Harry Reid's "Super Committee" Picks Don't Bode Well for SS & Medicare

[jtown1123]

So we have John Kerry, Patty Murray and Max Baucus...all of whom I think could be convinced to "curb" entitlements over cutting defense spending. All the GOP needs is one Democrat (likely Kerry) to vote on their "agreement," which we can assure will include no revenue, and then it will have to pass the House and Senate. If it cuts entitlements w/o adding revenue, it shouldn't be too hard to have this pass in the House and all the Senate needs are a handful of Corporatist Democratic Senators to vote yes. We can hope they don't agree in the first place, but I'm doubtful.

In Kerry's home state of Massachusetts, meanwhile, the defense industry has tripled in size since 2000.
Should the committee not come to an agreement (and it would take only seven of its 12 members to reach one) or if its suggestions are not passed by Congress, than a trigger would be hit, resulting in major spending cuts and reductions in the defense budget.http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/09/harry-reid-super-congress-murray-baucus-kerry_n_922761.html

[Mass]

1. Could have been a lot worse. And I think your attacks on Kerry are unfounded.

Care telling us on what you base them?

As for Stein's brilliant (:sarcasm:) analysis, yes, defense industry may have tripled in MA (I'd like to see numbers), but healthcare is also a large part of MA economy and if you knew anything of Kerry, you'd know he has fought hard to get Medicare and Medicaid dollars to the state and was unhappy about the compromise because of the absence of tax revenues.

This said, I am worried about the super committee, but I dont think this is a worse make up than many other ones, and the fact that no members of the gang of six is in there is a major relief.

[jtown1123]

3. I'm not "attacking" Kerry but he did just say SS, Medicare and MEdicaid are big problems

a few days ago...so yes, I think we should be concerned that Kerry will allow "adjustments" or "modifications" to these programs...also, Social Security it not a problem, AT ALL. So why mention it? Does he not understand or realize this?

[Mass]

9. And they are. They need to be reformed, but how will be essential and Kerry

has been a strong voice against cutting benefits. Or would you refuse solutions that increase or eliminate the cap, for example?

Actually, MA depends on federal dollars to implement its healthcare program, so it should be a strong incentive if you stopped and thought rather than stopping at one sentence and not even reading the article you post.

[jtown1123]

12. Reforms are fine when they're done in the proper committees and not through fast tracked

legislation focused on Deficit reduction. Sorry, but putting these programs in the debt reduction committee only results in cuts, not improvements like raising the Cap.

[jtown1123]

14. And Social Security isn't a big problem...AT ALL. Shouldn't be lumped in with the others.

[Mass]

15. I dont disagree. I did not like when he said it, but I know enough about him to know

that it could have been a lot worse. So, I am not sure why you chose to lash out at him.

In addition, he did not say they WERE a big problems, but they WOULD be a structural problem. This is true, as long as the cap is not lifted, and Kerry has been a strong advocate of that. I have a problem with the concept of the super committee, but the selection up to now is a lot better than I had thought it would be. Even Baucus (that I dont like too much) is a solid voice to avoid cuts.

[jtown1123]

18. You shouldn't take my criticism personally. I am doubtful about all the picks. n/t

[Mass]

21. No, you chose to single out Kerry for a sentence where he states the obvious:

there are structural problems for the entitlements in the long term. It is acknowledged by EVERYBODY. He did not say they should be cut. But you decided to lash out.

All I hope is that there will be voices as strong as Kerry (and Murray) on Pelosi's side because the GOP will stack its worse people.

[jtown1123]

26. How am I "lashing out?" Those are pretty strong words. We shouldn't make serious changes to programs

in such a short time outside of the normal legislative process. This is very foolish and dangerous, in my opinion. And it seems like John Kerry, and possibly Baucus and Murray, would be willing to accept cuts in exchange for revenue. I highly doubt we are going to be improving these programs by adding benefits, so the only thing we're left with is cuts.

It is not wise policy or politics to make structural changes to incredibly vital programs in the midst of a high stakes debt deal.

[Mass]

29. You singled Kerry out for no valid reasons and you state he is the most likely to fold

with no evidence of it. Your only evidence is this sentence stating the obvious.

[jtown1123]

30. No, it was not stating the obvious. I disagree these are major problems right now...considering

the abysmal economy and lack of jobs.

[Mass]

35. Which Kerry was talking about in the very next sentence. Too bad your reading is so selective.

Frankly, my problem is Baucus. Yours should be as well, but for some reason, Kerry has been your focus. It is still unclear why.

