So President Obama is going to fight Pelosi and Reid on Medicare cuts? Not remotely likely
Both legislators are on the record strongly opposing any move to cut benefits. Neither is going to bother to even look at a proposal from the WH which raises the retirement age, so I'm not sure why there's still a question of what the President is going to 'agree to' in his 'fiscal cliff' negotiations with republicans. Why would he pick a fight with his own legislature? That just doesn't add up.
I'd look to what Reid and Pelosi say about an ultimate deal, before I'd ask what President Obama will ultimately support. All of the focus on the WH forgets that Congress will be crafting these bills, not the President. Expecting that he's going to go to Pelosi and Reid with a package that slashes benefits like the worst of the reports are speculating is to defy the political reality of the economic debate: that Congress is not only the most dynamic and vital arbiter of our budget process; they are the correct one -- both constitutionally and in our interest.
I expect that our Democrats in the House and Senate will defend and protect our social safety net as diligently as they've managed, so far. There's no Democratic revolt in the Capitol that I know of which would foretell of some abandonment in store of our social contract.
There's no reason to believe that the President is considering any of this either . . .
excerpt from President Obama's remarks at AARP Convention in September:
"There’s been a lot of talk about Medicare and Social Security in this campaign, as there should be. And these are bedrock commitments that America makes to its seniors, and I consider those commitments unshakeable. But given the conversations that have been out there in the political arena lately, I want to emphasize Medicare and Social Security are not handouts. You’ve paid into these programs your whole lives. You’ve earned them. And as President, it’s my job to make sure that Medicare and Social Security remain strong for today’s seniors and for future generations."
"It probably won’t surprise you, though, that there’s a lot of talk about Medicare and Social Security that hasn’t been completely on the level over the last several months. So here’s what you need to know:
I have strengthened Medicare as President. We’ve added years to the life of the program by getting rid of taxpayer subsidies to insurance companies that weren’t making people healthier. And we used those savings to lower prescription drug costs, and to offer seniors on Medicare new preventive services like cancer screenings and wellness services.
In fact, the health reform law we passed has already saved more than 5.5 million seniors and people with disabilities nearly $4.5 billion on their prescription drugs. Seniors who received a discount have saved an average of more than $600 this year alone. And over the next 10 years, we expect the average Medicare beneficiary to save nearly $5,000 as a result of this law . . .
Now, we do have to reform and strengthen Medicare for the long haul, but we’re going to do it by reducing the costs of care -- not by asking seniors to pay thousands of dollars more . . .
And when it comes to Social Security, we’ve got to keep the promise of Social Security by taking responsible steps to strengthen it, not by turning it over to Wall Street . . .
It's some kind of bizzaro-world attitude where we assume that the man who spent his first term defending, protecting, and enhancing our social safety net is, somehow, the same man some are now saying is bent on cutting holes in it. It just doesn't add up.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Between the previous agreement he made to extend the tax cuts (and called those opposed "sanctimonious"
and what people have been TOLD that he was offering last year (I'm dubious anyone really knows what he was actually willing to sign) one can understand the concern of some that Obama might be willing to extend the age, change the COLA, or make some other accomodation of that nature. But it is true that NO ONE except Bohner and Obama really know what is going on. It is down, right now, to a negotiation between those two. We lost public options, we got mandates, we extended tax cuts, we protected torturers, we kept Gates, we executed Bush's SOFA. This president has demonstrated that he's more than willing to deviate away from his base. Alternately, he's in a VERY strong position right now and there's no real reason to believe he would give something THAT LARGE up for what he's negotiating for. But ya never know.
"How did that one work out again?"
...it worked out: just like the RW wanted it to.
The RW repeats its distortions over and over, attempting to convince gullible people. Democrats spend a lot of time countering the lies, but are constantly portrayed as sellouts by some. Gullible people are convinced.
In 2010, Republicans successfully used the "Obama cut Medicare" lie.
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/04/04/privatizing-medicare/
People didn't buy it during the 2012 campaign because Democrats successfully presented the facts.
Just 4 weeks ago, Republicans were blaming Democrats for cutting $716 billion from Medicare.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021930783
Yes, Mitt was pushing the same tired argument hoping for a repeat: sucker!
Advocacy works a lot better than pushing false equivalencies.
What the millionaires want versus what the voters want
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/12/07/1162018/-What-the-millionaires-want-versus-what-the-voters-want
In 2010, it worked out for Republicans:
Republicans reap the fruits of redistricting
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021971150