GOP Plans Debt Crisis to Cut Medicare, Social Security
By: Jonathan Chait (Intelligencer)
If Republicans take control of the House of Representatives, they plan to ramp up their attack on Social Security, Medicare and the working people of America.
Trolling, taunting, spamming, and off topic comments may be removed at the discretion of group mods. NT members that vote up their own comments, repeat comments, or continue to disrupt the conversation risk having all of their comments deleted. Please remember to quote the person(s) to whom you are replying to preserve continuity of this seed. Any use of the phrase "Trump Derangement Syndrome" or the TDS acronym in a comment will be deleted.
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
The November elections will likely give Republicans control of the House of Representatives as a platform from which to oppose the Democratic-controlled White House. And one thing Republicans will do with this power, in all probability, will be to try to provoke a crisis in order to extort Democrats into accepting spending cuts to Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security.
Bloomberg's Jack Fitzpatrick interviewed several Republican contenders to lead the House Budget Committee. They all said, with varying levels of specificity, that they plan to instigate a debt-ceiling standoff to force Biden to accept cuts to retirement and health-care programs. "Our main focus has got to be on nondiscretionary — it's got to be on entitlements," said Representative Buddy Carter. Representative Jodey Arrington said he wants "eligibility reforms," which means raising the eligibility age and imposing a means test for Social Security and Medicare benefits. "We should ensure that we keep the promises that were made to the people who really need it, the people who are relying on it," said Representative Lloyd Smucker. "So some sort of means-testing potentially would help to ensure that we can do that."
It might seem strange that Republicans would be pivoting to a more aggressive agenda without holding the White House. But this is actually consistent with the strategy they have followed over the past three decades. Republicans are committed to scaling back the safety net. But they realize this agenda is toxically unpopular — even less popular than defunding the police, a policy Democrats have repudiated en masse.
They could try to accomplish this through compromise — the previous two Democratic presidents showed some willingness to trade social-spending cuts for higher taxes on the rich. But higher taxes on the rich are completely verboten in the GOP. And so their strategy is to force Democratic presidents to sign spending cuts into law against their will.
The 1995-96 Republican Congress instigated a series of government shutdowns in the belief they could force Bill Clinton to accept cuts to taxes and social programs. This crusade blew up in their faces and helped Clinton win reelection. But rather than abandon it, they tried it again under Barack Obama, this time using the debt ceiling as the hostage of choice. That, too, failed.
But the Republican plan is to try it again with Biden. They are already floating their message: The Republicans will insist they won't raise the debt ceiling unless Biden agrees to Republican-designed spending cuts, and they will blame him for the global meltdown if he refuses their demands. "If Republicans are trying to cut spending, surely he wouldn't try to default," said Representative Jason Smith, the prospective chair of the House Ways and Means Committee.
And while this tactic has never worked before, it has the theoretical attraction of evading the public's deep aversion to the GOP policy agenda by extorting the Democrats into endorsing it.
Last June, the Republican Study Committee, a conservative caucus that includes more than three-quarters of the House Republicans, released a sweeping domestic-budget plan. It received little attention in the mainstream media. The plan, notes Fitzpatrick, would
gradually raise the Medicare age of eligibility to 67 and the Social Security eligibility to 70 before indexing both to life expectancy. It backed withholding payments to those who retired early and had earnings over a certain limit. And it endorsed the consideration of options to reduce payroll taxes that fund Social Security and redirect them to private alternatives. It also urged lawmakers to "phase-in an increase in means testing" for Medicare.
On top of partially cutting Medicare and Social Security and partially privatizing the latter, the RSC plan would implement various regressive tax cuts favored by the GOP.
Conservative media hyped the plan with a wave of fawning coverage. Revealingly, the reports focused on elements other than the cuts to retirement programs. Here are some of the headlines that appeared in the right-wing press:
"EXCLUSIVE FIRST LOOK: RSC Budget Blueprint Includes Protecting Kids from Woke, Trans Agenda" (Townhall)
"EXCLUSIVE: GOP Budget Proposal Seeks To Reverse Decades Of Anti-Family Policies" (Daily Caller)
"GOP Budget Proposal Would Return U.S. to Cold-War Footing to Counter China Threat" (National Review)
"Exclusive: Republican Study Committee Creates Holistic Immigration Plan to Raise Wages, Grow Middle Class" (Breitbart)
"GOP Releases Budget Highlighting Need For Oil, Gas Production And Countering Biden Climate Agenda" (Daily Caller again)
None of these articles emphasizes, or even mentions, the cuts to Social Security or Medicare. It's a bait-and-switch plan to sell the relatively popular culture war so they can unload the toxic fiscal blueprint.
