Submitted by Lawrence Rafferty, (rafflaw), Guest Blogger
When I hear Illinois Senator Dick Durbin’s name, I usually think of a moderately progressive Democratic Senator. What I don’t expect to hear from someone with Durbin’s pedigree are statements to the effect that cuts to Social Security are “on the table”. But that is exactly what he said recently when asked about his work with the so-called Gang of Six.“Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) says he and the other members of the Senate’s bipartisan “Gang of Six” are close to coming up with a compromise plan to shrink the federal deficit — and it might include cuts to Social Security. That would put Durbin, a reliable progressive and the No. 2 Democrat in the Senate, at odds with Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and most of his caucus.” Yahoo
Now, when I first heard this quote I thought it was just a misquote. However, it has been reprinted in various sources. “And he warned that revisions to the program, such as means-testing benefits for wealthier Americans, could be among the changes suggested by the negotiators. ‘ “If we deal with it today, it’s an easier solution than waiting. I think we ought to deal with it. Many of my colleagues disagree, [and would] put it off to another day,” ‘ Durbin said of Social Security in a video interview with ABC News posted Tuesday.’ ” But from my point of view, leaving it out makes it easier politically — including it, I think, meets an obligation, which we have to senior citizens.”’ The Hill That last statement from Durbin sounds more like a quote right out of the mouth of Republican Congressman Paul Ryan, who authored the recent Republican budget proposal!
Some authors have suggested that Senator Durbin is merely being a good politician (is there such an animal?) by playing Good Cop/Bad Cop with his fellow Gang of Six. “I guess Dick Durbin gets to play the bad guy. I am not optimistic that the Gang of Six will be able to produce anything that can pass Congress. I understand the premise of their argument. Democrats don’t want to touch Social Security and Republicans don’t want any tax increases, but they can basically trade one for the other. If both sides give a little on one of their sacred principles, then we can get a compromise. The problem comes in convincing either side to actually violate one of their sacred principles, regardless of what they get in return. In any case, it falls to Durbin, among the Gang of Six, to try to sell us on cuts to Social Security. It falls to Durbin because neither Sen. Mark Warner (D-VA) nor Sen. Kent Conrad (D-ND) has much credibility with progressives. Now, there is an argument that can be made in favor of trading Social Security cuts for tax increases. At the root of the argument are two things. First, the premise that it is better to tackle the debt now than later, and better to tackle it with a Democrat in the White House than with a Republican. Second, the premise that, without touching Social Security, the Republicans will never agree to increase revenue. They have effective veto power over any deal, so even if Social Security isn’t contributing to the deficit in any direct way, it has to be on the table or everything collapses. I think the key is to examine the validity of those two premises. It is probably better to tackle the debt now than later, and to do it with a Democrat in the White House. I think that’s a sound premise. It’s also true that the Republicans will make cuts to Social Security a condition of any deal that raises revenue. The problem, as I see it, is that the two sides still won’t be able to come to an agreement. In other words, giving in on Social Security will alienate too many Democrats, while raising taxes will alienate too many Republicans. “ Booman Tribune
Call me jaundiced, but I have to agree that I do not see Republicans making any substantial movement towards taxing the wealthy or increasing revenues in any way, other than to suggest raising taxes on the poor and middle class. My evidence of that belief is the most recent budget proposal by Mr. Ryan. He reduces taxes for the wealthy again and raises taxes on the middle class and the poor. That same budget proposal also suggests that Medicare should be privatized and that Seniors will be paying more for Medicare. There is also evidence that Durbin’s move to the center will not be accepted by his fellow Democrats.
“Durbin criticized a resolution put forward by Sen. Bernie Sanders, a liberal independent from Vermont,that says Social Security should not be cut under a deficit reduction plan. Durbin said he would not vote for such a resolution. “I think Bernie is going too far with his language,” Durbin said. “In 2037, as we know it, Social Security falls off a cliff,” he said. “There’s a 22 percent reduction rate in payments, which is really not something we can tolerate. If we deal with it today, it’s an easier solution than waiting. I think we ought to deal with it. Many of my colleagues disagree, put it off to another day. But from my point of view, leaving it out makes it easier politically, including it, I think, meets an obligation, which we have to senior citizens.” Bernie Sanders is standing up for the working class and trying to protect them as seniors and you throw him under the bus? Why exactly is Bernie going too far? You sit there in a dark subway car and praise the lunatic known as Paul Ryan, who wants to destroy Medicare, but attack Sanders. I think you’re going too far with your bipartisan fetishism, sir. It’s obvious Republicans want to attach Social Security cuts to any deal you come up with, but that doesn’t mean Durbin has to feed us garbage to be part of it.” Crooks and Liars
If you didn’t think Democrats were upset with Durbin, the title of the aforementioned Crooks and Liars citation was “Who Stole Dick Durbin’s Brain?” So we have a historically Progressive Democrat appearing to bend over and accept one of the conservative’s main precepts, but do we have any real compromise from the conservatives? Unfortunately, all we have on that issue is Durbin’s claim that his Gang of Six are close to an agreement.
I have seen no evidence as of yet that the Republicans will make a substantial compromise on their pledge to refrain from increasing revenues through increased taxes on the wealthy and/or corporations. Until the public sees what this “agreement” consists of, the jury is still out on its logic and chances for passage and whether it is truly bipartisan. Whether this is an agreement that should be reached at all, is a completely different story.
Whether cuts to Social Security benefits should be made is a bipartisan issue that should impact all of us. Since I will turn 60 in a few weeks, this discussion is important to me and brings to mind a few questions. Should the Senate make cuts to Social Security and under what terms should it be changed? Can Congress in its current form actually come to an agreement on any equitable Social Security improvement or change? Should current seniors be handled differently than those 55 and over? Should we remove the earnings cap on Social Security to allow taxes to be collected on income above $105,000? Should we be having this discussion at all? I know it is a lot to think about, but what is your take?
