The pantomime continues. NRCC Chairman Greg Walden (R-OR) came out of the box swinging at Obama’s Chained-CPI proposal and then doubled down on his criticisms when first questioned about them. But, so far, that has earned him the promise of a primary challenge from the Club for Growth plus a reprimand from Speaker Boehner, Majority Leader Eric Cantor, and even MSNBC host Joe Scarborough. If Walden doesn’t recant and shut up, there will no possible deal on entitlements.
“I’ve made it clear that I disagreed with what Chairman Walden said,” Boehner said, noting that he has spoken to Walden personally. “This is the least we must do to begin to solve the problem of Social Security.”
Cantor also spoke with Walden, and his spokesman said Cantor believes Obama’s “chained CPI” reform — which is at the heart of his entitlement changes — should be on the table.
“The leader believes chained CPI is one reform that must be considered in order to save Social Security for today’s seniors and future generations,” the spokesman, Rory Cooper, said.
“We always knew Greg Walden had a liberal record, but he really cemented it with his public opposition to even modest entitlement reform,” Club president Chris Chocola said in a statement released shortly before Boehner’s news conference.
SCARBOROUGH: I’m worried about long-term debt and I’m worried about my party being responsible. Bring up what makes me so angry, I don’t know what to do with my myself. Oh my god, this is unbelievable…
…Let me just say now. Anybody, any republican, any democrat that runs against responsible rational solutions to take care of our long-term debt is selling out our children, is stealing from the next generation. Its generational theft and for republicans to do this is beyond shameless. They did it in 2010. And to tell the president — we have been busting his chops for months, put it out there. Be responsible. The president has finally — he just tips his toe in the water and Greg Walden comes swinging. This is shameless. I know Greg. I like Greg. But I’m just telling you, any republican — you know what? I got to talk to Phil Griffin. I got to see if I can start a PAC and I can Bloomberg these republicans and democrats that demagogued this. This is pathetic.
Tell me again how the Republicans are going to get so much mileage over Social Security.
Now you’re just making me laugh. The Club for Growth has about as much relevance to how the 2014 Republican campaign is going to be run as the Progressive Democrats of America has to the Dem campaign. They certainly didn’t let the entitlement-reform enthusiasts stop them form grandstanding about “Obama’s Medicare cuts”, which had a measurable effect in 2010.
Wait wait wait…the Club for Growth is a fringe player in Republican politics?
Really?
You keep going with that forced laughter, it it will allow you to pretend your prediction isn’t falling down around your ears.
Boo:
Glad to see you’re taking the side of the oligarchs:
http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2013/04/rallying-troops-wall-street-charm.html
Read it all, the whole thing. And JoeScar? Is that whose side you’re taking now? You really are becoming pathetic. I’m sure DFA must really be proud.
Yeah, I am taking JoeScar’s side.
My point is that they own chained-CPI. They are all on the record. So, all this talk about how we’re going to get killed with Soc Security ads in 2014 is ridiculous. They might try it, but they’d try it anyway.
The point it to get a deal, not to score political points. Even the GOP leadership seems to understand that. But progressives believe nothing will get done, and that it is better that way.
It’s not better that way. The sequester is more destructive than chained-CPI with protections.
Well, I guess we’ll see if Walden’s comments represent a winning political message or not. There are recent examples of R campaign strategies that contradict or obscure their policy objectives. Whether chained cpi is better than the sequester impact is in the eye of the voter. The macro message, IMO, is that a Dem president is signing on to SS benefit cuts. Maybe these cuts are the least harmful of a lot of bad options, but the President and his party often get the credit or the blame regardless if that is a reasonable view.
Who created the sequester? Obama. Why? To force a deal on entitlements because the debt limit “forcing” didn’t work.
So now it’s “what’s worse? This or the sequester?”
Meanwhile, the WH is saying, “What’s worse? Us doing it now, or waiting for the GOP to win and they do it?”
Which is it, because it sure as fuck can’t be both.
I have a sister from Florida who is to the right of Genghis Khan. She belongs to the Daughters of the Confederacy. A couple times a week I get bizarre posts on Facebook.
