

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
President Obama's budget proposal to be unveiled next week will include cuts to Social Security and Medicare, according to media reports Friday morning.
Politico reports:
The most controversial element of Obama's proposal is the inclusion of "chained CPI," the adjustment that would over time reduce cost-of-living increases to Social Security and other federal benefit programs -- effectively, a cut to Social Security benefits by tying them to inflation. He also calls for $9 billion in new tax revenue by setting limits on "tax-preferred retirement accounts for millionaires and billionaires."
Switching to a chained CPI "is not a minor tweak, as its proponents contend," Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), founder of the Defending Social Security Caucus, stated on Friday. It represents a real cut in benefits, as many progressives have pointed out.
And as liberal blogger Digby noted, Obama has the dubious honor of being the first "Democratic president [that] has officially proposed to cut the Democratic Party's signature New Deal program, Social Security."
In a statement on Tuesday, Sanders offered a reminder that "In 2008, candidate Barack Obama told the American people that he would not cut Social Security."
So why this proposal? Robert Naiman, Policy Director at Just Foreign Policy, writes:
The President's marketing strategy will be to say that Obama had to do this because it was necessary to get a deal with Congressional Republicans to raise taxes.
But from the point of view of the interests of the 99%, there is no urgency or benefit to getting a deal to raise taxes if Social Security cuts are the price of doing so. Raising taxes, even raising taxes on the 1%, isn't an intrinsic good. Raising taxes on the 1% is a good thing if it enables the government to do good things and avoid doing bad things. Raising taxes on the 1% is a bad thing if it enables the government to do bad things and avoid doing good things.
If there is no "grand bargain," then under the sequester, the Pentagon budget will be cut and Social Security benefits will be protected. If there is a "grand bargain" - a "Grand Betrayal" - Social Security benefits will be cut and the Pentagon budget will be protected. Thus, to be only a little bit crude, the "grand bargain" is about cutting Social Security to protect the Pentagon budget. Raising taxes on the 1% as part of a deal to cut Social Security and veterans' benefits and protect the Pentagon budget for wars and useless military junk is a bad deal for the 99%.
"If Obama is serious about dealing with our deficit he would not cut Social Security - which has not added one penny to the deficit," stated Sanders. "Instead, he would support legislation that ends the absurdity of one out of four profitable corporations paying nothing in federal income taxes. He would also help us close the offshore tax haven loopholes that enable large corporations and the wealthy to avoid paying $100 billion a year in federal taxes."
_______________________
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
President Obama's budget proposal to be unveiled next week will include cuts to Social Security and Medicare, according to media reports Friday morning.
Politico reports:
The most controversial element of Obama's proposal is the inclusion of "chained CPI," the adjustment that would over time reduce cost-of-living increases to Social Security and other federal benefit programs -- effectively, a cut to Social Security benefits by tying them to inflation. He also calls for $9 billion in new tax revenue by setting limits on "tax-preferred retirement accounts for millionaires and billionaires."
Switching to a chained CPI "is not a minor tweak, as its proponents contend," Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), founder of the Defending Social Security Caucus, stated on Friday. It represents a real cut in benefits, as many progressives have pointed out.
And as liberal blogger Digby noted, Obama has the dubious honor of being the first "Democratic president [that] has officially proposed to cut the Democratic Party's signature New Deal program, Social Security."
In a statement on Tuesday, Sanders offered a reminder that "In 2008, candidate Barack Obama told the American people that he would not cut Social Security."
So why this proposal? Robert Naiman, Policy Director at Just Foreign Policy, writes:
The President's marketing strategy will be to say that Obama had to do this because it was necessary to get a deal with Congressional Republicans to raise taxes.
But from the point of view of the interests of the 99%, there is no urgency or benefit to getting a deal to raise taxes if Social Security cuts are the price of doing so. Raising taxes, even raising taxes on the 1%, isn't an intrinsic good. Raising taxes on the 1% is a good thing if it enables the government to do good things and avoid doing bad things. Raising taxes on the 1% is a bad thing if it enables the government to do bad things and avoid doing good things.
If there is no "grand bargain," then under the sequester, the Pentagon budget will be cut and Social Security benefits will be protected. If there is a "grand bargain" - a "Grand Betrayal" - Social Security benefits will be cut and the Pentagon budget will be protected. Thus, to be only a little bit crude, the "grand bargain" is about cutting Social Security to protect the Pentagon budget. Raising taxes on the 1% as part of a deal to cut Social Security and veterans' benefits and protect the Pentagon budget for wars and useless military junk is a bad deal for the 99%.
"If Obama is serious about dealing with our deficit he would not cut Social Security - which has not added one penny to the deficit," stated Sanders. "Instead, he would support legislation that ends the absurdity of one out of four profitable corporations paying nothing in federal income taxes. He would also help us close the offshore tax haven loopholes that enable large corporations and the wealthy to avoid paying $100 billion a year in federal taxes."
_______________________
President Obama's budget proposal to be unveiled next week will include cuts to Social Security and Medicare, according to media reports Friday morning.
Politico reports:
The most controversial element of Obama's proposal is the inclusion of "chained CPI," the adjustment that would over time reduce cost-of-living increases to Social Security and other federal benefit programs -- effectively, a cut to Social Security benefits by tying them to inflation. He also calls for $9 billion in new tax revenue by setting limits on "tax-preferred retirement accounts for millionaires and billionaires."
Switching to a chained CPI "is not a minor tweak, as its proponents contend," Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), founder of the Defending Social Security Caucus, stated on Friday. It represents a real cut in benefits, as many progressives have pointed out.
And as liberal blogger Digby noted, Obama has the dubious honor of being the first "Democratic president [that] has officially proposed to cut the Democratic Party's signature New Deal program, Social Security."
In a statement on Tuesday, Sanders offered a reminder that "In 2008, candidate Barack Obama told the American people that he would not cut Social Security."
So why this proposal? Robert Naiman, Policy Director at Just Foreign Policy, writes:
The President's marketing strategy will be to say that Obama had to do this because it was necessary to get a deal with Congressional Republicans to raise taxes.
But from the point of view of the interests of the 99%, there is no urgency or benefit to getting a deal to raise taxes if Social Security cuts are the price of doing so. Raising taxes, even raising taxes on the 1%, isn't an intrinsic good. Raising taxes on the 1% is a good thing if it enables the government to do good things and avoid doing bad things. Raising taxes on the 1% is a bad thing if it enables the government to do bad things and avoid doing good things.
If there is no "grand bargain," then under the sequester, the Pentagon budget will be cut and Social Security benefits will be protected. If there is a "grand bargain" - a "Grand Betrayal" - Social Security benefits will be cut and the Pentagon budget will be protected. Thus, to be only a little bit crude, the "grand bargain" is about cutting Social Security to protect the Pentagon budget. Raising taxes on the 1% as part of a deal to cut Social Security and veterans' benefits and protect the Pentagon budget for wars and useless military junk is a bad deal for the 99%.
"If Obama is serious about dealing with our deficit he would not cut Social Security - which has not added one penny to the deficit," stated Sanders. "Instead, he would support legislation that ends the absurdity of one out of four profitable corporations paying nothing in federal income taxes. He would also help us close the offshore tax haven loopholes that enable large corporations and the wealthy to avoid paying $100 billion a year in federal taxes."
_______________________