Obama Is Being Led By Republicans Down The Wrong Path On Social Security, The Same Way He Was On Healthcare

Medicare is a progressive Democratic Party approach to healthcare. If Obama wasn't so silly he would have ignored phony GOP blandishments towards his favorite position-- compromise-- and pushed for Medicare for all, not the conservative, pro-insurance company Frankenstein's monster that became Obamacare. Social Security is another progressive Democratic idea that Republicans have a "reform" for they're selling Obama on: Chained CPI. And he's biting again! Hopefully, this time, congressional Democrats will tell him and Boehner that they're on their own. The progressive Democratic fix that strengthens Social Security isn't cutting back on benefits, it's eliminating the cap so that the very wealthiest Americans start paying their fair share. My brother-in-law isn't one of those very wealthiest of Americans; he's retired, lives on Social Security and Medicare and sits around listening to Hate Talk Radio all day. And he votes Republican. I doubt he ever watches Chris Hayes' show on MSNBC. Chris made some good points Tuesday evening that help get the ball rolling on the argument that Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), Bernie Sanders (I-VT), Sherrod Brown (D-OH) and several other congressmembers have been making about expanding, not cutting, Social Security.

Wednesday night we had a little "debate" between North Carolina congressional candidate Jason Thigpen and the avatar of cutting Social Security, Paul Ryan (R-WI). As Thigpen, a recent convert to the Democratic Party, pointed out "Ryan has offered a slanted perspective on this issue benefiting the special interest groups who continue to support his lifelong campaign efforts against social programs, that he and his fellow multi-millionaire career politician buddies will never use themselves."

Yesterday MoveOn released PPP released polling data from 5 states and 5 congressional districts that seem to show most Americans agree with Thigpen and not Ryan. Let's take Kentucky, for example.

Following up on recent polling from Lake Research showing that Mitch McConnell is in a dead heat with Alison Lundergan Grimes in the Senate race in Kentucky, we surveyed residents to measure their perspective on Social Security. Even in what’s considered a solidly Republican state, 76% of respondents are opposed to reducing benefits, and 69% support increasing them. 74% report being less likely to vote for their senator if he votes to reduce Social Security benefits. That data point reveals a serious vulnerability for Mitch McConnell, who is publicly supportive of the so-called chained CPI, benefit-reducing change in the cost of living adjustment. McConnell faces difficulty with every age group, especially among those older than 65, of whom 82% report being less likely to vote for him if he votes to reduce benefits

These responses look pretty one-sided-- and we're talking about Kentukcy here, not Vermont or California. Kentucky voted heavily for Romney last year-- 1,087,190 (61%) to 679,370 (38%).

PPP's Jim Williams wrote that the results "confirm that on Social Security, many congressional proposals and much media punditry have been far from aligned with the voting public. Though altering the cost-of living adjustment formula to decrease benefits in Social Security continues to be suggested as a potential outcome of ongoing budget negotiations, in all but one of our surveys, more than 2/3 of respondents oppose reducing benefits. The outlier was in Scott Peters’ CA-52, where 66% oppose benefit reductions, and, on average, 65% of respondents support increasing Social Security benefits.

"As far as measuring knowledge of the political landscape, in 7 of 10 surveys, the majority of respondents did not know that both Republicans and President Obama had proposed reductions to Social Security benefits. And on average, 73.7% of respondents reported no prior knowledge of pending legislation in both chambers in that would increase benefits. These results indicate that if Democrats align themselves with expanding Social Security benefits in this round of negotiations, they can be seen at the forefront of an issue that has significant public support. They also indicate that voters will punish Democrats and Republicans who vote to cut benefits-- with 69.6% on average saying they'd be less likely to vote for a member of Congress who votes to cut benefits."

Paul Clements, the progressive Democrat running against hereditary plutocrat Fred Upton in western Michigan, saw those numbers too and wrote us that "It's great to see that comfortable majorities support increasing Social Security benefits. Dignity for all is all-American!" We asked some of the Blue America-endorsed candidates where they stand on expanding Social Security. The first to get back to us was Pennsylvania state Senator Daylin Leach, currently running for the open House seat in Northeast Philadelphia/Montgomery County (PA-13). He's a strong supporter of the approach Elizabeth Warren has been advocating for. "Social Security," he wrote, "lifted entire generations of senior citizens out of poverty. Now its time to take the next step and improve the lives of those who gave our nation and us as individuals so much. An increase in Social Security benefits is easily affordable if we lift the cap on the payroll tax, and it will make a huge difference in the lives of seniors who still struggle to make ends meet. It's fair, its right, and its time."

Tom Guild is running for the Oklahoma City seat currently held by anti-Social Security fanatic James Lankford who was working especially hard to defund Social Security this week. Guild comes from an opposite perspective: "Approximately one in five Social Security recipients has no other income. The current Social Security COLA doesn’t cover the increased costs of living for seniors. Expanding Social Security benefits would give many additional seniors peace of mind, and help them keep pace with cost of living increases. We owe it to the generation that did their part to build our country, to make good on the promise of Social Security, that they wouldn’t have to live their golden years in poverty. It makes sense and is the right thing to do to increase the Social Security stipend for our seniors. By lifting the cap on the $114,000 of income currently taxable to support the program, we can extend the life and promise of Social Security for generations past 2031. In the season of Thanksgiving, this is a concrete way that we can demonstrate our thanks to our seniors who have done so much for us."

Nick Ruiz, running for the Orlando-area seat held by conservative crustacean John Mica, is right there with Guild and Leach: "It's about time the DC establishment sees past the consultants and pollsters to the heart of the matter on our public insurance and vital services in America. People want more of them, not less-- and they want adequate coverage, whether it comes to healthcare, retirement, education, or other related issues. The public is willing to make policy changes to ensure that these things are secure and robust. Now, it's time for the politicians to represent the public's policy wishes-- rather than dictate misguided mandates to cut vital services."

Eloise Reyes, the progressive opponent to a pack of conservatives in CA-31, has talked with us about Social Security expansion before. This morning she added this:

The need to protect-- and, in fact, expand--Social Security could not be clearer, especially with fewer and fewer companies offering pensions or other retirement plans to their employees. Our seniors and veterans depend on these benefits to get by and, in many cases, Social Security is their only source of income. What we saw during the economic downturn in recent years was that while many people watched the value of their homes, savings and 401k plans take a sharp downturn, they were still able to count on their Social Security benefits.

Social Security is an effective, essential and popular program that is far too important to treat as a legislative bargaining chip. What we should be talking about is how to strengthen and expand our Social Security program by eliminating taxable wage caps, strengthening the formula used to calculate benefits and fighting back against the Chained CPI. Social Security benefits form a critical safety net for all Americans and, at a time when working families need them more than ever, we must take proactive steps to bolster this critical lifeline. 

Blue America is still going through the formalities of endorsing Mike Obermueller right now-- look for a special announcement soon-- but he knows that John Kline (R-MN), the right-wing Republican he's running against, offers working families no quarter. "Social Security," said Mike, "is a promise this country has made to our elderly in guaranteeing dignity for their retirement. This system is all the more important as the stock market has proved to be an uncertain gamble, pension programs are declining, and overall stagnant wages that have make it difficult for families to save for retirement.  We need to protect this important program and build on it.  While people like Congressman Kline are doing all they can to undermine the economic security of seniors, I’m glad to see Senator Warren and others standing up for seniors."

Whatever these 3 are plotting can't be good for working families