First off, low information reactionaries believe Obama caused the Sequestration. They just do. They’ll blame Obama for cutting Social Security even (as I suspect) his budget quickly disappears.
I believe that a part of the 2006 elections were about Dubya talking about the file drawer where there was no Social Security money. Remember that one?
It was stupid. The best that can come of any of this is to be with the people (who want Social Security) and hope demographics and extremism whittles down the Grand Old Party.
I really see no benefit for Obama or other Dems from that budget. None.
Look at the collapse in Republican approval during and after the fiscal cliff talks (when Obama first pulled this stunt). That was late-summer 2011, exactly the time when the Tea Party Republicans, who had won the previous election in a landslide and taken control of the national conversation, saw the media turn against them and their ability to set the national agenda evaporate.
There’s your benefit.
it’s kabuki. This is what a certain wing of the party has wanted for sometime now.
Boehner and GOP leadership are coming in their pants right now.
Who created the sequester? Obama. Why? To force a deal on entitlements because the debt limit “forcing” didn’t work.
Setting aside the theory that the debt-limit showdown was Obama’s doing, you’re arguing that Obama tried to “force” something through by making it contingent on Republicans agreeing to a $1 trillion tax hike, and then upping it to $1.4 trillion when it looked like Boehner might actually try to sell the deal to his caucus.
Man, that Obama really is a terrible negotiator! That’s never going to work.
>The point it to get a deal, not to score political points.
WRONG! The point is to NOT get a deal. No deal is better than cutting social security and or medicare. Jesus – what’s in YOUR bong? I’m not making some unrealistic hippie argument here – I’m speaking for the vast majority of plain old Americans – we don’t want your stinking “entitlement reform”. We want Exxon and the banks to pay their goddamned taxes.
And the sequester?
Not cutting social security and medicare is the baseline – the sequester is another issue.
There’s already a youtube of Obama’s 47% moment:
Barack Obama: “John McCain’s campaign has gone even further, suggesting that the best answer for the growing pressures on Social Security might be to cut cost-of-living adjustments or raise the retirement age. Let me be clear: I will not do either.”
In the 2014 ad it will be followed by something like this:
GOP Announcer: But Obama lied. He cut social security, balancing his reckless budget on the backs of the hard-working seniors who can least afford it and dooming generations of hard-working Americans to poverty in their later years. We need to take back the Senate to protect seniors and the middle class.
“Not cutting social security and medicare is the baseline – the sequester is another issue.”
Wrong. This is Booman’s whole point. The chained CPI part of the budget is conditional on a bunch of other parts of the proposed budget also being passed such as tax increases and a rolling back of the sequester. It’s a package deal. You may think that whole package will not pass in which case nothing will happen and Social Security will continue to be safe from chained CPI. And the sequester will still be there and it will still be hurting the economy.
“Tell me again how the Republicans are going to get so much mileage over Social Security.”
By campaigning on it, of course.
Their little snit now will be a distant memory in a few months when the “Obama wants to kill grandma” ads start rolling out. The both-sides-do-it media won’t call them out, and the Dems’ effort to call them out will be ineffectual as usual.
If they think it’ll help them win the election, they’ll run the Obama-cut-SS ads. And it will help them win the election, so they’ll run them.
And they would have run them anyway. If they want to run them when we have Boehner and Cantor on tape reprimanding their election chairman for talking shit, then that’s fine. But I wouldn’t spend anytime worrying about it.
The ads have more bite when the GOP candidate can be holding the president’s budget in his hand while accusing him of waging war on seniors. They’ve done fine with attacks that made do with much weaker evidence than that.
Responding with some footage of Boehner and Cantor using weasel words that deliberately do not include the soundbyte “I/we support the president’s plan to cut Social Security benefits” will simply not be an effective counter. And as others have pointed out, no one gives a shit what the Club for Growth thinks, really.
The ads are coming, and they’ll work. The rank cynicism and hypocrisy of it all will be mentioned in passing, at best. I hope I’m wrong, but we’ve seen it before.
I think you are being a worry-wart.
Why don’t you try thinking things through.
