Fischer: Entitlement reform requires "political courage"

Freshman Sen. Deb Fischer, R-Neb., called for "political courage" in tackling entitlement reform in today's weekly GOP address, saying that without "making these hard decisions, America will never rein in spending or achieve a balanced budget."

"It's no secret that to cut spending, we must find ways to reduce the costs of Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid - the primary drivers of our national debt," Fischer said. Although she cautioned that we must keep our promises to those in or nearing retirement, she added, "In order to save these popular programs, we must reform them. If not, they will no longer exist for future generations and will bankrupt us in the meantime."

While Fischer touts entitlement cuts as a necessary dose of fiscal medicine, she does not feel the same about the defense cuts included in the so-called sequester. "The Constitution clearly states that the top priority for Congress is to 'provide for the common defense.' Despite this core duty, nearly a trillion dollars in critical national security funding is slated to be dangerously cut from the defense budget over the next decade," Fischer said, "all because some leaders in Washington can't get their priorities straight.

Fischer also addressed the looming fight over raising the debt ceiling, promising to use the borrowing limit to extract spending cuts: "The President will soon ask Congress to raise the nation's debt limit--again. I believe we cannot agree to increase the borrowing limit without addressing our out-of-control spending."

And the Nebraska Republican also echoed GOP leaders in trying to eliminate taxes from the deficit reduction debate, saying, "The debate over taxes and revenues is done. Tax increases barely pay for a few days of government spending and in all my years of public service, I have never had constituents ask me to raise their taxes."

• Battle over debt limit, spending cuts not over
• Obama: U.S. accelerating Afghan military transition

Meanwhile, President Obama used his weekly address to discuss the changing American role in Afghanistan, reiterating much of what he said at Friday's joint press conference with Afghan President Hamid Karzai.

"Over the past four years, thanks to our brave men and women in uniform, we've dealt devastating blows to al Qaeda. We've pushed the Taliban out of their strongholds," Mr. Obama said. "And our core objective - the reason we went to Afghanistan in the first place - is now within reach: ensuring that al Qaeda can never again use Afghanistan to launch attacks against America."

"This week, we agreed that this spring, Afghan forces will take the lead for security across the country, and our troops will shift to a support role," he said. "And by the end of next year, America's war in Afghanistan will be over."

"After more than a decade of war," the president explained, "the nation we need to rebuild is our own."

[OldTimeTruth]

Okay, Ms Fischer lets start here. We cut your pay by 75 percent while in office. We take away your government retirment plan and replace it with Social Security only. We take away your medical and you have to pay for that yourself. All you will have when your 65 is your social security and Medicare. Sounds fair to me? By the way I don't think you will like my other ideas at all. Infact your GOP buddies will get real upset.

[1pheasant1]

7lucky_seven replies:
So, the trillion dollar deficits ended when Bush left office? That is good news. Why has no one else heard of this?
_________________________________________
The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office had already projected that spending would be almost 25% — actually 24.9% — of GDP in fiscal year 2009 before Obama even took the oath of office.

Bush's legacy, yet lucy blames President Obama. The spending wasn't a "problem" until the Republicans lost the presidency.

[legalbutunjust]

7LUCKY_SEVEN replies:

So to you, quoting Shakespeare is terrorism?


-----------

Oh not at all. I didn't say that, Seven.

In fact, I had submitted a small piece of mine that was published in our local newspaper (letters to the editor), that contained a Shakespearean quote concerning the killing of OBL.

There is a strange philosophical and literary relationship between Shakespeare's writings and ultimate acts of evil and terror. At least in his times.

I think you misunderstood my point. You said you were not in agreement with some Shakespearean manuscript or expression that called for the 'killing' of prosecutors and lawyers. I'm not sure Shakespeare ever wrote that, but if he did, I was merely pointing out your apparent concurrence, more or less, with such

[legalbutunjust]

You said you were not in "disagreement", I meant.

[hypnotoad72]

Excuse me, but we paid into social security, medicare, etc.

REAL entitlements are free handouts. You know, marriage tax incentives, corporate welfare, et cetera...

[hypnotoad72]

Especially to corporations that offshore jobs...

