Things are getting a bit interesting in the debt limit negotiations. On the eve of a big meeting to discuss a grand deal in the White House, the administration was able to produce pieces in the Washington Post and the New York Times that tout their willingness to put everything on the table.
As part of his pitch, Obama is proposing significant reductions in Medicare spending and for the first time is offering to tackle the rising cost of Social Security, according to people in both parties with knowledge of the proposal.
Mr. Obama, who is to meet at the White House with the bipartisan leadership of Congress in an effort to work out an agreement to raise the federal debt limit, wants to move well beyond the $2 trillion in savings sought in earlier negotiations and seek perhaps twice as much over the next decade, Democratic officials briefed on the negotiations said Wednesday.
For whatever reason, this is what the administration wanted people talking about when they sat down this morning with their Republican counterparts. This is how they wanted to control the political environment. Naturally, rumors that the president wants to cut entitlement programs, including Social Security, are going to make Democrats foam at the mouth with rage. But that’s apparently something the president doesn’t mind because he thinks he’ll get something valuable in return.
Leaving aside the prospect that the president might actually sign a bill with cuts to Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security, he wants to leave that impression this morning. He wants his base angry and calling for his head.
And, I think, the only reason for him to do that is to shame the Republican leadership for their cowardice. Now, is this something that the administration sprung on Boehner at the last minute, or an announcement culminating from their private negotiations?
I can’t say. So, I won’t overreact.
What I know for certain is that the Republican are getting wobbly on their anti-tax pledge, and this will make it even harder for them to maintain their position.
What’s missing is a ton of detail. Most importantly, what unannounced goodies would come with such a package? How would it be sweetened for Democrats? And what’s the long-game and short-game?
There’s too much we simply don’t know.
Interesting that all the NYTimes LTEs (print edition) today welcome David Brooks’ “seeing the light” on the repubs. No “balance” at all.
I think the more logical reason is that he wants to cut Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security as part of a Grand Bargain. You know, as he’s been saying for the past three years.
Uhm no, that’s what the left has been saying for the past three years except every time they turn out to be wrong.
He’s going to cut Social Security any day now! I just know it, and I’ve known it for three years! Just you wait!
While the question of whether he cuts Social Security is important, that is as yet unresolved.
However, what he has accomplished is to identify the Democrats as the Party who Will Cut Social Security. And Medicare.
Brilliant.
Oh, I’m sorry. He’s the GREATEST PROGRESSIVE PRESIDENT IN ALL HISTORY and I should just shut up and enjoy it.
Does anyone but Al Giordano think that at this point?
No, but there are a whole lot of people working double time on liberal blogs to push that Republican frame.
You know, because of how progressive they are.
good one, hah hah!
He can’t get a deal unless we’re calling for his head. That’s just the fact of the matter; the Repulicans have to look like they won. The same thing happened in the lame duck; and we actually ended up seeing only a few million cut rather than the billions Bohener was touting.
I remember that.
“Gee, why does John Boehner look so sad? Obama totally caved and gave the Republicans more than their opening bid? Could I have misunderstood something? Naaaaaahhhhhhhhhhh.”
Problem was, not even the Administration was touting the numbers as they later came to be. So no, it didn’t make the Admin. look any better. It made them look clueless.
There’s too much we simply don’t know.
No, but that won’t stop the perpetually hysterical from promising to fling themselves off cliffs, and then not following through.
“Goodies?” What would make anyone think there will be anything beyond some token accounting tricks as a false concession to the Democrats? This is the same pattern we have seen every time. The Obama administration adopts the Republican framing of the argument and rhetorically pre-concedes to everything the opposition is demanding, Republicans then double their demands, Obama offers 2 times that, then the Republicans get to pretend they’re being fair by allowing some watered-down gestures to be included, and use the results of the legislation to attack Democrats for cutting Social Security and Medicare in the next election. I’m told this is the only way things can get accomplished in Washington.
Actually, the last time there was a negotiation about deficit reduction, it was the Republicans who settled for some accounting tricks.
Or have you forgotten the amazing shrinking $37 billion in spending cuts?
