Obama says he cannot guarantee Social Security checks will go out on August 3

July 12, 2011 12:30 PM

By

Corbett B. Daly

• 
  
• 
  
• 
  

• 
  
• 
  
• 
  

• 
  
• 
  
• 
  

• 
  
• 
  

President Obama on Tuesday said he cannot guarantee that retirees will receive their Social Security checks August 3 if Democrats and Republicans in Washington do not reach an agreement on reducing the deficit in the coming weeks.

"I cannot guarantee that those checks go out on August 3rd if we haven't resolved this issue. Because there may simply not be the money in the coffers to do it," Mr. Obama said in an interview with CBS Evening News anchor Scott Pelley, according to excerpts released by CBS News.

The Obama administration and many economists have warned of economic catastrophe if the United States does not raise the amount it is legally allowed to borrow by August 2.

Lawmakers from both parties want to use the threat of that deadline to work out a broader package on long-term deficit reduction, with Republicans looking to cut trillions of dollars in federal spending, while Democrats are pushing for a more "balanced approach," which would include both spending cuts and increased revenue through taxes.

The Debt Limit fight: A primer

Democratic and Republican lawmakers are expected to hold another round of negotiations with Mr. Obama at the White House Tuesday afternoon on long-term deficit reduction, though talks have yielded little results to date.

Mr. Obama told Pelley "this is not just a matter of Social Security checks. These are veterans checks, these are folks on disability and their checks. There are about 70 million checks that go out."

More from the interview:

Obama: Boehner "would like to do the right thing"
Obama: "Nobody can be messing with our embassy"
Video: Watch more of Obama's comments on the debt limit battle

Mr. Obama's comments followed remarks from the Senate's top Republican, who said Tuesday that he did not see a way for Republicans and Democrats to come to agreement on meaningful deficit reduction as long as Mr. Obama remains in office.

"After years of discussions and months of negotiations, I have little question that as long as this president is in the Oval Office, a real solution is probably unattainable," Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell said in remarks on the Senate floor.

"The president has presented us with three choices: smoke and mirrors, tax hikes, or default. Republicans choose none of the above. I had hoped to do good, but I refuse to do harm. So Republicans will choose a path that actually reflects the will of the people, which is to do the responsible thing and ensure that the government doesn't default on its obligations," he said.

Mr. Obama has repeatedly said he wants a deal that would allow the U.S. to avoid confronting the issue again until after the 2012 elections and vowed on Monday that he would "not sign a 30-day or a 60-day or a 90-day extension."

"This the United States of America and, you know, we don't manage our affairs in three-month increments. You know, we don't risk U.S. default on our obligations because we can't put politics aside," Mr. Obama told reporters at the White House yesterday.

Confused about the debt limit fight? Here's a primer
McConnell unveils debt "back up plan" that gives Obama more power
Pawlenty: Obama scaring people into higher taxes

July 12, 2011 12:30 PM

Obama says he cannot guarantee Social Security checks will go out on 

 August 3

By

Corbett B. Daly

July 12, 2011 12:30 PM
PRINT TEXT
Obama says he cannot guarantee Social Security checks will go out on August 3
By Corbett B. Daly Topics Economy ,White House ,Congress
2421 Comments
Have Your Say
Email Story
Send to a Friend
8789 Shares
Tell Your Friends
Tweet This
Tweet This
More
Share It

President Obama on Tuesday said he cannot guarantee that retirees will receive their Social Security checks August 3 if Democrats and Republicans in Washington do not reach an agreement on reducing the deficit in the coming weeks.

"I cannot guarantee that those checks go out on August 3rd if we haven't resolved this issue. Because there may simply not be the money in the coffers to do it," Mr. Obama said in an interview with CBS Evening News anchor Scott Pelley, according to excerpts released by CBS News.

The Obama administration and many economists have warned of economic catastrophe if the United States does not raise the amount it is legally allowed to borrow by August 2.

Lawmakers from both parties want to use the threat of that deadline to work out a broader package on long-term deficit reduction, with Republicans looking to cut trillions of dollars in federal spending, while Democrats are pushing for a more "balanced approach," which would include both spending cuts and increased revenue through taxes.

The Debt Limit fight: A primer

Democratic and Republican lawmakers are expected to hold another round of negotiations with Mr. Obama at the White House Tuesday afternoon on long-term deficit reduction, though talks have yielded little results to date.

Mr. Obama told Pelley "this is not just a matter of Social Security checks. These are veterans checks, these are folks on disability and their checks. There are about 70 million checks that go out."

