Dems: "Fiscal cliff" first, then tackle entitlements

As Washington lawmakers seek to avert the so-called "fiscal cliff," Republicans have suggested they will insist on making changes to entitlement programs like Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. Some Democrats, bucking the progressive wing of their party, said Tuesday they're open to making those changes -- if they come after the "fiscal cliff" negotiations.

Targeting programs that assist seniors and low-income Americans is unfair, some liberal Democrats say. However, Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., a lead negotiator in deficit reduction talks in recent years, said Tuesday that "progressives cannot afford to stand on the sidelines in this fiscal cliff debate and to deny the obvious... We can't be so naive as to think that just taxing the rich will solve our problems."

"We need to take an honest look at Medicare," Durbin said at the Center for American Progress, a left-leaning think tank in Washington. "Untouched, Medicare is going to run out of money in 12 years. That is scary because we have so many Americans who count on it."

In his prepared remarks, however, Durbin said that changes to Medicare, Medicaid or Social Security "should not be part of a plan to avert the fiscal cliff." His office clarified that the senator believes Congress can get past the "fiscal cliff" first -- by extending the Bush-era tax cuts for middle class Americans and addressing long-term deficit reduction through tax reform -- and then discuss making small changes to Medicare and Medicaid.

• The "fiscal cliff" isn't a cliff at all
• Would House GOP actually vote for higher taxes?
• Obama hosts small-business owners on fiscal cliff

White House spokesman Jay Carney today took a similar tack, calling the "fiscal cliff" and entitlement reform "two distinct issues here that are related."

"The president's belief is that we can address both of these in a broad deficit reduction package, but there's no question that they are in many ways distinct," Carney said. "That's why when we talk about an immediate action, a distinct, discrete action that Congress could take if the House of Representatives, if Republicans in the House of Representatives would agree to it, is to pass the tax cut, extending the so-called Bush-era task cuts for 98 percent of the American people."

The "fiscal cliff" refers to a series of tax increases and spending cuts slated to go into effect on January 1, which could potentially send the U.S. into another recession. The "fiscal cliff" includes the expiration of the Bush-era tax cuts and the expiration of the payroll tax holiday that Mr. Obama instituted. Around $1.2 trillion in cuts to both defense and non-defense programs are also set to kick in on January 1 unless Washington acts.

Carney said Washington should extend the Bush-era tax rates for income under $250,000 "right now." In the long term, he said, "we need to include, as part of our balanced approach, savings from entitlements."

The White House on Monday said Social Security reform should be on a separate track because "Social Security currently is not a driver of the deficit."

• no previous page
• next

1/2

[WYATTBUCHANAN]

Yea right, give us everything we want and then we will tackle the root cause later. Suckers!!!

This just shows that the Dem's are not serious about reigning in out of control federal budgets. They better get serious about curbing spending or the Republican leaders have no incentive to give in.

The fiscal cliff while painful is the mechanism that Congress came up with that will finally force the bloated federal government to address its overspending. We cannot afford to kick the can farther down the road without addressing the problem only to have to come back in January and raise the debt cieling again.

A word to the Dem's. Don't believe for a second that just because the President pulled out a squeaker in the election 51% to 49 % that you have some sort of "mandate". The election results shows just how divided the nation is. Even if you factor out the "1% ers", as you are fond of calling them, from the 49 % that voted for Romney that means that 48% of your countrymen disagree with the way this nation is heading and you better start dealing with the ones that represent the 48%

Get serious, stop posturing or the cliff is going to happen.

[mars7578]

Compared to insurance,medicare is the most cost effective way for AMERICA to meet the needs of seniors health.Most people pay into it for over 40 years before using it.If an increase is need ,it would be extremely small compared to insurance.Social security, like medicare is an over 40 year investment in America to have a guarantee income for its seniors.Again if an increase is need it would be very small.The postal service would be in the black had Congress not caved to wallstreet to change pension funding rules.Sure, these programs and agencies need to be fined tuned,but this single focus on spending and revenue is economic ignorance.Each item needs its own fix ,not some grand bargain.This Congress and president is going to screw America fiscal health for decades.

[bobw101]

fiddlestickawshucks says:

I agree with Durbin.

Had the government not "borrowed" (stole) funds from Social Security and Medicare; this deficit would not exist in the first place.

I just heard a guy on CNN (turns out it was Sen. Durbin) say that Social Security and Medicare are not a drain on our fiscal well being.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

In 2011 Medicare collected about $264 billion in payroll taxes and premiums, while spending about $549 billion on medical services. So in 2011 Medicare ran a $285 billion deficit. Since LBJ signed medicare into law in 1965, the program has run deficits every year except 1966 and 1974. Between 2001 and 2010, medicare deficits totaled about $1.5 trillion. By 2020, deficits are projected to be around $6.2 trillion.

As you can see Durbin is a liar, just like 99% of the other pieces of trash he works with in DC.

