I’ve been away for a couple of weeks, posting sporadically and not reading as much as usual, so I’m not fully up to date on the “Obama sold out Social Security” discussion. Now that Boehner has caved, can someone explain why anyone took the notion that Republicans would means test Medicare seriously? Wouldn’t that have been the most widespread, noticeable and politically unpalatable tax increase on the wealthy (and semi-wealthy) that Republicans could advocate? I was willing to buy that Democrats would agree to some kind of Medicare means test as a part of some grand compromise, but I could never see how Republicans would accept it.
Reader Interactions
68Comments
Comments are closed.
Omnes Omnibus
Because Obama is worse than Bush; he sold us out and is the worst negotiator evah!
hildebrand
Tut, tut – there you go thinking and asking good questions again. That is not allowed – you must ever react, not respond. Please do get with the program. Honestly.
btd
Explain why you think Boehner caved?
arguingwithsignposts
Because the Republicans are batshit insane. SATSQ
Observer
I don’t think a Republican House leader who refuses to agree to a tax increase is an example of a negotiator that has “caved”.
To quote BTD, the Republicans can “pocket the 2 trillion in cuts President Obama has pre-conceded”.
Either way, sticking to your widely known principles is not caving no matter how much you want to call a shit-sandwich a beef steak.
Marc
It’s all about the feelings of the pure. Logic has nothing to do with it. After all, if I were to read the true believers on the left it’s the repeated false alarms about Obama and Social Security which have prevented him from doing the evil deeds he so deeply desires in his heart.
Marc
#5: my crystal ball on the outcome is not as confident as yours. Did you read the White House statement? It looks to be a pretty direct contradiction of what you said.
RossInDetroit
The GOP might get away with means testing Medicare because to their most important base segment, crazy people, the words ‘means test’ drift in one ear and waft out the other. There’s no downside because the issue doesn’t register.
Their rich donors wouldn’t like it but I think right now the GOP is struggling to gin up turnout for the election and keep the base engaged.
Nile Kinnick
Because it puts Medicare in the category of a welfare program, something for the poor. We all know welfare programs are graft and something easily eliminated.
foosion
The very wealthy don’t benefit from Medicare compared to what it costs them in taxes. Means testing would help destroy Medicare, aiding this group.
mk3872
Because absolutely any “unnamed source” quotes or ideas that are put on the table that are in the slightest bit contra to the purist progressive bible are just proof that Obama is worse than Bush and really a Republican.
Ash Can
Oh mistermix, you’re such a troll. You made a bet with ABL that you could get more comments on this post than she got on hers, didn’t you? ;)
Omnes Omnibus
@ Observer: How has Obama “pre-conceded” anything if the potential cuts were conditional on some revenue increases through closing tax loopholes or tax increases?
walt
Behind all the deficit-reduction hysteria lies a simple fact: the GOP base is as much dependent on federal spending as the rest of the country if not more so. Therefore, cutting spending that benefits unwed mothers or the nutritional needs of their babies is fine, but never the Medicare of America’s Most Coddled Generation.
Obama’s minor tactical victory aside, nothing has changed. The nation is still deeply insane, the media utterly feckless, the political class completely craven, while the ongoing economic disaster has metastasized to the point of no return. Maybe electing a white man president will fix all of this.
Joseph Nobles
Let’s see if this will embed:
If not, go to 13:30 and listen to about 14:05:
http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/SpeakerNewsBriefing
Watch Jeff Flake cringe as Boehner talks about the stakes involved in the August 2 deadline. Even freshman Cory Gardner has a “WTF” moment as he looks at the others on the podium.
Buh-bye, Boehner.
RossInDetroit
Yesterday I visited my mother & stepdad, both retired and of very modest means. Between them in the last 4 years they’ve had 7 coronary arteries bypassed and one pacemaker installed. Stepdad is insulin dependent from genetic causes.
Both have macular degeneration in the eyes.
