt ceiling without making any spending cuts at all.
Consider sending McConnell a weasel as testament to his treachery. His address is 601 W. Broadway, Room 630, Louisville, KY 40202 and the phone number is (502) 582-6304 .
I included the number so Jimbo, Sinz, nh thinker, Balsz, Gipper et al know where to call. If you want tips on catching weasels call the WWF.
Actually Obama is here channeling 100% classic conservative theory
De-evolution is complete.
Frumplestiltskin // Jul 12, 2011 at 1:48 pm
um…David, who says the Obama can’t simply begin to withdraw all our troops from Iraq and Afghanistan and furlough all nonessential bases in every single Red district (let the states pick up the tab) and lay off every civilian employee at all of these bases. He can also not pay every Defense contractor. Next up will be foreign aid (not one more dime for Israel) and then, since this is nowhere near enough, Obama can make a national address telling Americans that no more Social security checks will go out unless the Republicans raise the debt ceiling in a clean vote, the exact same kind they did under Bush. And he can list every Republican Congressman’s telephone number and email.
Republicans would cave immediately, or else face the wrath of the defense contractors, grannies, and the Israel lobby. Without these 3 things the Republicans are only brain dead hillbillies who love Jeebus and hate revenuers.
It was kind of nice to have called this (actually I have been saying this all along)
It is hilarious to hear Republicans scream that Obama can’t blackmail them, that only they can blackmail him without consequences.
I just wish Obama had said this months ago.
And I want to say, I am perfectly fine with 1.7 trillion in cuts and no tax hikes to pass the debt ceiling. I even think it is possible to go up to 2 trillion, with a lot on the back end subject to revision.
I simply don’t understand the Republican stand at all. They kind of remind me of Arafat in 2000 when Clinton and Barak offered the Palestinians a sweet deal (which would not have even been final, he could always have gotten more at a later time) And then he ended up with nothing.
The Republican party is the new PLO
The GOP is so stupid it is mind boggling.
Their first step right now should be to pass a bill that raises the debt ceiling without tax increases.
Just pass the bill. Raise the debt ceiling. No tax increases. Very simple.
Remind Obama he led his party to a coast-to-coast blowout 8 months ago.
Just pass it, and send it to the Senate.
Then let the Democrat-controlled Senate decide what to do with it.
If the Senate rejects it, send it over again.
Just keep sending it over until the Senate is forced to pass it to prevent default from occuring.
Make the Democrat majority in the Senate choose between A) Default, or B) passing legislation that would prevent default.
Then let the chips fall for 2012.
That would be the winning path for the GOP, and if they were not so craven and stupid they would use it.
Their first step right now should be to pass a bill that raises the debt ceiling without tax increases.
…er…..this is a clean bill…this is what Obama WANTS!!!!! The Democratic senate would be delighted to pass a clean bill that raIses the debt ceiling by a couple of trillion. What don’t you understand about this? Or are you completely clueless?
let me help you out here, DSP.
The Republican House passes the Hijacking America’s Credit So We Can Pursue Our Radical Agenda Act of 2011.
It goes to the Democrats in the Senate. They strip all the nonsense out and pass the Clean Debt Ceiling Bill of 2011.
Then the President calls a press conference and says we don’t have time to dick around anymore. Just pass the Senate’s bill, I’ll sign it and I promise to take Boehner golfing again real soon.
Without the President and the Senate Dems on board, as soon as the debt ceiling legislation passes the house, this is how it will play out. So the Republicans only leverage lies in their willingness to destroy the country’s credit and plunge us into another recession.
My approach would 1) neutralize Obama and his partisans’ main argument that the House GOP is unwilling to raise the debt ceiling and 2) put Obama’s party in the position of stopping the ceiling from going up. Senate Democrats could of course try to justify that as stripping out nonsense, but not everyone would see it that way.
If for some reason the absolute worst case scenario comes to pass, Obama will get the blame, as he should. He is the president.
The GOP should stand their ground.
EDIT: Most people don’t follow these daily nuances like FF hobbyists do. If the government stops sending social security checks for any reason, the average person will look up, see Obama in the White House, and blame him.
- DSP
1) neutralize Obama and his partisans’ main argument that the House GOP is unwilling to raise the debt ceiling and 2) put Obama’s party in the position of stopping the ceiling from going up. Senate Democrats could of course try to justify that as stripping out non-sense, but not everyone would see it that way.
So why don’t they do it if it SOOO EASY? I’ll tell you since you don’t seem to understand the process. They would be required to spell out IN DETAIL and defend all the savings that are going to produce the 4 trillion without any offsetting tax increases. This means massive defunding of SS and Medicare. A great campaign platform for 2012. Jeez you’re some dumb kid.
the average person will look up, see Obama in the White House, and blame him.
Yeah right. This is why McConnell is running for the hills because they’re going to blame Obama and not the Republicans for refusing to raise the debt ceiling.
Maybe Obama can just send Social Security checks and Medicare payments to folks in Blue and Swing States – let the old folks in the Red States “pull themselves up by their boot straps” – heck they may even THANK Obama for not burdening them with the horrible Medicare program.
Privatization as the good fight? really?
That’s not the only offensive bit of revisionist history. Frum also gives us this gem:
“Conservatives have argued for 20 years that Social Security is a pure gratuity, vulnerable to change at the whim of Congress. That’s why we wanted to change it!”
Um hmm, right, that’s why you wanted to change it. Had nothing to do the vast profits that your buddies in the financial sector would reap. And, btw, had that change been enacted, where would all those private accounts be now? Answer: in deep do-do.
David, this post makes no sense to me at all. I think you’re a bit befuddled on the difference between the lack of a guarantee because a law can be changed in the future and the guarantee provided by current law.