[wedpeoplewhatsthat]

You sir, if i may call you sir must be the 1% of those who care less about the truth about what this goverment now and in the past has created for the honest every day working individuals. Social Security was put into law to help those people who worked all their lives to have some sort of savings in their retirement days. To many of our goverment representives want todays youth to do their on investments. With todays Wall Street financial advisors all of which you've earned can be destroyed in a heart beat which by the way has already occurred. I would not want the future of our youth placed in the hands of such an establishment. Let the government officials take their money and bank on a gamble but don't put it off on younger people to do the same by a forceful means. But then again if the same goverment officials with insider trading information and got away with it while others outside the establishment went to jail because of the same thing maybe it would be a good thing knowing with this information could make big bucks. But you and i know this want happen for the same reason. We are not an important part of making sure the goverment does the right things with our money. They can borrow it and not pay it back while if we owe taxes to them and refuse to pay we go to jail. They have made themselves above the laws of our country while we have to abide by them. Somewhere along the lines some people don't want to talk about the real truth but try to hide by avoiding or not really wanting to say it.

[fiddlestickawshucks]

I agree with Durbin.

Had the government not "borrowed" (stole) funds from Social Security and Medicare; this deficit would not exist in the first place.

I just heard a guy on CNN (turns out it was Sen. Durbin) say that Social Security and Medicare are not a drain on our fiscal well being.

I would like to see John (Bonehead) Boehner get on the national news networks and explain his reasons for trying to send us over the fiscal cliff by insisting cuts be made in these programs "or else".

For some reason; he evidently does not get that; if not for the people who built this country (see "The Greatest Generation") he might not even have a job.

He has been holding up progress toward solving the fiscal crisis whining about this for the last four years.

He also has plans to keep holding this demand over Congress again.

He's not satisfied with avoiding the US from going bankrupt first and then addressing Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid later on in the year.

Social Security is solvent until 2034.

That's more than 20 years from now.!

BUT; he is still willing to let the US go belly-up unless he gets his way.

Does this really sound like he has the best interests of the US and the American people at heart.??

NOT TO ME, and hopefully not to you either.!

[hillzhaveays]

spinner-or-winner replies:
linkicon reporticon emailicon
The 2012 Survey of Affluence and Wealth in America, from American Express Publishing and Harrison Group, finds that One Percenters are hoarding three times as much cash as they were two years ago.
____________________________________

Broadcasting your ignorance to the world again, eh spin?

Perhaps you weren't aware that in times of economic uncertainty (and when under fire from the government) people tend to sit on their money. It's smart and it's normal. Otherwise, you might invest it and lose it, which is foolish. You sit it out, maintaining a conservative, low-risk position, until such time as opportunity presents itself, then you make a decision on investment.

Remember, a fool and his money are soon parted. Come to think of it, fool that you are, I'll bet you had money at one time. Then it departed LOL

Money that you sit on never earns as much as money invested in a good opportunity. It's simple math.

Learn math spinner. Then you won't sound like a stupid hack all the time.

[Socialistnation]

Raising taxes on the top 1% is a joke. I t would raise enough money to run the Government for 8.5 days...

The truth is the rest if you non 1%''s are next on the tax increase bandwagon.....

[The_pragmatist2]

I am sorry but the fiscal cliff discussion shouldn't be all about raising taxes on the 1% whether the country needs it, the rich deserve it, or both. This negotiation should be about passing a balanced budget and a deficit reduction plan, something which has not been done in the 4 years since this POTUS took office. It should be a wakeup call for both parties that America expects better from their elected representatives and looks to them to run the country in a fiscally responsible way. Congress set the time limit on the cliff and congress can extend it. Since they are all acting like children I will treat them like children. "Now you all go to your rooms and work out a balanced budget boys and girls. Dems show us a plan that you are serious about curbing spending and GOP show us how you will legitimately raise revenue and none of you come out until you do!"

[diddy_back_again]

Not so fast you socialist democrats. Entitlements first then fiscal cliff.

[hillzhaveays]

candypants123 says:
How in the world will adding new taxes to people making over 250K possibly pay for the 44 million people on food stamps or pay down the deficit? PLEASE...be honest and stop the lies about taxes. It is spending that is the problem.

mjvwsr replies:
We live in a culture where it's greedy to want to keep money and not greedy to want to take it away from the person who earned it.
___________________________________
candy, that is an astute observation, a mathematically sound conclusion and an insightful understanding of how absurd Obama's "Tax the Rich" argument really has no basis.

As such, it will be universally ignored by the liberal partisan hacks and trolls that infest this site.

mj, the trolls and hacks hate truth. They hop around all mad and purplefaced like little prehistoric medicine men. It's hilarious. Please continue.

[tb91006]

Again why does Obama and the liberasls only want to talk about 1% of the solution but bury their heads on the other 99%.

[wfw3536]

You know the Dems will never follow through on Entitlements. They did not follow through on their promises to Bush I when he followed through and raised taxes, and the Dems did nothing to Entitlements. The Dems can't be trusted as their whole goal is to raise taxes so they can spend more money.

[14FREEK]

the dems want to raise taxes so they ccan make cuts in spending.