What I haven’t forgotten is all the people saying exactly the same thing you are saying about Obama’s negotiating skills, and then becoming very, very quiet for a week or so as the reality of the “cuts” was reported.
And then going back to the same line of bull once they thought the dust had settled and everyone had forgotten.
Your argument is probably too well-informed for me to refute. I have to confess I did not take part in any detailed accounting exercises that determined the exact before and after disposition of funds involved in the $37 billion budget cutting deal. What I do remember is the extension of the Bush tax cuts, with no conditions. And weakened financial regulations to please the banksters. And the way Medicare for all never even got on the table. And more war, and erosion of civil liberties with no accouting for Bush administration crimes. I know Russ Feingold or Dennis Kucinich are never going to get elected President, but I don’t have to like it when the “right-center” agenda gets advanced and it gets called a liberal victory.
you should take a look at what really happened, what could be seen once the smoke cleared
I’m sorry, but the minute you suggest that Medicare for all was even a remote possibility or a viable negotiating position, you lose all credibility with me. I’ve gotten tired of liberals complaining that Obama “pre-emptively negotiated away” a position that not even 50 Democratic Senators would have supported.
Perhaps if Obama had argued for a single payer system or at least explained how it could work, and does work, some of those 50 Senators might have been able to take ownership of those arguments and support the concept, at least as an alternative to further enrichment of insurance companies.
Do you think US Senators, especially on the Democratic side, don’t know what a single-payer system is? Do you think they’ve never heard from people proclaiming how great Canada’s health care is?
Look. Bernie Sanders said single-payer had no chance. Obama is not Green Lantern. And red state senators are beholden to their constituents.
You’ve openly admitted that you might be less informed than other commenters in this thread. I don’t want to be an ass, but it would behoove you to learn some of the facts of politics before continuing to play wishful pundit. An excellent place to start, in fact, would be Booman’s diary entries throughout the whole health care fight.
My point was, that Obama never argued for single-payer, not that I think Democratic Senators don’t know what it is. Bernie Sanders introduced single payer legislation last May, and said, “I think the best way to reduce costs and guarantee coverage for all is through a Single-payer system like Medicare.” But, I guess, since I don’t even know “some of the facts,” you’re not interested in hearing why some people might not be gushing about the latest developments. See above, Medicare for all has not been my only disappointment lately.
Excellent, thanks, and I’m pondering how to add “Obama is not Green Lantern” to my sig line. Maybe “viva Obama even though he is not Green Lantern?
You make a reasonable argument on the bare facts, but ignore the real point, seems to me. You seem to think that changes of attitude and priorities just float in on the air like pollution. Leaders don’t exist to just write or sign laws, or even to just negotiate deals. That’s for run-of-the-mill pols and assistants.
Leaders worthy of the name change the national consciousness, or at least try to. So far Obama has not made much of an effort in that regard despite his much-vaunted brilliance at communication. I don’t see how anyone can deny the difference between Obama the campaigner and Obama the president.
The flaw in much of the criticism of Obama, though, is exactly what you said: it assumes that all of the burden should fall on Obama. The sad fact is that the entire “left” in this country is an ineffectual, self-obsessed disgrace. The only voices that get through are the ones proposing flimsy bandages to hold a broken system together a little longer so their comfort level is not disturbed yet. Obama had a chance to begin seeding real change and chose instead, for whatever reasons, to throw in with the other side. I still think he had the potential to be one of the great presidents, but it’s become very difficult to see, any longer, how he can get from here the there.
Perhaps if we’d actually elected someone who believed that a single payer system was the right system for the US this might have had a glimmer of a chance of happening. It’s hard to expect the president to be an advocate for something he doesn’t actually believe in.
Obama has always been an advocate for private health insurance and private health insurance markets. Here’s a brief summary from the commonwealth fund that summarized Obama and McCain’s plans for health care reform. Even then note what Commonwealth thought were the key elements of his plan – health insurance exchange markets, an employer mandate to provide insurance, tax credits to businesses to pay for coverage. And yeah the “public option” is mentioned here so I fault him for deciding it was a bargaining chip instead of a fundamental piece to make sure costs stayed under control, but I can’t fault him for not being a fierce advocate for a single payer model because he never presented himself as an advocate for a single payer model.