First, you state “Social Security is a pure gratuity, vulnerable to change at the whim of Congress.” OK, so far so good. This means that Congress can change the law any time they want to and nobody is 100% guaranteed that those changes will give them payments in the future. All Congress has to do is write a bill, pass it, and get it signed by the President (or override a veto). I agree with all of that.
Next you state the following:
This is a classic case of “if A then Z.” The U.S. government DOES have an obligation to by Social Security recipients. Why? Because it’s current law! The current incarnation of the Social Security Act tells us what people are entitled to under the law. This is true for soldiers too. When the government hired soldiers, they entered into a contract with them.
You are stating that just because it is possible for Congress to change the current laws mandating these payments, they are less valid than other obligations. It sure seems to me that failing to make payments mandated by current law is … well … violations of the law. Hitting the debt ceiling does not automatically nullify existing law.
Am I missing something?
“This is a classic case of “if A then Z.” The U.S. government DOES have an obligation to by Social Security recipients. Why? Because it’s current law! The current incarnation of the Social Security Act tells us what people are entitled to under the law. This is true for soldiers too. When the government hired soldiers, they entered into a contract with them. ”
You seem to be at odds with the SCOTUS, LFC:
It seems pretty clear to me that the SCOTUS put statutory obligations below holders of direct contracts. So while the government does owe that SS money, it wouldn’t seem to owe that money first or even at the same time as bondholders. Are you saying that after Fleming, SS benefits were re-defined as contractual benefits in contrast to the way the court dealt with them in 1960?
Zephae, I think you missed the entire point of my argument. Per the quote above:
So the SCOTUS decision upheld a change in the law, just as I agreed could happen. There is nothing in the segment you posted that says the government has no obligations to follow current law. It only says that just because you paid into Social Security doesn’t mean you have a right to to getting money back that supersedes the whim of Congress.
BUT, the law has to be changed first.
here are some the the elements of this plan:
Upon receiving that plan, Congress would provisionally raise the limit by $100 billion, just to give the Treasury some extra time to avoid defaulting.
The House and Senate would then have a limited amount of time to disapprove of, rather than approve, the request. That puts responsibility for the matter on those most staunchly opposed to raising the limit, regardless of the consequences. The resolution of disapproval would only take a simple majority to pass.
If both the House and the Senate passed the resolution, Mr. Obama would have to sign or veto it. If he vetoed it, it would take a two-thirds vote in both chambers to override the veto — something that would be nearly impossible.
After the first $700 billion was approved (or rather, not disapproved of), Mr. Obama would have to send in two more requests: a second request for $900 billion in the fall and a third $900 billion request in the summer of 2012.
I gotta admit, I like it a lot. It would be nice to make it permanent. So Kudos to McConnell, Republicans get on their soapbox and make a ton of noise everytime the debt limit is raised but the nation will be in no real danger. It also will keep putting Obama on the spot during election time.
But hey, the buck stops there, he can handle the heat.
Republicans get on their soapbox and make a ton of noise everytime the debt limit is raised but the nation will be in no real danger
Two things.
First – a lot of the GOP supporters, goaded over the last few months, don’t want soapboxes. They want blood. They’re not going to be happy to not get it.
Second, with the economy no longer in the danger of default, the recovery might regain traction. This will make Obama look good. Making Obama look good, even if it’s good for the country, is against the current prime directive of the GOP.
And yet, I can’t help feeling that if the President proposed this, you would be saying it was unconstitutional. It sounds an awful lot like the President dictating spending to the Congress and not the other way around, to me.
I have an idea. How about instead of this Rube Goldberg machine, the Republicans in the House do their job for the first time since they were sworn in and pass a piece of useful legislation!
I have to admit, I like that plan a lot better than Mcconnell’s!
“And yet, I can’t help feeling that if the President proposed this, you would be saying it was unconstitutional.”
The same ideas sound different when coming from different people. If Obama had proposed it, it would look like the Executive trying to take power away from the Congress instead of them giving him any now power. I also think who’s saying it matters in this case because only Congress has the Constitutional power to borrow, which has been the driving rationale against the 14th amendment option. It might still be unconstitutional, but since Congress has already deferred their borrowing power to the Executive Branch once via the Treasury, the chances are decent it would stand.
However, you raise an interesting point about being able to dictate spending to Congress, that one hadn’t occurred to me initially and that is a major problem with McConnell’s idea.
LFC, this is what makes this whole charade a no win situation for Obama. If he doesn’t fund the programs, he is in violation of the law, but if he borrows money to fund the programs he is in violation of the law, and he can’t raise taxes either.
So for this reason I really like McConnells plan.
So you like this plan because it simultaneously screws the country AND the President. As political strategies go, causing a constitutional crisis for no reason is pretty much the worst one I can think of.
sweaty, I think the republicans are batshit insane, but if they want this figleaf to pass the debt ceiling, then let them have it. And there is nothing unconstitutional about this since the debt limit itself is not in the Constitution. There is nowhere written that Congress has the right to set a debt limit. Congress giving the President the authority to borrow money is within the Congress rights, as is the mechanism by which they give him that authority. They can also abolish the debt limit entirely.
I seem to recall being instructed on this forum that the Social Security Trust Fund was perfectly sound and solvent, and had not been mingled with the general budget.
I don’t see why not being able to borrow money from China would have anything to do with the amounts available to pay to Social Security recipients.
Unless the Treasury Dept. proposes to take money from the Social Security fund and use it for other purposes.
Since you don’t see anything outside your blinders why are we not surprised Balsz?
Obama may be nearly correct. I read somewhere that currently, some 40% of US Federal expenditures are borrowed money. Think about the implications of this for a while, especially in light of the arithmetic of compound interest. Fiddling with the debt ceiling is rather like arguing over priority access to the Titanic’s shuffleboard courts.
