These Democrats Just Voted for a Weaselly Republican Budget Amendment on Social Security

Future Social Security beneficiaries may receive less?

 

During the budget "vote-a-rama" that began in the Senate last night, the Senate voted on two Social Security-related amendments: one good and one weaselly. I think you can guess which one passed and which one didn't.

The good one was an amendment offered by Ron Wyden (D-OR), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), and Bernie Sanders (I-VT) to create a point of order against legislation that would cut benefits, raise the retirement age, or privatize social security. This means that any proposal to weaken Social Security would automatically require a 60-vote threshold for passage.

The amendment failed with a vote of 51 to 49.

One Democrat--Mark Warner (D-VA)--voted with Republicans against it.

Five Republicans--Susan Collins (D-ME), Dean Heller (R-NV), Mark Kirk (R-IL), John McCain (R-AZ), and Rob Portman (R-OH)--joined Democrats in voting for it.

The second amendment--the weaselly one--was submitted by Orrin Hatch (R-UT). Hatch's amendment would direct the President to submit legislation to Congress "to protect current beneficiaries of the Social Security program and prevent the insolvency of the program."

Here is how Hatch spoke of his amendment:

“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.”

The language of "current beneficiaries," "gradual reforms," "bipartisan dialogue," and "insolvency" in his press release and his amendment text should signal his intent here. This is the language that Republicans, as well as too many Democrats, use to talk about cutting Social Security. (Remember the 2012 election?) In other words, it seems to be saying, "Obama, you should submit legislation to us to cut Social Security." It is somewhat vague, but that message seems to be the underlying one here.

This seems to have been Bernie Sanders's read 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."

"This amendment [his own] is very clear, unlike the Hatch amendment, this amendment says we do not support cuts to Social Security," he said.

It is no surprise then that the Democratic caucus split, with more liberal Democrats voting against it and more conservative Democrats voting for it.

The amendment itself passed 75 to 24.

Here are the 22 members of the Democratic caucus who voted for it:

Michael Bennet (D-CO)
Richard Blumenthal (D-CT)
Maria Cantwell (D-WA)
Tom Carper (D-DE)
Chris Coons (D-DE)
Joe Donnelly (D-IN)
Dick Durbin (D-IL)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Heidi Heitkamp (D-ND)
Tim Kaine (D-VA)
Angus King (I-ME)
Amy Klobuchar (D-MN)
Joe Manchin (D-WV)
Claire McCaskill (D-MO)
Chris Murphy (D-CT)
Patty Murray (D-WA)
Harry Reid (D-NV)
Chuck Schumer (D-NY)
Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH)
Debbie Stabenow (D-MI)
Jon Tester (D-MT)
Mark Warner (D-VA)

And here are the 24 who voted against it:

Tammy Baldwin (D-WI)
Cory Booker (D-NJ)
Barbara Boxer (D-CA)
Sherrod Brown (D-OH)
Ben Cardin (D-MD)
Bob Casey (D-PA)
Al Franken (D-MN)
Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY)
Martin Heinrich (D-NM)
Mazie Hirono (D-HI)
Pat Leahy (D-VT)
Ed Markey (D-MA)
Bob Menendez (D-NJ)
Jeff Merkley (D-OR)
Barbara Mikulski (D-MD)
Bill Nelson (D-FL)
Gary Peters (D-MI)
Jack Reed (D-RI)
Bernie Sanders (I-VT)
Brian Schatz (D-HI)
Tom Udall (D-NM)
Elizabeth Warren (D-MA)
Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI)
Ron Wyden (D-OR)

Budget amendments are all non-binding, but they are still intended for signaling.

These Democrats Just Voted for a Weaselly Republican Budget Amendment on Social Security