Have you ever been thrown in a sack with a hungry and half-mad badger and then been told to take the wheel and drive the car? No? Well, then you’re not Barack Obama and you haven’t met David Ignatius.
Some of us can recall the helpless feeling of being in a vehicle driven by someone who is intoxicated. If you’re like me, you don’t want to cause a scene unless the driving is really erratic. But there comes a moment when you need to say: Stop the car. You’re going to hurt someone. Hand over the keys.
We have a political system that is the equivalent of a drunk driver. The primary culprits are the House Republicans. They are so intoxicated with their own ideology that they are ready to drive the nation’s car off the road. I don’t know if the sequestration that’s set to begin Friday will produce a little crisis or a big one; the sad fact is that the Republicans don’t know, either, yet they’re still willing to put the country at risk to make a political point.
I’m no fan of the way President Obama has handled the fiscal crisis. As I’ve written often, he needs to provide the presidential leadership that guides Congress and the country toward fiscal stability. In my analogy, he should take the steering wheel firmly in hand and drive the car toward the destination where most maps show we need to be heading: namely, a balanced program of cuts in Social Security and Medicare and modest increases in revenue.
You folks want to take this one?
I mean, where to start, right? Why does Social Security ALWAYS have to be part of this conversation? In any case, what the hell does Ignatius think Obama has been saying for the last three damn years? What did he say when the Republicans refused to pay our debts? What did he say all throughout the campaign? What did he say when we reached the Fiscal Cliff? What did he say in the State of the Union? What did he say today, yesterday, and the day before that?
He said that we need a balanced program of cuts (including to Medicare) and modest increases in revenue. The White House has already talked about making the cost of living adjustment for Social Security less generous. If you don’t believe me, do a LexisNexis search for “chained CPI.” You’ll discover that it is a cut to Social Security. You’ll also discover that progressives positively hate the idea. How many times does the president have to propose exactly what every pundit over 40 in DC thinks he should propose before he can take credit for driving the car?
But he’s not allowed to drive the car alone. The inebriated sot, John Boehner, must introduce all bills creating revenue, and he’s chained down in the driver’s seat by rabid badgers, weasels, and wolverines who are tearing at his flesh and leaving no part of his reputation or legacy unmutilated.
How far do we have to go with this imagery? Boehner and his merry band of mustelids have already crashed this car into embankments, cement walls, and valley floors. In any sane world, the people would have taken the keys away long ago.
In any sane world, David Ignatius wouldn’t still be demonstrating what a tosser he is in the pages of the Washington Post.
Must have really stuck in his caw to concede that the House Republicans are dangerously out of control, almost. But not too much because it didn’t interfere with his ability to repeat his finger-wagging at Obama and reciting his Pete Peterson approved fiscal talking points.
Yes, but “real” journalists have to maintain a carefully crafted veil of supposed objectivity. How better do that than call out the president for failing to throw pixie dust and make all the world perfect?
Leadership David? Where’s your leadership writing; when do you turn the page on the generic ‘Obama needs to grasp the wheel and drive the car’ and lay out specifics? This kind of writing is based on opinions first then stuff the story around it. It is sooo Bush era.
David Ignatius reminds me very much of Steven D’s sig.
But at this point, there’s no dispute who’s driving the car and where it’s headed. I think Obama has been far too accommodating towards the Republicans, but there comes a time when the looming catastrophe becomes inevitable, and it’s not because of anything Obama can do or not do at this point: This is 100% due to the House Republicans. The only leadership that counts right now is John Boehner’s, and it’s crystal clear that Boehner can’t or won’t get his caucus in line.
In service to Republican ideals, we will sacrifice some of our citizens. And I’m not talking about having to wait in line at the airport 10 minutes longer to get through security; I’m talking about real people dying for lack of government services. Republicans are willing to see people die before they will compromise their principles, and chief among those principles is “Me first and fuck you.”
The modern Republican Party: Willing to kill for principle.
Because the 1% want ALL the money and Arthur Gilroy is right – they own both parties.
COLA’s are not generosity. They are compensation for the government’s failure to control inflation.
In “The American Dream,” George Carlin nailed it:
One slight correction to Carlin and others — the 1% already has our Social Security money and now works hard to make sure they never have to give it back.
Over the last 100 years inflation has averaged under 3.5%, so I think inflation has been under control.
Right, but the point is it will never be 0% — nor should it, unless we had a supercomputer that was capable of literally tabulating every little thing that went in and out of the economy so we knew exactly how much money was needed. Therefore, COLA.
the fact that’s it’s not 0% is better for poor & middle income people who have debt, I don’t think we want to be advocating 0% inflation as long as regular people have debt
During a time of stagnant wages that don’t keep up with productivity, yes I can’t disagree there.
3.5% means that prices double in 20 years, so without COLA’s you have half the pension at 82 that you had at 62 and are definitely not in a position to look for a part-time job.
Don’t see anyone advocating elimination of the COLA just adjusting to more accurately reflect the true inflation number.
Then it would be increased because seniors spend a far larger portion of their income on food, rent, medical costs, and above all on medicine. Chained CPI works like this – “Oh, iPhones are too expensive, I’ll buy an Android instead.” For seniors that would be, “Oh, my prescription is too expensive. I’ll just take a Tylenol instead.”
That’s not how chained CPI works at all.
The point that Voice is making is valid, although his iPhone explanation wasn’t very clear.
Chained CPI simply assumes that if the cost of some good or commodity rises, people will make different choices rather than paying more. So, if the iPhone gets more expensive, rather than incurring increased costs, you will buy a competitor’s phone that costs less.