More from the interview:

Obama: Boehner "would like to do the right thing"
Obama: "Nobody can be messing with our embassy"
Video: Watch more of Obama's comments on the debt limit battle

Mr. Obama's comments followed remarks from the Senate's top Republican, who said Tuesday that he did not see a way for Republicans and Democrats to come to agreement on meaningful deficit reduction as long as Mr. Obama remains in office.

"After years of discussions and months of negotiations, I have little question that as long as this president is in the Oval Office, a real solution is probably unattainable," Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell said in remarks on the Senate floor.

What Do You Think?

Will lawmakers forge a debt deal by Aug. 2?
YesNoNot sureVOTEView Results
Still, McConnell said Republicans would "do the responsible thing" to avoid default, suggesting that a deal on the debt ceiling could be reached without a "real" deficit reduction package.

"The president has presented us with three choices: smoke and mirrors, tax hikes, or default. Republicans choose none of the above. I had hoped to do good, but I refuse to do harm. So Republicans will choose a path that actually reflects the will of the people, which is to do the responsible thing and ensure that the government doesn't default on its obligations," he said.

Mr. Obama has repeatedly said he wants a deal that would allow the U.S. to avoid confronting the issue again until after the 2012 elections and vowed on Monday that he would "not sign a 30-day or a 60-day or a 90-day extension."

"This the United States of America and, you know, we don't manage our affairs in three-month increments. You know, we don't risk U.S. default on our obligations because we can't put politics aside," Mr. Obama told reporters at the White House yesterday.

Confused about the debt limit fight? Here's a primer
McConnell unveils debt "back up plan" that gives Obama more power
Pawlenty: Obama scaring people into higher taxes

Boehner: Talks failed over taxing the rich

By Laura Conaway

  -  

Tue Jul 12, 2011 1:02 PM EDT

House Speaker John Boehner told the Republican caucus today why his talks with President Obama broke down. A big part of it is that President Obama wants to make taxes more progressive, meaning the rich would pay more. Mr. Boehner is more in line with Senator Orrin Hatch, who says folks on the bottom don't pay enough.

From Mr. Boehner's remarks, as reported by NBC's Luke Russert:

"I wanted tax reform that broadens the base, simplifies the code, and lowers rates, to boost economic growth.  The president could not accept that because he wanted to increase the 'progressivity' of the current system.  This is where things began to break down."

The full text is after the jump. Above, a Reuters chart by way of Felix Salmon -- note the employment tax, which is paid by anyone who has a job at even a very low wage. People who don't owe federal income tax still typically pay a range of others like a sales tax or the Social Security tax.  Below, a chart from Citizens for Tax Justice, by way of Ezra Klein.

Speaker Boehner's full address to the House Republican Caucus, as reported by NBC:

"You all saw Friday's jobs report, and you know our economy is struggling to create jobs.  On top of that, we face a crushing burden of debt - driven by out of control government spending.  In three decades - our debt will grow to more than three times the size of our entire economy. We've had high levels of debt before - including WWII - but those were temporary increases in the size of government.  The trajectory today is catastrophic.  There is no way our economy can sustain this explosive growth of government.

"We also have a tax code that is making our country less competitive.  We can't solve our budget challenges unless we address the growth of our entitlements, specifically our health care entitlements.

"These problems are caused by government.  They're hurting our future, and hurting our ability to create jobs.  I came here because I wanted to address problems like this.  So did you.  All of us did.  Unfortunately, we have a White House that doesn't share our seriousness about dealing with these problems. 

"Over the past couple weeks I engaged the president in a conversation directly about the possibility of an agreement that would tackle all of these problems.  This would be an agreement built on the solid work done by the Biden group, negotiated by Leader Cantor.  I pushed the president to go even further, and lock arms with us and make structural reforms to all three entitlement programs.  The president said he was willing to talk about it.  He said he was willing to talk about reforming Medicare, Social Security, and Medicaid -- but in order to talk about that, he had a list of tax increases that would have to be a part of it.  I told the president that tax hikes were off the table, but we could talk about tax reform -- because comprehensive tax reform could generate additional revenue through economic growth.  He was willing to talk about corporate tax reform.  I told him we have to talk about personal AND corporate tax reform, because if you don't do both, you leave out the small businesses who often pay at the personal rate, and therefore would be at a disadvantage.  He then asked for a 10-year revenue number.  I said it should be no more than 19% of GDP - about the same level as the House-passed budget. . .with fewer tax rates and a top rate less than it is today.  He said he that to go there, we would have to make permanent the bottom four Bush tax rates.  I said I could only talk about that if there was a guarantee that tax reform with three personal rates -- and a top rate lower than the current rate -- would be enacted by the first quarter of next year.  This would guarantee the decoupling would be an irrelevant political statement because a new code would be in place before the scheduled tax hikes could take effect.  I wanted tax reform that broadens the base, simplifies the code, and lowers rates, to boost economic growth.  The president could not accept that because he wanted to increase the 'progressivity' of the current system.  This is where things began to break down.  And this is where there's been some confusion. 

