Today, in the President's press conference, multiple questions were asked in reference to whether Social Security reforms would be part of a final deal.
The President made it 100% clear that he was willing to include Social Security reforms as part of the "grand bargain" he is pushing for during negotiations IF, and only IF, Republicans are willing to also increase revenue through higher taxes and closing of tax loopholes. These changes are almost always referred to as "strengthening" Social Security.
So what does strengthening mean in the context? While no one has explicitly gone on record specifying the exact details of the packages being discussed, the Administration has already stated in interviews on the record that this would include actual benefit cuts.
The Director of the National Economic Council Gene Sperling during an interview with Al Sharpton stated that cuts are on the table. He was not asked to specify the cuts, but he stated clearly that cuts are being discussed. As part of this his answer, he attempted to reassure viewers with the fact that they are intended to "strengthen" Social Security.
The relevant section of the video can be found below.
(Full video available here)
The following is a transcript of the relevant question:
Question: So all of this about the President will change or cut social security or Medicare, your saying the President's commitment to these programs is firm and any discussion would be around strengthening those programs and strengthening what they do for seniors and those that would need medicare in this country?
Sperling: Now listen, this President, we're straight, he's candid with people, we have big challenges, big challenges with the debt, and there's times and you have to make some changes and not every change will be completely pleasant for everyone but if you're thoughtful, if you have the right values you can do those in a way that represent shared sacrifice and may mean you have to cut back a little here or little there, but for the purpose and cause of strengthening the basic integrity of Medicare as we know it, for strengthening the basic integrity and longevity and solvency of Social Security as we know if that's the fundamental goal of anything this president would ever do on those programs
Additionally, Jay Carney has made a similar argument in outlining what would be consider strengthening Social Security in the opinion of the Administration.
When asked what Carney and the President mean when they say the White House is opposed to "slashing" Social Security benefits, Carney would not characterize their interpretation of what level of cuts or modifications would be acceptable.
"The President is interested in strengthening Social Security in the long term in ways that preserve the promise of the program and don't slash benefits...," Carney said. "I'm not going to get into line items and how you achieve that."
"Slash it's like that," Carney said, bringing down his arm in a downward movement, "A significant whack...I think slashing is pretty sharp. It's not the same thing as cut, it's a slash...and I don't mean the guitarist."
There are a few other reasons that reinforce this fact.
1. The President has repeatedly stated that he expects to "take heat" from members of his party. I am pretty sure he would not take heat for raising the FICA tax limit, a common rebuttal to those who identify the options on the table as cuts. But I could be wrong...
2. The President explicitly stated the reason he is willing to discuss SS reform is because he knows it will be hard for Republicans to accept tax increases. Therefore, it is not logical to assume the when the President refers to "strengthening", he is not referring to trading another tax increase
Now, the final deal may not even include any Social Security reforms. This may be a negotiation tactic. Or, some type of deal would be made. But, the current debate underway is way too important to allow it devolve into a pie fight about terminology and the meaning of ambiguous statements. We can and should be discussing the ramifications of the deal being discussed. There are political, electoral, and moral arguments. Everyone has an opinion and they should and will be debated. This diary is only intended to include facts and it is not intended to present my opinion on the actual deal. I have done that else where and will continue to do so. But it is very difficult to have that discussion when we focus on discussing semantics and political vernacular. I hope this diary has helped clarify some of that discussion.
On a final note, if you do happen to have strong feelings on this topic one way or the other, here are some ways to make your voice heard.
White House: 202-456-1111
Nancy Pelosi: 202-225-0100
Harry Reid: 202-224-3542
Van Hollen: 202-225-5341
Capitol Switchboard: 202-224-3121
White House Fax: WH FAX # 202-456-2461
You can also use this link for help in contacting Congress: