Obama Budget to Offer GOP a Spoonful of Sugar
Medicare, Social Security cuts 'demonstrate willingness to compromise': NYT
By Ruth Brown, Newser Staff
Posted Apr 5, 2013 9:12 AM CDT
In this March 21, 2013 photo, President Barack Obama speaks.   (AP Photo/Carolyn Kaster)

(Newser) Obama's personal salary isn't the only figure the president plans on cutting this year. A new budget set to be released next week proposes cuts to Medicare and Social Security. It's a deficit-reducing olive branch to the GOP, and the administration says it will lead to $1.8 trillion in savings over the next decade (and replace the sequester in the process), reports CNN. The $400 billion in cuts to Medicare and other social programs sees Obama repeating an offer he made to John Boehner during fiscal crisis negotiations last year. He is also proposing a new inflation formula for determining Social Security benefits that is popular with Republicans—considerably less so with Democrats—that the New York Times says will have the effect of reducing cost-of-living payments.

These proposals are intended as a spoonful of sugar to help Republicans swallow tax increases elsewhere. Other budget proposals include universal access to prekindergarten education—funded by a increase in tobacco taxes—and a limit on the amount of wealth that can be accrued in tax-preferred savings accounts. "The president has made clear that he is willing to compromise and do tough things to reduce the deficits," said a senior official, "but only in the context of a package like this one that has balance and includes revenues from the wealthiest Americans and that is designed to promote economic growth.”

More From Newser
My Take on This Story
To report an error on this story,
notify our editors.
Obama Budget to Offer GOP a Spoonful of Sugar is...
4%
16%
8%
36%
7%
29%
Show results without voting
You Might Like
Comments
Showing 3 of 37 comments
milo7453
Apr 9, 2013 12:30 AM CDT
We are all being dooped...the average american private sector worker anyway. They keep telling us about Soc Sec (to get you looking at their right hand), but americans better wise up and look and see what the left hand is doing... Underfunded Public Pensions in the United States: (Harvard School of Business and Government) Across the United States, state and local government-sponsored pension plans are in trouble. They are dangerously underfunded to the extent that their assets are unable to meet future liabilities without either outsize investment returns or huge cash infusions. Over the past several years, estimates of the total size of the public pension problem in the U.S. have ranged from $730 billion in unfunded liabilities to $4.4 trillion (all being borrowed to cover the promises). Many financial economists believe that the true size of the total unfunded liability lies closer to the larger estimates than it does to the smaller.
hog_one
Apr 6, 2013 3:59 AM CDT
It seems by the comments that most of you agree with me about social security. What gets me is how does the federal goverment figure that ss is an entitlement. It is a contract with the american worker that the goverment made when it started the program. In that the goverment would take some of your wages, hold them and pay interest on the money. The when you reached the age of retirement, the goverment would pay back the money, they took, based upon how much you had paid into the system and what quarter you earned the most. So I guess it is an entitlement, after all it's my money and I'm entitled to it. They say the system will be broke by 2025 and why is that? They say it's because it will be paying out more than it takes in. Well, if they would have left it alone, as they were suppose to and not barrowed from it with a promise to pay it back, that hasn't happened yet. It would have had enough money too last until 2055. I know they would still have to come up with a new system. But they would have enough time too phase in the new system and still payout under the old system. Now, I'm just an old-fart (64) and I could get ss next year. But at the present time I don't need it when I retire in three more years. However there are plenty of seniors who didn't plan or just weren't able to save for retirement. So the goverment is going to screw them over. They better remember who is the biggest voteing group and it's not those under fifty.
JoeQ
Apr 5, 2013 9:57 PM CDT
It's a mistake patronizing the GOP on even the smallest thing. They'll just take it and demand more.