Posted on 03/05/2011 9:27:06 AM PST by Libloather
Boehner promises Obama GOP cover if he takes first step on entitlement reform
By Alexander Bolton - 03/03/11 08:40 PM ET
Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) has privately assured President Obama that House Republicans will not attack him if he makes a proposal to reform entitlement spending, according to sources familiar with the offer.
Moreover, Boehner has personally promised Obama that he will stand side by side with him to weather the strong political backlash expected from any proposal to cut entitlement costs.
So far, Obama has not taken Boehner up on the deal, as Democratic strategists have warned the White House not to cut payments from the Social Security trust fund or to reopen the acrimonious debate over healthcare.
Social Security reform has been prominent in behind-the-scenes talks about entitlement spending because it is relatively easy to reduce its cost projections — at least, compared to the complex morass of healthcare policy reform.
Social Security has been known traditionally as the “third rail” of politics, because grappling with the issue is considered as deadly as touching an electrified subway rail.
President George W. Bush saw his post-election political capital plummet in 2005 after Democrats led by Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.) excoriated his administration’s proposal to divert a portion of Social Security revenues into private retirement accounts.
Boehner has promised that Republicans will not exploit entitlement reform for political gain if Obama shows leadership on curbing the cost of Social Security and other mandatory spending programs, according to sources familiar with the offer.
Michael Steel, Boehner’s spokesman, declined to comment. “The Speaker does not discuss his private conversations with the president of the United States.”
Earlier this year, during his State of the Union address, Obama called on Congress to put Social Security on solid financial footing, but stopped short of calling for a reduction in benefit payouts.
Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.), who is in the midst of negotiating a deficit-reduction package with a bipartisan group of senators, said Republicans would not bite Obama for endorsing entitlement reforms.
“He’s been told by the Speaker that if he stands up to do that, the Speaker will stand up with him,” Coburn said. “The Speaker will go out there with him and say we’ve got to do these things.”
Coburn is in talks with five other senators — two Republicans and three Democrats — to craft a deficit-reduction plan that might include reforms to Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid.
Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.) said entitlement reform won’t happen this year unless Obama takes a leading role on the issue.
“With regard to our long-term unfunded liabilities — the entitlements — we are waiting for presidential leadership,” McConnell said. “We know, and we’ll say again, that entitlement reform will not be done except on a bipartisan basis with presidential leadership.”
The president might be concerned about getting vilified by his own party and its allies.
Labor unions and liberal advocacy groups have waged a blistering lobbying campaign directed at the White House to steer the president away from reform proposals that would cut benefits.
Vulnerable Democrats up for reelection in 2012, such as Sens. Sherrod Brown (Ohio) and Debbie Stabenow (Mich.), have also seized on the issue as a political life preserver, warning of staunch opposition if Obama and Republicans hatch a deal to reduce Social Security costs.
Brown and Stabenow signed a letter this week lobbying colleagues to support legislation to establish a 60-vote procedural hurdle for any proposal that “would reduce Social Security benefits.”
The last time Congress acted to address a looming shortfall in Social Security — raising the retirement age from 65 to 67 — was in 1983.
“Today, Social Security is strong and faces no such crisis,” the senators wrote. “The Social Security Administration has estimated that Social Security will be able to pay 100 percent of promised benefits to every eligible American for the next 26 years.
“After that, if nothing is done, there will still be enough funding to pay 78 percent of promised benefits,” they added.
But a senior GOP aide said that if Congress does not act to reform the entitlement, it would ensure that workers under the age of 40 would see a 22 percent reduction in benefits.
Democratic pollsters have conducted surveys showing that a strong majority of Democrats, Republicans and independents oppose reductions in Social Security benefits.
Negotiators on Capitol Hill think Social Security would be fairly easy to reform from a policy standpoint, but warn the political dangers make the prospect extremely difficult.
Obama’s fiscal commission last year sketched out a plan for curbing Social Security’s costs that won support from three Democratic members of Congress.
It recommended raising the Social Security retirement age to 68 by 2050 and to 69 by 2075. It also proposed lowering cost-of-living adjustments for beneficiaries and subjecting a higher percentage of earnings to payroll taxes.
Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad (D-N.D.) and Democratic Whip Dick Durbin (Ill.), members of the commission, voted for the proposal. So did then-Rep. John Spratt (S.C.), the former Democratic chairman of the House Budget panel.
Liberal and labor groups that oppose raising the retirement age argue that a one-year increase would amount to a 6 percent to 7 percent cut in benefits. Liberal lawmakers also argue that it’s easy for policymakers working desk jobs in Washington to call for an increase of the retirement age, but that it’s a daunting prospect for butchers, landscapers, construction workers and others who labor in physically arduous jobs.
Conrad said recently that Social Security reforms should be considered separately from a broader deficit reduction package. He said the nation’s healthcare entitlement programs — such as Medicare and Medicaid — should be examined for further reform and savings.
Coburn has balked at the prospect of taking up Social Security on a separate track, predicting that it will not be reformed if removed from a broader package.
How about the backlash if it DOESN'T get done? The Tea Party is doing nothing but growing.