In order to get any Democrats to vote for this, the thing is going to have to pass. In other words, it will have to be part of a Grand Bargain that is celebrated as a big bipartisan breakthrough and which the GOP as a whole will be seeking to run on, not against.
However, naturally there will be challengers who didn’t have to vote on it one way or the other. They will be the one’s most likely to attack a Democrat for cutting Social Security. But they can only attack Democrats who actually voted for it. Now we are down to a smaller universe.
Another scenario is that it comes to nothing and no one ever votes on it at all. In that case, how much does it hurt a Democrat that the president offered a concession to the Republicans that they didn’t take?
All they have to do is say that they didn’t agree with the president and it was a Republican demand anyway.
This just isn’t a problem.
I’m enjoying the back-and-forth, but telling me I’m not thinking things through is a bit condescending.
Here’s my take on your scenarios – a Grand Bargain, if we get one, (which I continue to believe has a snowball’s chance in the Sahara, but putting that aside) will only be celebrated as a big bipartisan breakthrough among deficit scold gasbags in Washington DC, and only for a week or two before they start complaining about the deficit again. The voters won’t be celebrating cuts to Medicare and Social Security, no matter how much of a thrill it sends up Joe Scarborough’s leg.
So, no, I don’t think a Grand Bargain will be a political asset if we get one. I agree it would shake up the chess board about who voted to cut SS and who didn’t (and some GOPers would be vulnerable themselves), but presumably if it passes, most Democrats voted for the bargain and hence SS cuts – so those Democrats are SOL when the “Obama and candidate X are starving granny” ads roll out.
If it comes to nothing and no one votes on the budget, as I expect, then the leader of the Democratic Party offered Social Security benefit cuts, and the GOP didn’t. The fact that no one actually voted on it will matter very little. It hurts Dem candidates a lot, that’s been my whole point in these discussions.
How did running away from Obamacare work out in 2010? I understand it’s a flawed comparison (ACA passed, the SS cuts likely won’t), but the point is, Dem candidates are, by default, tied to what the president does. They can make the effort to distance themselves and some may pull it off, but it’s a tough spot to start out in and doesn’t always work out very well.
Look, I’m not a “Obama sold us out!!!” chicken little. I usually see the sense in why he does things the way he does, even if I don’t totally agree with it. On this one, I’m trying, I really am, but I just don’t see any positive result from this. Seems like every outcome is a shit sandwich.
I’d really like to know what Biden’s position is on this in terms of any consequences to his own potential campaign.
What did he say during the campaign last year?
If they think it’ll help them win the election, they’ll run the Obama-cut-SS ads. And it will help them win the election, so they’ll run them.
Turgidson, why were the people who made this same prediction in 2011 so completely wrong?
And what is different today that would cause the politics to play out differently?
The GOP doesn’t own chained CPI. The president owns it. He proposed it. The fact that Walden is getting smacked around makes me all the more worried. I hope this budget goes down in fucking flames.
Maybe YOU don’t need social security when you get older Booman -and that must be nice, for you- but I will. And I am not down with benefit cuts, since I going to be poor enough as it is.
And stop calling them “entitlements”. That’s a loaded word, and you know it. They are earned benefits that I (we) paid into and that I am entitled to because I PAID FOR THEM.
You are going to have Social Security benefits.
And the Republicans own it. They want it. If it is going to happen, they have to vote for it.
How do you respond to this, at GOS.
Joan McCarter’s a front-pager at Kos, so i assume she has some level of credibility and isn’t being facetious? I mean, how do you respond to this? Serious question: I am not a policy genius.
I deeply resent the apparent fact that the price of ending the sequester is cutting my earned benefits, no matter who is to blame. Funny how heads you win, tails I lose.
You know, in government there are certain semantic things that people agree on, at least when the cameras are off. Like the difference between cutting a program and slowing its growth.
In this case, what is proposed is not a cut but a slowing of growth. The slowing of growth is caused by a stingier cost of living adjustment. Some people think it’s a more accurate COLA, but others say that isn’t the case for seniors because their costs are harder to shift.
Regardless, the bottom line is that the COLA is stingier, which means that you get less money and it compounds over time, so the longer you live, the more you feel the difference.