(If the 40% figure is wrong, I’m sure someone will quickly and sternly correct me.)
(If the 40% figure is wrong, I’m sure someone will quickly and sternly correct me.)
Don’t you ever read any of my words of wisdom Churl. The actual estimate is 44%…and guess what this was roughly the same figure in Bush’s last budget year. Were you doing your compound interest calcs then I wonder? No debt ceiling rise half the US govt shuts down and I don’t mean Yosemite.
otto, I was sure someone would correct me if I was wrong and you’re just the chap to do it. I don’t have time to keep up with all your words of wisdom. I promise I’ll read your collected works when they come out in a matched set of morocco-bound volumes.
I’m sure that there enough rich people to make up the 44% if we just increase their taxes. Right? The Republicans are therefore delusional nutbags to be saying that we have to start cutting spending now. Right? We can trust the Democrats to follow through on their promises to cut spending in the sweet by and by if we raise taxes now. Right?
I seem to recall being instructed on this forum that the Social Security Trust Fund was perfectly sound and solvent, and had not been mingled with the general budget.
Would you like to tell us who so instructed you or is this just another of your inventions.
I don’t recall which commenter it was.
Are you saying that’s wrong, that Social Security is not solvent, and it has been mingled with the general budget?
The right on McConnell’s plan
“Three letters come to mind,” wrote Michelle Malkin, a conservative commentator. “W.T.F.?!!”
Don’t take it out of context, otto … she means that the GOP leadership is Winning The Future!
Trillions and Trillions
Aren’t there still trillions of dollars in the Social Security Trust Fund which the Social Security Administrators have loaned to the Treasury and which are at least as Senior as the U.S. Treasury bondholders in getting paid, and perhaps more senior.
You get to the back of line Frum. Social Security recipients are at the front
I apologize if this has been stated before or if it is wrong.
the gopers are cementing their minority status
What Obama is doing and the GOP is allowing him to do, is portray the last couple of years as the GOP manipulating backdoor cuts to social security, and if the GOP doesn’t get in front of it, they will lose badly in 2012. Understand, this comes on the heals of 2 years with no inflation adjustment for social security. This tactic is going to produce a lot of pissed off people tomorrow, and the GOP had better get in front of it.
The GOP needs to respond the the president’s threat, tonight.
What Obama is doing and the GOP is allowing him to do, is portray the last couple of years is the GOP manipulating backdoor cuts to social security,
And really, what the GOP has been doing has been manipulating backdoor cuts to social security and medicare for the last 10 years, starting with the Bush tax cuts that reversed the Clinton era trend toward debt reduction (the best means of strengthening SS), and continuing with the unfunded additions to Medicare pushed through by the GOP Congress and Bush in 2003. Toss in the Bush economic collapse and suddenly the GOP finding religion on deficits and the manipulation has a cherry on top.
ottovbs: “I’ll tell you since you don’t seem to understand the process. They would be required to spell out IN DETAIL and defend all the savings that are going to produce the 4 trillion. ”
This is not necessarily true. They could raise the debt ceiling and agree to the cuts specified in the Biden negotiations. They could pass something that raises the debt ceiling for 30 days, or whatever. There are lots of ways around this problem.
- DSP
They could raise the debt ceiling and agree to the cuts specified in the Biden negotiations.
Er….NOTHING was agreed in the Biden negotiation….that’s why it broke down…that’s why Cantor walked out!!! The Republicans would have attach any proposed cuts which would be their’s alone as riders. The Biden negotiation was meaningless because the Republicans made it meaningless.
“They could pass something that raises the debt ceiling for 30 days, or whatever.”
Or whatever, don’t cut it.
And to go otto one better, the Biden cuts, even if they could be made specific, were only $1 to $2 trillion … I doubt Boehner could get the votes to pass nothing but a debt ceiling plus $1 to $2 trillion in spending cuts! Not with all the frosh Tea Partiers who have vowed not to raise the debt ceiling period, or not without once-in-a-generation cuts … they believe their own hype and press clippings about how crashing into the debt ceiling would be no big deal, it would only help cease the growth of government.
David Frum, why are you still running posts from the dishonest and incompetent John Vecchione?
seconded.
thirded
If people stop getting their SS checks there’s only one person responsible. The former Consigliere of the organized crime family ACORN.
Important message for Jimbo on the right’s reaction to McConnell’s escape hatch plan
“Three letters come to mind,” wrote Michelle Malkin, a conservative commentator. “W.T.F.?!!”
Jimbob, you’re so far in right wing la-la land I can’t even see you with binoculars from the middle.
Beneath that surface lie violence, intimidation, threats, race baiting and direct physical attacks on property, people and the legal establishment.
In truth, ACORN is the most virulent, organized crime group in this decade…and it is funded by YOU.
http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/5365
The Chicago Street Hustler was the in house counsel for ACORN. Otherwise known as Consigliere in the family
Forget binoculars. A telescope wouldn’t even work. Here’s a link to the flat earth society: http://theflatearthsociety.org/. Obviously if a link exists, it must be true. Don’t fall off!
And Jimboob weighs in with his countryfed ignorance.
Obama goes on air, tells the nation that unless the debt ceiling is reached the government must cut 44% spending and that the only way to prevent this from happening is for Congress (and only Congress can do it) is to raise the debt. Obama can then give Boehners and Cantors phone numbers and tell Americans to get in touch with them if they want the debt ceiling increased and Social Security checks sent out.
And there is not a damn thing Republicans can do about it. Oh wait, they will go on Fox and tell the 3 million viewers there your kind of bumkin nonsense.
McConnell caved, Boehner will cave, Cantor will cave. And I will laugh like hell at YOU!
