I thought he was a Democrat?
"Warren, allies oppose Obama on budget compromise; Party liberals oppose a deal on entitlements" by Noah Bierman | Globe Staff, October 28, 2013
WASHINGTON — Democrats may be heading toward a party split that could prevent a lasting deal to stop the constant threat of shutdowns and defaults.
Meaning this tool of division is on permanent deployment since we all rose up and shouted "Hell No!" to the war agenda.
Influential liberals, led by Senator Elizabeth Warren and other New England lawmakers, are fighting Obama’s offer to compromise with Republicans on changes to Social Security. The president has proposed the change in benefits in hopes of corralling Republican support for his budget and protecting the program from more sweeping cuts.
The key change he has proposed would reduce the annual cost of living increase for seniors, using a new economic inflation formula known as “chained CPI.’’
See: CPI Unchained
“Chained CPI is just a fancy way to say ‘Cut benefits for seniors, permanently disabled, and orphans,’ ” Warren said in an interview last week, repeating a rallying cry she has made in speeches and letters to supporters. “Our Social Security system is critical to protecting middle-class families, and we cannot allow it to be dismantled, inch by inch.”
“The president is dead wrong on this issue,” Senator Bernie Sanders, a Vermont independent who is one of the most liberal members of Congress.
Well, let's not hope dead.
Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, a Rhode Island Democrat, said he is “fully opposed” to Obama’s proposal. “We may lose, but it’s not going to be for lack of trying,” he added.
They have more in common than just being liberal Democrats, if jyou know what I mean.
When Obama endorsed the idea in April as part of his proposed budget, he enraged liberal Democrats, who signed letters, demanded meetings with Obama, and held rallies.
The president has not backed down....
Yeah, you hang in there Mr. President!
Meanwhile, this government for which he is a figurehead front man is looting the place.
Sanders and Whitehouse are both members of an official bipartisan budget committee that is packed with liberals. Warren, though not on the committee, will also wield significant pressure on the issue because of the large amount of influence she has on Democratic Party activists.
The negotiating committee was set up as part of a deal to end the 16-day government shutdown this month and to raise the nation’s debt ceiling. Both crises were set off by Tea Party Republicans’ insistence that Obama agree to gut or curtail his health care law as a condition of funding the government and raising the debt ceiling, threats Democrats successfully resisted.
Yeah, yup, yeah, yup, yup, yup. Gotcha, Glob. Narrative received.
The deal was reached just ahead of a deadline that left the country perilously close to defaulting on its debts, which could have severely damaged the world economy. But the deal only reopened the government through mid-January and only raised the nation’s borrowing authority through early February.
Lawmakers hoped to use the time they bought, and the negotiating committee they created, to reach a broader agreement on taxes, spending, and entitlements that has eluded Washington in recent years and left the nation in a cycle of periodic fiscal crises....
Liberal lawmakers who oppose Obama’s efforts to compromise on entitlements say they are skeptical that any deal can be reached. Some say they remain open to compromise -- balancing spending cuts and new tax revenues — while at the same time insisting that Republicans are the ones who should move.
“There’s a reality check that is due on the Republican side,” Whitehouse said.
I think you both need one.
Proposals offered by liberal Democrats are not likely to bridge the gulf with Republicans. Warren and Senator Edward J. Markey of Massachusetts talked about raising money to trim the deficit and raise spending by eliminating tax breaks for oil companies and other corporate interests.
Warren declared herself shocked by Obama’s Social Security proposal in an April e-mail to supporters. She said last week that she would also resist any proposals to raise the eligibility age for Social Security and other plans that would reduce benefits.
“No one doubts where I stand on this,” she said.
Warren’s voice on the issue is key to liberals, and could put pressure on other Democrats to avoid compromising on the issue. Her six-minute floor speech on the role of government during the shutdown, for example, drew about 1 million views on YouTube, even though she had no official role in leading the Democrats’ case.