Democratic pollsters have conducted surveys
They should've done a few before Commiecare™ was jammed down everyone's throat.
The only problem is, for every Tea Party guy, there are 100 old, decrepit, welfare-begging bums who will cut your GD throat, if you even look at their SS checks funny.
Boehner is another dumb ass Republican (like Newt) who doesn’t have the first clue as to who they’re “dealing with”. That’s why they get rolled at every turn.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2684125/posts?page=2#2
Obama will probably say something to Boehner that will get him all "weepy-ed" up.
My wife is on SS right now, if it was cut and she had to work for that money, we would be fine. She would not be a happy camper, but I would be happier. I HATE depending on others, and that includes the govt. Seriously, they need to means test every single SS, Medicaid, Medicare and govt pension recipient. Anyone making more than a certain amount without the pension should give it up. I don’t care if you are owed it or not. If we don’t fix this system now, balance the budget and pay back the debt, we are finished as a country. We can move in with relatives, do without cable and cell phones. Even go without govt paid health services, but we MUST fix this.
not necessarily....do you really think ayatollah obama is going to cut entitlements?? Boehner could end up the genius here- obozo doesn’t cut entitlements, Boehner puts his hands up and says, “we tried”....
Oh, I see. I was forced to pay into the friggin' SS system for 43 years and now you want to keep me from getting MY money. But, it's okay to hand MY money to someone else who's never worked a day in their life because it makes political sense to do so. You know, you guys and gals in Washington are REALLY starting to pi$$ me off...
And have been getting rolled for decades. It's either that or behind the scenes the Republicans are content to go along with Obama's plans as long as they get to keep their cushy jobs and the keys to the Congressional sauna, hot tub and steam room. Somehow, I think it's the latter.....
Hmmmmm..... Who’s seeking cover in this? Sounds like Boehner really wants Obama to provide him with cover.
Never misunderestimate what a complicit media can do to make it look like Obama is cutting entitlements between now and the election next year......
Yep.
Well; Boehner why don’t you do everything you can to get Obama reelected. Wouldn’t it refreshing to get a Republican in higher office with some intestinal fortitude to tell it like it is and let the rough end drag.
“Boehner...doesn’t have the first clue as to who they’re “dealing with”. That’s why they get rolled at every turn.”
I guess I should of went on to say, but he will NEVER take on entitlement reform because he is a socialist. To him the only solution is to raise taxes on everyone who is not already of the gov’t teat.
Keys to the Congressional sauna, hot tub and steam room, being invited to elite Washington parties and other events in the social scene, rubbing elbows with the "in" crowd, etc.
See Lindsey Graham and who's butt he's kissed for details......
I would point out that not only was your paycheck deducted at a rate of 6.2% for 43 years, but YOUR EMPLOYEE MATCHED IT!!!
Someone upthread referred to SS recipients as “welfare bums”. Dear Lord, the politicians win if we don’t think this through rationally. Make the SS recipients the enemy, get them fighting with each other...THAT’s the ticket!
First, means testing is not the way to go. You take money out of someone’s paycheck while they work, all the while with the understanding that it will be returned to you when you retire...YOU DON’T TAKE IT AWAY FROM THEM IF THEY MAKE TOO MUCH MONEY WHEN THEY RETIRE!
they call this...pay attention, redistribution of wealth. IE...deduct the money from my paycheck, WITH AN EMPLOYER MATCH, then comes time to retire, tell me I make too much money...too bad. The gubmint will now keep your money, AND THE EMPLOYER MATCH, and give it to who the gubmint thinks deserves it, hopefully folks who will vote for me.
We can’t have it, since you make so much money, for you to maybe give your SS check to your church, a trust for your offspring, your favorite charity maybe. Nope. We took it from you out of your paycheck, now we give it to who WE think most deserves it, not you.
Social security is NOT welfare. My husband paid into a 401K all this life. His employer could not, by law, go spending that money on whatever whim the employer had. The employer was charged with guarding that money, much like money you put in a bank...by LAW. The 401K money came out of husband’s paycheck, just like SS contributions.
Go to hell if his former employer can suddenly say...you know what, we changed our mind....you make too much money, we’re going to give your 401K deduct to someone else. Why on earth would a member of such a conservative forum such as FreeRepublic ever espouse such a thing?
This is not to say that there isn’t problems with SS. The retirement age is entirely too young. The 62 age was established back when the average life length was around 60 years.
By me, entirely too many able=bodied people get SS disa benefits but I admit I;m working on anecdotal evidence.
The money deducted from people’s paychecks, AND THEIR EMPLOYERS’ match, needs to be put aside in a separate fund just like these same politicians require for 401K’s and banks. The money should be invested like the 401K.
Let’s not forget that it was the politicians who spent this money. Don’t go blaming the recipients and calling them welfare bums.
This is just what the politicos want to happen.
Think Neville Behnor knows the definition of “Taqiyya”?
“Republican” congresscritters should be FORCED to listen to talk radio.
They are idiots, for the most part.
They haven’t a clue what sissy-boy is.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.