Arrington tells Fitzpatrick he would prefer not to detail his proposals because "this can get so politicized." Politicized, of course, is a term people use when they want the political system to advance their policy agenda without discussing it openly. The plan is to round up party support quietly, gain power without discussing it, then force the opposing party to make it happen.
Tags
Who is online
364 visitors
Never underestimate the desire of Republicans to inflict pain on the working people of America.
... or the presence of mind in those most affected by their policies to support them with a vote.
That sounds like something Rick Scott would propose.
Sen. Ron Johnson (R- Wisconsin), one of the stupidest people in the Senate, if not the stupidest, wants Social Security and Medicare to be approved by Congress on an annual basis as "discretionary spending".
"Johnson, who is seeking a third term in the Senate, lamented that the Social Security and Medicare programs automatically grant benefits to those who meet the qualifications — that is, to those who had been paying into the system over their working life ". (Emphasis added) https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2022/08/03/ron-johnson-medicare-social-security/
This part is something that I actually support. When Social Security was first set up and the full eligibility age was set at 65, the average life expectancy is 64.5. With the average life expectancy now up to 73.2 years, moving the full eligibility up to 70 can help pad out the lifespan of SS. I would also increase the eligibility age of Medicare to match SS but that's me. I would also remove any cap from SS taxable income and increase the tax rate from 6.2% to 7%.
Ah, the old back to privatizing SS...The life long dream of the right.
I agree with most of what you said, Snuffy but increasing the age to 70 could be really difficult on people that work in hard physical jobs. By 65 they are done.
Yeah, I don't want to see SS privatized. Too many people have planned for it and need it for it to be taken away. Hell, how many people are in their 40's and have been paying into the system for the past 25 years on the promise that it would be available for them in retirement..
I would move early retirement up from 62 to 65, and full eligibility from 65 to 70. I know a lot of people in their mid-60's who can still wield a shovel all day long. With the huge shift in working populations I think it's a needed step to extend the life of the programs. The federal government started this ponzi scheme back in 1935, I really don't want them to pull the rug out from under a lot of people who have planned their retirements around getting some SS money to assist in their expenses.
Fundamental problem, however, is that these people worked their lives and contributed to SS and Medicare with the expectation that it would be there, as promised, in their retirement years. They made financial plans that assumed the promise. Now is too late for them to start over ... they are stuck.
On top of that, SS is rarely sufficient for a decent life and if anything should be raised (speaking in terms of what should be done if we could do it). Cutting back on SS and/or Medicare for people who no longer have the luxury of finding a good paying job and working for many years is a profound breach of trust and for the many who rely on these paid-into benefits for survival, it is cruel.
I'm 48. I've been paying in since I was 16, off and on during my education, and steadily for the last 21 years. And since 2003, I've owned a business, so I've also paid the employer portion for myself and my employees. So that's quite a bit I've paid in. As a business owner, not just an employee, the idea of that money not being used for its intended purpose pisses me off royally.
I support removing the cap, but pushing back full eligibility to 70 is something I'm not so sure about. Some people are lucky and can keep working until they're 70. And some can't. And some can continue to work, but perhaps not at the same pace or in the same job.
I am in favor of removing the cap, and raising the tax rate if needed to protect the program's solvency. I would hate to see the age of eligibility raised any further despite some increase in life expectancy. Advances in medicine may provide a beneficial effect as regards life expectancy, but I'm not so certain that translates to prolonged ability to maintain vigorous physical activity for many working people, not to mention the effects of age on mental acuity of some.
Privatization of Social Security is absolutely out of the question. That is a complete non-starter.
I know a lot of people that have worked in very physical industries and there is no way they could go on to 70 also there is the mental capabilities to consider.
So we'll have to agree to disagree on that point.
The politicians will do nothing until the last second when the roof is about to fall in on SS. Very typical of them.
If the politicians ever pulled SS out I think that you'd see a violent revolution in this county. In 2021 5.8 million new people started drawing SS. As of Jan of 2022 there are 46.7 million on SS.