If you look back at what candidate Obama said about a lot of things you find that he’s … done pretty much what he said he was going to do. His biggest shifts between words and actions have come from his poor civil liberties decisions (some forced on him by Congress but not all by any means) and his decision to allow all of the Bush tax cuts to continue when he said he’d let them expire on the top brackets and only continue on the bottom ones. But even there it was contingent on Congress presenting him a plan that left the middle class tax cuts in place and when he had to decide on which of his promises he was going to turn his back on he chose to keep his promise about the middle class tax cuts and break his promise on the upper class tax cuts.
It’s actually been somewhat shocking to me to listen to the agitation in the blogosphere over the last 3 years and wonder what candidate they voted for in ’08. Because except in a handful of ways president Obama has been almost EXACTLY the person he presented himself as during the campaign – a successor to Bill Clinton in most ways, and someone who would have been right at home in the liberal wing of the Nixon-era Republican party. I could tell that when I ended up voting for him over McCain, but apparently many people didn’t see it.
done pretty much what he said he was going to do. His biggest shifts between words and actions have come from his poor civil liberties decisions (some forced on him by Congress but not all by any means)
Well, let’s be fair … on civil liberties, whistleblowers, and the rule-of-law in general his actions have been 180 degrees opposite of what he said he’d do. And for the small number of his supporters who held that as one of our top issues (and I was one) seeing him be literally worse than Bush on those issues is devastating.
The second area where he’s been useless is climate. He talked a good talk about it being the most important issue of the time but except for some EPA decisions (which were long in the making but had been blocked by the Bush regime) he’s done nothing. Nada. Go on, blame Congress, but there are powers the President has that he’s not bothered to use in this area.
On economics his decisions haven’t been that clearly opposite of what he campaigned on, since he was intentionally vague on most solutions during the campaign. But his buying into Republican framing on all economic issues has got to be a disappointment — above and beyond what Clinton did on Welfare “Reform” and “the era of big government is over”.
So, in summary, I’d say the disappointment with Obama has to be 1) his full betrayal on Constitutional issues, 2) his relative ineffectiveness in pushing the progressive issues he supposedly does care about, and 3) his endorsing of the Chicago school view of economics and, in the process, putting the Progressive stamp on what are decidedly non-progressive policies.
I’ll grant you 1 (though his 180 on civil liberties in the summer right before the election pretty much shattered any idea I had that he was going to be anything but useless on that front, so my bar was lowered before the actual November vote). I’m not sure about 2, but I might be willing to grant that as well. I just don’t think he “pushes” much of anything at all – that’s not the kind of person he is. He’s the kind of person who “argues reasonably” and then tries to find compromise – and he even presented himself like that on the campaign. So I don’t see that as a “failure” on his part so much as a “you get what you pay for” on our part – we elected a conciliatory compromise-finder who told us he was a conciliatory compromise-finder when he ran for office and so getting mad that he doesn’t forcefully push his agenda and is conciliatory and tries to find compromises seems a bit “Captain Renault” to me.
But I’ll argue 3. He presented himself as a conservative economics type during the campaign. And I don’t think he’s gone further than Clinton did in this area – I think it’s about the same. We remember Clinton more fondly because W was such a trainwreck and in retrospect Clinton looked good, but Clinton pushed NAFTA. Clinton’s guys pushed bank deregulation. Hell Clinton’s economic team pushed deregulation in ways that HW Bush might have been ashamed to push it. Clinton pushed for fast track for trade with China. Clinton was all about tax cuts and just had the benefit of a really damn good economy that mostly came on the back of deregulation of the Internet to allow corporate expansion and the tech bubble that came out of it (which was one of the good areas of deregulation that he pushed – not all deregulation is bad).