That is why, after 10 years, you get a bump. The bump smoothes out the difference, although I still am not clear if everyone gets it or just people determined to be a low-end of the wealth scale. In other words, is the bump means-tested or not? It would make more sense if it was, because that would mean more savings. What’s the point, otherwise?
If you live to be 95, you’ll get another bump, which is insurance against increased end-of-life expenses.
So, overall, there is probably a little more security involved for people in extreme old age. There’s less money overall, but people who are truly dependent on their check will be helped out.
That’s the idea anyway.
Another nifty trick here is that it very quietly winds up raising revenue through the income tax. No ones rates go up. But the brackets are adjusted for inflation more slowly, which means that more of your money could be subject to a higher bracket. It’s a bit regressive in the sense that people making in the 30 to 40 grand range will actually see the biggest percentage of their income taxed in this scenario, but it’s gonna cost those folks about $125/year. Most of the revenue generated will still come from rich folks who will never notice the difference. It allows Republicans to vote for an income tax increase without having to admit it, and it allows Obama to break his middle class tax pledge, also without really having to admit it. That is, of course, assuming that it is a bipartisan deal that many members of both parties support.
thanks for the info. I feel a lot better now.
And by that I mean, a lot better about saying “Social Security cuts? FUCK THAT SHIT.”
So the lower-middle class ($30-$40K) take a hit. Let me tell you man, those people are struggling. I know, I’m in that range.
And as McCarter adds in the original artice:
The GOP only cares about protecting tax cuts for the wealthy. They don’t give a shit if middle class taxes go up, and the more regressive the better. It’s no loss for the GOP.
And we have Obama hiding behind semantics to break his own promise to the middle class.
BTW, men tend to die around 78, women around 81.
Fuck this shit.
I know Kabuki when i see it. I do believe you’re trying to polish a turd.
Oh, it’s a turd.
But you know what else is a turd?
Lotteries to see who gets to go to Head Start.
Again, I call kabuki. And for that matter, disaster capitalism.
We’re seeing the realization of a long-standing goal of the GOP and the DLC/Blue Dog/New Democrat/Third Way wing of the Democratic Party, and no amount of polish is going to make that turd into a gem.
No wonder the GOP wants Walden to shut up. He’s jeopardizing their win.
And even a “Democrat” came out and admitted their game is disaster capitalism:
http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2013/04/rallying-troops-wall-street-charm.html
We’re “seeing the realization” of something that isn’t going to happen?
No, they won’t. The Senate is going to force something through, and then Pelosi is going to whip Democrats to vote for it.
No, seabe, your scenario here will not happen. Yes, I know Nancy has made statements where she accepts Chained CPI, but there is no way she’ll deliver the majority of her caucus for a controversial budget deal.
First, about 100 of them have already said they won’t vote for Chained CPI; Pelosi couldn’t deliver a majority on this even if she wanted to. That presumes Nancy would want to, and I don’t think she does. As has happened with every big vote this year, Pelosi will make Boehner deliver a large portion of his caucus, and try to find enough votes to help the Speaker govern. If John doesn’t bring more than 50 from his Caucus, the vote will fail. Pelosi would find it acceptable to point out that, yet again, The Orange Man is shitty at his job.
Right, about 50 is what I expect. And then the remaining votes are Democrats.
The budget vote would fail if Boehner only brought 50 votes. That would require Nancy to deliver 168 votes. Do the math. No amount of whipping could achieve that. And I’ll repeat: just because Pelosi has made soft sounds on this issue doesn’t mean that she wants her caucus to own Chained CPI. No, the GOP would have to bring the majority of the votes.
When the Senate comes out with a bill, we should make a wager. Maybe…$25? Loser makes a donation to Booman.
Done, seabe. Barbara Lee is my Congressmember. I am not at all worried that she, her Caucuses, and the vast majority of the 107 House Dems who signed onto the anti-Chained CPI letter to Obama will go wobbly on this; they won’t.
Besides, what makes you think a) a budget cutting Social Security will make it out of the Senate, and b) that Pelosi wants her caucus to own the cut?
