Democrats Are Warming to Obama Connection - New York Times

But with the economy slowly crawling back to life, a shift in messaging at the White House and a Republican push on social issues, Democrats are accepting — and in some cases openly embracing — the inevitable yoking of their campaigns to Mr. Obama’s as election-year activities accelerate. On Capitol Hill, Democrats have begun to mention Mr. Obama more often and have gone out of their way to publicly back some of his proposals.

Democrats say Mr. Obama’s near monophonic campaigning in recent months — highlighting his differences with Republicans on policies affecting the middle class — is far more resonant in their districts and states than defending the health care law or the stimulus package, issues that have dogged Democrats.

Further, while Republicans spent most of 2011 dominating the national conversation on the federal deficit and seeking the upper hand in Congressional budget battles, Democrats have found themselves this winter on the more popular side of fights, including the recent one over a payroll tax holiday, which they believe Republicans turned into an unforced error for their team.

“I think it’s definitely shifting now,” said Senator Thomas R. Carper, Democrat of Delaware. “In part it’s just because the economy is improving. I don’t know that it’s springtime just yet, but the wind is coming back.”

This month, Mr. Obama’s pivot into an “all of the above” energy policy platform, one more or less lifted from the Republicans’ 2008 campaign, is something moderate Democrats, many of whom support things like the proposed Keystone XL pipeline that Mr. Obama has blocked, are also happy to hear.

“His focus on building jobs and restoring some stability in the middle class is what I have been focusing on all along,” said Representative Timothy H. Bishop of New York. “In 2010 the conversation was almost exclusively about health care, and there was so much emotion and so much fury. I think the climate is much calmer now.”

Republicans believe strongly that Mr. Obama remains a significant liability in states like Missouri, Montana and North Carolina, all places where Democrats are in jeopardy, as well as many Congressional districts where his policies remain radioactive.

Further, creeping gas prices, an escalation of the conflict in the Middle East or other factors could create severe head winds for  Mr. Obama this year.

“By all means we would encourage Claire McCaskill, Jon Tester, Tim Kaine and all other Senate Democratic candidates to campaign on the president’s record of massive government mandates, record spending, lost jobs and a $15 trillion debt,” said Brian Walsh, a spokesman for the National Republican Senatorial Committee.

While it is far too early to see if Democratic incumbents are willing to actually campaign with Mr. Obama, the evidence of their willingness to align with him is legislatively apparent.

For instance, Senator Bob Casey of Pennsylvania, who last year proclaimed the president’s large jobs package as too big to get his vote, happily picked off the payroll tax cut component of the bill and made it his own. Mr. Tester, in a tough re-election race in Montana, also focused on one piece of the bill — a tax break for employers who hire veterans, which would be paid for by a surtax on millionaires — and claimed it for his own.

Some lawmakers are seizing on what they perceive as the best part of Mr. Obama’s record, and running with it, rhetorically. On the House floor recently, Representative Steve Cohen of Tennessee said, “I want to say that I’m proud to support President Obama, his jobs plan, his efforts to maintain the automobile industry strong in America, and to support him in Libya and root out Qaddafi and Al Qaeda in other places.”

Joyce Beatty, who won the Democratic primary Tuesday for a House seat in Ohio, has already sided with the president, ending a recent campaign advertisement with a shot of herself and Mr. Obama. 

Senator Mark Begich of Alaska, who in September called Mr. Obama’s proposal to eliminate tax breaks for oil companies “frustrating,” said last week that he was buoyed to hear Mr. Obama shift the conversation to his campaign-year energy policy, which includes increased domestic oil production.

“He goes down to Florida and actually mentions energy?” Mr. Begich said. “To me, that’s what we should be focused on. We should talk about what middle-class Americans care about, and that’s jobs, the economy, their tax rates.”

Mr. Begich, who is not up for re-election this year, even said that the much-maligned stimulus package had been good for his state, and that he was happy to embrace it. “I am the only member of the delegation that voted for the recovery money,” he said. “You bet I talk about it.”

Many Republicans also concede that Mr. Obama is not quite as effective a symbol as he was in 2010, and that they will have to focus harder on specific policies where they part ways with Democrats to get their message out. “It’s probably not as much as a liability as you saw in 2010,” said Representative Charlie Dent of Pennsylvania, about ties between Congressional Democrats and the White House.

Democrats also see opportunities to seize on cases in which Republicans have distanced themselves from some of the positions of Mitt Romney, a leading Republican presidential candidate. In Michigan, Representative Fred Upton and other Republicans have said they disagree with Mr. Romney’s criticism of the auto industry bailout, and in foreclosure-wracked Nevada, Representative Joe Heck said he was not on the same page as Mr. Romney when it came to housing policies.

Of course, Democrats will not have a choice; Republicans are already running campaigns that will link them to the president in a negative way. “I think without any question my opponent will, whether it is true or not, connect me to him,” Mr. Bishop said. So they say they are trying to embrace what they can, and worry less about what they cannot stop.

“I try to control the things I can control, and the things I can’t control I just need to be honest about.” Mrs. McCaskill said. “In many ways the president can be an asset, in some ways he is definitely not an asset in my state. It’s a mixed bag.”