It only takes 25 RINO’s in the House. And what can you do? Vote in 25 districts. Jackass.
3 million viewers
2 million nightly is latest
really, damn, that few?
Hell, there are what, 30 or 40 Republican Congressmen from blue districts that can stake out their independence by agreeing to the McConnell plan, they might get primaried by teabaggers, but in most of these districts the money is too smart to back loonies who will lose in the general.
25 Rino’s and the teabaggers are done for.
Just goes to show how dumb Hussein really is. He won’t have to cut spending 44 percent. What the Republicans in the House are going to do is cut spending 500 billion and tell Hussein he can now have a 500 bill debt ceiling raise.
Has anyone noticed that the more advantage President Obama has over the feckless idiots that we call the GOP, the more frothing at the mouth JimBillBob gets? He starts calling the President “The Chicago Street Hustler”, “Hussein” and the like, you know that Obama’s superior strategy in this instance is really, really getting under his skin.
I laugh at you, JimBob. You’re rapidly replacing Smeggy the Closet Homosexual as my favorite Village Idiot of Frum Forum.
Jimboob is a senile old fart who imagines he went to Harvard and has an astronaut son. They really have to change his meds.
Southern Populist // Jul 12, 2011 at 5:39 pm
The GOP is so stupid it is mind boggling.
Looked in the mirror lately kid?
Here is Chait:
Yesterday morning, Mitch McConnell gave away a key tell when he said he had a contingency plan to ensure the debt ceiling gets lifted. Today he showed his hand and it’s a fold. The plan announced by McConnell today is highly, and intentionally, convoluted, but the details don’t really matter. The essence of it is to abandon efforts to force policy concessions in return for lifting the debt ceiling, and instead set up a bunch of show votes to embarrass the Democrats. In other words, it’s a reversion to the old status quo, before President Obama and the Congressional Republicans turned the debt ceiling vote into a high stakes hostage crisis.
We don’t know how this gambit will turn out. John Boehner’s spokesman is definitely not ruling it out. At the very least, McConnell’s capitulation will pressure House Republicans into going along. They may refuse. But assuming this winds up being the mechanism to increase the debt ceiling, it’s a staggering turnaround.
If you told me last week that we might get a debt ceiling hike without Obama making policy concessions to Republicans, I wouldn’t have believed you. What happened since then? Well, Obama called the Republicans’ bluff. He turned the debate from a generalized question of cutting spending, where the public sides with Republicans, into a debate over specific policy priorities, where the public overwhelmingly supports the Democrats. Most people want a balanced package of revenue increases and spending cuts, in contradiction to the GOP’s all-cuts-or-die stance. The public strongly favors higher taxes on the rich and strongly opposes entitlement cuts. Obama smoked out the GOP’s actual policy choices. And he smoked out the Republicans’ refusal to compromise on its unpopular priorities, establishing himself as the one party who was willing to make the kind of compromise that was the only plausible avenue to deficit reduction.
More recently, Obama said that if the debt ceiling is not lifted, he won’t be able to send out Social Security checks. Imagine how that one would play out for Republicans. In general, he demonstrated yet again that it’s very hard for Congress to win a public relations fight against the president. Meanwhile, the business lobby was no doubt pushing hard behind the scenes, and the business lobby usually wins.
Many conservatives are understandably furious with McConnell. (One Republican Senate aid calls it “a full surrender, white-flag approach.”) But it’s amusing to watch a handful of them present this retreat as a victory. Jennifer Rubin, who leaked the plan from McConnell, says it puts Democrats “in a bind,” as if having to cast a vote to raise the debt ceiling — which Congress has been doing for years on end — is a worse bind than choosing between large-scale spending cuts or catastrophic default. (I wonder if Rubin’s gullibility recommended her as the messenger for the leak.) Fred Barnes pushes the frontiers of propaganda to new limits by describing McConnell’s plan as “a bold offensive.”
I’ve been lambasting Obama’s strategy pretty much on a daily basis. It appeared that Obama blundered into a hostage crisis he didn’t need, and then wound up offering Republicans an absurdly generous deal, trading away major entitlement cuts in return for a pittance of revenue — no higher than what will be raised if the Bush tax cuts expire on schedule.
So those were the options as of last week: A massive policy giveaway that won Obama some centrist credibility at immense substantive cost, or else let the economy get killed. Instead, Obama has reestablished credibility on the deficit at zero substantive cost. (He can always cut a deal without a gun to the economy’s head.) Either the administration is run by pure political geniuses, or they’re the luckiest sons of guns who ever lived.
Obviously, the House could revolt and refuse to go along. They’d be splitting off from their Senate Republican counterparts, and isolated as the party willing neither to make a bipartisan deficit deal to raise the debt ceiling, as Obama is, nor to just let the ceiling get lifted, as McConnell is. Obama can keep pounding the House Republicans for being crazy, and then wait and see what they do when the Social Security checks don’t come in the mail. The worm has turned.
Just to reiterate Jimboob, the Senate minority leader caved. He did that with the full consent of his caucus (enough to get past a filibuster in any event)
You lost. If the Senate passes the McConnell bill, you will have Senate Republicans (who hold more prestige in America) squared off against teabagging hillbillies.
It is over, the lights are out for you.
Now personally, I still think it best for Obama to offer a face saving measure to the Republicans.
1.7 trillion in cuts, no tax hikes, and the debt limit raised.
The Democrats agreed to the 1.7 trillion in tax cuts already, next year the Republican tax rates under Bush expire so Obama has that ace up his sleeve.
Damn, what is it like to have been thoroughly ass whipped?
If the Senate prepared to vote on the McConnell bill before the House bill, a single Senator (DeMint or Paul) could kill it with a procedural challenge. The Senate cannot originate a bill to raise revenue.
