Senate Dems divided over cuts to benefit programs
WASHINGTON (AP) - Deep divisions among Senate Democrats over whether cuts to popular benefit programs like Medicare and Medicaid should be part of a plan to slow the government's mushrooming debt pose a big obstacle to a deal for avoiding a potentially economy-crushing "fiscal cliff," even if Republicans agree to raise taxes.
Much of the focus during negotiations seeking an alternative to $671 billion in automatic tax increases and spending cuts beginning in January has centered on whether Republicans would agree to raising taxes on the wealthy. President Barack Obama has insisted repeatedly that tax increases on the wealthy must be part of any deal, even as White House officials concede that government benefit programs will have to be in the package too.
"It is the president's position that when we're talking about a broad, balanced approach to dealing with our fiscal challenges, that that includes dealing with entitlements," White House press secretary Jay Carney said Tuesday.
But even if GOP lawmakers agree to raise taxes, there is no guarantee Democrats can come up with enough votes in the Senate to cut benefit programs - as Republicans are demanding.
"I hope not if it means Social Security or Medicare benefit cuts," said Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I.
There's a growing consensus among Senate Democrats and the White House that Social Security should be exempt from any deficit-reduction package. But some centrist Democrats in the Senate argue that fellow Democrats must be willing to consider cuts to Medicare and Medicaid in order to get concessions from Republicans on taxes.
"It has to be both - a significant revenue increase as well as spending cuts," said Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., chairman of the Senate Finance Committee.
Sen. Kent Conrad, D-N.D., who is retiring as chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, said rising health care costs in Medicare and Medicaid are helping to drive future spending, making them an essential part of a long-term deficit-reduction package.
"I've been part of every bipartisan group here. We've always put everything on the table," Conrad said. "If you're going to solve this problem, you're going to have to deal with where the spending is and the revenue can be raised."
But senators like Baucus and Conrad increasingly are being drowned out by other Democrats emboldened by the recent election results to fight against benefit cuts.
Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, said he is willing to find savings in Medicare and Medicaid by making them more efficient. But, he said, he won't support benefit cuts.
"I think the election spoke very strongly about the fact that the vast majority of American people don't want to cut these programs," Harkin said.
Sen. Dick Durbin, the No. 2 Democrat in the Senate leadership ranks, said he doesn't think there should be a rush to overhaul entitlement programs in connection with the move to avert the fiscal cliff in the remaining weeks of the current session.
The Illinois Democrat said in a CNN interview Wednesday that "what we need to put on the table short-term is mandatory deficit reduction." Durbin said entitlement reforms to programs like Medicare and Medicaid should be "part of the long-term strategy" of reining in federal deficits.
Durbin repeated his position that Social Security should not be a part of the discussions. And he said that "we want to make sure that Medicare at the end of the day is a program that is solvent and we can count on it for years to come."
Congress and the White House are devoting the next three weeks to finding at least a bridge over the fiscal cliff by reducing the sudden jolt of higher taxes and spending cuts in January while laying a framework for addressing the nation's long-term financial problems next year.
Obama wants to let tax rates rise for wealthy families while sparing middle- and low-income taxpayers. Some Republican leaders, including House Speaker John Boehner of Ohio, have said they were willing to consider making the wealthy pay more by reducing their tax breaks. But most Republicans in Congress adamantly oppose raising anyone's tax rates.
Negotiations are going slowly as each side waits for the other to make concessions.
Democrats already have tried to take Social Security off the table. Carney, the White House spokesman, said Monday that changes to the massive retirement and disability program should be done separately from any plan to reduce the deficit. That's the same position taken by 28 Democratic senators and independent Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont in a letter to fellow senators in September.
"We will oppose including Social Security cuts for future or current beneficiaries in any deficit-reduction package," said the letter, which was signed by many top Democrats, including Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada. In the House, Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi has taken the same position, not only on Social Security, but also on Medicare and Medicaid.
"There hasn't been the slightest suggestion about what they're going to do about the real problems, and that's entitlements," said Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah, the top Republican on the Senate Finance Committee. "There's a certain cockiness that I've seen that is really astounding to me since we're basically in the same position we were before" the election.
Durbin has tried to find common ground, saying he would be willing to require wealthy seniors to pay more for Medicare benefits.