Related: Senator Elizabeth Warren wants more research money
“Her speaking out will be an important marker,” said Adam Green, cofounder of Progressive Change Campaign Committee, a liberal political action committee. He added that negotiating on entitlement cuts is the Democrats’ biggest threat to fracturing its base.
After they are already demoralized by the atrocious rollout of Obamacare, meaning they are likely to stay home in 2014.
Other Massachusetts Democrats, including Markey, agree with Warren on Social Security, which Democrats have long used to galvanize senior citizen voters in elections.
“People work for those benefits,” Markey said.
A main focus of negotiations will be deep across-the-board cuts known as the sequester, which are scheduled to get even larger in mid-January. Failure to reach a deal increases the risk of additional showdowns on keeping the government open and raising the debt ceiling to avoid default on the nation’s debts.
Democrats want to replace the sequester cuts of about $100 billion a year with a combination of new taxes and targeted cuts.
Many Republicans want to spare the newest round of military cuts set to begin in January, but some consider the sequester, which lasts for a decade under the law, a good way to lock in spending cuts from reluctant lawmakers.
And Republicans are dug in against any tax increase, believing they already gave ground in the New Year’s deal to end Bush-era tax cuts for individuals earning $400,000 or more a year. Obama also raised taxes on investment income for high earners to raise money for his health care law.
Related: Sunday Globe Specials: Fiscal Cliff Fraud
Some tax "increase," huh?
Additional taxes are “pretty much a non-starter,” said Representative Tom Cole, an influential Oklahoma Republican who will serve on the bipartisan budget panel.
Cole, like other Republicans, is taunting Democrats to back the Social Security changes in Obama’s spending plan.
15-yard penalty to be enforced on the kickoff.
**************************
Liberals at odds with the White House plan have also tweaked the president. Sanders has been promoting a bill he introduced this year that would raise Social Security withholding taxes significantly on those earning more than $250,000 a year, who currently do not pay Social Security taxes on the majority of their earnings.
His 11 cosponsors include Reid. But Sanders and his staff are fond of pointing out where they got the idea: Obama’s 2008 presidential campaign.
Still, some moderates are willing to discuss entitlement cuts, even if they do not like them.
Senator Angus King, a Maine independent who caucuses with Democrats and will be on the budget committee, said he would be willing to put them on the table to get a deal that includes other benefits and contributes to solvency.
He said that it is imperative that the sides compromise, despite the difficulties, to show Americans that government can still function.
--more--"
Related:
"Social Security raise among smallest in history; 1.5% increase pegged
to low level of inflation" by Stephen Ohlemacher | Associated
Press, October 14, 2013
WASHINGTON — For the second straight year, millions of Social Security recipients, disabled veterans, and federal retirees can expect historically small increases in their benefits come January.
Preliminary figures suggest a benefit increase of roughly 1.5 percent,
which would be among the smallest since automatic increases were adopted
in 1975, according to an analysis by the Associated Press.
Next year’s raise will be small because consumer prices, as measured by the government, have not gone up much in the past year.
The exact size of the cost-of-living adjustment will not be known until
the Labor Department releases the inflation report for September. That
was supposed to happen Wednesday, but the report was delayed
indefinitely because of the partial government shutdown.
You can get the information from business sources or blogs, you don't need government lies for that.
The cost-of-living adjustment is usually announced in October to give
Social Security and other benefit programs time to adjust January
payments. The Social Security Administration has given no indication
that raises would be delayed by the shutdown, but advocates for seniors
said the uncertainty was unwelcome.
Social Security benefits have continued during the shutdown.
Yeah, if you are following this the shutdown is all selective stuff
by the administration to cause the most inconvenience and anger to help
their poll numbers. The war machine rolls on as the workers are called back or given paid vacations.
More than one-fifth of the country is waiting for the news.
