From Michael Hiltzik writing for the Los Angeles Times:
You may have thought that the drubbing Republicans received in the recent election would have prompted party leaders to think more warily about promoting policies that nauseate the voting public.
You would be wrong. We know this from an op-ed published in the Wall Street Journal under the name of Sen. Mitt Romney (R-Utah). The piece appeared Nov. 10, two days after the vote, when congressional leadership was still up in the air. ...
Nevertheless, Romney again teed up the traditional, and discreditable, Republican shibboleth of attacking Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid as “entitlements” that have been causing inflation.
With the Democrats having retained their Senate majority, the chances of wholesale hacking away at these programs’ benefits have receded, for the moment.
But since Republicans have regained their majority in the House, the possibility that they will try to hold the U.S. economy hostage to force some sort of compromise on the programs, inimical as it might be for the general public, still looms. ...
[W]hat the GOP hopes will be its leverage in any debate over social insurance benefits [is]: the federal debt ceiling, which will need to be raised early next year to avert a possible shutdown of government functions or even an unprecedented default on treasury securities. ...
12 comments:
If the debt ceiling doesn't get resolved in the lame duck session, I wouldn't expect anything to happen on it until the markets start to crash or on the very brink of a default.
This is what Romney said re SSA/Medicare/entitlements: "Some mix of changes to revenues, benefits and eligibility is necessary along with a promise that no program will be eliminated and current and near-retirees won’t be affected."
Not sure what is so controversial about that. The sooner changes are made, the less drastic they have to be. I'd rather my SSA tax go up 1% now than 2% in 5 years as it is not coming down either way.
Using the debt ceiling hasn't worked before, and is more unlikely to work when the GOP has a very small majority in only the House. It doesn't look like the GOP caucus there is going to be united either, so it's doubtful that the new Speaker will be able to enforce party discipline the way McConnell has in the Senate. All the Democrats need is a few GOP votes. I'm not worried about this at all, at least for now.
Republican's had the whole White House, and nothing was done to SSA. Well, except Saul.
What Romney says matters little to the GOP as he's virtually a RINO to the MAGA crowd. What Johnson says may carry more weight. Where Romney mentioned revenues (taxes) the 50 plus year history of hostility to SSA and Medicare demonstrates that they'll cut what they can how they can, if they cannot burn the village to save the village. Talk of tax increases are dead from a GOP perspective. Period. Bipartisan talks with the GOP on "saving social security" fail if there is talk of tax increases. So all that leaves is benefit cuts as the GOP avenue of "saving the village". And it is what they will demand if teh situation lets them.
I find I agree with several of Sen. Romney's points. He isn't talking about slash and burn or "sunset" the entire program. Something does need to be done to shore up the sustainability of both Social Security and Medicare and it needs to be bipartisan. Sadly, I only expect a lot of partisan noise from the next House session with little of substance (and much infighting in the majority party). We need to start electing moderate, thoughtful adults to the majority of both sides in Congress regardless of the party.
Romney and the GOP just want cuts to benefits and Dems won't go along with that.
The GOP has a death wish if they think they can get away with cutting SSA benefits for younger workers. Guaranteed strategy to fuel massive voter turn out among 20-35 year olds. They just had a historically disastrous mid-term performance because young voters turned out...what do they think will happen when they try to target retirement benefits for these same voters?
Only answer is raising FICA tax income cut-off. You cannot raise the age of retirement without losing blue collar workers who cant work into their late 60s.
Medicare has no earnings cap like the Social Security tax and no one complains about it.
1.45% is a lot less than 7.65% (SSA plus Medicare). If you earn 10 million, $145k seems bad enough vs $765k in non income taxes.
20 to 35 year olds don't vote as much. If they change the age it should be for full retirement age, not the minimum age.
When it was changed in 83 voters reelected Reagan in a landslide.
@1:19 There was no social media or even consumer internet in the 1980s. We live in a very different information environment. Politics have also changed dramatically. GOP and Dems have been very evenly split the last decade. The GOP cannot afford to lose more voters when they have not earned 50% of the popular vote since 2004.
And if they raise the retirement age, it would not motivate only young people. Age group 35-50 would also be motivated. Life expectancy is not increasing for the average American --this is especially true for blue collar workers.
Post a Comment