In their most recent act of bipartisanship, “Democratic” Senators Coons and Carper voted in favor of a Republican amendment that sets the stage for Social Security benefits cuts.
The amendment, submitted by Orrin Hatch (R-UT), directs the President to submit legislation to Congress “to protect current beneficiaries of the Social Security program and prevent the insolvency of the program.”
“Every year we delay makes it more difficult to implement gradual reforms to Social Security that will allow us to avoid abrupt changes for future beneficiaries,” said Hatch. “Delay makes it more difficult for hard-working Americans to gradually adjust their plans and makes it more likely that they will be hit with an uncertain blow to benefits or more taxes. This is an issue that can be best addressed through a bipartisan dialogue. And, this amendment will allow for bipartisan efforts to generate the long-term sustainability of the Social Security system and protect benefits for current and future beneficiaries. It’s a win-win.”
As Daily Kos Diarist “Liberty Equality Fraternity and Trees” points out, the language of “current beneficiaries,” “gradual reforms,” “bipartisan dialogue,” and “insolvency” in his press release and his amendment signals the true intent here.
That was Bernie Sanders’s reading of it as well:
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) slammed the amendment, saying while it protects current Social Security recipients “if you’re 63 years of age, 64 years of age, 65 years of age, watch out. They’re going after you.”
The amendment passed 75 to 24 with Carper and Coons providing their usual “Bipartisan” cover for conservative mischief.
The irony is that they also voted for an amendment that would protect social security. As if to muddy the record, both voted in favor of an amendment offered by Ron Wyden (D-OR), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), and Bernie Sanders (I-VT).
That amendment would have created a point of order against legislation that would cut benefits, raise the retirement age, or privatize social security. In short – any proposal to weaken Social Security would have automatically require a 60-vote threshold for passage.
The amendment failed with a vote of 51 to 49.