Analysis: Obama faces skepticism from Democrats on budget deal

WASHINGTON Wed Mar 6, 2013 1:06am EST

President Barack Obama speaks about the sequester after a meeting with congressional leaders at the White House in Washington March 1, 2013. REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque

President Barack Obama speaks about the sequester after a meeting with congressional leaders at the White House in Washington March 1, 2013.

Credit: Reuters/Kevin Lamarque

Related Topics

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Barack Obama must work with a deeply skeptical partner as he tries to undo painful spending cuts and set U.S. finances on a more sustainable course: the liberal wing of his own party.

While Republicans have dug in their heels against further tax increases, many of Obama's fellow Democrats have refused to consider cuts to popular health and retirement programs that are projected to eat up a growing slice of the nation's resources.

As a result, the lion's share of deficit-reduction efforts so far - apart from tax increases - have come from cuts to military and domestic programs, including the $85 billion in reductions that went into effect last week. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office projects that those "sequestration" cuts will eliminate 750,000 jobs.

Obama has said lawmakers in both parties will have to give ground to put an end to the budget wars that have slowed economic growth and dominated Washington for the past two years.

But many of his fellow Democrats already have ruled out the relatively modest changes the president has proposed to "entitlement" benefits such as the Social Security pension program and the Medicare health plan for the elderly.

"I am a supporter of the president, but me being a supporter of the president doesn't mean I'm a servant of the president," said U.S. Representative Keith Ellison of Minnesota, a leader of the party's liberal wing in the House. "He and I don't agree on this, and I'm going to fight him tooth and nail on it."

Ellison and other liberals are not eager to compromise after last year's election, in which Obama defeated Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney, who called for further spending cuts and an overhaul of Medicare.

A majority of House Democrats signed a letter last month telling Obama they would not support cuts to Social Security and Medicare benefits as part of a deal to help tame the U.S. government's debt, now more than $16 trillion. A majority of Senate Democrats signed a similar letter in December, rejecting cuts to Social Security.

Powerful labor unions and other outside liberal groups also are pushing Congress to leave benefits untouched.

That stance could complicate Obama's efforts to build what he has called a "caucus of common sense" that could pair modest benefit cuts with reduced tax breaks for the wealthy to try to reduce the annual budget deficit and start to control the national debt.

Republicans have controlled the House since 2011, but they have needed Democrats' support to pass budget deals.

'DRIVING DEFICITS, CRUSHING INVESTMENTS'

Democrats' reluctance to touch entitlement programs also means that their other priorities, from science to transportation programs, will bear the brunt of spending cuts.

According to the centrist Democratic think tank Third Way, job losses from last week's "sequester" cuts will fall heaviest on scientists, engineers and construction workers - the type of workers whose labor is particularly important to boosting U.S. productivity.

"There is no doubt that to solve our budget problems more revenue is needed, but we cannot ignore that entitlements are also driving deficits and crushing investments in the next generation," Third Way policy adviser David Brown wrote in a report last week.

Social Security and Medicare are among the most popular services that the U.S. government provides.

As the automatic spending cuts loomed last month, the Pew Research Center found that only 10 percent of Americans would support scaling back Social Security and just 15 percent would back cuts to Medicare. By contrast, 48 percent said foreign aid should be cut.

But foreign aid and other programs that are funded annually by Congress are not the problem. Such "discretionary" spending is projected by the end of the decade to fall to its lowest level in 50 years as a share of the economy, because of spending caps put in place by a 2011 budget deal.

By contrast, Social Security, Medicare, and long-term care programs financed through Medicaid are projected to expand dramatically as the population ages in coming decades.

The Republican-controlled House twice has approved a budget plan that would try to rein in Medicare by offering participants a voucher to buy private coverage, but the measure failed to clear the Democrat-controlled Senate in 2011 and 2012.

The plan's author, House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan, is expected to unveil a new version on Wednesday aimed at achieving more dramatic savings.

Democrats, including Obama, have rejected Ryan's approach on the grounds that it would force retirees to shoulder more of the their healthcare costs.

They argue that retirees on fixed incomes who depend on Social Security and Medicare should not be forced to bear the brunt of deficit reduction.

TOUCHING ENTITLEMENTS 'A DEAL KILLER'

Obama has put other, more modest benefit cuts on the table.

Notably, he has proposed changing the way Social Security and other benefits are indexed to inflation to slow their growth over time, a concept known as "chained CPI" in Washington-speak.

The savings could be substantial: $340 billion over 10 years, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

Obama has floated a modified version to shield the neediest beneficiaries that would save $130 billion over 10 years, but many of his fellow Democrats say they cannot support it because it would cut too deeply into retiree payments over time.

"I'm going to read anything that's sent over here, but it's a deal killer for me," said Ellison, the Democrat who co-chairs the House Progressive Caucus.

Obama also has proposed requiring wealthy retirees to pay more for their Medicare coverage, which would save about $35 billion over 10 years.

That may reflect the progressive notion that wealthier Americans should pay more for government services, but many liberal lawmakers and interest groups say it could undermine Medicare's financial health and political popularity if it leads affluent retirees to abandon the program.

They also say it would snare too many middle-income retirees in coming years because it would not be indexed to inflation.

"What we're really talking about ... is getting more money from middle-class people by asking them to pay higher premiums, and that's not progressive," said Kelly Ross, deputy policy director at the AFL-CIO federation of labor unions.

Analysts say Obama will have a hard enough time persuading Republicans to agree to any tax increases after he won $600 billion in more revenue in January.

If Obama is going to do so, he'll need to put entitlement cuts on the table, they say.

"It's astonishing that more people haven't pointed this out, that a balanced package would have to include something" on benefits, said Greg Valliere, an analyst with Potomac Research Group. "I think that's the only way we could break the logjam."

(Editing by David Lindsey and Lisa Shumaker)

FILED UNDER:
We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/
Comments (18)
GRRR wrote:
Come on Reuters, stop being babies and learn something about how Social Security is financed! Stop repeating the fallacy that Social Security adds to the federal debt; cutting Social Security won’t save a single dime out of the general budget.

Is it that hard for grown adult journalists and editors to bother to do just a little bit of research?

Mar 06, 2013 2:10am EST  --  Report as abuse
Levendi wrote:
GRRR, journalism is dead and 6th grade math is beyond the general public and everyone in Washington DC. You cannot spend more than you take in. You can’t borrow 47 cents on every dollar you spend otherwise you’ll go bankrupt at some point. Simple? The more money you print and put into circulation the less it’s worth, so you need more of it to pay your bills. It’s amazing that we cannot get any truth, all we can get is smoke and mirrors in the news and from our politicians. Is there no on in America that can step up and lead, that can articulate basic facts?

Mar 06, 2013 3:39am EST  --  Report as abuse
juliewolves wrote:
There’s a false premise in this article. It pits wealthy Americans against retirees and the shards that are left of the middle class. Actually it’s the so-called 98% who are fighting for their living and their dignity against the corporations. Don’t forget – “Corporations are people.” So let these corporations pay their fair share. They’ve skated for over thirty years, making immense profits, and the wealth of the 98$ has decreased more and more each of those years. Time to pay up.

Mar 06, 2013 4:00am EST  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.

A tourist takes a plunge as she swims at Ngapali Beach, a popular tourist site, in the Thandwe township of the Rakhine state, October 6, 2013. Picture taken October 6, 2013. REUTERS/Soe Zeya Tun (MYANMAR - Tags: SOCIETY) - RTR3FOI0

Where do you want to go?

We look at when to take trips, budget considerations and the popularity of multigenerational family travel.   Video