"Let me be crystal clear on this: at no time, ever, during this discussion did I agree to let taxes go up.  I haven't spent 20 years here fighting tax increases just to throw it all away in one moment.  What I did do was lay out the conditions that would be necessary to make sure there would be no tax hikes.  As the week went on, it became clear that the president wouldn't accept those conditions.  It became clear that they weren't serious about structural reforms to the entitlement programs.  It became clear that they would only do entitlement reform if it came along with tax HIKES.  It became clear that their vision of tax reform was to maintain many of the current code's flawed features.  That's when I walked away. 

"Am I angry about it?  I sure as hell am.  I believe we are missing a great opportunity.  We all know the problems we face as a nation.  We've acted with courage this year, passing a budget that begins to address them.  At the White House yesterday, when the president talked about 'shared sacrifices,' I noted that our members weren't exactly doing cartwheels over daring to make reforms to Social Security and Medicare.  The president said Republicans had already voted to do that.   My response: 'Well excuse us for trying to lead, Mr. President.'

"The agreement we talked about is no longer operative -- not because we weren't willing to lead, but because the White House wasn't willing to listen to the American people.  Like it or not, though, we still have to do something about the debt limit.  In a few moments, the Majority Leader is going to show you the options that have been discussed in our meetings the last few days.  As you know, we've planted three 'stakes' in the ground:

·    Cuts must be larger than the hike

·    There must be restraints on future spending

·    There cannot be any tax hikes.

"These are the stakes, and they've always been the stakes.  And I want to be clear about something else: I support a Balanced Budget Amendment, and we're going to fight for one.  Any debt limit bill we pass will have to include enforceable caps on future spending -- and I can't think of any better way to enforce those caps than a constitutional amendment requiring Washington to balance the budget.

"The president keeps talking about the need for a 'balanced' approach.  He thinks 'balance' means 'I spend, you pay.'  Most Americans would beg to differ.  They would say a 'balanced' agreement is this: the president gets his debt limit hike, and the American people get spending cuts larger than the hike.  That's what we're going to fight for -- the will of the people.  Adding tax increases to the mix doesn't "balance" anything.  If the president is going to take his case to the American people, I am going to do the same."

How assassin used ruse to kill Karzai brother

Ahmed Wali Karzai, the provincial council chairman for Kandahar and President Hamid Karzai's half brother, prepares to vote in the presidential elections in this Aug. 20, 2009 file photo.

By Richard Engel, NBC News Chief Foreign Correspondent

CAIRO – Ahmed Wali Karzai did not take his security lightly. As a brother of Afghan President Hamid Karzai and one of the most powerful men in Afghanistan, only a few people were able to get close to him, and even fewer would have been able tocarry out Tuesday’s assassination. It was a well-planned attack. It was an act of betrayal.

According to Afghan sources, the killer, Sardar Mohammad, was a member of Karzai’s extended family clan, the Popalzai. He’d worked in security for the Karzai family for more than a decade and was once a personal bodyguard for another one of Karzai’s brothers.

On Tuesday morning Mohammad came to Ahmed Wali Karzai’s home in Kandahar – which doubles as an office – ready to kill.

Trusted ally
Mohammad was more than a bodyguard for Ahmed Wali Karzai, often referred to by his initials AWK. Mohammad was one of AWK’s most trusted security lieutenants. Mohammad helped arrange security, set up checkpoint in Kandahar and move personnel. He was not a close protection man, not a bouncer who kept crowds away, but a trusted midlevel security coordinator with years of experience and family ties. At least two of Mohammad’s family members are part of President Hamid Karzai’s own Presidential Protection Service, similar to the Afghan Secret Service.

According to Afghan sources, this long-standing relationship was critical to the assassination. Tuesday morning, AWK was in a meeting in his home with Afghan elders. AWK held similar meetings almost every day. Afghan sources say that Mohammad entered the meeting. Mohammad said he had an urgent matter that he needed to discuss with AWK.