In this way, it is supposed to be more accurate than the standard COLA.
However, many people have pointed out that seniors spend their money differently than younger people, and a bigger percentage of their income is not (or should not be) optional. Voice used medication as an example, and it’s a good one. If the cost of your prescription goes up, you are going to incur that cost or go without.
For this reason, progressives have recommended creating a senior-specific COLA for Social Security recipients.
Now, no one would be discussing Chained CPI if it wasn’t expected to cause savings to the government, which means everyone knows it will mean less money for seniors. Some people argue that a truly accurate senior-specific COLA would actually result in a more generous COLA, thereby costing the government more money, and no one seems interested in making the long-term budget picture look worse.
I mistakenly used the word “income” when I meant “spending” in the above comment.
I get that but a lot of the differences with medical cost, and specifically medications were addressed with the ACA and the closure of the donut hole.
So, the fact that it’s true that seniors spend money differently the major difference has been fixed within another portion of the social safety net.
Thank you for the clear detailed explanation. That was exactly the point I was trying to make briefly.
The White House talked about it as did Pelosi and Reid. Pelosi later admitted that talking about it was part of a strategy to show just how unreasonable the Republicans are. They were bluffing as they were sure the Republicans would never go for it. She also said it is off the table–as did the White House.
It’s not off the table. It’s the first thing on the table. Obama has been clear from the beginning that he will eventually accept a deal that involves cuts to entitlements. Chained CPI is the low-hanging fruit there. This isn’t because it’s a good idea or that it won’t hurt people. When negotiating with rapid weasels, good ideas that don’t hurt people aren’t options. What you do is, you find the least hurtful things and you refuse to offer them, then maybe you hint that you’ll offer them, then you pull it back. It’s like fishing. You try different bait and see if the fish bite. But you don’t let the fish eat the bait until they’re on the hook and you can reel them in.
Jay Carney floated Chained CPI again this week. It’s definitely the bait they’re using at the moment.
Here’s a link on Carney and Chained CPI.
Pelosi admitted in January that it was a bluff. This is what she said.
“It was really to call the bluff of the Republicans’ tactic,” Pelosi said during a small gathering with reporters on Friday. “At what figure will you raise taxes on the rich? At what place do you keep moving the goalpost on entitlements?”
Both Biden and Obama brought it up in the debt ceiling deal–it didn’t happen. They brought it up in the fiscal cliff mess–and were bluffing. I am not surprised that they will keep offering it as a way to draw out the Republicans. I highly doubt it will ever happen. The President has also said that he would prefer to raise the income ceiling and do means testing.
But if I’m wrong I’ll send you a couple bottles of Zoe – a yummy, Maine beer.
Here’s the reason that I don’t believe Pelosi.
Chained CPI is about the least objectionable thing we could offer the Republicans. It’s better than raising the retirement age. It’s better than directly cutting benefits. It’s better than means-testing, although that takes more explanation than I’m prepared to offer in this comment.
Assuming that Obama will eventually have to make a deal that includes cuts to entitlement spending, and considering that chained CPI has already been offered, it seems unlikely that something else will be offered in its stead.
Now, if no deal on revenues is forthcoming then the COLA will remain the same.
I would far prefer Chained CPI and a deal under a Democratic President than waiting for a Republican President.
I don’t know if you read the People’s View or not but Deaniac has been excellent on this subject–and others.
I don’t read them much. I like some of their stuff, but they appear to be just a touch too much in the bag for Obama for my tastes. I want Obama to be successful, but he isn’t a saint and he isn’t infallible, and I get the sense that all criticism of the man is off limits over there.
You know, the war here isn’t to protect Obama’s reputation. It’s to keep power out of the hands of the radicalized right. Obama has been very good at that, which is the single most important reason that I support him.
I get impatient with people on the left who spend all their time attacking the president when the alternative is worse on every issue they care about. But I also get impatient with people on the left who spend all their time defending the president against those attacks.
The big problem is the GOP. They must be held at bay until demographics force significant moderation.
Ignatious’ drunk-driving analogy; in my version the Republicans are the drunken adolescent threatening to burn down their own home if they are not given the keys to the family car.
I think the problem is that many of these pundits just can’t quite quit the Republican party. Deep down they know that it has become insane but they are desperately trying to stay so they do all sorts of mental contortions to try to justify it.
They CAN’T quit the republicans because if the do then they will be a DFH and they know if that happens they won’t be taken seriously….ever.
.
There is a whole world of options between Republican apologist and DFH and maybe I’m old school but I really don’t think there are any hippies now. What the heck is up with the hippie thing?
I think “inebriated sot” is redundant, otherwise your analysis seems fairly accurate.
Not true. I consider that it might be redundant, and then I realized that Boehner’s drunkeness is redundant.
indeed. thanks for the clarification.
And don’t forget that the car is headed for the next fiscal cliff “crisis” at the end of March. Poor car.
There – fixed.
Not for long as long as we refuse to get out health care spending in line with that of other wealthy countries that don’t leave a significant portion of the population out of the equation and have older populations than the US. How much would the US system cost if 18% instead of 13% of the population were seniors and nobody was denied care or forced into bankruptcy either formally or informally? Reducing the gun violence and violence in general and the injuries incurred by military personnel in our wars of choice would have a positive impact. Our heavy reliance on private passenger vehicles for transportation also contributes to the our national medical care cost. However, the largest contributors are the delivery system profit model and the payment system model.