The recent drop in Missouri’s unemployment rate, she hopes, will help her in areas of her state where Mr. Obama remains unpopular and is likely to run behind this year. “I really think come November, if most Missourians are paying attention, they are going to realize it’s in their best economic interest to re-elect the president,” she said. “And me, of course.”

Other Democrats said they would try to cherry-pick Mr. Obama’s campaign themes, while still keeping their physical distance.

“The message that the president is running on is a message that most Democrats can get on board with now,” said Representative Daniel Lipinski, who represents a more conservative district in and around Chicago. “The people need a champion now, and that’s more and more the president.”

However, asked if he was longing to campaign with Mr. Obama, Mr. Lipinski said, “I am not answering that question.”

View the original article here

Democrats Oppose Talk of Cuts to Social Security - New York Times

As word spread that Mr. Obama was considering large savings from the use of a different measure of inflation to reduce the annual cost-of-living adjustment in Social Security benefits, Democrats joined with lobbyists for older Americans to reject the idea. Representative Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, the senior Democrat on the House Budget Committee, said Democrats would oppose changes in Social Security benefits as part of the deficit-reduction talks.

“Any discussion of Social Security should be on a separate track,” he said. Representative Nancy Pelosi of California, the House Democratic leader, said, “Any savings should be plowed back into making Social Security stronger.”

Representative Sander M. Levin of Michigan, the top Democrat on the Ways and Means Committee, said, “The proposal would place new burdens on the backs of seniors.”

Representative Xavier Becerra of California, a member of the House Democratic leadership, said, “The cuts in Social Security benefits would grow larger as retirees age, and seniors who rely most on Social Security to pay for basic necessities would receive the biggest benefit cuts.”

On the Senate floor, Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, Democrat of Rhode Island, said Thursday: “Social Security and Medicare benefits should not be on the table. Social Security is not the cause of the deficit, and beneficiaries should not be made to shoulder the burden of deficit reduction.”

In particular, Mr. Whitehouse said, Congress must not “cut benefits through backdoor methods such as lowering the cost-of-living adjustment.”

Republicans are concerned about the growth of entitlement programs, including Social Security and Medicare. Some, like Senator Tom Coburn of Oklahoma, support the idea of an alternative measure of inflation, known as the chain-weighted version of the Consumer Price Index, because they believe it is more accurate. But the party, waiting to see details, has not taken an official stand.

Lobbyists for older Americans were blistering in their criticism of the proposal, which, according to the Congressional Budget Office, could reduce federal spending by more than $110 billion over 10 years.

“This is nothing more than a backdoor benefit cut that Washington hopes Americans won’t notice or understand,” said Max Richtman, executive vice president of the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare.

He said Social Security beneficiaries did not receive a cost-of-living adjustment this year or in 2010 because inflation, as measured by the standard Consumer Price Index, was so low.

AARP, the lobby for older Americans, said last month that it might be open to modest reductions in Social Security benefits for future recipients. But A. Barry Rand, the group’s chief executive, tried to quash the inflation adjustment idea, saying that “AARP will not accept any cuts of any kind to Social Security as part of a deal” to reduce the deficit and increase the debt limit.

The proposal under discussion would affect current and future beneficiaries. Any move to exempt current beneficiaries would reduce the amount of savings.

Supporters of the proposal argue that the current measure of inflation overstates increases in the cost of living because it does not adequately reflect how, when faced with higher prices, consumers change their buying habits, substituting cheaper items for more expensive ones.

On the other hand, some economists say the current measure understates the impact of inflation on older Americans, who tend to spend more of their income on health care. Medical prices have been rising faster than the overall price index.

Budget negotiators are also discussing a proposal that would use the alternative measure of inflation to adjust income tax brackets and other provisions of the tax code, like the standard deduction and the personal exemption amount.

This proposal would raise nearly $60 billion over 10 years, as more Americans would find themselves in higher tax brackets.

Republicans, adamantly opposed to any form of tax increase, worry about an increase that might result from using the new measure of inflation to adjust tax brackets.

Representative Robert E. Andrews, Democrat of New Jersey, said he would consider changes in the Social Security benefit formula only as part of a giant deficit-reduction package that included substantial new revenues and cuts in military spending. If the alternative measure of inflation is more accurate, he said, it would be “logical, consistent and desirable” to use it in adjusting tax brackets and Social Security benefits.

Grover G. Norquist, a prominent conservative strategist who is president of Americans for Tax Reform, said he saw a big difference. Reducing Social Security benefits would be a cut in spending, and “that would be fine,” Mr. Norquist said. But he said using the new price index to set tax brackets would be a tax increase, in violation of the pledge made by Republican leaders.

Stephen C. Goss, the chief actuary of Social Security, said the alternative inflation measure could reduce annual cost-of-living adjustments so the benefit for a retiree turning 85 in 2035 would be about 7 percent lower. The cuts are cumulative and would have a larger effect on older beneficiaries, who depend more on Social Security as a source of income.

Congressional Democrats said that using a different version of the Consumer Price Index could also reduce Medicare payment rates for some health care providers, including ambulatory surgical centers, clinical laboratories and suppliers of durable medical equipment like wheelchairs and respirators.

In addition, they said, the proposal could eventually increase the number of Medicare beneficiaries who must pay higher premiums because they have incomes above a certain level — $85,000 for individuals and $170,000 for married couples this year.

View the original article here