That is how the McCain/Kennedy bill for amnesty died. It sought to raise revenues as part of the package, and it got the “blue-card”.
McConell floated a proposal. Nothing has been agreed on kid. Face it, you’re a loser in the game life. Sucking off the government. Time to get a real job and stop living off the taxpayers.,
If forcing the President to renounce an unconstitutional bond sale, forgo tax hikes, and go from running $700 billion deficits for 10 years to cutting $1.7 trillion over ten years in the same calendar year, is an ass-kicking, I say turn the other cheek.
This will be repeated next budget session.
Either the administration is run by pure political geniuses,
There’s a reason why Chait is a hack journalist writing on a minor and rather schizophrenic mag and Obama is the POTUS. I wonder what that reason would be?
Jimboob: Just goes to show how dumb Hussein really is. He won’t have to cut spending 44 percent. What the Republicans in the House are going to do is cut spending 500 billion and tell Hussein he can now have a 500 bill debt ceiling raise.
This guy really is dumber than a sack of bricks. The House and not cut 500 billion anything, the bill will have to go to the Senate for ratification. You might as well state the House can say we are all 20 pounds lighter and the Pope must shit in the woods, it means nothing. You really got to learn how Congress works. It is not a Parliament.
Now go back to grade school and learn something you twit.
Get in the game kid. The Chicago Street Hustler has not told the American people his plan. The Republicans are going to force his hand.
.
…
It is disturbing to me that our current House is no longer willing to perform one of its most basic duties. Is this the real Tea Party plan–to destroy government by behaving incompetently when elected?
The Tea Party hates government until which time they individually are forced to acknowledge its existence when their lifestyles suddenly change without notice. I’ve got no use for them….
In fact, the majority of Republicans these days don’t live in reality. They’ve even made religion into a quasi-political force with superstitious belief that trumps the core of what Christianity really is… Love. Forgiveness. Help Thy Neighbor.
They prefer to live in some type of parallel universe. No, worse….in some Wonderland where reality won’t intrude on their vision of what Life Should Be, rather than what Life Really Is.
otto, I agree TNR is schizophrenic, but it is the magazine that is read at the White House. Obama’s aid has been seen carrying copies of it.
I do disagree with Chait, but I also wish Obama had laid down the hammer earlier, telling Boehner and Cantor if they keep playing these games he would make just such an announcement and defy them to justify their intransigence (which truly has no justification, the hysterical rantings of Vecchione notwithstanding)
Obama’s aid has been seen carrying copies of it.
I’ve no doubt they’ve also been seen carrying copies of the WSJ. The point being Chait is one of those endless monday morning quarter backers. Obama aint a dope and neither are Bill Daley or Tim Geithner. Put the three of them on a room with Boehner, McConnell and De Mint and get them to play Poker or wargames who do you think would win?
Is Social Security solvent, or are we borrowing money to pay Social Security?
Is Social Security solvent, and the Treasury has discretion to divert those funds from the trust account to the general budget?
How are Social Security payments in any way dependent on the Treasury?
oh Balzs, just go away. Are you in High School asking such childish questions?
Yes, Social Security is solvent right now. No, Medicare is not solvent right now since that is funded out of general revenues.
Are you saying you want old people kicked out of nursing homes and denied treatment? Are you this sick a human being?
Given the choice between having a Social security check delayed or dying what would you take?
oh, just go away. Like reasoning with a 4 year old.
“”I cannot guarantee that those checks go out on August 3rd if we haven’t resolved this issue. Because there may simply not be the money in the coffers to do it,” Obama said in an interview at the White House due to be aired later today.”
Since you say Social Security is solvent, how can the Social Security payments be in question?
Is the President wrong about the money not being there?
Is the Obama Administration going to divert money from the solvent Social Security fund to the general fund to pay other bills, instead of returning it to retirees?
It is long past time the Street Hustler puts his plan out for the American people to see. He is the President now. He’s no longer the in house counsel for the organized crime family ACORN. He needs to show his cards. Put up or shut up Hussein
http://www.atr.org/atr-support-specific-debt-limit-contingency-a6334
Jimbob, take a breath. relax.
I’m sipping on a dry Bombay Sapphire martini watching the All Star game. I’m on auto pilot. :>)
“I’m calmer than you are, Dude. Calmer than you are.”
I’m sipping on a dry Bombay Sapphire martini watching the All Star game. I’m on auto pilot. :>)
That’s cool then. Your repetitive guilt by association acorn hunting was making me think the reported GOP cave-in had caused the needle to stick in a groove.
This is all more than simple intransigent ideology. This is about President Obama. The most reviled and most feared of Democratic presidents in our history, there is a deep strain of hatred for him….not simply because he is a liberal from Chicago, but because he represents a minority in this country.
They just cannot let it happen. Good golly…! Let Obama do something constructive while in office? Never!
There are no more Republican ‘public servants’ in DC. They’re only vassals who are willing to play chess with peoples’ lives to conform to their new authoritarian political overlords.
Why would Obama need to put forward a debt ceiling plan? He’s no longer a member of Congress and the debt ceiling is plainly their responsibility. It’s very interesting that the very people who say Obama is trying to ruin the US are also apparently in favor of him taking over the work of Congress. Boehner has said the President needs to submit a plan that can pass in the Congress, but he and McConnell haven’t been able to come up with a plan that will pass the Senate. You do that, Boehner, and you can have my support for a Presidential plan.
You do realize the President submits a budget request.
What does a budget plan have to do with raising the debt ceiling? Maybe you should lay off the drink.
You do realize that the President can’t introduce any legislation into Congress.
I think people are mistaken to interpret the Republican party as merely not living in reality. They are living in a perfectly realized reality. What we have to examine is what reality that is. Who are the people funding the Republican party and what do they want?
