Left silent on Social Security, Medicare By: Ben Smith February 10, 2009 04:46 AM EST
President Barack Obama plans a busy February. The new administration hopes to have a stimulus package passed by Congress, a new plan in place to shore up ailing banks and, by month’s end, to hold a “fiscal responsibility” summit.
If the stimulus and banking bailout weren’t controversial enough, the summit fills some entitlement reform critics with dread, as they fear it could speed calls for cuts to Social Security and Medicare.
Strikingly, however, Obama appears to be getting unusual room to maneuver on entitlements by most of his liberal allies. On the subject of entitlement reform, in fact, Obama’s honeymoon continues — at least in the unlikely precincts of the Democratic left, a counterintuitive development that has buoyed the spirits of reformers who would like to see drastic changes in the way Social Security works.
Opponents of significant changes to Social Security benefits were jarred in January, when the then-president-elect echoed George W. Bush’s claim of an entitlement “crisis,” warning of “red ink as far as the eye can see” in Social Security and Medicare. Obama promised that those programs would be a “central part” of his plan to reduce the federal deficit.
Social Security defenders were surprised again last week, when Obama named a leading voice for reining in entitlement spending, New Hampshire Sen. Judd Gregg, to his Cabinet.
But despite some grumbling in the ranks, the powerful, organized movement that effectively defended the Social Security status quo from Bush’s ambitious reform effort in 2005 has been one of the key dogs that haven’t yet barked at Obama.
The relative silence of liberal activists who smashed Bush’s hopes of slowing entitlement spending is a mark of the deep trust Obama enjoys from the left of his party — and it’s also giving hope to those who would like to see major shifts in the way Social Security and other programs are funded and managed.
Obama is “in a honeymoon phase, and many liberals are afraid to express concerns,” said Rep. Jim Cooper, a Tennessee Democrat and deficit hawk who sees the current economic crisis as an opportunity to reform entitlement spending.
A White House official said there had been no change to Obama’s campaign-trail promise to protect and strengthen Social Security and noted that Gregg, as commerce secretary, has no formal role regarding entitlement spending.
Despite Obama’s rhetorical suggestions that he’s open to Social Security and Medicare cuts to prevent a crisis, he has long opposed anything like the Bush plan.
Instead, during the campaign, Obama suggested the relatively modest step of increasing Social Security’s revenues by raising the cap on Social Security taxes, which would make the income tax system more progressive and bring more money into the program.
At other times, he’s also adopted the liberals’ central talking point: that Social Security needs just minor tweaks and that Medicare’s problems are bound up in the broader woes of the American health care system.
“The president gets it,” said former Democratic Rep. Barbara Kennelly, the president of the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare. “This is very different from the people who run around beating the drum for entitlement reform — they’re coming from a different place.”
Opponents of Bush-style changes also believe that sleeping liberals will awaken should Obama make a proposal offering significant changes. “Everyone wants to give Obama the benefit of the doubt, but if he were to get out of the gate and say, ‘We’re going to fix entitlements, and that’s going to mean cuts to Medicare and Social Security,’ he’s going to hit a wall real fast,” said Dean Baker, co-director of the left-leaning Center for Economic and Policy Research.
But make no mistake: The old foes of entitlement reform are quiet — and one key group from the last round of Social Security wars has moved on.
In 2005, a labor-backed group called Americans United to Protect Social Security set its sights on killing Bush’s privatization plan and silencing his warnings that Social Security was “headed toward bankruptcy.”
But now Americans United to Protect Social Security, whose top operatives worked for Obama’s campaign, has changed its name to Americans United for Change. And the group has turned its attention to rallying support for the White House’s stimulus package. The labor unions that underwrote much of the organization’s campaign against the Bush White House are Obama’s allies, with a broad agenda they hope he’ll advance.
Even many of the people who were rankled by Obama’s campaign comments about entitlements are disinclined to challenge the new president publicly, to the delight of those pushing to rein in spending on Social Security and Medicare.
The defenders of maintaining Social Security and Medicare at their current levels say they’ve been alarmed at times by Obama’s rhetoric, but their relatively relaxed stance is an illustration of the trust and goodwill that Obama commands on the left.
Obama’s pronouncements on the American system of “entitlements” — proponents of the current system dispute the widespread use of the term to refer to government-provided income and health care for senior citizens — have drawn occasional fire from the left. In 2007, New York Times columnist Paul Krugman accused Obama of “Social Security crisis-mongering.”
When Obama said last month that “discussion around entitlements will be a part, a central part” of his economic agenda, liberal columnist David Sirota warned: “That’s coded politicalspeak for an effort to ‘reform’ Social Security and Medicare, which history has shown is often itself politicalspeak for cuts to those programs.”
The Gregg appointment caused another ripple of concern.
“I’m not pleased to see anything strengthen those voices within the administration,” said Lawrence Michel, president of the left-leaning Economic Policy Institute. Michel added that he’s concerned that the summit planned for later this month also could reinforce calls for cuts to Social Security and Medicare. “Why undercut the strongest pillar of retirement security?” he asked.
The major players in the 2005 battle have, however, largely avoided criticizing the new president.
“President Obama is facing the greatest fiscal challenge since the Great Depression. That’s one reason why it is vitally important to have a frank discussion about strengthening the long-term solvency of programs such as Social Security,” Gerald McEntee, president of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, told Politico. McEntee’s union was a key backer of the 2005 defense of the Social Security system as currently administered. “We look forward to working closely with the administration on this and other important issues during the days and years ahead.”
Roger Hickey, co-director of the Campaign for America’s Future and one of the creators of Americans United to Protect Social Security, said progressives are keeping an eye on Obama’s entitlement talk and will be hosting their own conference in February.
“There’s some concern. The reason that there’s not a big hysteria is that the Obama administration has been very, very clear about where they stand on the real solutions to Medicare costs — they’ve been very clear that they’re not in favor of privatizing Social Security,” he said.
For now, most liberals are confident enough in Obama’s rhetoric to stifle any concerns about his policy views.
“The question is, whose leg is he pulling?” said Baker. “I’d like to think it’s theirs when he says [to deficit hawks], ‘I share your concerns.’ But I guess it’s conceivable that it’s mine.”