"If we simply stand by and say 'don't touch Medicare in any way, for any reason, ever' we are inviting a crisis that opponents can exploit to eviscerate Medicare or even to end it," Durbin said Tuesday. "Progressives should be willing to talk about ways to ensure the long-term viability of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, but those conversations should not be part of a plan to avert the fiscal cliff."
Much of the focus during negotiations seeking an alternative to $671 billion in automatic tax increases and spending cuts beginning in January has centered on whether Republicans would agree to raising taxes on the wealthy. President Barack Obama has insisted repeatedly that tax increases on the wealthy must be part of any deal, even as White House officials concede that government benefit programs will have to be in the package too.
"It is the president's position that when we're talking about a broad, balanced approach to dealing with our fiscal challenges, that that includes dealing with entitlements," White House press secretary Jay Carney said Tuesday.
But even if GOP lawmakers agree to raise taxes, there is no guarantee Democrats can come up with enough votes in the Senate to cut benefit programs - as Republicans are demanding.
"I hope not if it means Social Security or Medicare benefit cuts," said Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I.
There's a growing consensus among Senate Democrats and the White House that Social Security should be exempt from any deficit-reduction package. But some centrist Democrats in the Senate argue that fellow Democrats must be willing to consider cuts to Medicare and Medicaid in order to get concessions from Republicans on taxes.
"It has to be both - a significant revenue increase as well as spending cuts," said Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., chairman of the Senate Finance Committee.
Sen. Kent Conrad, D-N.D., who is retiring as chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, said rising health care costs in Medicare and Medicaid are helping to drive future spending, making them an essential part of a long-term deficit-reduction package.
"I've been part of every bipartisan group here. We've always put everything on the table," Conrad said. "If you're going to solve this problem, you're going to have to deal with where the spending is and the revenue can be raised."
But senators like Baucus and Conrad increasingly are being drowned out by other Democrats emboldened by the recent election results to fight against benefit cuts.
Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, said he is willing to find savings in Medicare and Medicaid by making them more efficient. But, he said, he won't support benefit cuts.
"I think the election spoke very strongly about the fact that the vast majority of American people don't want to cut these programs," Harkin said.
Sen. Dick Durbin, the No. 2 Democrat in the Senate leadership ranks, said he doesn't think there should be a rush to overhaul entitlement programs in connection with the move to avert the fiscal cliff in the remaining weeks of the current session.
The Illinois Democrat said in a CNN interview Wednesday that "what we need to put on the table short-term is mandatory deficit reduction." Durbin said entitlement reforms to programs like Medicare and Medicaid should be "part of the long-term strategy" of reining in federal deficits.
Durbin repeated his position that Social Security should not be a part of the discussions. And he said that "we want to make sure that Medicare at the end of the day is a program that is solvent and we can count on it for years to come."
Congress and the White House are devoting the next three weeks to finding at least a bridge over the fiscal cliff by reducing the sudden jolt of higher taxes and spending cuts in January while laying a framework for addressing the nation's long-term financial problems next year.
Obama wants to let tax rates rise for wealthy families while sparing middle- and low-income taxpayers. Some Republican leaders, including House Speaker John Boehner of Ohio, have said they were willing to consider making the wealthy pay more by reducing their tax breaks. But most Republicans in Congress adamantly oppose raising anyone's tax rates.
Negotiations are going slowly as each side waits for the other to make concessions.
Democrats already have tried to take Social Security off the table. Carney, the White House spokesman, said Monday that changes to the massive retirement and disability program should be done separately from any plan to reduce the deficit. That's the same position taken by 28 Democratic senators and independent Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont in a letter to fellow senators in September.
"We will oppose including Social Security cuts for future or current beneficiaries in any deficit-reduction package," said the letter, which was signed by many top Democrats, including Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada. In the House, Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi has taken the same position, not only on Social Security, but also on Medicare and Medicaid.
"There hasn't been the slightest suggestion about what they're going to do about the real problems, and that's entitlements," said Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah, the top Republican on the Senate Finance Committee. "There's a certain cockiness that I've seen that is really astounding to me since we're basically in the same position we were before" the election.
Durbin has tried to find common ground, saying he would be willing to require wealthy seniors to pay more for Medicare benefits.
"If we simply stand by and say 'don't touch Medicare in any way, for any reason, ever' we are inviting a crisis that opponents can exploit to eviscerate Medicare or even to end it," Durbin said Tuesday. "Progressives should be willing to talk about ways to ensure the long-term viability of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, but those conversations should not be part of a plan to avert the fiscal cliff."