Hopefully the threat will cause a lot of working class voters who might have supported the Republicans to make damn sure they cast a vote otherwise - I mean if they have the ability to comprehend what the threat would mean for them.
We should observe the GoP-biased reactions here. Chances are good most will defend this (as is the partisan way).
Well, those who support starving the aged may well defend the proposal. Hey, after all, killing off the old people means more money for the rich ones.
I don't want to wait until 70! No hard physical job. But mentally, I'm stressed out now. I'm ready.
I'm not waiting. Earliest I retire is 63, the latest is 65. I don't need the full SS right away because I married a wealthy man (HA!)
Yeah, I didn't wait either. I retired earlier this year and started drawing SS last month when I turned 64. It's not the 100% benefit but then I didn't need the SS payments to support my lifestyle. I was lucky in that I worked in a career that provided a very good income for me and built up my retirement accounts over many years.
Probably should include the sarcasm tag or this just comes off as rude...
Yeah, there is no easy answer to this. Both SS and Medicare are running out of money and politicians are afraid to touch it as almost anything they do will be viewed negatively which means fewer votes for their re-election.
And I understand that not everybody can continue to work in a physically demanding industry until they are 70, and not every 70 year old has the mental capacity to continue to work. At the same time, life expectancy is much higher today than it was when SS was first created. So something needs to be done.
I am in favor of raising the full retirement age. Perhaps they can leave the early retirement age at 62. The rest of the changes I listed above (removing the cap on taxible income and increasing the tax rate) would help extend it's solvency. I also like a means test for benefits. If someone has $10 million in assets do they really need to collect SS payments? Maybe tie the assets combined to income to balance it out, after all if you have a high income (above $30k) in investment income why do you need SS payments? I don't know the final figures, but something needs to be done before the programs run out of money and everybody suffers, but the poor who have to make do on $1200 a month (or less) will suffer much more.
You and I aren't known for being friendly.
I've paid 15% of my gross income for my social security for 50 years now and I've been promised full retirement at 65 which is next year. I have annual statements from SS as proof. Maybe if you're so worried that the government is running out of money you should give them YOUR money. You're a typical repub who hates the working people of America. You should be ashamed of yourself.
Maybe you should be ashamed of yourself for not knowing how the process actually works. When they bumped the full eligibility date up they grandfathered people so the people who were within 10 years of retirement didn't see the numbers change. And I have no reason to hate working people, I was one of them for my entire life.
You may also want to check your math. If you are self-employed you pay the full SS tax which is 12.4%, not 15%. And were you self-employed for the past 50 years? Hard to understand if you turn 65 next year, that would mean you were self-employed ever since you were 14.
You may want to go back out to the SSA site to confirm. While you can retire at 65, if you turn 65 next year then your full retirement age is actually 66 and 8 months for full benefits. If you retire and start drawing next year you will not get 100% of your full benefits.
I have to wait until I'm 67 until I get my full social security
I get full Social Security at 65. I turn 60 this month. Five more years!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Umm, don't believe you are correct. If you turn 60 this month (Happy Birthday by the way) that means you were born in 1962. For those born in 62 or later, they reach full eligibility for Social Security at 67.
If you start drawing at 65, you would draw 91.9% of your monthly benefit.
68 for me.
Actually a bit of good news for you. You reach your full retirement age at 67. It's not been raised up beyond that.
I believe Snuffy is correct. I turned 60 back in February.
Happy Birthday, btw!
I think that to reach your maximum SS benefit, you must wait until you are 70.
For the maximum amount, yes. Full eligibility (for example, age 67 if born in 1960 or later) means you are eligible for 100% of your SS benefit. For each month you delay taking the benefit, the amount increases by 8% a year (2/3 of 1% increase monthly) and if you delay until your 70th birthday your SS benefit is 124% of your full eligibility.
But we were talking about full retirement age, not maximum benefit.
The same issue in reverse happens if you retire and start to draw your SS benefits before you reach the full eligibility age, your monthly benefit is less than the full benefit depending on the number of months early you start to draw.
Umm, yes I do believe I am correct snuffy. I know what my Social Security account states and I know what my work states - full retirement at 65.