Without Medicare they’d be dead, blind or bankrupt. I take that shit seriously.
mk3872
@foosion #9: Means testing would not “kill” Medicare. It is actually used today in many aspects of Medicare and magically Medicare still survives.
mk3872
The $2T deal includes $400B in revenue through tax loophole & tax credit changes. It’s not a great deal, but it beats cutting Medicare & SS. So this ultra-drama of who won or who lost is pathetic.
Really this “deal” was put out there for 1 reason: to push both caucuses into voting for the crap-sandwich Biden-led $2T deal which NEEDS to pass to raise the debt ceiling.
Immanentize
Whether teh GOP (via Boehner) ever was serious about the grand compromise, the fact is that another week has gone by in which the sense of “crisis averted” was starting to replace the sense of imminent doom.
Can’t have that!
So, predictably, Boehner busted the new “deal” recreating the crisis just a week before “drop dead moment” number one next Friday.
We will, in the end, eat whatever shit sandwich is offered up to prevent default. Obama and the Gongress Dems will never allow a defaiult — they will vote for whatever cuts are proposed — including Medicare and Social Security. But they will be very very sad to do so and will promise passionately to do something about it later when they have filibuster proof majorities in each part of the Congress…
Close your eyes — who do you hear laughing (all the way to the bank)?
numbskull
“deal which NEEDS to pass to raise the debt ceiling”
I’m still trying to figure out why this is true if the ceiling was always raised in the past without such deals.
As to who “won”, by definition this is a political frame. Thus, who “won” will be determined by how Boner’s walk is reported. Watching the Sunday morning funnies, it looks like Boner won.
kth
Republican elected officials and opinion leaders loathe the very idea of Medicare, never mind the demagoguing they did on the issue in the last election. Ronald Reagan recorded a notorious radio broadcast, back when Medicare was being enacted, predicting that Medicare would lead to totalitarianism in this country. (During the 1980 debates, Jimmy Carter had the temerity to bring this up, Reagan replied with “there he goes again”, the campaign press reacted with “oh no he didn’t!”, and the rest is history.)
The very success the Republicans had with “death panels”, and the obliviousness of the elderly teabaggers to the prior history of the issue, if anything probably emboldens right-wing politicians to believe that they can abolish Medicare and confuse their constituents enough not to hold them accountable for it. That they won’t get away with it is an even-money proposition at best.
Mike in NC
No worries. The usual suspects will wade in momentarily to fill you in before they collapse on their fainting couches.
mistermix
If “caved” is too strong a word, at least you can agree that Boehner has given up on a complete hostage situation where he gets all the cuts he wants without any tax increases.
Linda Featheringill
means testing medicare
http://jaredbernsteinblog.com/medicare-is-means-tested/
Medicare is means tested. So what are we talking about? Perhaps new guidelines? What?
Immanentize
MM at 22
I don’t see that — we have just returned to where we were before Obama suggested the BIG deal. That is, all cuts and no revenue increases. Am I missing something in Boehner’s new position? We only took up this past week for Boehner to again start promoting and supporting Cantor’s bottom line of last Thursday week:
All cuts, no new revenues not offset by tax reductions.
Bill H.
Why do we think that Republicans take anything seriously? They are, after all, willing to shut down the world’s economy over negotiations on a 12% reduction in the federal deficit.
Davis X. Machina
Medicare is, since 2007, already means-tested. There is no principle to renounce and/or concession to be made except ‘how’? ‘Whether or not’ happened four years ago.
(Hi, Linda — missed your comment on first perusal.)
arguingwithsignposts
BTW, in case anyone wonders why the GOP “caves” on anything, Grover Fucking Norquist told us why recently wrt the Minn. shutdown:
Governing is just a fucking game to these people. Until that changes, nothing will be solved.
mk3872
The $2T deal is NOT all cuts and no revenue.
It closes tax loopholes and changes tax credits to an estimated $400B in extra revenues.
boss bitch
why do people keeping saying the smaller deal is all cuts. Cantor WALKED out on that deal because Democrats were insisting on tax increases and closing loopholes. As of last night I haven’t heard any Democrat say they have given up on that.
