My first thought on hearing of the House rule change was alarm. My second thought was that this changes nothing. This is just another in a long line of efforts by Republicans to find a jujitsu move which would cut Social Security but which would force Democrats to do the cutting. Republicans would then blame the Democrats for the cuts. Why is the risk that Social Security disability benefits will be cut dramatically a motivation for Congressional Democrats to vote for a bill that cuts Social Security benefits dramatically? It's a dramatic cut either way. You're just voting for the pain. For that matter, what's the motivation for Congressional Republicans to vote for a bill that would cut Social Security benefits dramatically? Forget trying to pass such a bill in the House of Representatives. Forget even trying to vote such a bill out of the House Ways and Means Committee. No such bill would even find a sponsor!
In any case, House rules can be changed by the House at any time by a simple majority vote. Even within the terms of the rule, the House could pass a bill that would cut no benefits, raise no taxes and transfer no money between trust funds but which would prevent anyone from losing Social Security disability benefits. All they would have to do is to play around with benefit offsets for disability recipients who are dually eligible for Social Security retirement or survivor benefits or SSI.
3 comments:
Bottom of p. 32.
http://docs.house.gov/billsthisweek/20150105/BILLS-114hres5pih.pdf
Thanks, 10:19. The language is pretty simple and purposely vague. Almost anything could be enough to allow the transferring of funds between the trust funds. The big question is what will that be? If Charles is right and they just mess with the dually eligible SSD/SS retirement claimants, it's not that big an issue. This was one of the proposals in Coburn's bill. However, if other parts or the entire bill is adopted, there will be cause for concern.
"what's the motivation for Congressional Republicans to vote for a bill that would cut Social Security benefits dramatically? Forget trying to pass such a bill in the House of Representatives. Forget even trying to vote such a bill out of the House Ways and Means Committee. No such bill would even find a sponsor!"
With all due respect to Charles, I think this analysis ignores the fact that the Tea Partyers are not politicians in the traditional sense or Statesmen in any sense. They are zealots. They would burn the country to the ground to serve their ideology. They are more akin to the nut-case wearing the bomb-vest than to a political animal
Post a Comment