Oh, I’m not 100% certain it will make it out of the Senate. The key factor is that if we are to have a deal, that is how it will happen: the Senate forces it through, then the House Dems are forced to walk the plank. There is no possible way it happens any other way; Boehner can’t control his caucus. If a bill fails to make it out of the Senate, then it’s obviously not happening. But if it makes it out, and it fails to pass the House at all? I will be extremely surprised.
By both design and necessity, the Republicans would have to provide the lion’s share of the votes for such a deal. Pelosi is smart enough to avoid whipping her Caucus for a deal which would make next year’s elections a suicide mission for her members. In 2013, any time Boehner has delivered a minority of his Caucus for a tough vote, that vote has gone down and Nancy has enjoyed poking at its wreckage.
I hold to my other prediction as well: no amount of whipping would get the 107 anti-Chained CPI signatories in the Dem Caucus to vote for a budget with it.
The Senate is going to force something through
You know that Harry Reid; he’s always forcing things through.
Real aggressive and authoritarian, that Reid. That’s why he’s known as “the Nevada tiger.” Because he’s so ferocious, and pushes around the other Senators into doing his bidding.
The GOP doesn’t own chained CPI. The president owns it. He proposed it.
This is false. Boehner proposed Chained CPI in his initial fiscal cliff proposal, immediately after the 2012 elections. The NYT and MSNBC ran big graphics comparing the two sides’ opening offers, remember?
GIGO. When you reason from false premises, you end up producing garbage.
Hmm. So far nobody has been able to explain how the GOP gets mileage over Social Security. I’ll check back later!
The same traction the GOP has always had on Social Security: “It can’t/won’t work.” “It’s a Ponzi scheme.” “It will bankrupt the country.” “It steals from hardworking people to benefit slackers.” “It won’t be there for the young who are paying for it now.”
And what demographic most reliably shows up to vote and votes Republican? Seniors.
But isn’t this post about the NEW leverage they’re supposed to have because they can hang Chained CPI around Obama’s/individual Democrats’ necks? Your list is the same old semi-effective stuff as always, no? In other words, status quo.
Try thinking less about how the GOP hung a rightwing health care plan around the necks of Democrats and won and more about New Coke. Pepsi didn’t gain customers/sales but Coke lost both. Losing Democratic voters would be a win for Republicans. That would be round one. (McConnell Senate Majority Leader?)
Round two comes later.
Perhaps, perhaps, perhaps. It’s VERY hypothetical and I’m not convinced.
Oh well — I didn’t convince anyone that Saddam didn’t have any usable WMD, that Republicans would have electoral gains in 2002, 2004, and 2010 either, that Democrats would have big wins in 2006 and 2008, or that Obama had the WH in January of 2008 either.
Really? You think those are reasonable comparisons?
Doesn’t matter what I think. However, I will remember to be surprised when Democrats take back the House by cutting Social Security. And will own my error. OTOH, all those incapable of seeing how the GOP could make gains off Democrats continuing assault on the New Deal will do the same freaking thing they’ve done forever — forget that they erred and when that doesn’t work resort to “nobody could have predicted x.”
So, Marie, why were so completely wrong in 2011, when you made the same prediction about the Republicans hanging Chained CPI around Obama’s neck?
And what’s different this time that will cause the politics to play out differently?
You either have me confused with someone else or you’re just pulling crap out of you know where.
Never doubted for a moment that Obama would win his second term and never said otherwise. However, it was equally clear that if he had any coattails, they were very short.
Your persistence in not leaving me alone and presenting lies is way beyond tiresome. In the future I will only respond by troll rating you.
I don’t care how you respond; I’m happy just to point out that you are wrong. If you want to leave my rebuttals unanswered, so much the better.
For the record, when asked why the identical predictions made in 2011 about Republicans running against a never-adopted Chained CPI proposal were so wrong, and what’s different this time, Marie2 was unable to answer the question.
In the absence of any reason to think things will be different this time, a reasonable person will conclude that they will work out the same way – that is, that the never-adopted offers Obama made regarding entitlement benefits will play no role whatsoever in the next campaign.
The Republican leadership has to get Walden to shut up because chained CPI is only the beginning. Obama has to be knee deep, neck deep, to make the most of their bargaining position. If Republicans react strongly to chained CPI, it will make the current cut look substantial and that goes against their narrative. Walden’s not being on the same page tells me that they’re not communicating well with each other.