JCT
This.
And the sole goal is to get “their” Presidency back and enough control of Congress to do whatever the fuck they like. And it will most assuredly have nothing to do with job creation or responsible “governance”.
There is no mystery here. The only real mystery is why all of these people who they continually screw over (again and again and again) will help them get what they want.
It’s seemingly hopeless.
nancydarling
Can someone explain to me how changing the way CPI is calculated for COLAs to SS is a bad thing? I’m agnostic on this issue, but it seems like this would result in cent rather than dollar changes in COLAs. Other than allowing the camel’s nose further under the tent of SS reform, could this be a good bargaining chip? I live in an area where many retirees survive on less than $1000/month, so I don’t want to see them hurt.
Gregory
Sure. Boehner has just confirmed for everyone to see what we already knew — that the Republicans don’t really care about deficit reduction so much as keeping tax rates on the rich low. Not that the so-called “liberal media” won’t bend over backwards not to notice…
Immanentize
Ok, at last report, Cantor walked when the reductions to revenue was 87% to 13%. It is true that it is not ALL reductions, but just like when Cantor walked it is mostly reductions (anti-growth effects) with a few revenue offsets. But Cantor walked on that spread. Is Cantor back in today? Is Boehner saying he is willing to accept the 83/17 split and send it for a vote Monday? Without Cantor and his really large group of Republican House members? Running the 87/13 plan through the House with just a few Republican votes and a bunch of Democratic votes? Ending his career as Speaker in the bargain?
I haven’t heard that and I don’t think it will come out that way. Certainly time will tell. Like two weeks time.
Omnes Omnibus
Do people really think that Boehner doesn’t want a deal? He comes from the old fashioned, business wing of the GOP. He has a choice of how he loses at this point. He must choose between the Tea People and the Democrats. The Tea People won’t deal; they want everything to blow up. As a result, Boehner will have to come to an agreement with Pelosi. Boehner probably loses the Speakership and, perhaps, his seat, but the money people will take care of him. If he allows things to blow up, there is no one to catch him when he falls. I know where I would place my money if I were betting on what he does.
Linda Featheringill
Hi, Davis [#26]
You were probably typing while my comment was in the works.
Great minds and all that. :-)
Immanentize
OO at 34.
From your lips to (choose favorite deity or powerbroker here)’s ears.
Brian R.
Not “caved” exactly, but he’s had his bluff called.
It’s clear that the debt and the deficit are not their top priorities, but rather that defending their corporate overlords is.
Obama comes out looking like the one willing to think big and beyond his party’s own interests (which here coincide with the nation’s, of course, but never mind that), and Boehner looks like the hack he is.
If a compromise is reached, Obama gets the credit. If it doesn’t and hell breaks loose, Boehner gets the blame.
Linda Featheringill
nancydarling #31
Those olds living on less than a thou from SS are also trying to get by with no COLA at all in 2010 and 2011.
Sly
You basically missed out on “Public Option 2: Fucking Retarded Boogaloo”
And, as is generally the case, the sequel sucked compared to the original.
nancydarling
Linda @38, I am well aware of that. In House committee testimony, Scheiber, who was on Bush’s SS advisory board, suggested that people might change their buying habits and gave as an instance buying an Audi instead of a Benz. Damn! Why didn’t I think of that. My SS is very generous as I paid in the max most of my working years and can afford to give up small changes to my COLAs in the future. I guess I just don’t see how this is a really bad deal, especially if we could exclude the truly needy like many of my neighbors. Even the compounding over a twenty year retirement doesn’t seem like a lot. Maybe my math is wrong.
kth
31: here’s an article on chained CPI indexing from Dean Baker, who is highly regarded in these parts (including me). He’s against it, but it doesn’t look like the change would be that drastic (0.3% per year, or $3 on a $1000 check, but the changes are cumulative (after 20 years, average benefit checks would be 6% less than under the current regime)).