The implication was that it was a personal issue that couldn’t be discussed in front of the others in the room. Mohammad said he needed to talk to AWK for “just two minutes” and asked if AWK could excuse himself so they could talk. Very few people would have been able to walk into a meeting with AWK, interrupt it, and ask him to break away for a few minutes. Only a trusted few had that kind of clout. Mohammad was one of them.

Mohammad was also carrying a file in his hands. The assassin’s gun was apparently hidden in or behind the file. AWK excused himself from his meeting. The two men walked into a nearby room. Once inside, Mohammad pulled out his gun and shot AWK in the head and chest. The shot to the head killed him. There may have also been a third shot, but it has yet to be confirmed. After the shots were heard, security guards killed the assassin. Mohammad couldn’t have hoped to escape.

In this 2010 photo Afghan President Hamid Karzai is met by his half brother Ahmad Wali Karzai, left, in Argandab district of Kandahar province'Good friend' kills Afghan president's half-brother
Why was he killed?
So why did Mohammad do it? The motive is perhaps the biggest mystery.

The Taliban have claimed responsibility and say they spent a long time – perhaps years – preparing Mohammad for the mission. It is possible. The Taliban certainly had an interest in killing him.

AWK was a main powerbroker in Kandahar. He worked with the Americans. He’d been linked to the drugtrade. He’d been paid by the CIA. From the Taliban’s perspective, AWK was a rival and a legitimate target. His death would only make them stronger.

The killing also, according to Afghan officials, may help Pakistan. For several years, Pakistan, President Hamid Karzai and the Taliban have been involved in peace talks to devise a power-sharing agreement. The United States has followed the talks closely, at times facilitating the secretive peace process. AWK was a key player in the talks. He was considered a tough and effective negotiator. There was a recent round of talks in the United Arab Emirates.

By killing AWK, the Taliban and Pakistan’s position in the negotiations has become stronger. Just like in a business deal, if one negotiator is especially strong, killing him helps the other parties.

But Afghan sources say Mohammad may have also been motivated by family issues or personal vendettas. It will no doubt take a long time to piece it all together. AWK had many enemies. One Afghan source said there could have been a combination of motivations, but that ultimately the aliban benefits because it gains power by removing a rival

Boehner: avoidable economic crash isn’t my problem

July 12, 2011 1:10 PM

By Steve Benen

FacebookTwitterDiggRedditStumbleUponDelicious

The correlation is probably not a coincidence: the more House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) loses control of his caucus, the more he loses his cool.

Burned by the fact that their prescription for reducing the deficit and increasing the national borrowing limit either can’t pass in Congress or doesn’t cut spending enough to warrant, in their minds, a significant debt ceiling hike, House Republicans returned to the Capitol Tuesday to ratchet up their demands, and shirk responsibility for avoiding default.

“Where’s the President’s plan?” asked House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) at a press stakeout after a GOP caucus meeting. “When’s he going to lay his cards on the table? This debt limit increase is his problem.”

Just so we’re clear, in three weeks, the United States will exhaust its ability to pay its bills. The economy will deteriorate and millions of Americans will suffer. John Boehner knows all of this — he’s never even tried to deny the severity of the consequences — and has the ability to prevent it. Indeed, by most measures, he has a legal obligation to protect the full faith and credit of the United States.

But as of today, with the crisis quickly approaching, the Speaker of the House, one of the most powerful officeholders in our system of government, has decided this isn’t his “problem.”

Remember, Republicans still believe they have the high ground on patriotism.

Also note the trajectory of Boehner’s descent into madness. Here’s Boehner in November 2010:

“I’ve made it pretty clear to [my caucus] that as we get into next year, it’s pretty clear that Congress is going to have to deal with [the debt limit]. We’re going to have to deal with it as adults. Whether we like it or not, the federal government has obligations and we have obligations on our part.”

And here’s Boehner in December 2010:

“We’ll have to find a way to help educate members and help people understand the serious problem that would exist if we didn’t do it.”

Here’s Boehner in January 2011:

“[A debt-ceiling default] would be a financial disaster, not only for us, but for the worldwide economy. I don’t think it’s a question that’s even on the table.”

And in case this wasn’t enough, Greg Sargent reminds us that as recently as mid-May, Boehner conceded on national television that raising the debt limit is the “obligation” of both parties, it’s “necessary” for policy reasons, and failure to do so risks “the end of our economy.”

Yet, despite all of this, the Speaker now believes this crisis isn’t his “problem.”