I’m going to wait for the final agreement before I look for how they’re going to deal with this in their campaigns, but I’ll be the first to admit if I’m wrong.
In the meantime, watching this bipartisan consensus on how cuts to our earned benefits (thanks, Brendan) strengthen them makes me ill.
SPEAKER BOEHNER: I’ve made it clear that I disagree with what Chairman Walden said and he and I have had a conversation about it. And I expect that, uh. This is the least that we must do to solve the problems in Social Security.
QUESTION: Would you call on Republicans next year to not attack Democrats?
BOEHNER: I’ve talked to Chairman Walden. Chairman Walden and I have had a conversation and we’ll leave it at that.
So yeah, Boehner has totally talked to Greg Walden. And he totally believes chained CPI is “the least” that can be done to cut Social Security. But does that mean Boehner will speak out against Republicans using it as a political club against Democrats in 2014? He won’t say. As Greg Sargent says, that’s the question Boehner was asked. And that’s the question Boehner wouldn’t answer.
And for my money, the fact that Greg Walden still has his job as head of the GOP’s campaign committee even after doubling down on his attack tells you everything you need to know.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/04/11/1201053/-Spot-the-question-Boehner-didn-t-answer?detail=hid
e
The White House is in damage control mode after President Obama’s budget with its Social Security cuts has been greeted with near-universal scorn. (Joe Scarborough’s on their side, so they’ve got that going for them.)
While they’re regrouping at the moment, they’ll soon be beyond the “Republicans made us do it” narrative and move on to why these benefit cuts aren’t so bad and how they will protect the most vulnerable with a “bump” in benefits. How this works is that after so many years of retirement or disability payments (in the Simpson-Bowles proposal this was cribbed from, it’s 20 years) along with years of compounded chained CPI cuts, the oldest and the poorest will get a “bump” in benefits. That’s how they’ll mitigate for the cuts that they say aren’t really cuts. [Update: The WH fact sheet outlines that the bump will occur after 10 years for retirees, 15 for disabled.]
The first problem with that is that it obviously contradicts their contention that this is not as a benefit cut, but instead a “technical adjustment” that more accurately reflects inflation. If it’s not a cut, and if it is supposed to be more accurate, then why does it have to be adjusted for older and poorer people? If it truly was more accurate, then there wouldn’t be a need to bump up benefits to make up the gap between their income and inflation. If it’s more accurate, then benefits would never lag inflation, right?
The second problem is more onerous. White people and wealthy people live longer, so they’ll be the “bump” beneficiaries. This proposal is inherently discriminatory against people of color and lower income people who are less likely to live long enough to get the bump. They’ll just live long enough to see their benefits shrink more and more every year.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/04/11/1201044/-About-that-chained-CPI-bump-for-the-most-vulnerabl
e?detail=hide
Forget about that. House Speaker John Boehner promptly brushed off Obama’s gambit. If the president wants to whack Social Security, Boehner suggested he can do it, but don’t expect the GOP to collaborate in such a plot. “If the president believes these modest entitlement savings are needed to shore up these programs, there is no reason they should be held hostage for more tax hikes,” Boehner said.
The president set this trap himself; now Boehner will spring it on him. Does Obama not remember how Democrats lost control of the House back in 2010? The party got very little credit for enacting health care reform because the Republicans had already demonized the accomplishment as a threat to the much-beloved program of Medicare. The rightwingers promised to save Medicare from bloodthirsty Democrats by repealing Obama’s new reform program. This was all a ridiculous lie, of course, but the White House declined to call out the liars. Instead, Obama responded with flowers. This time, he is taking Republicans out to diinner.
http://www.thenation.com/blog/173771/will-voters-forgive-obama-cutting-social-security#
The bottom line is, whether the repubs use it successfully or not is only one part of all of this, and really just a distraction from the uglier parts of the story they likely haven’t figured out how to defend yet.
http://www.salon.com/2013/04/11/obamas_entitlement_plan_was_four_years_in_the_making/
How the GOP will do it. Wait until the public forgets about this flare-up. And then in the fall of 2014 spring the “stabbing seniors in the back” ads in key states where more progressive Democrats backed the President’s position.