The answer is they are largely multi national corporations. They want to run government entirely for the rich and put all the costs of running their interests on the middle class, which is obviously falling to pieces under the huge load. It’s not a matter of not living in reality when Republicans refuse to raise taxes on corporate jets, it’s that the Republicans, especially in this congress were sent there to make sure no taxes get raised on corporate jets. People seem to think Republicans are nuts, but they’re not, they’re making large gains for their constituent donors. The mistake is assuming that Republicans have any voting constituents they are representing…
Right, nobody goes out to vote for Republicans.
And the Democrats hate big corporate donors. That’s why they refused to take equity in GM and keep the head of General Electric totally out of the White House.
You should recognize there is bipartisan consensus that you pay taxes to prop up Wall Street.
Great observation, sgath. I’d add that they keep most of their foot soldiers (aka rubes aka voters) in line with the Jeebus juice. The only thing the TeaPeople House has been willing to do since they got there is write bills that would allow them to crawl up the nation’s vaginas. There are a certain number of GOP reps who are there (and were put there) to build up a theocratic kingdom rather than putting the big donors first. Once they get a taste of the good life on the donors’ dollars, though…
Chris Balsz: You’re also right that the Dems lurve their corporate goodies too. FIne folks like Evan Bayh who stick around long enough to make themselves very useful as corporate lobbyists when the congressional gig is up have long since figured out how to get their lifetime ticket on the gravy train. But Dem or GOP, sgath’s point stands: they are there to serve corporate interests. The Dems don’t yet seem willing to turn the country into a banana republic, though, which is clearly something the GOP is just fine with. Bring back the Hoovervilles!
In it’s current form, Social Security is steadily accruing a funding gap that grows every year, despite the attempts by Congress to close this gap in 1983. The current excess reserves in the Social Security trust fund will be completely depleted by 2037 and this has many economists suggesting alternatives to the current program as shown here:
http://viableopposition.blogspot.com/2011/06/social-security-will-it-survive-and.html
One has to wonder whether those at the tail end of the baby boomer generation and those who follow will be left with anything that even marginally resembles the Social Security program of today, especially with Washington desperately looking to cut expenditures.
Honestly, is there nothing better than seeing Sean Hannity’s hair on fire?
Chris Balsz
Is the Obama Administration going to divert money from the solvent Social Security fund to the general fund to pay other bills, instead of returning it to retirees?
Since you say Social Security is solvent, how can the Social Security payments be in question?
Is the President wrong about the money not being there?
Social Security is solvent. It has as much as 2 1/2 trillion dollars. Not bad. Unfortunately, those trillions 1) are not very liquid and 2) can not be publically bought or sold. They are refered to as special issue bonds.
As all that money is not in cash, but in securities and only the government can repurchase them from the Trust Fund. This could spell cat food for a lot of seniors for their early birds..
The money is there but the legal tender isn’t.
The Obama Admin can not divert money from the SS Trust Fund to the General Fund to pay bills because, as I just eggsplained there is no money in that fund only special issue bonds that only the government can buy and the government doesn’t have two nickels to rub together.
I hope this was helpful and don’t hesitate to ask me other questions. (I am not the mean old Frumplestiltskin.)
“as I just eggsplained…”
Really?
BTW Pnumi, thanks for that explanation about SS. It caused me to look up those bonds and now i clearly understand how the SS system works!
zephae
I’m really glad to be of assistance even when I’m wrong. I am lucky to have found this cave of liberal socialism to wait out the thunderstorm of teapartyism.
pnumi2,
You confuse the term “solvent” with the concept of “net worth.” Solvency is the ability to pay debts, i.e. having enough cash on hand to meet obligations when they arise. The paper value of the assets of the trust fund might exceed the liabilities (which they don’t, but that’s another discussion), but that has nothing to do with solvency.
If Social Security tax revenues were earmarked solely for Social Security payouts, then Balzs challenge would be compelling. However, because SS taxes go into the general fund and the Supreme Court has twice ruled that there is no legal obligation to pay any SS contributors any specific amount of money, Obama has just exposed the men behind the curtain, Messrs. SS and Medicare Trust Funds, as complete and utter frauds meant to preserve the mythology of the Great Society and New Deal.
When it comes to solvency: Money Talks. B.S. Walks.
Gip
“You confuse the term “solvent” with the concept of “net worth.” Solvency is the ability to pay debts.”
I always thought that “solvent” meant having assets in excess of liabilities. At this moment Social Security definitely has much more current assets than current liabilities. If your argument is that because the SSA can not sell it’s U.S.Treasury special issues bonds to pay it’s August payment to SS recipients, it is not solvent, you would do much better to look at the Federal Treasury, and does not fund to buy back its bonds. The Treasury can not meet it’s obligations because a Republican House will not let it raise the debt ceiling and borrow more money.
You are like those ancient kings who used to kill the messenger if they did not like the message.
Social Security today is fine. Everything else is f@cked up.
It is many years since I took accounting in business scool.
JimBob
Why tell he American People your plan when they are so mad at the Republicans that nobody would listen to it except you and sinz and WillyP who is awol?
It’s Machiavelli’s first Axiom: keep your yap shut at all times unless absolutely necessary.
You guys got blown by the Little Big Horn today. Now you know how Clinton felt.
I’m not yet convinced the House GOP will go along with McConnell’s plan. They’re less interested in playing politics than in their ideological results which is reducing the size and cost of government. I’m sure the Tea Party honchos are already up in arms against McConnell.
