DownWithTyranny!: There Are A Few Times When Even Blue Dogs Have Some Slight Value-- The GOP Rules Changes That Could Hoist Them On Their Own Petard

The devolution of the Republican Party

I tend to think of the worst of the Blue Dog "Democrats"-- like Kyrsten Sinema (AZ), Dan Lipinski (IL) and Colin Peterson (MN)-- along with shameless careerists like Gwen Graham (FL), Patrick Murphy (FL) and Ann Kuster (NH)-- as less than worthless. They routinely sell out basic core Democratic values and the interests of working families for their own personal ambitions and calculations. In many ways they are worse than Republicans and teabaggers because they operate inside the Democratic conference and perpetually undercut progressive policy goals and pull the conference ever right-ward. But on the first day of Congress this year all 168 Democrats present stuck together, including Sinema, Lipinski, Peterson, Graham, Murphy and Kuster, to vote-- along with 4 Republicans-- against new rules to make it easier for Paul Ryan to lower taxes on the rich and cut Social Security. The rules passed 234-172.

How many voters who stayed home in November knew they were voting to hobble Social Security or give a tax cut to the Koch family? How many working class voters in Iowa who voted in Joni Ernst, Rod Blum and David Young knew what they were voting for. How many working class voters in Arkansas who voted for Tom Cotton, French Hill, Bruce Westerman knew they were voting for tax breaks for the Waltons? How many working class voters in Georgia understood that by voting for David Perdue, Richard Allen, Jody Hice and Barry Loudermilk they weren't just voting against "the blacks and Mexicans" but that they were voting to cut their own Social Security benefits? The Republicans certainly didn't talk about cutting Social Security in their campaigns. All the new House members mentioned above-- in fact all all the new members everywhere elected last month-- voted to do just that on day one of the new Congress.

The incoming GOP majority approved late Tuesday a new rule that experts say could provoke an unprecedented crisis that conservatives could use as leverage in upcoming debates over entitlement reform.

The largely overlooked change puts a new restriction on the routine transfer of tax revenues between the traditional Social Security retirement trust fund and the Social Security disability program. The transfers, known as reallocation, had historically been routine; the liberal Center for Budget and Policy Priorities said Tuesday that they had been made 11 times. The CBPP added that the disability insurance program "isn't broken," but the program has been strained by demographic trends that the reallocations are intended to address.

The House GOP's rule change would still allow for a reallocation from the retirement fund to shore up the disability fund-- but only if an accompanying proposal "improves the overall financial health of the combined Social Security Trust Funds," per the rule, expected to be passed on Tuesday. While that language is vague, experts say it would likely mean any reallocation would have to be balanced by new revenues or benefit cuts.

House Democrats are sounding the alarm. In a memo circulated to their allies Tuesday, Democratic staffers said that that would mean "either new revenues or benefit cuts for current or future beneficiaries." New revenues are highly unlikely to be approved by the deeply tax-averse Republican-led Congress, leaving benefit cuts as the obvious alternative.

The Social Security and Medicare Boards of Trustees estimated last year that the disability insurance program would run short of money to pay all benefits some time in late 2016. Without a new reallocation, disability insurance beneficiaries could face up to 20 percent cuts in their Social Security payments in late 2016-- a chit that would be of use to Republicans pushing for conservative entitlement reforms.

"The rule change would prohibit a simple reallocation! It will require more significant and complex changes to Social Security," Social Security Works, an advocacy group, said in a statement Tuesday. "In other words, the Republican rule will allow Social Security to be held hostage."

..."By barring the House from approving a 'clean' reallocation in 2016, the rule will strengthen the hand of lawmakers who seek to attach harsh conditions (such as sharp cuts in eligibility or benefit amounts) to such a measure," Ruffing wrote.

The ranking Democrat on the Budget Committee, Chris Van Hollen, spoke on the other aspect of the GOP rules change, Ryan's "dynamic scoring" scheme which forces the CBO to use voodoo economics to analyze budget proposals. "It’s absolutely astounding that within minutes-- minutes-- of us being sworn in, our Republican colleagues want to pass a rule that will stack the deck in favor of trying to give another big tax cut, not to the middle class, but to millionaires." Obama's Budget Director, Shaun Donovan, was just as pointed about what the GOP was up to:

While all budget estimates are uncertain, there is substantially more disagreement among economists and experts about how policy changes affect the macro economy than about most other scoring issues. Congress should not adopt changes in scoring legislation that upend the level playing field that has existed for decades, and could call into question the accuracy, consistency, and fairness of CBO and Joint Committee on Taxation budget estimates.

AP's Stephen Olemacher focused on a trap the Republicans may have set for themselves over Social Security going into the 2016 elections. In fact, one of the sponsors of the rule change, Tom Reed (R-NY) is in a vulnerable swing district that Obama won by 1% in 2008, lost by 2% in 2012 and in which the DCCC screwed up in 2010, 2012 and again this year.

The 36-page set of rules passed by a vote of 234-172, with all Democrats opposed and almost every Republican in favor.

On page 32 [of the36-page set of rigged rules] is a provision that allows any representative to raise a point of order if the House tries to pass a bill redirecting tax revenue from Social Security's retirement fund to the disability fund. The House could vote to overcome the objection, but that could be difficult, with almost every Republican supporting the rule that passed Tuesday.

Social Security's long-term financial problems are well-documented, as millions of baby boomers approach retirement, leaving relatively fewer workers to pay the payroll taxes that support it.

Social Security has more than $2.7 trillion in reserves, but the retirement program has been paying out more in benefits than it collects in payroll taxes since 2010.

The disability program has been paying out more than it collects since 2005.

Social Security is supported by a 12.4 percent tax on wages up to $118,500. Half is paid by workers and half is paid by employers.

Most of the payroll tax-- 10.6 percent of wages-- goes to the retirement fund. The remaining 1.8 percent of wages goes to the disability fund.

Social Security's retirement trust fund is projected to run dry in 2034. At that point, it would only collect enough payroll taxes to pay about 75 percent of benefits.

If the retirement fund and the disability fund were combined, they would have enough money to pay full benefits until 2033, giving lawmakers more time to address their long-term finances.