Unlike the James E. O'Keefe edited videos that distorted the truth, Republicans like Tommy Thompson are getting caught with their own words, unedited. They're afraid of speaking like this in public because they know they are highly unpopular. We know that the Republicans want to destroy Medicare and anyone who votes for them, better be clear that destruction is their mission. Read the rest of this post...
Elections | Economic Crisis | Jobs | TSA | Limbaugh | Fun Stuff
Follow @americablog
Showing posts with label social security. Show all posts
Showing posts with label social security. Show all posts
Video: Tommy Thompson asks "who better than me...to do away with Medicaid and Medicare?"
Unlike the James E. O'Keefe edited videos that distorted the truth, Republicans like Tommy Thompson are getting caught with their own words, unedited. They're afraid of speaking like this in public because they know they are highly unpopular. We know that the Republicans want to destroy Medicare and anyone who votes for them, better be clear that destruction is their mission. Read the rest of this post...
Obama may cut Social Security benefits during Lame Duck session following election
Not good. After November, Obama will never again face the electorate. He's free to do as he wants.
The Lesser Evil is still evil, folks. If you vote for it, it's your job to save us from it.
Huffington Post:
And Daddy Koch (sorry, David Koch) — soon-to-be operational head of the Republican Party (sorry, "one of the most influential donors in the Republican Party") — has given his blessing to the fig leaf (sorry, "tax increases") Obama needs to sell his surrender to us as some kind of benefit.
Barring an open Democratic office-holders rebellion, this is starting to look like a done-deal. Even Nancy Pelosi, judging by her words, is on board as well.
Hmm, "open rebellion" by office-holders against DLC and NeoLib party leaders. Maybe that's what we need from our good progressive electeds ....
UPDATE: There's quite a good discussion going on in the comments, with a number of positions debated. I've weighed in several times myself. Do click through if this subject interests you.
GP
To follow or send links: @Gaius_Publius
Read the rest of this post...
The Lesser Evil is still evil, folks. If you vote for it, it's your job to save us from it.
Huffington Post:
Obama May Do Social Security Reform During Lame Duck Session, Senate Democrats WorryRead more about the "chained CPI" proposal here. All you need to know — it changes the cost of living adjustment so retirees get a lot less money.
Concern is mounting among some Senate Democrats that President Barack Obama will make a deal with Senate Republicans during the lame-duck session that would result in changes to the benefit structure of Social Security.
[A snipped paragraph about how Obama said nice things before the AARP about what he's "open" to doing — without making a single promise.]
But the Vermont Independent worried that all of this could be posturing for the lame-duck session immediately after the election, when lawmakers are expected to rush to find another "grand bargain" on tax and entitlement reform to stave off the so-called fiscal cliff.
"That's exactly what's going to happen," Sanders said of Social Security being on the proverbial table, "Unless someone of us stops it -- and a number of us are working very hard on this -- that's exactly what will happen. Everything being equal, unless we stop it, what will happen is there will be a quote-unquote grand bargain after the election in which the White House, some Democrats will sit down with Republicans, they will move to a chained CPI."
When the president and Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) attempted to craft a deal on the debt ceiling last summer, Obama offered the chained CPI as a concession.So there. As we wrote months and months ago, Obama's original Grand Bargain is still on the table.
And Daddy Koch (sorry, David Koch) — soon-to-be operational head of the Republican Party (sorry, "one of the most influential donors in the Republican Party") — has given his blessing to the fig leaf (sorry, "tax increases") Obama needs to sell his surrender to us as some kind of benefit.
Barring an open Democratic office-holders rebellion, this is starting to look like a done-deal. Even Nancy Pelosi, judging by her words, is on board as well.
Hmm, "open rebellion" by office-holders against DLC and NeoLib party leaders. Maybe that's what we need from our good progressive electeds ....
UPDATE: There's quite a good discussion going on in the comments, with a number of positions debated. I've weighed in several times myself. Do click through if this subject interests you.
GP
To follow or send links: @Gaius_Publius
Read the rest of this post...
Romney support from seniors crumbling rapidly
Reuters:
New polling by Reuters/Ipsos indicates that during the past two weeks - since just after the Democratic National Convention - support for Romney among Americans age 60 and older has crumbled, from a 20-point lead over Democratic President Barack Obama to less than 4 points.Read the rest of this post...
Romney's double-digit advantages among older voters on the issues of healthcare and Medicare - the nation's health insurance program for those over 65 and the disabled - also have evaporated, and Obama has begun to build an advantage in both areas.
Voting preferences among seniors could change in the final six weeks of the campaign, but the polling suggests that a series of recent episodes favoring Obama and the Democrats could be chipping away at Romney's support among older Americans.
Note to progressives: Read Obama's acceptance speech carefully
Just a fast note as vacation winds to a close. I listened to Obama's acceptance speech on Thursday, expecting to feel very ... Clintonian. I expected him to avoid most of the traps and stroke my inner kitten in the right direction.
Surprise; he laid out the truth of his next term. I thank him for that.
My note to progressives — read that speech carefully. (John has posted it here.)
Like Beethoven's Choral Fantasy, it contains numerous previews and foreshadowings. Listening I found it an eye-opener (OK, ear-opener for literalists).
I won't deconstruct it here, and maybe not until he's re-ascended, using Mr. Romney as a footstool. But do read, while the exhilaration-exhaustion of the DNC is fresh.
I'll be back in full by early Tuesday. Hope everyone had an excellent Labor Week holiday.
GP
To follow or send links: @Gaius_Publius
Read the rest of this post...
Surprise; he laid out the truth of his next term. I thank him for that.
My note to progressives — read that speech carefully. (John has posted it here.)
Like Beethoven's Choral Fantasy, it contains numerous previews and foreshadowings. Listening I found it an eye-opener (OK, ear-opener for literalists).
I won't deconstruct it here, and maybe not until he's re-ascended, using Mr. Romney as a footstool. But do read, while the exhilaration-exhaustion of the DNC is fresh.
I'll be back in full by early Tuesday. Hope everyone had an excellent Labor Week holiday.
GP
To follow or send links: @Gaius_Publius
Read the rest of this post...
In 2010, 75% of Americans near retirement had less than $30,000 in their retirement accounts
As we approach the 2012 elections, the "fiscal cliff" (clever branding, that) and Obama's post-electoral march to the Grand Bargain sea, I want to present to you three virtual images. And an injunction.
■ Image one, from the New York Times in a recent article on retirement (my emphases and some reparagraphing throughout):
Gather that fact — 75% of about-to-retire Americans are headed off their own "fiscal cliff." Once that $30,000 is gone, boom.
■ Image two, from the William Pitt Rivers article that led me to the quote above:
■ Image three, this man, a politician whose face I've seen lately telling Clinton's money man Robert Rubin ("Bob" he says) and a roomful of Rubin's best friends (including "Roger" and "Peter") that Social Security needs reforming.
He forgot to say that he was just the man to do it, but I can't blame him for that. This was 2006 and he was not yet president of the United States.
"Too many of us have been interested in defending programs as written in 1938," he codedly says. Social Security was enacted in 1935 and significantly amended in 1939, partly in response to the government's kicking the economy back into recession by reduced New Deal (stimulus) spending.
Other telling quotes:
■ The injunction — It's legitimate to consider the man above to be 2012's Lesser Evil. As near as I can tell, the current Koch-couped Republican Party is a wrecking ball.