Just rewind what happened to Russ Feingold in 2010 to see how the absolute straight-out lying works.
BTW, the GOP is likely to argue that the President did not cut entitlements enough at the same time they argue that cutting Social Security stabs seniors in the back. For a lot of people they are not the same thing.
Tarheel, the entire Progressive Caucus has come out specifically and publicly against the President’s CPI proposal. Your scenario will not happen.
Where was the Progressive Caucus on health care in April 2009?
I think I know what you’re inferring, Marie. For clarity’s sake, could you make your reference specific?
Tarhell Dem,
Why were the people who made this same prediction in 2011 – the Republicans will hang a Chained CPI proposal that never got implemented around the Democrats’ necks – so completely wrong?
And what is different this time that would cause the politics to play out differently?
Just rewind what happened to Russ Feingold in 2010 to see how the absolute straight-out lying works.
In 2010, the Republicans had the actual, implemented Obamacare $700 billion Medicare Advantage cuts to hang around Democrats’ necks. Running against actual policies that get implemented is easy. You point out that “the public will forget about this little flare-up,” but as we saw in 2011-2012, the public will forget about the whole thing if nothing ends up getting adopted.
BooMan’s greatest hits: (emphasis added)
Social Security
Income taxes
How can you say Obama isn’t a neoliberal by defending this bullshit? I wouldn’t consider David Atkins a firebagger; in fact, most places who share my views consider him a POS squish of a Democratic hack. But he’s got this exactly right:
That’s some great straight talk. We’ve got a Democratic president(and at least 50% of the Democrats in Congress) that have no principles. They might TALK like they have some progressive principles, but their actions always show their true colors.
Heads up, BooMan. It seems Progress Kentucky got outed by the Dem establishment for eavesdropping on Mitch McConnell’s strategy session. It also seems that recorded eavesdropping is against the law in Kentucky without the other party’s consent. And apparently the FBI is investigating.
Walden’s comment just dropped from sight. GOP free to bring it up later.
Here is some more for Boo:
http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2013/04/a-few-simple-questions.html
BTW, I suppose you’ve read that the President’s budget includes privatizing the TVA(or at least giving it serious consideration). Lamar Freakin’ Alexander has come out bashing that. Hope you’re happy!!
It also found money for the drug war:
Obama Issues 2014 DOJ Budget: More for Prisons and Drug War
oh, well at least there’s THAT.
Rah rah rah!
Atkins: If the point is to secure revenues in exchange for cuts to government spending, why not make those cuts to corporate welfare, big agriculture and oil subsidies, and military spending, instead?
Atkins should stick to military spending.
Look, we need a Democratic President to say:
This won’t happen because Obama won’t, if he did the media wouldn’t report it or would misreport it. And if there was any chance of a real tax increase the oligarchs wouldn’t allow it.
Your last paragraph negated the rest of your post. If the media won’t report it or will misreport it, then the problem isn’t that we need Obama (or any president) to yell louder. The problem is we need new media supplanting the old and communicating to the public more honestly. I would argue that’s already happening (have you seen the approval ratings for journalists lately?)
Senator Lautenberg, the only good Democrat still out there railing about the Obama Budget. He sent out an Alert that went something like this:
ALERT Obama puts Republican Chained CPI in His Budget!
It cracked me up. He knows how to attack his own. heh
Ironic that Republicans are protecting me from Obama but I’ll take it wherever it comes from. For the life of me I don’t understand why – with no other campaigns in his future – he wants to spend the rest of his life looking back at these horrible gutless dick moves he’s intent on making.
If Obama hadn’t already screwed us in the same way on the stimulus, the first debt ceiling charadem and the gutting of ACA I’d give him the benefit of the doubt, but it’s obviously just good cop-bad cop with the roles reversed but the same victims. May they all rot in hell.
What do you mean by claiming that Obama gutted the ACA? Be specific.
Booman, you are now aligned with Fred Hiatt, Morning Joe and David Brooks on defending this bad policy and political strategy. UGH
What I’ve said is that it isn’t going to create a political problem.