I'll be turning 60 on October 30th. And also snuffy, if I get only 91.9% of my benefits at 65, I'm good with that too, but I think I'm correct when it comes to my circumstances and situation and my current position. But who knows??????
That's why I posted the link to the Social Security Administration page that explains eligibility. I don't know where you work, so I don't know what your work means by full retirement at 65. It could mean something different than what Social Security means.
But I wish you well. Retirement is a blast, I love being able to state "I do what I want and when I want to" when asked what do I do. I've only been retired for four months, but in that time I've been able to spend more time writing, I've taken up jewelry making and of course being a bad influence to my grandkids.
I hope I have grandkids for that. I'm gonna get me a Grammaw car...a Ford convertible mustang and I want one with a V-8. If they don't have that, I'll settle for a V6
Yeah, I wasn't trying to be a dick. I get confused by eligibility and something where it says (on my Social Security account page - about work credits, etc., etc., etc.) - I've been in my current position for 18 years so early retirement is 10/29/24 and Regular is 10/30/27 at 65, (whatever Regular means)
Do you know what Regular means in relation to what it says at my work about retirement? On my benefits, etc.?
I heard that.... my eldest two are 16 and I made sure to hang on to my 2014 Challenger. They keep after me to "gift" the car to them... their parents just shake their heads and exclaim "Not until you can buy the insurance". hehe
My full retirement age was at 66 and 2 months according to the SS administration. At 65 I could and did get Medicare coverage and my employer paid me and extra $250 a month to do it. It lowered their premiums by like 2 1/2 times. I was going to wait and draw SS until 70 but, the time it would take me to make up the difference would have been several, like 15, years or more. I don't remember exactly but I had figured it out when mulling over what to do...
Ahhh, yes. An un-updated SS page is what is catching us. And they use a lot of terms that don't seem to mean anything to us. For example, work credits. All that means is that over your lifetiime you have earned X number of work credits. You must earn 40 credits or more to be eligible for SS benefits. Work credits are earned on income per year as well as over time as you can only earn a max 4 credits a year. So you have to work at least 10 years with an income over $1400 per credit per year ($5600 annual) to qualify for SS benefits.
The "regular" retirement age was 65 (that's still the age for eligibility for Medicare) and early retirement is when you turn 62. They are in the process of updating their website still, the current phrase they use is "normal retirement age" which moves depending on when you were born.
So while you are eligible for Medicare at 65, your decision to start drawing your SS benefit is dependent on a few factors such as how much money do you need from SS monthly vs how long do you expect to live. Based on my family history and personal medical history, I think I will be doing good to hit 80 but not much beyond that. You can check your monthly benefit from when you want to retire (65) vs what the benefit is if you wait until full retirement age (67) vs the maximum benefit (70) and then just play with the numbers to see where the break-even point is. By that I mean which of them will bring you the most money in total based on your life expectancy. For me the break-even point was around 73 so it didn't make a lot of sense to wait until later to start drawing. Additionally you have to look at the state of Social Security and Medicare (both are running out of money). It's a gamble, if I live till 100 then taking early retirement is not such a good deal financially.
There are a lot of calculations that you need to make and I'm afraid a lot of guess work as well. Trying to figure out how long you will live, estimating future medical issues and their costs, etc. As to when you should start taking your SS benefits to me comes down to how much money do you need for your monthly living vs how much money have you set aside for retirement aside from SS. Because the SS benefit varies depending on your age when you start drawing, only you can decide when the right time is to start. I was fortunate that I was able to accumulate a good nest egg in cash & near-cash savings and drawing my SS benefit at 64 instead of the normal retirement age for me which was 66 and 8 months, to provide for the first 8-10 years before I even start to draw on my retirement accounts. The biggest change was the worry about not getting a steady paycheck, that was the biggest adjustment for me. Well that and relearning how to sleep in past 6am as I've been getting up at 3am for handoff from the off-shore teams for so long that it was second nature.. but now I can sleep in till 6 or 7 without breaking a sweat. hehe
Good luck. It's a big change in your mental wellbeing. After all, you've been working for how many years now and all the sudden you're not working anymore. That's a huge change. A good one in the end, but it takes time to adjust to it.
yep, it all comes down to life expectancy and chance of medical issues. As there's almost no way I will live into my 80's (family history and personal medical issues) the chance of a long life really doesn't come into play for me. So I opted for a smaller SS payment to offset the fewer years I will draw.
