Carl Hulse, of the New York Times, reports that contingent cuts to Social Security could be involved in the emerging debt-ceiling compromise. Amid New Talks, Some Optimism on Debt Crisis
A Democratic official with knowledge of the talks said that Mr. McConnell called Mr. Biden early Saturday afternoon, the first conversation between the two men since Wednesday. The official said they talked at least four more times on Saturday as they tried to work out an agreement.
The deal they were discussing, this person said, resembled the bill that Mr. Boehner won approval for in the House on Friday more than it did the one that Mr. Reid had proposed.
At the White House and in talks in Congressional offices and corridors, most of the attention was focused on finding a way to define the precise conditions under which the president could get a second increase in the debt limit that would be needed early in 2012 under both Republican and Democratic proposals. Officials in both parties said another idea that had surfaced was to require a change in Social Security policy if the new committee deadlocked, providing an incentive for the new committee to act on its own.
I think it will be a big error for the Democrats to agree to any cuts involving Social Security, even if it is oblique as a CPI adjustment to a contingent trigger, or an attempt to make it vaque by hiding behind a "super-committee."
Social Security is not directly part of the budget, and the Social Security Trust Fund is solvent until 2037. But the same CPI formula is used for the cost-of-living-adjustments, for government pensions, and Medicare, I believe.
Under the proposal that the Congressional Budget Office said could save more than $100 billion over 10 years, a different measure of inflation would be used to calculate the annual cost-of-living adjustment in Social Security benefits. Supporters say the alternative measure of inflation is more accurate because it reflects what happens when prices rise; advocates for the elderly say the proposal is a backdoor way of cutting benefits.
Members of both parties took the floor to push for compromise, noting that the two sides were not far apart on major elements of their deficit-reduction plans.
If the final outcome, contains this kind of chicanery, we might be better off if we do not call it a "compromise," but admit that Democratic leaders have completely capitulated to the GOP positions, and claim we were powerless to do anything about it.
Voters may not punish our incumbents as much, if we appear to be more honest about it.
It would be less damaging to appear to be impotent, and/or incompetent, than Machiavellian weasels who willing went along with a betrayal of our Social Security recipients.
Suggesting this is a bipartisan "compromise" may immunize the GOP on the Social Security and Medicare issues which looked as if they might have been strong enough to save our bacon in 2012, a few months ago, after the Paul Ryan vote, and winning the New York District 26 election.
If we are neutralized on the "GOP thugs want to slash social spending, but we will protect you issues" , we may be reduced to running on a 9% unemployment rate, which will be challenging. This appears to have been the GOP plan all along.
How sad.
12:59 AM PT: Erza Klein also suggests the focus is coming down to the triggers for a second extension prior to the 2012 election.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/...
It’s all going to come down to the trigger.
Look closely at the Reid and Boehner bills. The first round of cuts are pretty much the same. The joint congressional committee charged with recommending further deficit reduction is pretty much the same. The difference is that Boehner’s bill forces them to act. He ties a future increase in the debt-ceiling to the successful passage of their proposal. Reid’s bill has no such trigger. And many of the participants in this process say that is the space where a deal will be made -- or not made.
Democrats dismiss Boehner’s current offer completely. At the New Republic, Jonathan Chait piquantly compared it to “a kidnapper who offers to give you back your child in return for $100,000 and your other child.” A senior Democratic aide in the Senate is even blunter. “That’s the one line in the sand we’ve drawn this whole time. We can’t be revisiting this in another six months.”
Most think the likely compromise is a trigger that would impose automatic, across-the-board cuts in spending if the committee fails in its mission. But Senate Democratic leadership isn’t so sure. They worry that a spending-cuts only trigger is heads, Republicans win; tails, Democrats lose. “The idea of triggers with just cuts is a non-starter. Republicans would just deadlock the committee and get the cuts they want,” continues the aide. “If there is a trigger it would have to be balanced.”
The White House proposed a balanced trigger in April: It would have automatically raised taxes and cut spending if America wasn’t on a path to balanced budgets by 2014. In his remarks on Friday morning, Obama reiterated that support. “if we need to put in place some kind of enforcement mechanism to hold us all accountable for making these reforms, I’ll support that too if it’s done in a smart and balanced way.”