[jtown1123]

38. I am not trying to focus on any particular person. I just had Kerry on the top of my mind

because of his recent statements. Why do you feel so sure he will not allow any cuts to these programs? I am curious. Baucus ultimately voted against the Fiscal Commission recs but I don't doubt he would vote for a new "grand compromise." Kerry stood out to me because he's likely a big defender of funding the Pentagon, since his expertise is foreign affairs, so I'm not sure when having to choose between cuts to defense or cuts to entitlements he would choose cuts to defense. Do you think he will vote against any deal that will cut SS and Medicare?

[jtown1123]

32. What sentence stating the obvious? I didn't post that quote in the original. n/t

[Mass]

36. There was ONE sentence in Kerry's interview saying that SS, Medicare, Medicaid were a problem.

This is what I was referring to. I actually read and watched the interview. And yes, it was stating the obvious.

[jtown1123]

39. Well we disagree on what "problems" are then. I was referring to the fact that defense spending cuts

are likely to be difficult for him to make. The comment he made on Meet the Press was secondary.

[JerseygirlCT]

28. Of course there are problems

what program doesn't have problems? I don't think anyone ought to assume nothing needs improving with them - or assume that improvements mean less for those who need it.

[jtown1123]

31. Then please for God sakes don't offer them up as solutions to our "debt crisis."

Changes are perfectly acceptable outside these parameters.

[JerseygirlCT]

33. I guess part of the problem is the Dems seem to have accepted

the premise that what we have is mostly a debt - or spending - problem, and not a revenue problem.

Once we're caged in that argument, it's hard to work on anything.

[jtown1123]

40. Yes. It drives me nuts Democrats have succumbed to this false narrative.

[blm]

2. That's absurd - Kerry's advocated that Bush tax cuts for wealthy be cancelled since 2002

He's also been a longtime advocate for eliminating nuclear arms program. He also has NEVER believed in bombing missions, especially carpet-bombing. He has stated many times that retaliations should be tactical and surgical operations (like the recent strike against Bin Laden).

You would KNOW this if you actually bothered to learn about Kerry during the 2004 election.

[Mass]

6. The irony is that the justification in the article for Kerry being in the panel is exactly the

the opposite: he would fight hard against the right. But it is easier to make things up than actually read the source used to support one's argument.

A Democratic source told The Huffington Post that Kerry "made it into the discussion" of who should serve on the committee by delivering "some powerful speeches" to the rest of the caucus. The speeches, the source added, were in defense of Democratic Party priorities, focusing on the need to protect entitlement programs and Kerry's desire to strongly push back against (what the source referred to as) "the right-wing agenda."

[jtown1123]

7. So you're saying his recent statements about SS, Medicare and Medicaid are somehow OK?

This is Kerry, he changes his mind. I'm not convinced he's a strong advocate for entitlements.

[blm]

16. I know you're wrong. Even Stein said he's there because of his leadership on protecting entitlements

and those who insist his recent MTP statement about CHANGE in the entitlement programs means cuts, are being lazyminded.

[jtown1123]

19. How do you know I'm wrong? I read the transcript and didn't like the language

Kerry: I believe this is, without question, the "tea party downgrade." This is the tea party downgrade because a minority of people in the House of Representatives countered even the will of many Republicans in the United States Senate who were prepared to do a bigger deal, to do $4.7 trillion, $4 trillion, have a mix of reductions and, and reforms in Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid; but also recognize that we needed to do some revenue. I think this is one of the most telling, important moments in our country's history right now. We've had a fairly straightforward economic road throughout the 20th Century. But now, David, this poses a set of choices. It's not just about a recession, it's about a financial crisis and a structure of our economy which really has been misallocating capital. We've had an enormous amount of capital going into arbitration over these last years--phony deals, commissions, not creating jobs. And the real problem for our country is not the short-term debt. We can deal with that. It's the long-term debt. It's the structural debt of Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid measured against the demographics of our nation. That, then juxtaposed to the lack of jobs and job creation and growth. That's our problem, structural. And what we need is a Washington that stops this bickering, that gets rid of these hard positions that I noticed even in Speaker Boehner's comments about the downgrade, politicizing it in the sense that, you know, sort of blaming it on the Democrats and the lack of decision. Barack Obama put a $4.7 trillion deal on the table. Three times he was refused that deal because there were some people in the Republican Party, and Mitch McConnell even admitted this, who wanted to default. He said there were people in his party who are willing to shoot the hostage. In the end, they found that the hostage was worth ransoming. This is not about ransom. This is about our nation. It's about our country. It's about growth. It's about statesmanship. I know John McCain and I know many of his colleagues in the Senate are prepared to sit down and be serious about how we deal with this quickly because our nation's security, our nation's future is at stake in an unprecedented way…