But Lesser Evil is still evil. If you do decide to hand him four unfettered years to do as he chooses, remember — you put him there. You have to help save us from this evil as well.
I'm serious. If you vote for Romney, what he does will be your fault.
If you vote for Obama — and you don't try to stop his Keystone Dreams and the looting of the safety net to please the future funders of the Barack H. Obama World Legacy, Library, and Retirement Tour — that will be your fault too.
Stopping those who want to install "Ayn Ryan" is only half the job.
If you conspire to install Obama, you have to stop him too. It's part of the job you gave yourself by voting for him.
GP
To follow or send links: @Gaius_Publius
Read the rest of this post...
■ Image one, from the New York Times in a recent article on retirement (my emphases and some reparagraphing throughout):
Seventy-five percent of Americans nearing retirement age in 2010 had less than $30,000 in their retirement accounts. The specter of downward mobility in retirement is a looming reality for both middle- and higher-income workers.The article is really good; do read the rest. But I want to stop here a moment.
Almost half of middle-class workers, 49 percent, will be poor or near poor in retirement, living on a food budget of about $5 a day.
Gather that fact — 75% of about-to-retire Americans are headed off their own "fiscal cliff." Once that $30,000 is gone, boom.
■ Image two, from the William Pitt Rivers article that led me to the quote above:
I heard the sound of clinking and clanking coming from the front of my house. I knew what it was immediately: one of the Can People was making her daily pass through my recycling bins. ...In the article, Mr. Rivers takes apart "something called Charles Lane" — a Wash Post writer and water-carrier for something called Paul Ryan. A worthy read.
The Can People are old men and women, stooped, wearing worn-out clothes and fraying shoes as they rattle through my refuse with gnarled, arthritic hands. ...
I wave to them when I see them, but they seldom respond, either because their eyesight is too poor to make me out as I stand on my porch like a lord, or because they are too ashamed to acknowledge the fact that I see them, and thus see what it is they must do to survive. ...
I remembered a brace of ginger ale cans I'd neglected to bring outside. Hurriedly, I tossed them into a bag and brought them to my porch. She was bent into the blue bin to the waist, and when she reared up at the sound of me, there was fear in her eyes. ...
I came to the railing, extended the bag of cans to her, and she took them without a word. Her face was a delta, a map of time itself, and she could not bring herself to meet my eye. She placed the bag of cans in her shopping cart, and I watched as she clattered her way down the sidewalk[.]
■ Image three, this man, a politician whose face I've seen lately telling Clinton's money man Robert Rubin ("Bob" he says) and a roomful of Rubin's best friends (including "Roger" and "Peter") that Social Security needs reforming.
He forgot to say that he was just the man to do it, but I can't blame him for that. This was 2006 and he was not yet president of the United States.
"Too many of us have been interested in defending programs as written in 1938," he codedly says. Social Security was enacted in 1935 and significantly amended in 1939, partly in response to the government's kicking the economy back into recession by reduced New Deal (stimulus) spending.
Other telling quotes:
"The coming baby boomer retirement will only add to the challenges."And:
"Most of us are strong free-traders."Good to be among friends.
■ The injunction — It's legitimate to consider the man above to be 2012's Lesser Evil. As near as I can tell, the current Koch-couped Republican Party is a wrecking ball.
But Lesser Evil is still evil. If you do decide to hand him four unfettered years to do as he chooses, remember — you put him there. You have to help save us from this evil as well.
I'm serious. If you vote for Romney, what he does will be your fault.
If you vote for Obama — and you don't try to stop his Keystone Dreams and the looting of the safety net to please the future funders of the Barack H. Obama World Legacy, Library, and Retirement Tour — that will be your fault too.
Stopping those who want to install "Ayn Ryan" is only half the job.
If you conspire to install Obama, you have to stop him too. It's part of the job you gave yourself by voting for him.
GP
To follow or send links: @Gaius_Publius
Read the rest of this post...
Poll: Raise taxes to save Social Security
The program that the GOP wants to destroy remains popular among Americans. Bizarrely, the GOP views Social Security as an entitlement despite Americans paying into the system during their working life. Regardless of what spin we hear from the GOP this week, it's their mission to destroy Social Security. It's terrifying to think what would have happened to Social Security in 2008 had the Ryan plan (which Bush also attempted in his second term) been enacted and it was privatized.
Why do Republicans want to destroy something as popular and important as Social Security?
Why do Republicans want to destroy something as popular and important as Social Security?
Most Americans say go ahead and raise taxes if it will save Social Security benefits for future generations. And raise the retirement age, if you have to.Read the rest of this post...
Both options are preferable to cutting monthly benefits, even for people who are years away from applying for them.
Those are the findings of a new Associated Press-GfK poll on public attitudes toward the nation's largest federal program.
Romney considering 1 term, wants to enact Ryan's Medicare-eliminating budget
Via Politico we learn why the Romney people don't like doing media - because their candidate is a little unhinged.
ARTICLE OF THE DAY -- JON WARD in Huffington magazine (available today on iPad; article posts Monday), “The One-Termer? Thinking Bold Thoughts With Team Romney”: “Matt Rhoades is guarded and intense … [W]hen I met him in mid-July, in a bohemian coffee shop in Boston’s North End, the 37-year-old manager of Mitt Romney’s campaign was hesitant to speculate about what the Republican candidate would do as president, and how. … But when I asked Rhoades … what Romney might do with the budget and entitlement reform plans Ryan had already outlined, Rhoades’ eyes lit up. He gave me a name: James Polk. … Rhoades and the rest of the members of Romney’s inner circle think a Romney presidency could look much like the White House tenure of the 11th U.S. president.Read the rest of this post...
“Polk, who served from 1845 to 1849, presided over the expansion of the U.S. into a coast-to-coast nation, annexing Texas and winning the Mexican-American war for territories that also included New Mexico and California. He reduced trade barriers and strengthened the Treasury system. And he was a one-term president. Polk is an allegory for Rhoades: He did great things, and then exited the scene, and few remember him. That, Rhoades suggested, could be Romney’s legacy as well. … Multiple senior Romney advisers assured me that they had had conversations with the candidate in which he conveyed a depth of conviction about the need to try to enact something like Ryan’s controversial budget and entitlement reforms. Romney, they said, was willing to count the cost politically in order to achieve it.”
Two guys talking about Social Security and Medicare
These guys are in "the big club" — both of them. See how friendly?
They're in the club ... but you're not (don't click at work):
Watch these again, in order; both are short.
Protecting Social Security (and the rest of the safety net) from the Big Boys Club will be Job One during the Lame Duck session.
Obama's a charter member of that club, and he'll be off the electoral leash:
Our homework assignment — plan and organize now. Strengthen Social Security, don't weaken it. Put Obama on the record, now:
Only half of your task is finished in November. The other half is protecting the rest of us from the "lesser evil" guy you voted for.
No waffling please. Obama's been a member of the kill-it-to-save-it club since 2006.
And like Mr. Carlin said, he's coming for it, just like the two nice guys up top.
GP
To follow or send links: @Gaius_Publius
Read the rest of this post...
They're in the club ... but you're not (don't click at work):
Watch these again, in order; both are short.
Protecting Social Security (and the rest of the safety net) from the Big Boys Club will be Job One during the Lame Duck session.