But I don’t see Obama being significantly worse or better than Clinton – he’s advancing the same agenda with the same football and has the advantage that Clinton had already moved it a good distance before he got there. But I was expecting that and figured that in a choice between Clinton and W, Clinton was clearly better and in a choice between Obama and McCain, well, Obama was clearly better. It’s not like there was a viable alternative by November. (And I was completely ambivalent during the campaign – it literally did not matter WHO ended up winning the Democratic nomination, we were going to get someone who was like Bill Clinton when it came to foreign policy and economic policy. And lord knows that if my preferred candidate – Edwards – had won the campaign we’d probably have President McCain in the office anyway as we speak).
Well, I did expect Obama to significantly better than Clinton, but that seemed like an extremely low bar. If I’d known that his claim to fame would be “about as good as Clinton”, I sure as hell would not have been celebrating in Grant Park.
You’re right about his vote early in the summer on civil liberties. In some part I can be blamed for wishful thinking there – hoping that this was just a pre-election ploy — but even so that one vote by itself didn’t portend the massive betrayal on Constitutional Rights (I mean, what is more sacred than Habeus?) that was to come.
On 2, yeah he is basically a mealy-mouthed compromise-finder on most issues. It’s hard to find a single principle he’ll actually fight for, isn’t it? Imagine how the anti-abortion folks (both of them) who were sucked in by Obama’s talk of working together to reduce abortions must feel? He totally dropped that issue, too.
But unlike Obama, I actually think certain issues are critical and not just playthings, and the climate is #1.
On #3 I may also be guilty of wishful thinking. I knew what his pre-election economic advisors (Buffett, Volcker, O’Neill) stood for so wasn’t expecting anything radical, just a a bit of good pre-Reagan rational Republicanism. But after the pseudo-stimulus we got pure school-of-Chicago nonsense.
Finally, I agree he was a better vote than McCain and recognize that we’d have had no chance for a better Democrat. That doesn’t stop the frustration.
That doesn’t seem to stop Republicans from calling for a balanced budget amendment, among other outlandish things. They concede nothing and demand the moon and the stars, and get half of what they ask for.
Too many Democrats, Obama included, concede everything that matters, timidly ask for a few scraps in return, and consider it a victory if they get one or two.
Um, “with no conditions?”
Really?
You remember Obama agreeing to extend the tax cuts, with absolutely nothing attached?
You’ll have to excuse me, I was looking for the reality-based community, not the “I have my story and I’m sticking to it” community.
Considering what Kucinich did in Syria, that’s a good thing.
the most relevant part of this post is “what’s missing is a ton of detail”. Also, it depends on what those cuts are. Republicans sold Obama’s Medicare care cuts as cuts to benefits and not cuts in waste.
the most relevant part of this post is “what’s missing is a ton of detail”. Also, it depends on what those cuts are. Republicans sold Obama’s Medicare care cuts as cuts to benefits and not cuts in waste.
I don’t think the leaks were for Republican consumption. There’s nothing Obama could say in the press that will hold any sway with the average Republican lawmaker or voter/activist. Whatever he has to say to Republicans, only Boehner and McConnell know for sure.
This was a message for Democrats. I’m not exactly sure why. Either it was a threat to congressional leadership to keep in line and don’t look to cause complications in the negotiations because there isn’t any time for it, given that its all Obama’s deal at this point (remember the bush tax cuts negotiations?), or it’s a final negotiating ploy to get liberals in a lather over an unrelated policy area that isn’t actually being negotiated over, in order to keep their fire away from the areas that are.
Or maybe he really does want to overhaul entitlement financing over a two week period. Who the fuck knows?
No matter what, this is some sort of message for his own party, and a way to keep looking “serious” to the press and independents.
As yet another day goes by where nobody outside of a couple dozen people have any idea what’s really on and off the table, and won’t until the eleventh hour. Fun.
maybe this is all partisan and political games. Who knows with the most transparent administration ever, with their secret deals.
The president has often spoken of the need to “reform” entitlements, and as candidate as well.
When someone with power threatens the one or two programs that will make my old age have even a semblance of dignity, I take that person seriously.