My ex-wife on the other hand has almost no retirement savings I'm afraid. I help out where I can but she's really not my responsibility so I won't just sign over my retirement to her. She's gonna have to work until she's 70 as she cannot afford to retire now.
smart parents
By the way..... for all those still working (yes, this includes you) , you guys need to keep working. Keep working so you can pay into that federal ponzi scheme called Social Security so that you can keep financing my lifestyle. I thank you from the bottom of my black little heart... hehe
um.....
I think that you analysis is sound. I turned 68 this last summer and am still working. My factors include:
Come on Peter, nobody says you ever have to grow up... woo hoo !!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Hence the Mustang when I become a grammaw.
When I retire, I'll start flying around looking for Neverland.
Fantastic snuffy. That's a wealth of very helpful information. I really appreciate it.
Also thanks for sharing
You're welcome. I spent a couple of years debating with myself what I was going to do and researching the pro's & con's. It's one of the hardest decisions I've made. Good luck.
If Republicans take control of the House of Representatives, they plan to ramp up their attack on Social Security, Medicare and the working people of America.
Well that is a great plan. Be the agent (in the states) that denies / restricts abortions (a very unpopular move) and then squeezes social security and Medicare.
Perfect plan to drive folks to the D party. And just think, this is on the heels of being the party that defends and supports Trump in spite of all his wrong doings.
This, if done, would truly be a profound act of brain-dead stupidity.
Generally what we can expect from Republicans.
I still cannot fathom the ongoing support for Trump. The GoP (at least half of it) has sold its 'soul'.
Actually only about 41% according to a poll from late August. The same poll placed 50% of Republicans saying they were more loyal to the party than to Trump. I hope it's enough to prevent him from winning a primary if he decides to run in 24.
But as for the ongoing support... I put the blame for that on the sorry state of our news media combined with stupid people who need to find a confirmation for their ideas and take it as gospel truth. Let's admit it, our main-stream media is so biased and we get very little hard truth anymore. People will search out to confirm their bias as it's human nature to feel they were correct in their ideas in the first place, and there are plenty of biased reporting where they can confirm everything they "know" to be true. I don't see it getting any better as long as money rules what main-stream media does.
Wow, what a relief.
I am reminded of members of this site who, to this day, will not even acknowledge any wrongdoing by Trump. Is that the fault of the news media or the fault of each individual who simply believes what they are told?
Both I believe. IMO news media has gotten so biased that a lot of people don't even try to watch what doesn't support their pre-conceived ideas. It's human nature to want to confirm that what someone believes is correct and I believe that a lot of people tend to search out the news that gives them that confirmation. But if more news organizations would reduce the opinions they give and provide just hard facts it would be more difficult to search out the bias for confirmation.
This.
Some of them are waffling now on their abortion stances.
Waffling, flip/flopping and/or changing the subject?
Abortion Is Motivating Voters, but Republicans Would Rather Change the Subject
In Wisconsin, Tim Michels, a Republican running for governor, promised activists that he would never “flip-flop” on his support for an 1849 law that bans abortion except when a woman’s life is threatened. Less than three weeks later, he changed his stance.
In the Phoenix suburbs, staffers whisked away Juan Ciscomani, a Republican House candidate, citing an urgent text, after he was asked by a voter whether he supported abortion bans.
And in New Hampshire, Don Bolduc, the Republican running for governor, described abortion as a distraction from the “really important issues.”
In races across the nation, Republican candidates are waffling on their abortion positions, denying past behavior or simply trying to avoid a topic that has long been a bedrock principle of American conservatism. Less than a month before the midterm elections on Nov. 8, the party lacks a unified policy on abortion, unable to broadly adopt a consistent response in the 3 1/2 months since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade.
Republican positioning on abortion drew renewed attention last week, when Herschel Walker, the party’s Senate nominee in Georgia, was accused by an ex-girlfriend of paying for one abortion and unsuccessfully urging her to get a second one. Walker takes a hard-line stance against the procedure, supporting abortion bans with no exceptions for rape, incest or to save the life of the mother.
For decades, Republicans pushed to overturn federal abortion rights, viewing the issue as an easy rallying cry to identify with a culturally conservative base. Focusing on the country’s highest court allowed them to largely avoid getting into the weeds on thorny issues — life-threatening pregnancy complications, exceptions for child rape, diagnoses of rare and fatal conditions in fetuses. And given that few voters fully believed Roe would be overturned, they were rarely pressed on the specifics of their views.