Obama's a charter member of that club, and he'll be off the electoral leash:
Our homework assignment — plan and organize now. Strengthen Social Security, don't weaken it. Put Obama on the record, now:
Mr. Obama. Paul Ryan wants to slash the social safety net. Will promise no cuts to Social Security and Medicare?Electing the lesser evil is still electing evil. Those of you who believe in "lesser evil voting" have work to do.
Including cuts by raising the retirement age and changing the cost-of-living calculation?
No waffling please — zero cuts period, right? 'Cause if we wanted a waffle, we'd go to Belgium. From you we want an unequivocal answer.
Your friends,
People who will rewrite your legacy if you fail us
Only half of your task is finished in November. The other half is protecting the rest of us from the "lesser evil" guy you voted for.
No waffling please. Obama's been a member of the kill-it-to-save-it club since 2006.
And like Mr. Carlin said, he's coming for it, just like the two nice guys up top.
GP
To follow or send links: @Gaius_Publius
Read the rest of this post...
He didn't build it: How socialism helped Paul Ryan go to college
More specifically, what Ryan and Romney actually mean by "socialism" is any government program that helps someone. This is why Ryan is so determined to dismantle Social Security (which he wants to privatize) and Medicare (which he wants to replace with a voucher system, meaning, you get to fend for yourself against private insurance companies that will charge you a few thousand dollars a month for really bad insurance).
What's interesting, therefore, is the news that Social Security helped Paul Ryan go to college and make him the man he is today (which is perhaps a justification for getting rid of it). Via Raw Story:
From the age of 16, when his 55-year-old father died of a heart attack, until he was 18, Ryan received Social Security payments, which, according to a lengthy profile in WI Magazine, he put away for college. The eventual budget czar attended Miami University in Ohio to earn a B.A. in economics and political science, and landed a congressional internship as a junior.So Paul Ryan benefitted from the largesse of big liberal government. Government that he now wants to take away from the rest of us. Read the rest of this post...
Is TPP ("NAFTA on steroids") Obama's Bain Capital?
More about the super-secret (and genuinely scary) Trans-Pacific Partnership ("TPP") trade agreement, courtesy of Public Citizen.
The TPP pact is a world-wide "corporate coup d'état"
A characterization of the super-secret TPP from Lori Wallach, writing in The Nation (my emphasis and paragraphing throughout):
Ms. Wallach makes the same point we did earlier, that TPP is a world-wide "corporate coup d'état":
Does TPP undercut Obama's "enemy of vulture capital" pose?
As you know (I hope) a presidential election is just an ad campaign — "these hub caps are shinier" or "this candidate is nicer to dogs." Like with all ad campaigns, the campaigners are primarily concerned with the manipulation of appearances.
As in 2008, Barack Obama has reverted from the "here's how I roll" reality to his "think of me this way" self-presentation. (See here for a Tale of Two Baracks.)
So President Obama is back in the closet, and Candidate Obama is back on the stump, saying nice things about himself.
This year's version of "Candidate Obama" is selling himself as the Bane of Bain, the enemy of offshoring predator capitalism.
You're not the first to have noticed that Obama, Bane of Bain is the enemy of Obama, Friend of the Corporate Coup. Will voters notice? They will if this keep up. From a Public Citizen press release:
Will Obama's high-pressure support for TPP undercut the Obama campaign's primary selling point? Stay tuned.
A post-2012 note to Progressives: We need a plan
NeoLiberal Robert Rubin–acolyte Barack Obama is pushing TPP as hard — and as secretly — as he can. What does that make Barack Obama?
In my view, it might make Barack Obama the second most dangerous enemy of progressive and anti-corporate causes in the country. The first most dangerous is anyone bankrolled by Movement Conservative billionaires, because those guys don't even have to pretend.
This doesn't mean I'm telling you how to vote in November. In my opinion, that election is over, and I have no interest in inciting Left-on-Left violence over a done deal. People can do what they like till November; I'm good with all of it.
But I am saying that Movement Progressives better get ready, starting now if possible. Because of all possible outcomes post-November, one of them is a full-on assault on progressive values by a completely unfettered 2nd-term friend-of-the-corporate-coup.
It's up to you to decide what an unfettered Obama will do. I don't have a crystal ball. But whatever it is he really really wants, I guarantee that's what he'll shoot for.
My point? Hope is not a plan. If Progressives want to be a player in the Battle of the Next Four Years, we need to do better than hope for the best. We need a plan for a worst-case Obama second term. It's called hugging the monster.
I'm serious. It's a good thing to act. It's better to act with a plan. Mes centimes (French for "word").
Our previous TPP coverage
For reference, a short list of our previous coverage:
■ Why are the Trans Pacific free trade negotiations secret? — May 11, 2012
■ Obama trade document leaked, reveals new corporate powers and broken promises — June 14, 2012
Thanks for your attention to this subject. In my opinion, this pales next to the global warming catastrophe, but not by much, since it will structurally change the government of the world. And this catastrophe will happen first, unless we put ourselves in the way of it.
Mes centimes,
GP
To follow or send links: @Gaius_Publius
Read the rest of this post...
The TPP pact is a world-wide "corporate coup d'état"
A characterization of the super-secret TPP from Lori Wallach, writing in The Nation (my emphasis and paragraphing throughout):
The TPP has been cleverly misbranded as a trade agreement (yawn) by its corporate boosters. As a result, since George W. Bush initiated negotiations in 2008, it has cruised along under the radar."The most florid dreams of the 1 percent—grandiose new rights and privileges for corporations and permanent constraints on government regulation." Like them apples? Obama does. That's why he's negotiating for them.
The Obama administration initially paused the talks, ostensibly to develop a new approach compatible with candidate Obama’s pledges to replace the old NAFTA-based trade model. But by late 2009, talks restarted just where Bush had left off. [Note this; I have a separate point to make on this below.]
Since then, US negotiators have proposed new rights for Big Pharma and pushed into the text aspects of the Stop Online Piracy Act, which would limit Internet freedom, despite the derailing of SOPA in Congress earlier this year thanks to public activism.
In June a text of the TPP investment chapter was leaked, revealing that US negotiators are even pushing to expand NAFTA’s notorious corporate tribunals, which have been used to attack domestic public interest laws. [Our coverage of those sovereignty-killing trade courts here.]
Think of the TPP as a stealthy delivery mechanism for policies that could not survive public scrutiny. Indeed, only two of the twenty-six chapters of this corporate Trojan horse cover traditional trade matters.
The rest embody the most florid dreams of the 1 percent—grandiose new rights and privileges for corporations and permanent constraints on government regulation.
They include new investor safeguards to ease job offshoring and assert control over natural resources, and severely limit the regulation of financial services, land use, food safety, natural resources, energy, tobacco, healthcare and more.
Ms. Wallach makes the same point we did earlier, that TPP is a world-wide "corporate coup d'état":
The stakes are extremely high, because the TPP may well be the last “trade” agreement Washington negotiates. This is because if it’s completed, the TPP would remain open for any other country to join. ...This means, as we said earlier:
Countries would be obliged to conform all their domestic laws and regulations to the TPP’s rules—in effect, a corporate coup d’état[.]