Nearly 58 million retirees, disabled workers, spouses, and children get
Social Security benefits. The average monthly payment is $1,162. A 1.5
percent raise would increase the typical monthly payment by about $17.
The cost-of-living adjustment also affects benefits for more than 3
million disabled veterans, about 2.5 million federal retirees and their
survivors, and more than 8 million people who get Supplemental Security
Income, the disability program for the poor.
Automatic cost-of-living adjustments were adopted so that benefits for
people on fixed incomes would keep up with rising prices. Many seniors,
however, complain that the adjustment sometimes falls short, leaving them little wiggle room.
David Waugh of Bethesda, Md., said he can handle one small
cost-of-living adjustment, but several in a row make it hard to plan for
unexpected expenses.
‘‘I’m not one of those folks that’s going to fall into poverty, but it
is going to make a difference in my standard of living as time goes
by,’’ said Waugh, 83, who retired from the United Nations. ‘‘I live in a
small apartment and I have an old car, and it’s going to break down.
And no doubt when it does, I’ll have to fix it or get a new one.’’
Since 1975, annual Social Security raises have averaged 4.1 percent.
Only six times have they been less than 2 percent, including this year,
when the increase was 1.7 percent. There was no cost-of-living
adjustment in 2010 or 2011 because inflation was too low.
Says who?
By law, the cost-of-living adjustment is based on the Consumer Price
Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers, a broad measure of
consumer prices generated by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. It measures
price changes for food, housing, clothing, transportation, energy,
medical care, recreation, and education.
The cost-of-living adjustment is calculated by comparing consumer prices
in July, August, and September each year to prices in the same three
months from the previous year. If prices go up over the course of the
year, benefits go up, starting with payments delivered in January.
This year, average prices for July and August were 1.4 percent higher
than they were a year ago, according to the Consumer Price Index.
Once the September report, the final piece of the puzzle, is released,
the adjustment can be announced officially. If prices continued to
slowly inch up in September, that would put the cost-of-living
adjustment at roughly 1.5 percent.
Several economists said there were no dramatic price swings in September
to significantly increase or decrease the projected adjustment. That
means the projection should not change by more than a few tenths of a
percentage point, if at all.
Polina Vlasenko, a research fellow at the American Institute for
Economic Research, projects the cost-of-living adjustment will be
between 1.4 percent and 1.6 percent.
Her projection is similar to those done by others, including AARP, which
estimates the adjustment will be between 1.5 percent and 1.7 percent.
The Senior Citizens League estimates it will be estimate is about 1.5
percent.
Lower prices for gasoline are helping to fuel low inflation, Vlasenko said.
Gasoline prices are down 2.4 percent from a year ago while food prices
are up slightly, according to the August inflation report. Housing costs
went up 2.3 percent and utilities increased by 3.2 percent.
I count 5.5 percent of increases plus slightly more with only a 2.4
percent drop the lowest cost category of gasoline. And yet they are
telling you costs went up only 1.5 percent?
And that is not including MEDICAL COSTS that are SKYROCKETING under Obamacare?
Advocates for seniors say the government’s measure of inflation does not accurately reflect price increases older Americans face because they tend to spend more of their income on health care.
There is nothing this government does that is accurate! That is what happens when you lie all the time.
Medical costs went up less than in previous years but still outpaced other consumer prices, rising 2.5 percent.
That brings the increase percentage to a round 8, doesn't it?
‘‘This [cost-of-living adjustment] is not enough to keep up with
inflation, as it affects seniors,’’ said Max Richtman, who heads the
National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare. ‘‘There are
some things that become cheaper but they are not things that seniors
buy. Laptop computers have gone down dramatically, but how many people
at 70 are buying laptop computers?’’
Is anyone buying them now?
--more--"
Related: Boston Globe Knee-$lapper
Maybe you think it is funny. And now this bankrupt,
money-grubbing, greedy government is cutting you chump change for an
increase for Social Security recipients.