That said, i do remember the incredible shrinking budget cuts. But if medicare, medicaid, and social security get hit with cuts that impact benefits, there’s going to be hell to pay.
My initial reaction was, “Not even you can defend him on this,” but I quickly reminded myself he’s not a stupid man and that anyone who doubts his political skills need only to give the Clintons and McCains a call, which leads me to believe he’s up to something–a real game changer.
funny
you say: And, I think, the only reason for him to do that is to shame the Republican leadership for their cowardice.
I guess I am missing something here. He angers his base and that shames the GOP? He caves on cuts and gives the GOP what they want and that shames THEM?
Here’s what you’re missing: the GOP won’t take the deal, because it includes tax hikes.
By leaking this, he looks like he’s bending over backwards to deal in good faith, and they look like a-holes who throw a tantrum when they don’t get exactly what they want, exactly when the want it.
Like four-year-olds, or the Professional Left. Nobody likes people who act like that.
so, what happens after he “he looks like he’s bending over backwards to deal in good faith” and then gives then actually does cut SS ?
That’s like saying what happens if you get hit by a bus.
It hasn’t happened. It is projection and the Repubs are trying to scare people.
Won’t happen.
Can’t pass Congress.
Alan Simpson cracked the challenge that Obama wasn’t negotiating until he put what was precious to his ideology on the table.
Simpson would be an interesting twist to add to the room during negotiation as he constantly declares he has no love for the current GOP rhetoric. Let him see for himself how crazed they have become and bash a few heads.
This is disturbing:
So this is all about improving his standing with independent voters? Sounds like ‘triangulation” again. Crummy policies implemented for the sole purpose of improving chances for reelection. I hated Clinton for that. What a waste.
Paul Ryan didn’t put Social security on the table. And even the Catfood Commission didn’t. But Obama is doing it. For some reason the defense budget is off limits, and we can’t touch billionaires’ tax free status. But hey, retirees who have paid into Social Security their entire lives? Let’s cut that! right. (I suppose some Obamabot will say this is simply another example of his Stealth Politics. Someday these bots will wake up and realize the the stealth is directed at them, not the GOP)
Where on earth did you get the idea that the defense budget isn’t on the table?
Reports are that even the Republicans are agreeing to DoD cuts.
well, reports may be right. I have not seen any suggested budget cuts in DoD.
“…and we can’t touch billionaires’ tax free status.”
Umwut?
Uh, yeah, damn that Obama for not insisting on tax increases on rich people!
Do you ever read anything except your gut?
yes, damn him for insisting on continued tax cuts on the richest 4%
On the table does not mean part of the deal. It means a subject for discussion.
Obama has positioned himself as saying that there is not part of the federal budget that is not open to discussion. By contrast, the GOP has a long list of things that are not open to discussion.
And a threat that even if they exercise it might turn out to (1) be empty as far as creating a default and (2) might delegitimize the whole idea of a debt limit.
Congress sets the budget in the tax laws and appropriations bills it passes. Period. If those are not within a debt limit, then the President still is authorized to spend what Congress has appropriated and borrow to make up shortfalls. If they are within the debt limit, the President has executive authority to defer programs, projects, or payments until the money is available. If Congress blows through the debt limit, they have little power to complain or restrain the deferrals that the President might make.
And it is possible that the President could argue that some of those deferrals should become recissions in the next budget.
It used to be that if an article showed up in the mainstream media with no sources on the record actually saying what the article claims they are saying, bloggers would ridicule it as weak journalism. These two articles rely on anonymous sources (If any) and a lot of second-hand quoting. And yet the blogosphere is melting down.
It’s odd.
There’s been a…paucity of truthfulness from all directions regarding these negotiations since the beginning. Which is to say, everybody (including the president himself) has been a fucking liar and evader about what they are/aren’t doing. Nobody knows.
And nature does abhor a vacuum. This kind of scenario is christmas come early for the corporate media. They have free run to print whatever they want, and there’s no counter being offered from any of the actual participants. No “cut the crap, this is what is going on” moments. And thus, the freakout.