Because treaties like NAFTA are folded into national constitutions, international corporations have found a way to establish a new international system of dispute resolution that trumps national governments. ... "NAFTA" Bill Clinton has much to answer for.Like them apples? Obama does.
Does TPP undercut Obama's "enemy of vulture capital" pose?
As you know (I hope) a presidential election is just an ad campaign — "these hub caps are shinier" or "this candidate is nicer to dogs." Like with all ad campaigns, the campaigners are primarily concerned with the manipulation of appearances.
As in 2008, Barack Obama has reverted from the "here's how I roll" reality to his "think of me this way" self-presentation. (See here for a Tale of Two Baracks.)
So President Obama is back in the closet, and Candidate Obama is back on the stump, saying nice things about himself.
This year's version of "Candidate Obama" is selling himself as the Bane of Bain, the enemy of offshoring predator capitalism.
You're not the first to have noticed that Obama, Bane of Bain is the enemy of Obama, Friend of the Corporate Coup. Will voters notice? They will if this keep up. From a Public Citizen press release:
Growing congressional, state legislator and activist protests of closed-door negotiations on the Obama administration’s first trade pact, the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), threatened to undermine the Obama campaign’s attack on Mitt Romney’s Bain Capital U.S. job offshoring activities.Ms. Wallach is the author of the Nation article quoted above, and well-versed in this subject.
The latest round of TPP talks wrapped up today in San Diego following a week of protests outside the venue, growing concern about TPP in Congress, a letter warning of opposition from state legislators representing all 50 states and delivery of two different petitions with nearly 100,000 signatories each.
A text of the TPP’s investment chapter that leaked last month shows that it includes an expanded version of the rules in the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) that incentivize investment and job offshoring by eliminating the risks of relocating to lower-wage countries and guaranteeing preferential treatment for relocated firms.
“U.S. negotiators have tried to keep TPP negotiations totally below the radar, but even so opposition to the current “NAFTA-on-steroids-with-Asia” approach is escalating, which is good news for the public but a serious complication for the Obama campaign’s attack on Romney as a U.S. job offshorer,” said Lori Wallach, director of Public Citizen’s Global Trade Watch.
Will Obama's high-pressure support for TPP undercut the Obama campaign's primary selling point? Stay tuned.
A post-2012 note to Progressives: We need a plan
NeoLiberal Robert Rubin–acolyte Barack Obama is pushing TPP as hard — and as secretly — as he can. What does that make Barack Obama?
In my view, it might make Barack Obama the second most dangerous enemy of progressive and anti-corporate causes in the country. The first most dangerous is anyone bankrolled by Movement Conservative billionaires, because those guys don't even have to pretend.
This doesn't mean I'm telling you how to vote in November. In my opinion, that election is over, and I have no interest in inciting Left-on-Left violence over a done deal. People can do what they like till November; I'm good with all of it.
But I am saying that Movement Progressives better get ready, starting now if possible. Because of all possible outcomes post-November, one of them is a full-on assault on progressive values by a completely unfettered 2nd-term friend-of-the-corporate-coup.
It's up to you to decide what an unfettered Obama will do. I don't have a crystal ball. But whatever it is he really really wants, I guarantee that's what he'll shoot for.
- Does he want TPP? Seems to.
- A nice new sludge-filled Keystone Pipeline? Almost guaranteed.
- Expanded drone-kill rights? Jonas Bros, watch out.
- A Grand Bargain on steroids? Just watch in December (search for the phrase "still on the table").
- Anything else? My guess: yes. He's going to owe a lot of favors in return for his $1 billion dollar ad campaign.
My point? Hope is not a plan. If Progressives want to be a player in the Battle of the Next Four Years, we need to do better than hope for the best. We need a plan for a worst-case Obama second term. It's called hugging the monster.
I'm serious. It's a good thing to act. It's better to act with a plan. Mes centimes (French for "word").
Our previous TPP coverage
For reference, a short list of our previous coverage:
■ Why are the Trans Pacific free trade negotiations secret? — May 11, 2012
■ Obama trade document leaked, reveals new corporate powers and broken promises — June 14, 2012
Thanks for your attention to this subject. In my opinion, this pales next to the global warming catastrophe, but not by much, since it will structurally change the government of the world. And this catastrophe will happen first, unless we put ourselves in the way of it.
Mes centimes,
GP
To follow or send links: @Gaius_Publius
Read the rest of this post...
Bill Clinton plays the "Cory Booker card"—Stop being mean to Bain Capital
Really, Bill Clinton? Really? This is Cory Booker territory.
Yes, really. Arnie Parnes at The Hill:
The unkind framing is "the debate over whether the predatory rich are destroying the U.S. economy."
It's that second frame, that second narrative, that can't ever be acknowledged — at least among the straights.
And that's what Clinton is doing — heading off that narrative.
Remember, Clinton used politics to lever himself into the low end of the upper class. He gave us NAFTA, Telecom "reform" and the end of Glass–Steagall — and after leaving office had enough "thank you" money to pony up $3,000,000 for a wedding.
If he ever was on the side of us Littles (he may well have been, once), he's not now. This description of Barack Obama by James Galbraith, written shortly after Obama's debt-deal, could apply to either man, Obama or Clinton:
It's unlikely that Clinton will "Booker" himself — take himself out of the conversation — with this defense. He's actually upped the Bain pushback against Obama's campaign team. It will be interesting to see if it works.
But just in case Clinton does manage to rebrand himself instead of Bain, I offer this little video to help the cause along:
Clinton and Ryan, sittin' in a tree, killing Social Securi-tee.
Not much more needs saying, in my estimation.
GP
To follow or send links: @Gaius_Publius
Read the rest of this post...
Yes, really. Arnie Parnes at The Hill:
Former President Bill Clinton on Thursday night became the latest surrogate for President Obama to stray from campaign talking points, saying GOP nominee Mitt Romney's business experience "crosses the qualification threshold."Go to the middle paragraph, to the phrase "the debate over which candidate can better lead the U.S. economy." That's one framing, the kind one.
In an interview on the Piers Morgan show on CNN, Clinton said the Obama campaign shouldn't spend its energy criticizing Romney's work at Bain Capital, an argument that has taken central stage in the debate over which candidate can better lead the U.S. economy.
"I don't think we ought to get into the position where we say, 'This is bad work. This is good work,'" Clinton told guest host Harvey Weinstein, a staunch Obama supporter who has helped raise millions of dollars for the president's reelection campaign.
The unkind framing is "the debate over whether the predatory rich are destroying the U.S. economy."
It's that second frame, that second narrative, that can't ever be acknowledged — at least among the straights.
And that's what Clinton is doing — heading off that narrative.
Remember, Clinton used politics to lever himself into the low end of the upper class. He gave us NAFTA, Telecom "reform" and the end of Glass–Steagall — and after leaving office had enough "thank you" money to pony up $3,000,000 for a wedding.
If he ever was on the side of us Littles (he may well have been, once), he's not now. This description of Barack Obama by James Galbraith, written shortly after Obama's debt-deal, could apply to either man, Obama or Clinton:
The President is not a progressive – he is not what Americans still call a “liberal.” He is a willful player in an epic drama of faux-politics, an operative for the money power, whose job is to neutralize the left with fear and distraction and then to pivot rightward and deliver a conservative result.Clinton loves his Rubin, at which altar Obama also worships. Does more need saying?
