Republicans were not happy with President Obama’s promise in his State of the Union Tuesday night to rebuff any attempts — for now — to cut Social Security benefits or raise the retirement age, although he did not specifically mention fighting efforts to adjust when benefits kick in.
The president called for a “bipartisan solution” to Social Security in his address, but he insisted that it must be done “without putting at risk current retirees” and “without slashing benefits for future generations.”
“To put us on solid ground, we should also find a bipartisan solution to strengthen Social Security for future generations. We must do it without putting at risk current retirees, the most vulnerable, or people with disabilities; without slashing benefits for future generations; and without subjecting Americans’ guaranteed retirement income to the whims of the stock market.”
It was a challenge to his own deficit commission that recommended doing exactly what Obama seemed to reject on Tuesday, and a signal to Republicans that Social Security should be off the table in discussion about cutting spending and reducing the deficit (Medicare and Medicaid are another story entirely…).
One prominent advocate of Social Security “reform,” Sen. Lindsay Graham (R-SC), attacked the president’s State of the Union stand on the government safety net and suggested he would go to the White House with a proposal to raise the retirement age from 67 to 69, saying that cutting Social Security would “help my country.”
Graham was quick to include the caveat that he would increase it “over decades” even though that would have no immediate impact on the deficit or current spending, a main component of the GOP’s alternative budget plan.
I would give anything if the United States Congress for one month could act in accordance with the way our men and women are serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. We know what to do on Social Security. I’ve put on the table adjusting the age from 67 to 69. There’s an ad running in South Carolina right now from some group on the left with a 59-year-old librarian saying I’m ruining her life. Well let me tell you, under the proposal, changes don’t affect you if you’re over 55. So I’m a reasonable guy. But how the heck can we save this country from bankruptcy if we don’t reform entitlements? …You will never convince me that that is hard sell if we wanted to sell it. So what the president said last night — “I’m willing to work with you but you can’t affect anybody’s benefits” — that’s telling me he’s planning a 2012 campaign not a 2011 governing session.
So I’m going to offer to the president and to Rand Paul, which is a wide spectrum of people, an opportunity to make a small down payment on entitlement reform by introducing legislation soon that would adjust the age the way Reagan and O’Neill did — 67 to 69 — over decades and a reasonable means test on benefits as a down payment to getting our entitlement house in order. And they can run all the commercials they want. It does not matter…I know what I need to do to help my country
Recent Comments