The top priority of Obama’s "grand bargain" is his reelection

For the past few weeks, as the President has tried to secure a "grand bargain" with GOPers -- to the point of offering up Social Security and Medicare -- it's been clear that there's a political motivation. A report in today's Washington Post lays it out:

Obama’s political advisers have long believed that securing such an agreement would provide an enormous boost to his 2012 campaign, according to people familiar with White House thinking. In particular, they want to preserve and improve the president’s standing among political independents, who abandoned Democrats in the 2010 midterm elections and who say reining in the nation’s debt is a high priority.

In many ways, it has been a remarkable transformation for a Democratic president who had made the centerpiece of his first year in office a massive spending bill to boost the economy and the expansion of health insurance.

The risk for Obama now is that his pursuit of a far-reaching package could deeply disappoint his Democratic allies who believe he may be giving away too much. By calculating that an ambitious plan to reduce the nation’s debt by $4 trillion over 10 years is so important, he’s willing to endanger one of the best weapons in his party’s arsenal — the argument that Democrats will protect Medicare and Social Security at all costs.

It's so craven. But, that's exactly what's happening. In Obama's quest for independent voters, he is willing to sacrifice core Democratic values. Apparently, Obama's team of political geniuses believe that the Democratic base really doesn't have any core beliefs either. Remember this, it was Obama who put Social Security and raising the age limit for Medicare into the bargain.

In a post that shows the chart of income inequity in this country, Digby writes:

it is depraved to cut social insurance and health care programs for people who are old and sick and cannot work. The idea that those people should be asked to "share" in the alleged sacrifice of millionaires who leave more money in the seats of their corporate jets than these people have left over at the end of the month is outrageous.

When that level of wealth inequality exists but the government insists that little old ladies be forced to "pay more" so they'll be " more responsible" (and call it shared sacrifice!) something has gone fundamentally wrong. Fix that, we fix the country.

Who knows where this will lead, but it seems depraved that a Democrat would run for reelection on a platform that would "cut social insurance and health care programs for people who are old and sick and cannot work." If a GOP President proposed these changes, we'd be calling it was it is. The Democratic base would be apoplectic. But, for some reason, we're all supposed to suck it up because a Democratic President is doing it. It's just wrong.