What Barack Obama got from the debt deal was exactly what his sponsors have wanted: a long-term lock-in of domestic spending cuts, and a path toward severe cuts in the core New Deal and Great Society insurance programs – Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. And, of course, no tax increases at all.
To see the arc of political strategy, recall that from the beginning Obama handed economic policy to retainers recruited from the stables of Robert Rubin.
It's unlikely that Clinton will "Booker" himself — take himself out of the conversation — with this defense. He's actually upped the Bain pushback against Obama's campaign team. It will be interesting to see if it works.
But just in case Clinton does manage to rebrand himself instead of Bain, I offer this little video to help the cause along:
Clinton and Ryan, sittin' in a tree, killing Social Securi-tee.
Not much more needs saying, in my estimation.
GP
To follow or send links: @Gaius_Publius
Read the rest of this post...
Youth challenge Alan Simpson to debate: "Your plan cuts benefits for young people most"
UPDATE: Simpson says Yes.
________
To continue the quote in the title: "The younger you are, the bigger the [benefit] cut." Exactly.
This is a very nice video from StrengthenSocialSecurity.org, pushing back on (and calling out) Mr. Catfood himself, Alan Simpson (he of the "310 million tits").
I've said many times that the real Grand Bargain betrayal is between the generations, not between the Dems and Republicans. Those two are united, it seems.
The real offer on the table is from Billionaires of both parties (Our Betters) to older Americans, and it goes like this:
Instead they're calling out Alan Simpson — and presumably, all who support him (like this guy, and this guy, and this kind lady) — on the cruelty of his Catfood Plan.
Watch and listen; this one is a winner:
Here's their offer on the table. Dear Mr. Simpson:
Help them out if you can. The entertainment value alone of this debate would be well worth the effort to make it happen. And who knows, they might just save the safety net after all.
Very nice, folks — it really will be your world, very very soon. Time to take care of it with us, don't you think?
Occupy your future. We're certainly doing our part. Thanks!
GP
To follow or send links: @Gaius_Publius Read the rest of this post...
________
To continue the quote in the title: "The younger you are, the bigger the [benefit] cut." Exactly.
This is a very nice video from StrengthenSocialSecurity.org, pushing back on (and calling out) Mr. Catfood himself, Alan Simpson (he of the "310 million tits").
I've said many times that the real Grand Bargain betrayal is between the generations, not between the Dems and Republicans. Those two are united, it seems.
The real offer on the table is from Billionaires of both parties (Our Betters) to older Americans, and it goes like this:
"If you'll agree to screw your children and grandchildren out of their benefits, we'll promise to exempt your own."The Billionaires' sell to youth goes like this:
"Why not roll over and let it happen. It won't hurt (now); just close your eyes and think of England. After all, don't you read the news? You know Social Security will be gone before you need it. Relax. Let it go. Besides, look, google glasses..."Well, here's a bunch of those young people — presumably one-time Hope-and-Change Obama voters, note — who aren't rolling over, who aren't thinking of England.
Instead they're calling out Alan Simpson — and presumably, all who support him (like this guy, and this guy, and this kind lady) — on the cruelty of his Catfood Plan.
Watch and listen; this one is a winner:
Here's their offer on the table. Dear Mr. Simpson:
"We challenge you to a debate with our young Social Security experts, in a time and setting of your choosing, in a format you choose as well. We look forward to your response."Will Alan Simpson take them up on it? They really are calling him out. And Simpson is just mouthy enough (sorry, man enough) to say Yes.
Help them out if you can. The entertainment value alone of this debate would be well worth the effort to make it happen. And who knows, they might just save the safety net after all.
Very nice, folks — it really will be your world, very very soon. Time to take care of it with us, don't you think?
Occupy your future. We're certainly doing our part. Thanks!
GP
To follow or send links: @Gaius_Publius Read the rest of this post...
Looks like Pelosi speaks for Obama in moving the Bush-Obama tax cut offer to $1m
When last we left our heroes, the brave Democrats wanted the wicked Republicans to extend the Bush Tax Cuts (and after 2010, the Obama Tax Cuts) for incomes below $250,000 — and only those.
And they wanted the Republicans to do this ahead of the post-election lame duck session — when (obviously) all of them would regrettably cave to the billionaires who just financed their $2,000,000,000 combined ad buy (not including the primaries).
So that was the presumed offer on the table — $250,000 incomes and below get their Bush (and Obama) tax cuts renewed; they still have no jobs, but their taxes won't go up.
Then Nancy Pelosi pre-emptively moved the bar from that measly $250,000 to a full $1,000,000.
What was going on, we asked? Was Pelosi off the Dem reservation, doing a Cory Booker so to speak, and speaking out of turn?
Or was she front-running for Obama? (My bet was front-running, but that's me. I think if you notice what Dems actually accomplish, you have to admit they're good at it.)
Now comes Pelosi again to explain. Writing in USA Today, she renews her offer to Republicans to extend the Bush–Obama tax cuts for incomes below a full $1,000,000. Doubling down, as it were (my emphasis and some reparagraphing):
Pelosi will walk that back (don't hold your breath) or Obama's on board. Count on it.
Note, for good measure, Pelosi also doubles down on her confirmation of Simpson-Bowles Catfood-for-Gran:
It's coming, folks. Not only do all the elites want to send as much manufacturing overseas as they can (why else would Dems not fight for alternate-energy manufacturing in the U.S.?).
All the elites also want to fix your "broken" safety net. Not enough holes in it, I guess.
It's a two-fer for their billionaire masters — your jobs off to cheap-labor countries (so the billionaires get more money) and your safety net in shreds (so the billionaires get more money).
Tick-tick-tick.
[UPDATE: Some phrases tweaked for clarity.]
GP
To follow or send links: @Gaius_Publius
Read the rest of this post...
And they wanted the Republicans to do this ahead of the post-election lame duck session — when (obviously) all of them would regrettably cave to the billionaires who just financed their $2,000,000,000 combined ad buy (not including the primaries).
So that was the presumed offer on the table — $250,000 incomes and below get their Bush (and Obama) tax cuts renewed; they still have no jobs, but their taxes won't go up.
Then Nancy Pelosi pre-emptively moved the bar from that measly $250,000 to a full $1,000,000.
What was going on, we asked? Was Pelosi off the Dem reservation, doing a Cory Booker so to speak, and speaking out of turn?
Or was she front-running for Obama? (My bet was front-running, but that's me. I think if you notice what Dems actually accomplish, you have to admit they're good at it.)
Now comes Pelosi again to explain. Writing in USA Today, she renews her offer to Republicans to extend the Bush–Obama tax cuts for incomes below a full $1,000,000. Doubling down, as it were (my emphasis and some reparagraphing):
Democrats have always opposed the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans. Since President Obama's election, we have repeatedly called for an end to tax cuts for those making more than $250,000 a year.Here's how to read that, in my opinion. By acknowledging Obama's role and former bargaining position, Pelosi seems to be speaking for the whole Dem team ("we"), including Obama himself. Either that or Nancy has some serious 'spaining to do.
Republicans have rejected this effort, holding tax relief for the middle class and small businesses hostage to permanent tax breaks for millionaires, Big Oil, and corporations that ship jobs overseas.
Democrats are committed to moving the process forward by asking the wealthiest to pay their fair share through the expiration of tax cuts for those earning over $1 million a year.