He knows better. We know he knows better. And if the political establishment lets him get away with this garbage, it will only encourage more of this criminal stupidity until our economy crashes in 21 days.

Hagee: President Obama Is A Dictator

Submitted by Brian Tashman on July 12, 2011 - 3:46pm

In an interview on the Daystar show Celebration, John Hagee of the Cornerstone Church said that President Obama is a “dictator” for his actions in Libya. Hagee, a leader in the Religious Right who is involved in organizing Texas Governor Rick Perry’s The Response prayer rally, has previously claimed that Adolf Hitler was a “hunter” sent by God to hunt Jews. “You want to talk about how absolutely insane our government is right now, we are in Libya, the President is in violation of the War Powers Act, he can only stay there 90 days at his word, we’re beyond that,” Hagee said, “Congressmen are suing him trying to get him to stop. This is the actual work, if you will, of a dictator:”

Boehner: Debt Ceiling Increase Obama's Problem

Published July 12, 2011

| FoxNews.com

• 
  
• 
  

AP

House Speaker John Boehner speaks at a news conference on Capitol Hill in Washington July 12.

House Speaker John Boehner is turning up the heat on President Obama, calling the debt-ceiling increase "his problem" and putting the onus on him to present a deficit-reduction plan that can pass Congress. 

Republicans in both chambers had tough words for the administration ahead of another White House sit-down Tuesday afternoon. On the Senate floor, GOP Leader Mitch McConnell accused the president and his party of "deliberate deception." 

The comments may reflect increasing pressure from rank-and-file Republicans to press for deeper spending cuts and not cave in to the administration's call for tax hikes

"The House Republicans have a plan. We passed our budget back in the spring, outlined our priorities. Where's the president's plan? When's he going to lay his cards on the table?" Boehner said. "This debt limit increase is his problem and I think it's time for him to lead by putting his plan on the table, something that the Congress can pass." 

House GOP Leader Eric Cantor also accused Obama of trying to impose "greater costs on the people of this country at a time they can least deal with that." 

On the other side, liberal groups and lawmakers are pressuring the president not to cede ground when it comes to entitlements. The rhetoric on both sides has the potential to complicate the latest marathon push to strike a deal and raise the debt ceiling. 

Obama and Vice President Biden plan to meet Tuesday afternoon with lawmakers from both parties, following up on back-to-back meetings since Sunday. The talks so far have failed to yield a compromise ahead of what the administration claims is an Aug. 2 deadline to raise the $14.3 trillion debt ceiling. 

After Obama privately offered to raise the Medicare eligibility age from 65 to 67, liberal Democrats and advocacy groups cried foul. 

Rep. Raul Grijalva, D-Ariz., told Fox News such cuts would be a political and fiscal "mistake." 

One liberal group, the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, immediately blasted out an email to supporters urging them to sign a petition to the Obama campaign threatening to withhold support in 2012 if he cuts Social Security, Medicare or Medicaid. 

House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi reiterated that her caucus continues to oppose cuts in Social Security and Medicare as a "piggybank to subsidize tax cuts for the wealthy." 

From the conservative wing, the Club for Growth is also running an ad urging Republicans to "show some spine" and push for more cuts. 

"No debt limit hike without real spending cuts and a Balanced Budget Amendment," the ad says. 

Another appeal from a conservative group sent out on a "Tea Party Alert" email chain Tuesday morning urged Congress not to approve any debt limit increase. 

Obama alluded to this backdrop Monday when, at a morning press conference, he said Boehner's rank-and-file were making things "very difficult." 

Obama suggested his own side would have to compromise too -- something they are loath to do when it comes to potential entitlement cuts. 

"If each side wants 100 percent of what its ideological predispositions are, then we can't get anything done," he said. 

Despite scattered calls from the conservative wing not to raise the debt ceiling at all, Boehner on Monday stressed the importance of doing so. He and other leading Republicans say their chief objection to the current state of talks is an insistence on raising taxes, as well as the Democratic resistance to dealing with entitlements. 

House Budget Committee Chairman Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., sent out a memo after Monday's meeting saying tax hikes would "adversely undercut" two key elements of any fiscal package -- "spending restraint and economic growth." 

"The last time there was a bipartisan budget agreement, it balanced the budget by cutting spending and cutting taxes," Ryan said, referencing the 1997 bipartisan budget agreement. 

Boehner on Monday said the reality is that a deficit-reduction package that raises taxes simply cannot pass the House. 

"Adding tax increases to the equation doesn't balance anything," Boehner said. "The American people understand that tax hikes destroy jobs."