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.
(Photo:Carwil Bjork-James)
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, The U.S. is on a fast track to authoritarianism like nothing I've ever seen. Meanwhile, corporate news outlets are utterly capitulating to Trump, twisting their coverage to avoid drawing his ire while lining up to stuff cash in his pockets. That's why I believe that Common Dreams is doing the best and most consequential reporting that we've ever done. Our small but mighty team is a progressive reporting powerhouse, covering the news every day that the corporate media never will. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. And to ignite change for the common good. Now here's the key piece that I want all our readers to understand: None of this would be possible without your financial support. That's not just some fundraising cliche. It's the absolute and literal truth. 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. Will you donate now to help power the nonprofit, independent reporting of Common Dreams? Thank you for being a vital member of our community. Together, we can keep independent journalism alive when it’s needed most. - 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."
_______________________