Pelosi will walk that back (don't hold your breath) or Obama's on board. Count on it.
Note, for good measure, Pelosi also doubles down on her confirmation of Simpson-Bowles Catfood-for-Gran:
Democrats are committed to using the significant savings to reduce the deficit. And in the future, Democrats are committed to reforming the tax code, closing special interest loopholes. Democrats and President Obama have supported a grand bargain to spur our economy and reduce our deficit[.]More with the Grand Bargain.
It's coming, folks. Not only do all the elites want to send as much manufacturing overseas as they can (why else would Dems not fight for alternate-energy manufacturing in the U.S.?).
All the elites also want to fix your "broken" safety net. Not enough holes in it, I guess.
It's a two-fer for their billionaire masters — your jobs off to cheap-labor countries (so the billionaires get more money) and your safety net in shreds (so the billionaires get more money).
Tick-tick-tick.
[UPDATE: Some phrases tweaked for clarity.]
GP
To follow or send links: @Gaius_Publius
Read the rest of this post...
"Catfood Clinton" rides again—at a Pete Peterson summit to kill Social Security
Wealth inequity is not a by-product — it's the goal.
If you read here regularly, you know that Pete Peterson, the crazed billionaire who lives, breathes, eats and ... well ... to take down Social Security — a man who has spent a half billion dollars on that soulless psychopathic project — just held a Washington DC "summit" aimed at killing what he loves to hate.
Your safety net.
Granny needs some catfood in her diet, because U.S. income inequity hasn't topped out yet. There's still room on the upside.
The news — at that "summit" spoke the Big Dog himself, "Catfood Bill" Clinton (h/t Digby for the quote and for leaning on this hard):
Who's helping make it happen? How about Nancy Pelosi? How about "your" Progressive Congressional Caucus?
Yes, these loveable madcaps are rumoring it about (I have grapevine ears) that they're really playing some super-smart chess of their own — acing the Republicans at their own game (wink wink).
I agree — this is what they want us to think they're doing. This may even be what they do think they're doing. But that doesn't make it what they really are doing.
What they really are doing is adding their voices to the roar for "entitlement reform." And doing it rather well, thank you.
How's this for entitlement reform:
Action opportunity — I still like freeway blogging in Pelosi's district. It's cheap, and a determined, persistent bunch of self-enabling progressives can maybe make some noise. Besides, the "ex-liberal" slogans just write themselves. Here's a few:
How bad does gavel-ready Nancy need to keep her fundraising "brand" — the thing she wants you to think she is? You could find out. There are lots of ways to de-brand progressives who act badly.
Remember — you don't need permission to act. Just think it through first — find the leverage points (like branding), don't be violent, and press. (Joe Sudbay did just that at the 2010 Blogger Roundtable. All it takes is courage and action.)
And finally, a little video for your midnight freakout fun. Here's Catfood Clinton and BFF Paul Ryan, another "summit" featured speaker, fixing to fix you good. Hands across the aisle:
More from Clinton here.
And here's our "fierce defender" — winner of the 2008 presidential ad campaign — perhaps making plans for the looming lame duck session:
They don't want what you want, folks. They want what they want. "Catfood Bill" has his, and you can't have yours.
What Digby said: "I think it's going to happen this time." Ready to fight a tad more effectively? Me too. Hey, we might even win.
GP
(To follow on Twitter or to send links: @Gaius_Publius)
Read the rest of this post...
If you read here regularly, you know that Pete Peterson, the crazed billionaire who lives, breathes, eats and ... well ... to take down Social Security — a man who has spent a half billion dollars on that soulless psychopathic project — just held a Washington DC "summit" aimed at killing what he loves to hate.
Your safety net.
Granny needs some catfood in her diet, because U.S. income inequity hasn't topped out yet. There's still room on the upside.
The news — at that "summit" spoke the Big Dog himself, "Catfood Bill" Clinton (h/t Digby for the quote and for leaning on this hard):
“Our party’s problem is, we are always reluctant to give up the gains of the past to create the future,” Bill Clinton told the audience at the Pete Peterson’s fiscal summit. “Democrats are reluctant to commit to longer-term health-care savings; they don’t want to touch Social Security.”That's all you need to know. What Digby said: "I think it's going to happen this time."
Who's helping make it happen? How about Nancy Pelosi? How about "your" Progressive Congressional Caucus?
Yes, these loveable madcaps are rumoring it about (I have grapevine ears) that they're really playing some super-smart chess of their own — acing the Republicans at their own game (wink wink).
I agree — this is what they want us to think they're doing. This may even be what they do think they're doing. But that doesn't make it what they really are doing.
What they really are doing is adding their voices to the roar for "entitlement reform." And doing it rather well, thank you.
How's this for entitlement reform:
- You're not entitled to the name "progressive" unless you act like one.
Action opportunity — I still like freeway blogging in Pelosi's district. It's cheap, and a determined, persistent bunch of self-enabling progressives can maybe make some noise. Besides, the "ex-liberal" slogans just write themselves. Here's a few:
"Ex-liberal Nancy Pelosi supports Catfood for Granny. Thanks, Nancy."
"Nancy stands with Steny — Let's reduce Social Security benefits just as soon as we're safely re-elected."Or more playfully:
"Nancy & Steny, sitting in a treeI'd add a little picture to that last one. Might make the news.
Killing Social Secur-i-ty"
How bad does gavel-ready Nancy need to keep her fundraising "brand" — the thing she wants you to think she is? You could find out. There are lots of ways to de-brand progressives who act badly.
Remember — you don't need permission to act. Just think it through first — find the leverage points (like branding), don't be violent, and press. (Joe Sudbay did just that at the 2010 Blogger Roundtable. All it takes is courage and action.)
And finally, a little video for your midnight freakout fun. Here's Catfood Clinton and BFF Paul Ryan, another "summit" featured speaker, fixing to fix you good. Hands across the aisle:
More from Clinton here.
And here's our "fierce defender" — winner of the 2008 presidential ad campaign — perhaps making plans for the looming lame duck session:
They don't want what you want, folks. They want what they want. "Catfood Bill" has his, and you can't have yours.
What Digby said: "I think it's going to happen this time." Ready to fight a tad more effectively? Me too. Hey, we might even win.
GP
(To follow on Twitter or to send links: @Gaius_Publius)
Read the rest of this post...
Congressional Progressive Caucus backs Pelosi's decision to cut Social Security
I don't know how else to read this. Ryan Grim at the Huffington Post (who is doing yeoman's work in reporting this tussle for the Democratic soul; my yeoman's emphasis):
But let's parse this:
▪ "Let's remember that we are on the same team":
Party loyalty first, progressive principles somewhere down the list.
▪ "Signed by Reps. Raul Grijalva and Keith Ellison":
Raul Grijalva and Keith Ellison support reducing Social Security benefits. These people are not friends of the safety net.
▪ "Reps. Jan. Schakowsky and Doris Matsui":
Same.
Bottom line — the leaders of the Progressive Statement Caucus has made another statement. In effect:
Previous posts on this (newest first):
Thank you, Mr. Feingold and CREDO Action, for standing up — and to Ryan Grim for tenacious reporting.
Staying tuned,
GP
(To follow on Twitter or to send links: @Gaius_Publius)
Read the rest of this post...