As for McConnell’s plan, I tend to agree with Matt Yglesias. Obama really does want to reduce the deficit as well as set Medicare and Social Security on a sustainable financial path. The GOP continually misjudges Obama. They keep expecting him to be a stereotypical tax and spend liberal who, if given the opportunity will spend and spend, raising the debt ceiling constantly. Then they will rant and rail against him constantly to win the election. Contrary to their beliefs, Obama will continue to reduce the deficit by making judicial cuts just as he said he would.
“Obama really does want to reduce the deficit as well as set Medicare and Social Security on a sustainable financial path.”
One of the big things that, IMO, the Republicans seem to be missing is that all Obama’s talk about “investments” will eventually end up as proposal, but he knows he can’t win it if he needs to both win the policy issue AND secure the funding/deficit space for it. So now, he’s trying to piece bits together: a little help on the debt ceiling here, some cuts there, some tax breaks eliminated here, the end of the Bush Tax Cuts there… Eventually a space will emerge to comfortably fit his investment package and he’ll stump on that like he did on healthcare and claim a victory on jobs.
Excuse me, but Obama has jacked up spending to 24 percent of GDP. That’s higher than FDR during WW 2.
Let’s see of JimBob can do grade school level math.
Mary spends $4 a week on lunch, and has an allowance of $10. Her parents then need to tighten their belts to support Mary’s grandma, after Republicans gut Medicare, and so they cut her allowance to $5 each week. By what percent of her income has Mary’s spending increased?
Would you say that Mary is fiscally irresponsible for increasing her spending from 40% to 80% of her income? Is she irresponsible for paying bills that she really has no choice over, and no ability to haggle the cost of? No? Then why is Obama responsible when the country enters a recession, which he could not have possibly caused, and he is required to keep spending money on things like the Bush tax cuts and Medicare Part D and the Iraq War?
Answer: Because you’re a simpleton who thinks of politics in the same terms you think of baseball. Yay red team! Boo blue team!
Arvan, you might as well give up. It’s obvious JimBob has no clue what he’s talking about. He can’t even get the facts and figures correct. It’s hard, I know, to ignore ignorance. It’s human nature, I guess, to want to correct errors, but let’s face it, JimBob is unredeemable.
Arvan,
You little example is wonderful. Actually, Mary is doing what Republicans advocate. She keeps spending $4 on food (essential) while making cuts of $5 (reduction of allowance from $10 to $5) in other things like National Pubic Radio, Fannie Mae bailouts, state employee pension funds, etc.
You on the other hand would be stomping your feet and screaming at your mother because she would not lend you the $5 so that you could continue spending the same $10 you always had. Obama and the Democrats are the spoiled kids refusing to cut back. Republicans want to make cuts.
Contrary to their beliefs, Obama will continue to reduce the deficit by making judicial cuts just as he said he would.
Hmmm … I suspect you mean “judicious” cuts.
Let me make a point of clarity on my comments on Republicans being funded by corporate interests. Of course democrat policy’s also serve corporate interests as well. The main difference in policy is which corporations. Democrats are mostly funded by the financial sector, service sector and tech companies which of course need a fairly healthy, educated public to serve their interests nationally… Traditionally of course Republicans have had a mix of those corporations as well most of the Energy sector behind it, hence all the pro oil rhetoric. In recent decades however, especially as the economy moved away from industry towards financial manipulation and technological productivity there was a growing movement within the Republican party towards “trickle down economics”, which coincided very strikingly with the rise of multi-national corporations. These economic sectors seem to have come to dominate the party completely now, and as opposed to financial or technological companies that operate nationally, they have no interest in an educated, healthy public. They are perfectly happy to have America become a chinese sweat shop. What do they want a middle class for?
And they’re succeeding at getting rid of that pesky drain on profits with all due haste. The only place there’s any confusion about what’s happening is when the media elites who gain great fame for spouting the propaganda they’ve learned from the masters begin to question the absurd contradictions their doctrine has to what is going on around them. Yes David, that’s you.
Let me make a point of clarity on my comments on Republicans being funded by corporate interests.
Corporations want a nice house with nice furniture and they are quite willing to pay Republicans to get it for them but they don’t want them to burn the house down which is what they are currently proposing to do. Which is why Republicans are probably going to abandon this idea fairly fast over the next few days.
No cuts to Social Security, Medicare, and Medicade! These are not “entitlements”, but programs we’ve paid into all our working life. I have votoed Dem every election since 1972. I will leave the box blank in the future for any Dem that votes to cut these programs.
All that SS needs is the income limit that SS is calculated on to be unfrozen from the Regan era GOP Congress ill advised action. Adjust the 1980′s ceiling for inflation and then let it automatically adjusted in the future when ever COLA’s are approved.
No cuts to Social Security, Medicare, and Medicade! These are not “entitlements”, but programs we’ve paid into all our working life.
To be fair, Medicaid is really an entitlement program.
OldMan,
If you wanted to simply get back the money that you paid into the system, then you wouldn’t have SS and Medicare set up the way it is today. However, Old Man, your generation was dumb enough to support the New Deal and Great Society programs that are driving up federal spending to astronomical levels. You are going to have to suck it up and work longer. If you’re already retired, then you’re lucky. No one is proposing to cut your benefits — only to raise your taxes!
I agree with Otto, Frumplestiltskin, et al, that whether the default happens or whether there’s an 11th hour deal, Obama will be the bigger winner. BUT — what I want to know is how Nancy Pelosi and the Kucinich/Sanders/Marcy Kaptur crew are going to ‘splain it to their constituents when Obama takes the House Dems to school on SS/Medicare cuts — just as he did with the public option after Baucus and Lieberman made it clear that wasn’t gonna happen. (And no, I’m *not* demonically rubbing my hands together *hoping* to see SS/Medi cuts; this is more a political game-theory question.)