The court ruled in June that each state can formulate its own abortion policy, exactly what small-government conservatives had long wanted. But it had another consequence, plunging the party into months of politically toxic debates.
“You hear some of these Republican state legislators, and it’s like, for the first time they are thinking about this and realize that this is a complicated issue with lots and lots of circumstances that are not black and white,” said Christine Matthews, a pollster who has worked for Republicans. “A lot of these male legislators are realizing, ‘Oh, this is really hard to legislate.’”
To escape some of those difficult questions, many Republican candidates have been trying to avoid the debate altogether. For weeks, some Republicans have been erasing sections about abortion from their websites, changing their positions on state bans and trying to refocus the national conversation on inflation, crime and the country’s southern border.
“I do believe it’s caught them slightly off guard with just how bad an issue this is for them,” said Sarah Longwell, an anti-Trump Republican strategist who leads focus groups. “The party has opted for changing the conversation entirely because abortion is just bad terrain for them.”
Some party leaders and strategists have urged candidates to adopt poll-tested positions popular with large swaths of independent voters: No restrictions on contraception, no bans before about 15 weeks and including exceptions for rape, incest and life of the mother. But those policies conflict with the long-held goal of the party’s socially conservative wing that views abortion as akin to murder, and they also clash with some of the past language and positions of Republican candidates.
That has left candidates, particularly those in purple states, caught between the more moderate views of independent voters and a conservative base that views the court’s ruling as the beginning of restrictions, not the end. Now, many of the party’s candidates in the most competitive contests are racing to recast their positions.
“I’m winning because people see a strong leader, a man of conviction, a man who doesn’t waffle, a man who doesn’t flip-flop,” Michels, the Republican nominee for governor in Wisconsin, told Republican activists and officials on Sept. 6 about the state ban. “I’m going to stick with what I know is right.”
He reversed his position late last month, saying that, if elected, he would sign legislation to expand exceptions to include rape and incest.
Many of the pivots have been even less artful. In Maine, a former governor, Paul LePage, is running to lead the state again and repeatedly stumbled over a question about whether he would sign more restrictive abortion laws if elected. “I don’t know what you mean by 15 weeks, 28 weeks. Because I don’t know,” LePage said after a protracted exchange on a debate stage last week.
And in Arizona, a spokesperson for Kari Lake, the Republican nominee for governor, had to clarify last week that Lake was not advocating changes to the state’s near-total abortion ban after she told a Phoenix talk-radio host that the procedure should be “rare and legal.”
In an interview with CBS News on Sunday, Lake said she was trying to articulate how far the Democratic Party had moved from its Clinton-era talking points of “safe, legal and rare,” asserting that the procedure has become “anything but rare.” But she refused to say whether she would pursue restrictions on abortions sooner than 15 weeks into pregnancy, diverting the conversation to adoption and falsely casting her Democratic opponent as supportive of “abortion right up until birth.”
Her remarks follow guidance circulated by party strategists who are urging their candidates to flip the script, labeling Democrats as the “extremists” on the issue. A memo from the Republican National Committee offering talking points for candidates encouraged a focus on rising prices and violent crime.
Republican strategists and party officials argue that the potency of the issue is fading as economic concerns grow more intense.
“To sustain that level of interest and enthusiasm in the current political climate for five months is very difficult, especially with more pressing personal pocketbook issues hurting voters,” said Robert Blizzard, a Republican pollster engaged in a number of midterm races.
Mark Graul, a longtime Republican strategist based in Wisconsin, said that right after the Supreme Court decision, the abortion issue was “very much front and center.”
But in the final weeks of the race, Graul said, voters are saying, “‘I care about that, but I care about how much it costs to fill up my car and buy groceries. And is my family going to be safe?’” He added: “I think they’re starting to care about that more.”
While polls show that the majority of voters support a federal right to an abortion, Democrats are not favored to maintain control of Congress, given still-high inflation, concerns about crime and President Joe Biden’s low approval ratings.
Still, Democrats are trying to ensure that Republicans cannot escape so easily. After decades of treating the issue as a second-tier priority, the Democratic Party has made abortion rights a centerpiece of its fall campaign, spending nearly $213 million to blanket the airwaves with ads about it, according to AdImpact, an advertising-tracking firm.