Leading members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus are coming to the defense of House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi of California after former Sen. Russ Feingold challenged her commitment to protecting Social Security and Medicare.There's more in Grim's report; it's worth seeing it in full.
"Let's remember that we are on the same team," reads a letter being circulated by progressive House Democrats. "We need to focus our efforts on the true targets, which are the 228 House Republicans who voted to end the Medicare guarantee, reduce benefits and increase costs for seniors."
The letter has so far been signed by Reps. Raul Grijalva (D-Ariz.) and Keith Ellison (D-Minn.), the progressive caucus co-chairmen, as well as Reps. Jan. Schakowsky (D-Ill.) and Doris Matsui (D-Calif.), who sit on the progressive caucus committee that deals with aging issues.
But let's parse this:
Bottom line — the leaders of the Progressive Statement Caucus has made another statement. In effect:
We, your House Progressives leaders, support Leader Pelosi in her effort to roll back the social safety net. We support the Simpson-Bowles Catfood Plan. Party first, that's us.I just don't know how else to read this. Do you?
Yours in honest self-reporting,
Raul Grijalva
Keith Ellison
Jan Schakowsky
Doris Matsui
 |
| Diogenes looking for an honest man |
Previous posts on this (newest first):
- Pete Petersen hosts Bill Clinton, Paul Ryan, Simpson, Van Hollen to discuss Social Security "compromise"
- Would-be Speaker Pelosi's "No I Won't" that means "Yes I Will" cut Soc. Security
- Feingold links Pelosi with Steny Hoyer for supporting Simpson-Bowles "Catfood" proposal
- Obama 2006—"Too many of us have been interested in defending programs as written in 1938"
- Pelosi endorses Obama's safety net cuts (2013 alert)
Thank you, Mr. Feingold and CREDO Action, for standing up — and to Ryan Grim for tenacious reporting.
Staying tuned,
GP
(To follow on Twitter or to send links: @Gaius_Publius)
Read the rest of this post...
Feingold links Pelosi with Steny Hoyer for supporting Simpson-Bowles "Catfood" proposal
Does Nancy Pelosi stand with Steny Hoyer against Social Security?
We recently reported that Nancy Pelosi is fully on board with the Simpson-Bowles "Catfood-for-Granny" proposal. Among our recommendations:
Some thoughts about the thoughts behind this Pelosi cave, from the same article:
Feingold totally agrees:
Does Nancy Pelosi stand with Steny Hoyer against Social Security?
So far, the answer is Yes. Madame Speaker, over to you.
Update: Very interesting comment thread, including this find by A reader in Colorado. Thanks, all.
GP
To follow on Twitter or to send links: @Gaius_Publius
Read the rest of this post...
We recently reported that Nancy Pelosi is fully on board with the Simpson-Bowles "Catfood-for-Granny" proposal. Among our recommendations:
■ Don't trust Nancy Pelosi. She's trying to sell out the safety net. All that verbal obfuscation simply means she's also protecting her "San Francisco liberal" brand in the process. She can't have both, but she's trying.We are therefore so glad to see Russ Feingold making the same point, and the same linkage (my emphasis and some reparagraphing):
GP's rule for dealing with Dems:
If you want something from them, threaten what they're desperate to keep.
This usually means their jobs (primaries anyone?), but in a few cases it's their "brand" — their "unique selling point" — the persona (the mask) that allows them to fund-raise.
What does Pelosi want? To be the "liberal" face of the Pelosi-Hoyer axis. Threaten to take that away and you get her attention.
Russ Feingold, the former senator from Wisconsin, said in an email to supporters that Pelosi "has signaled a disturbing potential willingness to adopt a plan that could slash these benefits. And it follows a pattern: Too many House Democrats, including Steny Hoyer, are already on board."Exactly right, as I see it. We need more of this boldness. If you're inclined toward action, here's that CREDO Action link again.
Feingold's challenge, sent to backers of his group Progressives United, comes after Pelosi has repeatedly said that she would vote in favor of the Simpson-Bowles plan, a deficit cutting project that slashes Social Security and Medicare, while raising revenue and cutting defense spending. The progressive online organization CREDO Action will also be sending an email to its supporters backing up Feingold's challenge.
Some thoughts about the thoughts behind this Pelosi cave, from the same article:
Eric Kingson, co-director of Social Security Works, said last week he was worried that Pelosi was making a dangerous gamble: By publicly backing Simpson-Bowles, she is able to make Republicans look that much more intransigent for not meeting her in the middle. ... But the consequence is that Pelosi is on record in favor of drastic cuts, a difficult position to defend in an election year [sic][.]Catch that? "A difficult position to defend in an election year." I'll translate — "Impoverishing the elderly is totally bad for appearances."
Feingold totally agrees:
"Cuts to Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security benefits are unacceptable, and they shouldn't be put on the table by Democrats for any reason -- including cynical, political ones," he said. "Leader Pelosi must stand up for these crucial programs."Pelosi and Hoyer, together at last. How is that not true?
Does Nancy Pelosi stand with Steny Hoyer against Social Security?
So far, the answer is Yes. Madame Speaker, over to you.
Update: Very interesting comment thread, including this find by A reader in Colorado. Thanks, all.
GP
To follow on Twitter or to send links: @Gaius_Publius
Read the rest of this post...
Pelosi endorses Obama's safety net cuts (2013 alert)
It's a target-rich environment here at la maison chez nous, choosing this morning's post. Google (the company, not the tool) is hitting the radar big time, and will soon get its share of attention.
But Nancy Pelosi, our "progressive" fierce defender, has center stage this morning with her recent announcement that she (and by the way, Obama) are still on board with a Grand Bargain — you know, the one where you trade away your children's safety net so long as you keep your own.
Ryan Grimm at the Huffington Post:
It takes a layer to unpack that, which Grim provides a few paragraphs later:
The article includes many kind words for Pelosi, from Grim and from others such as CREDO — hoping I'm sure to shame her back to her former position (meaning, of course, her former words).
There's also prose and a video at the HuffPo site that explains this isn't a cave since she supported "real" Simpson-Bowles, just not the bill that made it to the House floor last time the subject raised its ugly head. Read and watch if you wish. (If you want even more on Pelosi, try this. It's not just one source.)
Since they're all being so nice, I can be direct. Here's me:
■ Don't trust Nancy Pelosi. She's trying to sell out the safety net. All that verbal obfuscation simply means she's also protecting her "San Francisco liberal" brand in the process. She can't have both, but she's trying.
GP's rule for dealing with Dems:
What does Pelosi want? To be the "liberal" face of the Pelosi-Hoyer axis. Threaten to take that away and you get her attention. (Which means, Mr. CREDO Action Arm — With all respect, confirming her liberal brand may have the opposite result of the one you want.)
Side note — How to deal with Obama in his "legacy" years? How about threatening his legacy as the next Bill Clinton? Here's a start.
■ Simpson-Bowles was designed to attack the safety net. Read here for what the chairman's report wanted to do (note the new lower tax rates, offset by revenue that will never happen). Putting it more simply, Alan Simpson said:
■ Obama still wants to sell you out as well. As we reported here in March (all of a month ago):
■ Don't forget this:
As Uncle Straight Talk says, "An unfettered Obama is a dangerous Obama."
■ And never forget this:
All you need to know? Our Betters are joined against us, all of them. They just need an opening to kill the New Deal and they're on it.