I’d prefer that any long term Social Security issues be addressed after the teabagger revolt has flamed out. But if this is the price of not blowing up the world economy, I say pay it.
nancydarling
Thanks for the link, kth.
robertdsc-PowerBook
The phrasing “grand bargain” is utterly offensive to me. I hate it every time it or something similar is used.
B W Smith
I have an acquaintance that is connected politically with the Repub party who says that next week the House will pass a bill that raises the debt ceiling with just the agreed upon cuts and dare the Senate to vote it down and/or Obama to veto it. Normally I don’t pay a lot of attention to this guy but I heard Pat Buchanan say something similar last week and noticed that Boehner’s eyes lit up in the news conference when a reporter suggested it. I think this is their plan. If the Senate votes against it or the Prez vetoes, then they will say that Dems are responsible. I hope this is wrong, but it seems to fit their pattern.
moonbat
Gregory at 32 nailed it. Obama’s “go big” proposal called the House Republican’s bluff. They don’t give a shit about the deficit if it means a millionaire or billionaire has to pay higher taxes. So politically that issue has been neutralized. The Dems were willing to make major changes, the Repigs were not.
More interestingly, and going almost completely unnoticed while we’ve been so happily forming our own circular firing squad is that Boehner has been exposed as one of the weakest speakers in history. His number 2 man Cantor is willing to chop him off at the knees at the slightest provocation, mainly because he wants the speaker’s chair for himself. And that a goodly number of his caucus won’t vote for ANY sort of compromise AT ALL. That means Boehner is caught between his corporate overloads and his crazy caucus. He’ll HAVE to make a deal with Pelosi to satisfy the corporate overlords before the deadline. And he’ll be unseated as chair for his pains. Ha-Ha!
I don’t know about you guys but I am sort of okay with this route. It means a minimum amount of damage and the neutering of a major Repig issue for the upcoming elections.
Judas Escargot
…or Obama could loudly veto any smaller “stopgap” bill, throwing the anvil back to Boehner. There’s no additional political cost to him in either case now.
Boehner had an honest chance to cut $4 trillion dollars and make some necessary structural changes to Medicare and SS, but turned it down. Not even this fucked-up media climate is going to paper-over that little detail.
There is now no scenario where default benefits the GOP politically: They’ve just been triangulated into a very exclusive little corner.
So if they blow it all to hell now, everyone will know it was out of pure nihilism.
moonbat
B W Smith @ 44: Except that puts all the Republicans on the record as willing to make cuts to Medicare. With no Dems voting for it, I don’t think it is something the Republicans will be able to campaign on. “I wanted to cut your Medicare but the Sentate stopped me!” They NEED the Dems fingerprints on this deal so they can spread the blame. They go it alone they shoot themselves in the face. Poll after poll shows people prefer raising taxes on the rich to cutting benefits for the poor.
Erin
Means testing turns Medicare into a program that benefits the needy, rather than a logical payout for everyone that contributes. It turns into “Welfare”, and welfare is a lot easier to kill.
jeffreyw
@B W Smith: I think the Senate would just pass another bill with the tax increase and send it to conference, back to square one.
JCT
@BW Smith 44
Do the Republicans have the votes to pass a 100% cuts bill in the House? I don’t think so and there is no way Pelosi is going to help him.
If they could have pulled this off they would have already.
fasteddie9318
@ 23:
At that link, Bernstein also writes
I can’t speak for anyone else, but this is why I get a funny feeling when people talk about “means testing” these programs.
kth
44: not too much to worry about, only takes 40 Dems to filibuster (as well as a number of other obstructionist tactics mainstreamed by the Republicans the last term). You have to have 60 votes to pass the Senate now, and the reporting (milquetoast as it will surely be) is likely to say that a sweeping Republican House measure failed to garner the necessary votes in the Senate.
fasteddie9318
The current method of calculating COLAs is at least as likely to be understating inflation for retirees since it doesn’t focus heavily enough on medical costs and those are clearly increasing faster than inflation, and this idea would make that problem worse.