I'll give you a growth plan very clearly. Number one, we've got to deal with this debt and deficit, send Wall Street and the marketplace a message that the United States of America is deadly serious about dealing with this long-term structural debt. That means putting a plan on the table, $4 trillion plus, if necessary, that lays out how we go forward in terms of our debt and deficit. But we do it, David, in a way that doesn't turn our backs on the history that we've created, where we know how to do this without cutting off our job creation and our economic future. In the 1990s, we balanced the budget. We did it without a constitutional amendment. We balanced the budget, we created 21 million new jobs, and we put ourselves on a glide path to pay off our debt for the first time since Andrew Jackson by next year. That changed when we went into credit card debt, two wars, two tax cuts. We couldn't afford them. And boom, you have six point some trillion dollars of the debt goes to George Bush, $2.4 trillion goes to Obama, three times to George Bush, and Obama's was largely in response to George Bush and Hank Paulson asking us to bail out the financial structure of America. So we have to get real about what the problem is. The second piece of this, Senator Boxer and Senator Inhofe have a terrific highway bill. If we were to do that and do it quickly, we will save 600,000 more jobs than what the House is setting out to do. Three, we need to pass the infrastructure bank, which is bipartisan. Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison of Texas and myself have introduced this, with Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and, and Mark Warner of Virginia. We have $2.2 trillion of infrastructure deficit in America. China's putting 9 percent of GDP into infrastructure. Europe's putting 5 percent into infrastructure. The United States of America is putting 2 percent or less into infrastructure. We have $80 billion of loss every year just to bail out--just to grid problems with our energy structure to our highways that are clogged because we don't build a transportation system. We know how to do this. We could have patent reform. There are millions of jobs being wrapped up in the bureaucracy of patent reform, which isn't moving forward. We could have regulatory reform so we don't take 10 years to give business people a decision. There are countless things we could do. And yes, we can cut waste. There is waste. And we could come together and do that.

MR. GREGORY: All right.

SEN. KERRY: But we have to be statesmen here. We have to find the happy middle ground of compromise and common sense. I know John McCain's prepared to do it. I'd like to see the members of the House of Representatives prepared to do it. And that would avoid the future confrontation.

[blm]

22. "change" in entitlements doesn't advocate cuts - Kerry's there because he advocates AGAINST cuts

and believes structural changes can strengthen the programs to avoid cuts.

[jtown1123]

27. OK I hope you're right. I don't think Republicans are going to agree on improvements, that's for sur

[JerseygirlCT]

34. Exactly. nt

[jtown1123]

41. Structural changes such as allowing Part D to negotiate? Raising the SS income tax cap?

Those are the only acceptable structural changes. Chained CPI, raising eligibility ages, and means testing are all major deal breakers for me and the Democratic party.

[JerseygirlCT]

25. Kerry's definitely the best hope in this group.

Baucus the big problem.

[Skink]

4. I thought Kerry was for single payer?

[NightWatcher]

5. You didn't really think they were going to cut defense did you?

They are going to allow a handful of "safe" Dems to make cuts so harmful that they would cause many others to be run out of office for acting like republican-lites.

We are going to be sold out by Dems who have a lock on their seats so the rest of them can run for reelection and be able to say that they didn't make the cuts.

These cuts are going to sting.

[mmonk]

8. Or Democrats.

[Marrah_G]

10. No one in DC is going to put the people's welfare before their own.

We are ruled by greed and corruption.

[blm]

11. You missed this quote, "Kerry...speeches...focusing on need to protect entitlement programs"

>>>>
A Democratic source told The Huffington Post that Kerry "made it into the discussion" of who should serve on the committee by delivering "some powerful speeches" to the rest of the caucus. The speeches, the source added, were in defense of Democratic Party priorities, focusing on the need to protect entitlement programs and Kerry's desire to strongly push back against (what the source referred to as) "the right-wing agenda."
>>>>


You think it's a good idea to twist and shout, eh?

[PoliticAverse]

13. Max Baucus. !? n/t

[madokie]

17. Baucus is the one I'm worried about, not Kerry

Kerry seems to be in touch with us average joes a lot more than the Montana dude is. I don't know anything about Murray though so I'm not sure she will be on our side. Kerry doesn't bother me any though as like I said I think he is on our side.

[jtown1123]

20. Baucus worries me too.

[JerseygirlCT]

24. Totally agree

Besides, I think Kerry is very comfortable in his position as a party elder now - nothing to keep him from speaking truth.

Baucus already gave away the farm on health care reform, he'll try to do it again here.

[JerseygirlCT]

23. Watch Baucus open these negotiations by conceding everything first

Cannot believe Reid put him on there. Have we learned nothing?

[JerseygirlCT]

37. Good heavens, even Alan Simpson is on now, talking

about what a lousy committee member Baucus is.

Says he's competitive with (name just slipped my mind... other western Dem senator) and doesn't DO anything - the other guy DOES things. (Sorry, brain is not working this morning, I'll edit when I remember the name!)

Kent Conrad. (phew)