Pelosi effectively said “read my lips — SS/Medicare are not on the table” — but s another poster in a different article pointed out, “she isn’t negotiating the Democratic position; Obama is, and he’s said that they most definitely are on the table”. How are House Democrats going to ‘splain to their constituents why they had to vote to cut, cut, and cut SS/Medi — after Nancy’s ‘read my lips’ moment — (or else instill total default)??
are going to ’splain it to their constituents when Obama takes the House Dems to school on SS/Medicare cuts
It entirely depends what you mean by cuts. As ever the devil is in the details and I suspect the extent of any adjustments are going to be fairly modest and certainly not going to threaten the programs as Republicans intended. And in any case such arrangements are subject to future revision (how many times have doctor’s Medicare reimbursement rates been modified?). So I don’t see “splainin” being much of a problem. However I congratulate you on being the first Republican (?) with the realism to recognize how this thing is going to turn out.
How are House Democrats going to ’splain to their constituents why they had to vote to cut, cut, and cut SS/Medi — after Nancy’s ‘read my lips’ moment — (or else instill total default)??
First off, the Dems already cut a huge chunk out of Medicare during the passage of the ACA.
All in all, if there are changes to Social Security and/or Medicare that are designed to strengthen and preserve those programs, the Democrats will have no problem getting their constituents onboard. What the Dems are fundamentally opposed to is cutting SS and Medicare as a means of making up for a budget shortfall caused in large part by refusal of the GOP to raise taxes in any way, shape, or form.
It’s kind of like why there are state boards to manage what premiums home insurance companies can charge. If the insurance companies go to the board and say “we need to raise deductibles because we incurred heavy losses due to tornadoes/hurricanes/etc” the board will look at it differently than if they come and say “we need to raise deductibles because our investments in the derivatives markets came up a crapper”.
Panic hits at the WSJ ed page (of course they have been urging the Republicans to blackmail the president over the debt ceiling)
“Instead he and Mr. Geithner will gradually shut down government services, the more painful the better. The polls that now find that voters oppose a debt-limit increase will turn on a dime when Americans start learning that they won’t get Social Security checks. Republicans will then run like they’re fleeing the Pamplona bulls, and chaotic retreats are the ugliest kind. By then they might end up having to vote for a debt-limit increase and a tax increase.
The tea party/talk-radio expectations for what Republicans can accomplish over the debt-limit showdown have always been unrealistic. As former Senator Phil Gramm once told us, never take a hostage you’re not prepared to shoot. Republicans aren’t prepared to stop a debt-limit increase because the political costs are unbearable. Republicans might have played this game better, but the truth is that Mr. Obama has more cards to play.”
Social Security was sold to the American people on a lie.
FDR and every other Democratic politician has sold Social Security as some kind of government-run bank, in which you make periodic “contributions” and then get back your own money at retirement. My own parents, once they retired, were convinced that they were getting back their own money (with interest) that they paid into the SS system
I’m amazed how few Republicans bother to set the record straight on SS. It’s not an annuity. It’s a “pay as you go” system, in which young people pay money into the system which is then paid out to retirees.
Essentially, SS nationalizes the obligation that young people have to care for their parents and grandparents. In years past, young people did this personally, often inviting their elderly relatives to stay with them and be cared by them. Now SS does it.
But folks don’t always live up to their obligations. Whether personally or via SS.
Sinz go eat your peas.
Legacy.
Social Security was sold to the American people on a lie.
FDR and every other Democratic politician has sold Social Security as some kind of government-run bank, in which you make periodic “contributions” and then get back your own money at retirement.
Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong.
Social Security is a social insurance program. As Francis Perkins, FDR’s Labor Secretary, said in one of the most famous SS speeches:
Our program deals with safeguards against unemployment, with old-age security, with maternal aid and aid to crippled and dependent children and public health services.
Specifically, he referred to the SS retirement benefit as:
a system of compulsory contributory old-age insurance for workers
Do you consider the money you pay GEICO to be money in the bank?
balconesfault
At least GEICO gives me a policy that is a contractual obligation. Can you pull your contract with the SSA out of your file drawer? How much are you legally entitled to receive and when? Hmmmm.
Yeah, SS and Medicare are true Ponzi schemes premised upon a large cohort of contributors supporting a much smaller cohort of recipients. Retirement ages will have to be increased to restore this demographic balance. The early entrants into the scheme walks off rich. The later entrants are left holding the bag of sh*t.
No Social Security checks: Is Obama bluffing? (The Week) | NewsPeruse.com Latest and Breaking News // Jul 14, 2011 at 9:08 am
[...] precedent there’s “no legally enforceable right to Social Security benefits,” says David Frum at FrumForum. That means grandma is at “the back of the line” when the spending ax falls, along with [...]
El Gipper:
“At least GEICO gives me a policy that is a contractual obligation. Can you pull your contract with the SSA out of your file drawer? How much are you legally entitled to receive and when? Hmmmm.”
Actually you can go to the Social Security Administration website and get that information.
“Yeah, SS and Medicare are true Ponzi schemes premised upon a large cohort of contributors supporting a much smaller cohort of recipients. Retirement ages will have to be increased to restore this demographic balance. The early entrants into the scheme walks off rich. The later entrants are left holding the bag of sh*t.”
You have no idea what you’re talking about. You don’t know what a default is, net worth versus solvency, and now you’re misusing ‘ponzi scheme’. No one ends up rich and no one ends up ‘holding the bag’ as its a continuing program and will continue to be. Changes will be made of course to take into account demographics but overall the program will persist as it always has with current workers paying into a system to cover current retirees and disabled people.
Barack Obama: Extortionist? - Page 5 - MotownSports.com Message Board // Jul 15, 2011 at 12:13 am
[...] Social Security Checks Are Not Guaranteed | FrumForum Quote: [...]