From the beginning, President Obama has said that everything is on the table. If it is a leak, don’t believe it until it becomes public; it is most definitely a negotiation position and not yet reality. The problem with leaks is that you don’t know whose agenda they are really serving.
Yes, you understand why the freakout is occurring, but the media’s search for a narrative, any narrative, is where a lot of the outright lies are being introduced.
Often, “considering” means “what would it look like if we did this” and someone leaks to stir up public reaction to push it forward or push it back.
At this stage a freakout on our side would probably help counterbalance the ongoing freakout of the Tea Party.
So if you want a part in the chorus of the kabuki, feel free.
So how far do you think that Obama could run the ball back in the other direction if Republicans start breaking?
Could we possibly come out with an honest 50-50 agreement between taxes and spending (not counting stuff set to go into effect automatically)?
Or will it be smoke and mirrors until the end?
No.
Because with the current demographic of the GOP, a 1-99 agreement between new taxes and spending cuts will be enough for Senators and Representatives to lose their jobs in the next election.
The GOP has painted themselves into a corner where they cannot approve of ANY tax increases as a party. And since they’re the party in charge of the House, they as a party OWN any tax increases that pass the House.
It’s no way to run a modern country in the 21st century I can tell you that. I’m actually expecting the “14th amendment” solution to come down the pike where the President just pays the debts that need to be paid to maintain “full faith and credit” and shuts down the portions of the government that need to be shut down because of funding problems. As painful as that will be – all government shutdowns are painful – at least him pulling out the 14th amendment to make sure we maintain full faith and credit in our debt will yank the rug out from under this “hold the world economy hostage” game that the politicians want to play.
I have thought all week that the goal here is to PROTECT entitlement programs by making a grand last-minute gesture out of agreeing to some minor cosmetic changes only, something that once upon a time everyone in public life could agree was needed.
By waiting until most cards are on the table after leaving inconclusive signals for a long time–AS HE ALWAYS DOES, ALWAYS–he now has a useful short window of time in which he has tremendous leverage on closing loopholes and a shot at either raising some taxes on the wealthy and corporations now or, a more likely alternative, setting up the election to revolve around the increasingly popular sentiment of raising taxes on the rich. The likely congressional stalemate of the next year and a half will pave the way for the expiration of the Bush tax cuts.
This is leverage he DID NOT have after the 2010 elections, and why, I think, he structured the previous deal the way he did.
In effect, he’s calling their bluff and by agreeing to cosmetic changes and protecting what he wants protected, he puts Republicans in a position of desperately needing the face-saving “cuts” to entitlements, even as they cave on “revenue”.
Obama now has the repubs in the box…in the ideological corner that only the most extreme right occupy. I expect Obama will make a statement before and after each meeting in which he will detail that every thing is on the table and no progress has been made. What will the repubs do? I have no idea. They cannot change the subject as they have made debt the entire reason for their existence on earth and heaven. If they walk out on the negotiation, I’m not sure that can be considered a win. Their ideology will not permit real negotiations…so what do they do?
He has already cut Social Security once with the percentage of employee contributions being lowered from 6.2% to 4.2%, so I think the anger is justified that he would float more reductions.
I’ll wait to see if it happens, but according to the White House, the 2% will be made up by contributions to the Social Security Trust Fund from general revenues, rather than a reduction in benefits.
The main-stream media only covers things that are sensational. If Obama in fact does not allow reductions in SS, Medicare, and Medicaid benefits, maybe it’s better to get anxious coverage, with everybody declaring relatively clear opinions, than no coverage at all.
“What I know for certain is that the Republican are getting wobbly on their anti-tax pledge, and this will make it even harder for them to maintain their position.”
I read the link: it quoted Republicans saying they’d accept closing loopholes as long as there were offsetting cuts, and that raising revenue through selling stuff or raising user fees. That’s wobbly? It sounds like they’re standing fast to me. I wish Democrats would be so wobbly.
Although frankly by now, I hope Republicans stick there principles. As bad a constitutional crises would be, I think it would be better than the deal we’d get if they came to their senses and accepted what Democrats are offering.