B W Smith
moonbat @ 47: I made the same argument to the acquaintance. His argument was twofold. First the Repubs are already on the record for cuts to medicare with the Ryan Plan and second, there are Dems in the Senate that will vote for it. He specifically mentioned Ben Nelson. Plus the cuts agreed to in the Biden talks do not include medicare benefit cuts to my knowledge. They are cuts in discretionary spending for the most part. I hope like hell he’s wrong, he has been so very wrong in the past. The biggest problem with this plan that I foresee is that they may not have the votes without the 50-60 tea partiers that want no increase to debt ceiling at all.
Suffern ACE
@moonbat-even if pelosi whipped all the dems to vote on a clean debt ceiling bill (which I don’t know if she can do, but has done before), I don’t think Beohner could command the votes to get it passed. I am beginning to think that he doesn’t command loyalty of more than his office staff and not even 1/10 of his reps. How was he even elected speaker?
lacp
The problems with the idea that the Republicans have been exposed as corporate pawns are (a) people that follow politics already knew that and (b) those that don’t follow politics are going to hear the message that Republicans stood firm against job-killing tax increases. Or does anybody here think that this story will be reported as “Republicans exposed as corporate toadies and hypocritical deficit-cutters?” I’ve seen comments indicating that some outlets have already called this a loss for the Orange Weeper, but how was the loss framed? That Republicans are dicks or that their good-faith efforts for compromise failed?
moonbat
B W Smith @ 55: I can’t say that I know exactly the cuts that are in the Republican proposed package, but I think the Republicans have been backing away from Mr Serious for a month or so now. Hence Ryan’s recent “I know you are but what am I?” media blitz trying to convince everyone that his plan SAVES Medicare by destroying it. I don’t think the increasingly small sliver of the Republican caucus that isn’t insane is going to walk that plank again. And has been mentioned above the batshit section of the Repigs won’t vote for a debt ceiling increase of any kind because the idiots don’t think that not voting for it will cause any problems at all. The Republican House is divided, but since it doesn’t fit with the ever popular “Dems in disarray” or “Obama sold us out” meme, it doesn’t get much coverage. Steve Benen just started pointing this issue out this morning.
dogwood
Omnes Omnibus@34:
I guess many do, but that’s just ignoring the kind of guy Boehner is. Look, what’s happened here is a perfect storm. A massive economic crisis coinciding with a political crisis. Political parties have been weakening over the last few decades, which in turn weakens party leadership. Good grief, now we have presidential candidates being forced to sign pledges on taxes, marriage, etc. I would never vote for a candidate who who would so demean himself by signing that kind of crap. I’ve voted in every election since 1972 and the day I have to choose between the guy on the right waving his 15 pledge cards and someone on the left doing the same, is the day I don’t vote. Candidates who do crap like that are just in it for the fancy plane and the big brass band.
dogwood
JCT@51
Exactly, they’ve got a significant faction whose goal isn’t spending cuts in return for raising the ceiling. Their goal is default first and then spending cuts simply take care of themselves. This is the Michele Bachmann/Rand Paul line in the sand.
Judas Escargot
Yes.
If the GOP has lost the Economist…
Mike
If they means test medicare, it becomes a welfare program. As the real income level to qualify goes down and down, it then becomes politically expendable. That’s why they want to means test medicare.
OzoneR
There’s no additonal political cost for Obama to veto a bill raising the debt ceiling? Wut?
Heliopause
The Economist are neoliberals who endorsed Obama, Kerry, and Clinton in ’92.
Judas Escargot
He gets bad press, no matter what he does, at this point: There’s no advantage to capitulation.
So don’t assume that capitulation is all he can do.
Judas Escargot
…which makes them the same neoliberals who endorsed Reagan (80), Dole (96) and Bush (00).
Aren’t people just awful?
Heliopause
Judas Escargot@66
Ignoring the point, I see, that The Economist are not captives of the GOP as you implied.
Judas Escargot
Never implied that.