Alan Simpson, co-chairman of the White House fiscal commission, isn’t a fan of President Barack Obama’s deficit-reduction plan or his new feisty tone.
From Politico:
Alan Simpson, co-chairman of the White House fiscal commission, isn’t a fan of President Barack Obama’s deficit-reduction plan or his new feisty tone.
The decision to shield Social Security from changes “is an abrogation of leadership, a vacancy of leadership,” Simpson told POLITICO on Wednesday.
The harsh appraisal is notable even from the outspoken Simpson, a former Republican senator from Wyoming whom Obama tapped last year to lead his bipartisan fiscal commission. Simpson is often blunt, but he has generally avoided direct criticism of the president, even when Obama declined to embrace the commission report and waited months to push a comprehensive plan.
Simpson said he is “saddened” and “tired of watching” the president talk up bipartisanship in public while bashing Republicans at private fundraisers. And by treading lightly on entitlements, Obama’s proposal fails to live up to the principle of shared sacrifice, he said.
“You can’t get this done without hits across the board,” Simpson said, “and if you are leaving people out all along the way because of political pressure, you can’t get it done.”
The White House pushed back on Simpson’s comments in a statement Wednesday.
“The president has put forth a balanced approach to significantly reduce our nation’s deficit that included detailed savings on entitlements, based on the values of shared responsibility and shared sacrifice,” spokeswoman Amy Brundage said.
“The president has also consistently said that both parties need to work together to strengthen Social Security for future generations,” she said. “Since Social Security is not a driver of our immediate and medium-term deficits, the president believes the best way to achieve the goal of long-term solvency is to deal with this challenge in a bipartisan way on a separate track instead of taking a piecemeal approach.”
Obama endorsed several controversial changes to Medicare and agreed to tackle Social Security during private talks with House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) on a “grand bargain” to raise the debt ceiling and slash the deficit. After those negotiations fell apart in July, budget hawks encouraged Obama to publicly back the proposals when he unveiled his deficit-reduction plan this month.
The president proposed $348 billion in cuts to Medicare and Medicaid — far more than Democrats wanted. But under pressure from progressives, Obama sidestepped the most contentious proposals, such as raising the Medicare eligibility age, and he declined to address Social Security altogether.
Simpson and his Democratic co-chair, Erskine Bowles, recommended raising the Social Security retirement age to 68 by 2050, along with other changes, to shore up the system that is projected to go broke by 2037.
“How in God’s name can you leave out the [Social Security] system just because you’re terrified of the AARP and seniors groups,” Simpson said. “You can’t leave out anything.”
Alan Simpson, co-chairman of the White House fiscal commission, isn’t a fan of President Barack Obama’s deficit-reduction plan or his new feisty tone.
The decision to shield Social Security from changes “is an abrogation of leadership, a vacancy of leadership,” Simpson told POLITICO on Wednesday.
The harsh appraisal is notable even from the outspoken Simpson, a former Republican senator from Wyoming whom Obama tapped last year to lead his bipartisan fiscal commission. Simpson is often blunt, but he has generally avoided direct criticism of the president, even when Obama declined to embrace the commission report and waited months to push a comprehensive plan.
Simpson said he is “saddened” and “tired of watching” the president talk up bipartisanship in public while bashing Republicans at private fundraisers. And by treading lightly on entitlements, Obama’s proposal fails to live up to the principle of shared sacrifice, he said.
“You can’t get this done without hits across the board,” Simpson said, “and if you are leaving people out all along the way because of political pressure, you can’t get it done.”
The White House pushed back on Simpson’s comments in a statement Wednesday.
“The president has put forth a balanced approach to significantly reduce our nation’s deficit that included detailed savings on entitlements, based on the values of shared responsibility and shared sacrifice,” spokeswoman Amy Brundage said.
“The president has also consistently said that both parties need to work together to strengthen Social Security for future generations,” she said. “Since Social Security is not a driver of our immediate and medium-term deficits, the president believes the best way to achieve the goal of long-term solvency is to deal with this challenge in a bipartisan way on a separate track instead of taking a piecemeal approach.”
Obama endorsed several controversial changes to Medicare and agreed to tackle Social Security during private talks with House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) on a “grand bargain” to raise the debt ceiling and slash the deficit. After those negotiations fell apart in July, budget hawks encouraged Obama to publicly back the proposals when he unveiled his deficit-reduction plan this month.
The president proposed $348 billion in cuts to Medicare and Medicaid — far more than Democrats wanted. But under pressure from progressives, Obama sidestepped the most contentious proposals, such as raising the Medicare eligibility age, and he declined to address Social Security altogether.
Simpson and his Democratic co-chair, Erskine Bowles, recommended raising the Social Security retirement age to 68 by 2050, along with other changes, to shore up the system that is projected to go broke by 2037.
“How in God’s name can you leave out the [Social Security] system just because you’re terrified of the AARP and seniors groups,” Simpson said. “You can’t leave out anything.”
1 Comments:
Wouldn't it be better for America is prices and some interest rates drop and higher Hourly Pay so people can spend more instead of much less by all this raises in taxes and taking away peoples hard earned money where they can't spend to help the economy?? If, prices stay low people will be glad to spend more and this helps the economy, raising taxes and taking away doesn't help.
Post a Comment
<< Home