Quotes of the Day: Republicans accusing Democrats of balancing the budget on the backs of seniors
by digby
I think we all know that if this thing ever makes it to the floor, it's going to take some major arm twisting by the Democratic leadership to force their troops to take the heat and pass it.
Here's what they have to look forward to:
On the eve of President Obama’s budget presentation, a Western New York Republican joined the AARP in criticizing an expected decrease in the amount paid out in Social Security benefits by restructuring cost of living adjustments. Chris Collins says the move would hurt seniors and veterans.
“If you change the calculation of the consumer price index and how you calculate inflation, that’s going to continue to pinch our seniors who, come the end of the month, the stories I hear, are having trouble putting food on the table,” Collins said.
[...]
“I’m frankly very disappointed that he (Obama) is focusing on seniors,” Collins said.
Collins says there are other, more obvious cuts in spending that could be made. Collins expects his GOP colleagues to join him in opposing an expected call from the President for increased tax revenue and spending.
“He doesn’t think we have a spending problem. He thinks we have a revenue problem and the cuts he’s making are on the backs of our seniors,” Collins said.
The AARP recently polled its members in New York and found most oppose benefit decreases. In this case, Collins agrees.
“If you look at what you would call the Ryan Budget; that budget was balanced without taking things away from seniors,” Collins added.
Meanwhile, about that backdoor tax increase on the middle class, Norquist predictably has something to say:
President Barack Obama unveiled a budget proposal on Wednesday morning that would switch tax brackets and Social Security cost-of-living adjustments, which are indexed for inflation, from the current version of the Consumer Price Index to a "chained CPI," which says inflation rises more slowly. The change would reduce future benefit increases and push more taxpayers into higher brackets, a phenomenon known as "bracket creep."
Americans for Tax Reform, the advocacy group that asks lawmakers to sign a formal "Taxpayer Protection Pledge," said Tuesday that chained CPI violates the pledge.
"Chained CPI as a stand-alone measure (that is, not paired with tax relief of equal or greater size) is a tax increase and a Taxpayer Protection Pledge violation," the group said in a blog post.
Anti-tax crusader Grover Norquist, leader of the organization, criticized the policy via Twitter on Wednesday. "Chained CPI is a very large tax hike over time," Norquist wrote. "Hence Democrat interest in same."
As I wrote yesterday, I don't know that Americans would even object to those tax hikes if it was going to shore up Social Security, especially if it was rationally combined by lifting the cap on what wealthy earners have to contribute. But it isn't. The money raised from the Chained-CPI will go toward paying for George W. Bush's wars and recessions, while the cuts will be born by the elderly the sick and the veterans.
I doubt that most congressional Democrats even know that these taxes won't go to Social Security. Who would expect such an absurd proposal? But perhaps now that this is out in the open they will realize what they're asking the poor, the sick and the veterans to do in the quixotic pursuit of a Grand Bargain. One hopes they will anyway. Because if they don't, I'm fairly sure the Republicans have figured it out.
Update: Oh, and in case the Democrats are still thinking this won't blow back on them, here's the head of the National Republican Congressional Committee on CNN this morning:
BLITZER: Let's get some Republican reaction to what we just heard from the President of the United States. Representative Greg Walden of Oregon is joining us right now. He's the chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee.
Congressman, what did you think of the president's remarks?
REP. GREG WALDEN (R-OR), CHAIRMAN, NRCC: Well, I thought it very intriguing in that the budget really lays out kind of a shocking attack on seniors, if you will. And we haven't seen all the detail yet, and we'll look at it, but I'll tell you, when you're going after seniors the way he's already done on Obamacare, taking $700 billion out of Medicare to put into Obamacare, and now coming back at seniors again, I think you're crossing that line very quickly here in terms of denying access to seniors for health care in districts like mine, certainly, and around the country. I think he's going to have a lot of pushback from some of the major senior organizations on this and Republicans, as well.
And this is a budget that doesn't balance. At the end of the day, you can have all the flowery rhetoric, but I'm a numbers guy and this doesn't add up. It does not balance. We've passed the Ryan budget. It does balance in ten years; it will put us on a path to grow the economy and jobs. And, again, gets us to where we have a balanced budget. This is 65 days late and it doesn't add up.
BLITZER: Well, let's talk about these proposed changes that the president is putting forward when it comes to Social Security and Medicare, the shocking proposals that you say the president's putting forward that could affect seniors. What's so shocking about changing that CPI, that consumer price index the way that you would determine how much inflation would go ahead with increases for Social Security recipients, for example?
WALDEN: Well, once again, you're trying to balance this budget on the backs of seniors and I just think it's not the right way to go.
BLITZER: But doesn't the -- doesn't Paul Ryan's budget have major changes as far as Social Security and Medicare concerned, as well?
WALDEN: Look, it doesn't -- yes, but it doesn't do that. And so I just think there's some -- you know, it's all about when you get to the specifics. And what does that really mean down on the ground? You know, the president just said that his proposals will reduce the cost of health care. Where did we hear that before? We heard that premiums for a family on -- for health insurance would go down $2,500 if his plan was adopted and we now see them going up $2,000 in my state to $3,000.
So you've got to cut through the rhetoric, Wolf, which, of course, you all and your team will do and get into the real facts and figures and so will we. But I don't see this budget as either on time, adding up, balancing, and, further, I think it really does go right at seniors in a way they're going to be shocked, coming out of the administration.
.