I’ve also said that I’d rather give the Republicans Chained CPI than raise the retirement age. And I’d rather get a Grand Bargain than live with the sequester.
I don’t think that is the same reasoning as Hiatt, Scraborough or Brooks. They think it’s good policy. I don’t. I think it’s horrible smelling shit.
The people who actually know what they’re talking about, and whose on asses are at stake, disagree with you.
Steve, why were so completely wrong about this question in 2011?
And what’s different this time, that will cause the politics to play out differently?
There was a national election in 2011? Meanwhile, analogous Medicare attacks did have a discernible effect in 2010. Probably not large, and probably the chained CPI effect won’t be either, but retaking the House is such a steep uphill climb that there is NO room for unforced errors.
There’s a national election in 2013? There was a national election in 2009? Derp derp? If you want to play dumb, I’m going to treat you as dumb.
There was, of course, a national election in 2012. Many people, such as yourself, predicted in 2011, during the debt ceiling talks, that the Republicans would use the President’s Chained CPI/Medicare benefits changes statements against him in the 2012 elections.
In 2010, of course, the ObamaCare Medicare Advantage cuts had actually been adopted. I agree that if Chained CPI was adopted, the Republicans would be able to run on it, but that doesn’t seem to be your prediction. You are predicting, just as you did in 2011, that the Republicans would run against Obama proposing things that never went into effect.
You were completely wrong. Why were you so completely wrong in 2011, and what’s different today? Why can’t you answer the question, and feel th need to strike a snarky posture?
Go on, answer the question: why were you so wrong in 2011, and what’s different today?
The people insisting that the Republicans are going to run against Obama on Chained CPI were saying exactly the same thing in 2011, and the 2012 election cycle proved them utterly, completely wrong.
Unless they can come up with an explanation for why they were wrong last time and what’s different this time, all they are doing is engaging in the oldest, most useless internet pundit game: asserting that the objectively smartest political strategy for the Democrats to pursue is to loudly argue for an agenda that, hey look at that, just happens to match up perfectly the pundit’s own policy preferences.
Ah, that’s what you’re talking about. Makes no sense, though. The 2012 cycle proved no such thing. By the way, Obama only pulled ahead of Romney when he stopped trying to sound bipartisan an actually threw some punches.
Ah, that’s what you’re talking about.
See, you only need to repeat something five or six times, and Steve will pick right up on it.
The 2012 cycle proved no such thing.
The 2012 elections featured Republicans attacking Obama over Chained CPI and the other benefit changes he left “on the table?” Really?
Could you supply some links demonstrating that? No, of course you can’t because that never happened.
By the way, Obama only pulled ahead of Romney when he stopped trying to sound bipartisan an actually threw some punches.
Um, no. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/general_election_romney_vs_obama-1171.html
You just live in your own little reality, don’t you? The 2012 elections featured Romney attacking Obama over the 2011 debt ceiling talks, and Obama was losing for a while. Hokay.
Reasonable people learn from history. When they make a prediction and they are wrong, they don’t make the same prediction given the same facts.
Are you under the impression that we will not get a deal or something?
Obama has, once again, made any deal to reduce entitlement benefits on a massive upper-income tax cut. How many such “deals” have you seen happen?
Did we get a deal that imposed chained CPI during the debt ceiling crisis?
How about from the SuperCommittee?
How about during the fiscal cliff talks?
Since it’s the federal budget, and there has to ultimately be something that’s passed in the appropriations bills, we’ll ultimately get some kind of deal. It just won’t include either the entitlement cuts, or the tax hikes that Obama included in a poison pill.
I knew as soon I read that Obama was once again linking the proposal to Republican agreement to a big tax hike that we wouldn’t get a deal – just like last time, and the time before that, and the time before that.
That ignores the sequester. Is the sequester the new baseline? That’s what I meant by a “deal”. Obviously we’ll get some sort of budget, and it won’t necessarily include tax hikes or chained-CPI.
Yes, the sequester in the new baseline.
The Republicans won an election in 2010, and since elections have consequences, they got some spoils.
It sucks, but that’s democracy for you.