He is Risen,
You are sorely mistaken if you think SS is a freebie. Employees and Employers pay taxes and those taxes go directly to SS. It is an insurance type fund, not what you are suggesting it is. You are also incorrect to suggest that Medicare and Medicaid is the reason health care costs have risen. That is one of the most preposterous claims that I have heard in awhile. Back it up with some facts or leave it in church.
LOTTAKATZ
Rachel stinks! What a pathetic newscaster. She is so biased and never tells the whole story. She is a true socialist who believes that government should solve all problems. She believes in shared sacrifice which is a code phrase for steal from those who work and give to those who don’t. The reason companies have left America is that labor costs are much cheaper and Unions. We need to wake up and look at what is going on in the world. Bring companies home by raising Tariffs and stop this non-sense about sending everyone to college. We need to make our own products and this can’t be done with Rachels philosophy. After all she would rather go to the beach and look at women in bikinis!
We need to phase out social security as it is now, medicare as it is now, and without delay get rid of medicaid. The government should never have been in the health business. We have had a war on poverty for 40 years and we have more poverty today than ever. When will people learn that giving something for nothing won’t work. People who paid into SS have seen the government take from the fund thereby proving the government can’t manage anything. Medicare and medicaid have only caused healthcare costs to sky-rocket.
Lotta,
Great links and love your use of “fig”! I also agree that the poor and middle class seem to always get stiffed when it comes to paying for politicians nonsense. Maybe Durbin can run in 2012 with your slogan. “I am better than a tornado!”
While I agree with the other posters here that it would be a difficult sell or greatly opposed if the more odious portions of Ryan’s budget were passed, recent history shows that on big questions- bailouts, single payer/public option, ending the wars- our politicians don’t give a fig about what the citizenry wants. Not a good sign.
The Peoples Budget is an excellent plan and Maddow did a good report on it and why it hasn’t/won’t see the light of day in the MSM. She also did a great piece on what the economic marshal law forced on Detroit means to one school there by way of castigating the whole practice.
Is Maddow the only actual journalist on TV anymore? She is certainly the high point of my TV-News watching but I may well be biased 🙂
Excellent article Rafflaw, though we in the bi-state area know Durbin isn’t nearly as progressive as he would want us to believe but he’s better than tornados. I’m going to adopt that as my new yardstick for rating politicians; is s/he better (less damaging) than a tornados? 🙂
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rwFkuNQYYDo
When you are making a list of those blew dogs Dickie is right there.
I’m with Ginger! When they wanted to hid the damage done by the Reagan tax cuts they raised the SS rates & promised to pay us back Now 40 years later they have trillions* of dollars in IOUs from money guys like Gingerbaker & I have paid. Now they want to renege on the deal to hide the true cost of the Bush/Obama tax cuts. Screw that.
*Intended to be a factual statement – it is TRILLIONS
Notice what’s never on the table is the gargantuan waste at the Pentagon peeing away billions every week on 3 odious boondoggle wars. This is truly a predatory system that Uncle Sam runs, like the uncle that molests the kids of relatives over the holidays.
This “slow train coming up around the bend” has been in my sights for a while now. I “feel like all hell is about to break loose”.
http://blogdredd.blogspot.com/2011/04/momcom-mean-welfare-queen-2.html
Swarthmore and Blouise,
there is a good article on Firedoglake about the Peoples budget. http://news.firedoglake.com/2011/04/23/the-peoples-budget-gets-a-boomlet-of-praise/
Easy there Ginger! I agree that if substantial decreases in benefits are part of the “agreement” then it will be a difficult sell to the public.
eniobob,
you are correct that the Main stream media does need to help get the word out for any plan to have a chance.
If anybody reduces the Woodstock generation’s SS benefits, there is going to be hell to pay. I’m talking pitchforks and torches. It is going to get ugly – and I am talking about rioting.
I have been paying the increased (basically doubled) rate nearly my entire working life, for the express purpose of securing my benefits forever – that was the frackin’ deal. Multiply me by 100 million or so. We’ll burn Washington to the ground.
I’d love to see a poll that measured people’s anger over this, and what they might be expected to do. My impression is Durbin et al are playing with real fire on this one.
“Swarthmore mom
1, April 23, 2011 at 2:15 pm
It is called the “People’s Budget”.
Its up to the MSM to get the word out as they did for the Ryan Budget,which Rachel Maddow so rightly complained about.
raff:
“Blouise,
I think many people are just tired of politicians”
IMHO.
rafflaw,
Perhaps … but there is so much more than the budget
Blouise,
I think many people are just tired of the politicians trying to balance budgets and reduce deficits on the backs of those that can least afford it.
Frustration and impotence often breed gloom.
We are all certainly frustrated with congress and feel a very real sense of impotence over our inability to get them to see beyond their noses but we must, never-the-less, keep at them.
Write your congressman/woman … express your views and do it often. Don’t let the clowns on Fox News be the only voices heard.
Read the People’s Budget at the site SwM noted … it only take a few minutes.
Fight the gloom!
Swarthmore,
I do like that name!
It is called the “People’s Budget”.
http://cpc.grijalva.house.gov/index.cfm?sectionid=70§iontree=5,70 Seventy seven house democrats called the Progressive Caucus have a budget that increases Social Security and gets us to a surplus by 2021. I think this budget should be the starting point for discussions not the Ryan budget.
Gang Bang:
“Gang of Six.”
“To be a member or an affiliate of a street gang, partaking in the various activities and functions of the gang.”