Celinda Lake, a veteran Democratic pollster and strategist, called the political debate over abortion rights “the best thing going for the Democrats.”
“It can’t be the only thing going for the Democrats,” she added. But many Republicans, she said, are “having a lot of difficulty” discussing the issue.
The need to square decades of opposition to abortion rights with the new political environment has led to some complicated contortions for Republicans, some of whom have tried to cast themselves less as drivers of abortion bans and more as bystanders.
Rep. Don Bacon, R-Neb., who faces a tough race for reelection, said he supported not only the 15-week federal ban but prohibiting abortion starting at conception. But Bacon also argues that such a policy would never pass the Senate because it would be unable to garner the 60 votes necessary to overcome a filibuster — essentially telling voters not to worry about his positions because they will be blocked by Democrats.
“Whether we have a pro-abortion majority in the House and Senate, or a pro-life majority in the Senate or House, you’re not going to get past a 60-vote threshold in the Senate,” he said, in an interview on NBC’s “Meet The Press.” “So the reality is, most of this is going to be done at the state level.”
In his primary race, Joe Lombardo, the sheriff of the Las Vegas area who is running for Nevada governor, summarized his position on abortion with three words: “Joe is pro-life.”
But a 747-word note published on his campaign website late last month reversed his stance on an abortion rule in Nevada. He said he would not repeal an executive order protecting women from being prosecuted for seeking an abortion in the state, which has emerged as a safe haven for the procedure as neighboring Utah, Arizona and Idaho have restricted access.
An ad by a conservative group in Nevada echoes that argument, accusing Democrats of “scaring” voters about the state’s abortion laws and saying politicians cannot change the rules allowing the procedure until 24 weeks.
The claims by Lombardo and the group ignore the power of executive orders to add new restrictions and the possibility that Congress could pass a national ban, superseding state law with a stricter federal standard.
Not all Republicans have been so quick to finesse their stances.
A campaign ad released last week by Jeff Crossman, the Democratic candidate for Ohio attorney general, takes aim at the Republican incumbent and his public questioning of the existence of a 10-year-old rape victim who left the state for an abortion. The child was blocked from obtaining an abortion in Ohio because she was three days past a six-week limit on abortions. The attorney general, Dave Yost, initially said the report was likely to be a “fabrication.”
“Dave Yost, you disgust me,” a woman identified only as Geri of northeast Ohio says to the camera in the ad. “When a 10-year-old was raped and impregnated, Yost went on national TV and called it a hoax? I am a grandmother, and I have a 10-year-old granddaughter.”
Yost has resisted calls to apologize for doubting the victim. “I don’t understand what you think I need to apologize for,” he said in an interview with a local television program. “We didn’t even know the identity, and still don’t, of that poor victim.”
We will find out next month just how much abortion plays into this election cycle. I suspect that the majority of people will be voting more on table-top issues that directly impact them such as inflation, the economy and crime
I wonder how many of those Republicans who pushed abortion bans in the primaries did so more for the "boost" they felt they could get from a Republican only primary. A lot of them have scrubbed their websites once they got into the general elections in an attempt to be more palatable to the general public.
We'll see!
Last year was the first year that Social Security taxes and interest on it's Trust Funds was less than what the program paid. Total SS income last year was $1trillion,88 billion dollars and total expenses were $1 trillion,144 billion dollars. that gap of $56 billion is projected to grow larger each year.
That gap was covered by SS Trust Funds (surpluses in previous years that are intergovernmental bonds). Those bonds paid $70billion in interest last year and were debteted by $56 billion to pay the remaining gap. The SS Board of Trustees estimates that with no changes, the Trust Fund goes bust in 2035. They also project that when the trust funds are exhausted, that remaining annual income will equal about 80% of expected costs.
In the meantime, while the Trust Fund continues to pay for the gap between income and expenditures, that money only exists on paper. To pay it the federal government borrows the money. CBO projects of deficits to run a little over a trillion a year and growing to close to two trillion by 2032. Our federal debt then is projected at $45 trillion.
Be very afraid! The evil republicans are going to change social security, it’s almost like the posters are afraid that the democrats are too stupid to filibuster it or the idiot in chief wouldn’t veto it.
[deleted]