I am a disabled person trying to survive on SSI. My only medical insurance is through Medicare.
Â
But I am curious. If medicAID is "means tested", why can't they come up with some form of the same for mediCARE? I realize everyone who works has/does [pays into it - but the world is not what it was when many of us started working decades ago.
Â
Should people who contine to make 100's of thousands a yearin retirement get Medicare simply by virtue of them turning 65? They, unlike many, can afford to pay for their own medical care/costs. If something like this were implemented, how much would the US save in costs?
Â
I would be happy to submit to means testing - I know I am poor, I have nothing to hide.
Damn it. No matter who we vote for, we would send the wrong message. Vote in a Republican Congress, and they'd think that you support tax breaks for the wealthy. Vote in a Democrat Congress, and they'd think you want them to completely spare all benefit programs. Vote in a Republican House and a Democrat Senate, and you get a gridlock. What do you have to do to get them to do both?
 @RentoneseÂ
Unfortunately "compromise" has become a dirty word...
Medicaid and Medicaid won't be cut. Obamacare ensures that when its implemented in 2014. Social Security has absolutely nothing to do with our debt. And these aren't entitlement programs anyway because they are directly funded by taxes taken from workers paychecks. The war machine and foreign policy are entitlement programs and they're a good place to start to make cuts to get our debt under control. Not going to happen of course because certain high placed government people make tons of money off of these programs.
Presented for you information base. Citations from Medical News Today's & Article Source: from Ezine Articles http://EzineArticles.com/2947504e:
Â
What is Medicare and Medicaid:
Â
Medicaid is a means-tested health and medical services program for certain individuals and families with low incomes and few resources. Primary oversight of the program is handled at the federal level, but each state:
Establishes its own eligibility standards, Determines the type, amount, duration, and scope of services, Sets the rate of payment for services, and Administers its own Medicaid program.
Â
Medicare is a Federal health insurance program that pays for hospital and medical care for elderly and certain disabled Americans. The program consists of two main parts for hospital and medical insurance (Part A and Part B) and two additional parts that provide flexibility and prescription drugs (Part C and Part D).
Â
Who pays for and Medicaid:
Â
Medicare is the national health plan that most people upon turning 65 years old, will qualify for it. It consists of parts A, B, C, and D. You will have worked 40 quarters in your lifetime in order to obtain it. Others below age 65 will qualify due to a Federal definition of disabled and then after 24 months after the declaration. Medicare was set up in a trust fund, like Social Security and the anticipated result was that the money would stay there until you turned 65 and the interest as well as the principle would pay for your health care.
Â
Medicaid is simply welfare for poor folks who fall below a certain income level. It is administered by the state in which you live and the minimum income requirements vary by such. It pays the balance of what Medicare doesn't. As far as Medicaid is concerned, you have even more of the 65 year old population being poorer due to the economy meltdown and when someone is poorer, they get sicker. So even more stress is put on the state's budgets to pay that portion of what Medicare did not cover.
Â
Long story, but basically Social Security and Medicare are individual trust funds paid by fund taken from each paycheck & set up and overseen by the Federal government Medicaid is associated to the individual State run social welfare program.
Everything needs to be cut! get rid of base line budgeting. for those who are not aware of what base line budgeting is. Let me explain to you. say dept of xyz pdq has a budget of 1,000 dollars and they spend all of that thousand dollars by 1 october of the budget year. and their base line is 20% well because they spent all that money they get a 20% increase in their budget. Now here come the fun part. if the congress cuts 10% of the base line the xyz pdq det. still gets their 1,000 dollar orignal budget but only a 10% increase they call that a cut in the budget. In the real world that is called cooking the books! you go to prison for doing that lying to the investors. What we have to do is get rid of base line budgeting and make a 1.3 trillion dollar cut across the board with everything on the table.
 @wynooheeman Does that include the military?
@OrcasThunder Everything! including obamacare ss medicare Military eliminate base line budgeting and cut everything back to equate a 1.3 trillion dollar budget cut.
 @wynooheeman I am OK with them cutting everything you've paid in for but, dont look to cut what I was forced to buy and is now bought and paid for. The recent rash of CEO bonuses and corporate bail outs makes it impossible for me to consider taking one more thing from any worker. Go get the money from those that stole it.