[legalbutunjust]

7LUCKY_SEVEN replies:

All prosecutors and attorneys are corrupt and only interested in racking up wins. They are the least concerned people over fairness and have no concept of the word"justice".

Shakespeare thought they should all be killed and I would not disagree.

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


But to Seven, the unborn who are being "killed" should not be.

Lots of logic there. Last I checked, one has to at least have been born to be a prosecutor.

I can tell you one thing Seven, around here, if you say what you said to just the wrong kind of person's face, you indeed MAY become charged with making a terroristic threat- a felony. Not only because of who you say it to, but because of whom such a statement is said about; this comment of yous isn't only about Shakespeare, a 'someone' who cannot be charged since he has been dead for centuries.

The PA gets enforced 'round these parts in ways you might little dream of.

Not sure how it works on CBS's site, though.

[legalbutunjust]

I suppose, on balance, that your stating you "would not disagree", may simply be the one thing that spells a considerable difference in perception though, since not only are you commenting about another's "thought" (as opposed to what they impliedly said or claimed), but also refraining from the words "I would agree."

Just a thought.

[outback_jackson]

7LUCKY_SEVEN replies: "So, the trillion dollar deficits ended when Bush left office?"



No UNLUCKY, the balanced budgets and budget surpluses ended when bush ENTERED office despite the same GOP Congress, and the deficits started right then and there from lowered revenue from the bush tax cuts as well as the GOP spending spree that still exists. Now, after 11 years of the bush tax cuts and corporate tax cuts, spending projects by both parties, and the worst economic downturn since the 1930s, we have yearly budget deficits of over a trillion.

According to the OMB, future projections estimate our deficits to start decreasing back to the $600 Billion range, and could be even lower if our dysfunctional Congress can find the "political will" to reform the tax code and cut spending starting with the military-industrial complex, as well as finding the "political courage" to reform entitlements.

[outback_jackson]

No UNLUCKY, the balanced budgets and budget surpluses ended when bush ENTERED office despite the same GOP Congress..


7LUCKY_SEVEN replies: "When Bush entered office? How strange?"


No UNLUCKY, not strange at all, but even far-right ideologues like you should know and understand that the balanced budgets and budget surpluses ended when bush entered office, and started the tax cuts!

[knsn_for_cmn_sense]

In RECORD time we went from having budget surplus to record deficit.

Doesnt help that Oblamer kept it all going. Tax rates wars and all.

I remember fondly the day it was announced that we were making a record PAYMENT on the national debt. Around 99 ish or so.

[davidd5063]

Yes entitlement cuts do require political courage. When do you suppose the GOP will get some rather than just BRIBING current retirees to STEAL from everyone under 55?

[crankyoleman]

Yes it needs to be more comprehensive but to what level and how many programs should be included? It also depends on whose voting block you are messing with.

[BeauTerry]

This article could have been written in one sentence:

Entitlement reform will require "political courage"; therefore, it will never happen. <end>

[outback_jackson]

NEANDERTHAL says: "Eliminate Welfare."

TSIGILI says: "The cuts need to be for the waste in WELFARE."

CHUCK766 says: "How about cutting benefits for generational welfare abusers?"




There seems to be a general theme running through right-wing republican posts, discounting the fact that we saw "welfare reform" in the 1990s, when Congress enacted the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act, which further reduced aid to the poor.

Is this just an ongoing republican talking point without any factual basis?


Besides, Freshman Sen. Deb Fischer, R-Neb., called for "political courage" in tackling entitlement reform in today's weekly GOP address -- this is clearly Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid known as "entitlements" -- not this WELFARE BOOGEYMAN that republican ideologues are ranting about!

[crankyoleman]

Don't forget section 8 housing...

[outback_jackson]

But, just like the welfare boogeyman pushed by republicans, section 8 housing is rental housing assistance on behalf of low-income households, and not an ENTITLEMENT.

It seems that most of our republican posters are confused about what exactly an entitlement happens to be.

[nearl451]

Please simply bring back the sequester. And rollback all the tax rates as the Cliff proposed.

The agreement avoiding it took little courage. Now we are trying again tobuild some consnesus to do something meaningful.