What can you do? Maybe rebrand Nancy Pelosi. She's acting like Steny Hoyer; let her fundraise as Steny Hoyer.
Time to fight, folks.
GP
(To follow on Twitter or to send links: @Gaius_Publius)
Read the rest of this post...
But Nancy Pelosi, our "progressive" fierce defender, has center stage this morning with her recent announcement that she (and by the way, Obama) are still on board with a Grand Bargain — you know, the one where you trade away your children's safety net so long as you keep your own.
Ryan Grimm at the Huffington Post:
Two progressive organizations have found themselves in the unusual position of being on the opposite side of House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi. Over the course of the past two years, the former House Speaker has been the most significant obstacle to the ongoing effort to slash entitlements and cut social spending.Ignore the accurate but yes-butish first paragraph, and the praise in the second. The meat is in the third paragraph.
But a series of recent comments, and reports that Pelosi was willing to accept draconian cuts as part of a debt-ceiling deal, have liberals worried that their most powerful and passionate defender may be buckling on the issue.
During a recent press conference, and again during an interview with Charlie Rose, [Pelosi] said that she would support what's known as the Simpson-Bowles plan, a budget proposal that was created by the co-chairs of a fiscal commission set up by President Obama (dubbed the "Catfood Commission" by progressives).
It takes a layer to unpack that, which Grim provides a few paragraphs later:
The Simpson-Bowles plan is a mix of tax increases and spending cuts that trims four trillion dollars off the deficit in ten years. Its cuts to social spending and entitlement programs made it "simply unacceptable" to the Democrats' liberal base almost as soon as it was announced. Pelosi's rhetorical retreat from that hard-line position has progressives worried they'll have nobody left to defend the social safety net, even Medicare and Social Security.And for good measure, there's this to worry about as well:
They are also worried by the willingness Pelosi expressed during the manufactured debt-ceiling crisis to agree to cuts much greater than Simpson-Bowles was going for, as reported by the Washington Post.There's more in Grim's reporting, but I won't belabor the point.
The article includes many kind words for Pelosi, from Grim and from others such as CREDO — hoping I'm sure to shame her back to her former position (meaning, of course, her former words).
There's also prose and a video at the HuffPo site that explains this isn't a cave since she supported "real" Simpson-Bowles, just not the bill that made it to the House floor last time the subject raised its ugly head. Read and watch if you wish. (If you want even more on Pelosi, try this. It's not just one source.)
Since they're all being so nice, I can be direct. Here's me:
■ Don't trust Nancy Pelosi. She's trying to sell out the safety net. All that verbal obfuscation simply means she's also protecting her "San Francisco liberal" brand in the process. She can't have both, but she's trying.
GP's rule for dealing with Dems:
- If you want something from them, threaten what they're desperate to keep.
What does Pelosi want? To be the "liberal" face of the Pelosi-Hoyer axis. Threaten to take that away and you get her attention. (Which means, Mr. CREDO Action Arm — With all respect, confirming her liberal brand may have the opposite result of the one you want.)
Side note — How to deal with Obama in his "legacy" years? How about threatening his legacy as the next Bill Clinton? Here's a start.
■ Simpson-Bowles was designed to attack the safety net. Read here for what the chairman's report wanted to do (note the new lower tax rates, offset by revenue that will never happen). Putting it more simply, Alan Simpson said:
We are going to stick to the big three [Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid].Got that? The rest is just words, the fog. Krugman calls Simpson-Bowles a "wealth transfer" and faux-progressive Pelosi's on board.
■ Obama still wants to sell you out as well. As we reported here in March (all of a month ago):
Working late into the evening, Obama asked someone to get Boehner on the phone. [Obama's] message: I’ll take your last offer. “Mr. President,” Boehner answered, “we don’t have time to reopen these negotiations.”"Still on the table" means still on the table.
White House officials said this week that the offer is still on the table.
■ Don't forget this:
As Uncle Straight Talk says, "An unfettered Obama is a dangerous Obama."
■ And never forget this:
All you need to know? Our Betters are joined against us, all of them. They just need an opening to kill the New Deal and they're on it.
What can you do? Maybe rebrand Nancy Pelosi. She's acting like Steny Hoyer; let her fundraise as Steny Hoyer.
Time to fight, folks.
GP
(To follow on Twitter or to send links: @Gaius_Publius)
Read the rest of this post...
IRS and Social Security to stop printing refund checks, go electronic
It's almost a surprise that they still do checks now. How often do most people even visit their bank in person? Processing payments should be less expensive for everyone, not to mention much less of a hassle. There may be some people who prefer physical checks and that should still remain an option for certain exceptions, but wouldn't most people prefer the ease of electronic payments?
Read the rest of this post...
Obama wanted cuts to Social Security and Medicare during failed Grand Bargain talks
Here's the Washington Post behind-the-scenes story of the failed Obama–Boehner Grand Bargain negotiations. It's a doozy.
I'm focusing on one thing only — Obama and your children's safety net.
First this (my emphasis and reparagraphing everywhere):
The real "grand bargain"
About all this safety net dealing, I just want to point out one thing. If you're over 45 or so, your Social Security and Medicare are not at risk. You will be just fine.
The real Grand Bargain isn't between the Dems and Republicans. It's between both of them and you. They're offering to sell out your children's Social Security, in exchange for letting you keep your own.
Your Democratic Party at work, folks. Here until progressives grow some stones and take some "tea party" action.
GP
(To follow on Twitter or to send links: @Gaius_Publius)
Read the rest of this post...
I'm focusing on one thing only — Obama and your children's safety net.
First this (my emphasis and reparagraphing everywhere):
A lot of red ink, the Republicans thought. But the major elements of a bargain seemed to be falling into place: $1.2 trillion in agency cuts, smaller cost-of-living increases for Social Security recipients, nearly $250 billion in Medicare savings achieved in part by raising the eligibility age. And $800 billion in new taxes.And later, after Obama balked at something called "dynamic scoring" (counting "revenue from economic growth" as revenue), there's this:
That night, Obama prepared his party’s congressional leaders. He warned Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) that he might return to the position under discussion the previous Sunday — that is, cuts to Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid in exchange for just $800 billion in tax increases. Would they support him?And still later:
The Democratic leaders “kind of gulped” when they heard the details, [WH chief of staff William] Daley recalled. ... Reluctantly, Reid and Pelosi agreed to do their best to support the plan.
Working late into the evening, Obama asked someone to get Boehner on the phone. [Obama's] message: I’ll take your last offer. “Mr. President,” Boehner answered, “we don’t have time to reopen these negotiations.”Be still my heart. As Digby says:
White House officials said this week that the offer is still on the table.
So selling out Medicare and Social Security, lowering taxes on the wealthy and cutting the hell out of everything else was just fine, but dynamic scoring was the hang up? Well, I guess we at least know what the limits are now.And she's right.
One thing is clear from this article: the administration simply had no respect or concern for the Democratic base's reaction to what they were doing. They had convinced themselves that raising taxes in some fashion --- no matter how abstract --- would be enough to assuage them.
The real "grand bargain"
About all this safety net dealing, I just want to point out one thing. If you're over 45 or so, your Social Security and Medicare are not at risk. You will be just fine.
The real Grand Bargain isn't between the Dems and Republicans. It's between both of them and you. They're offering to sell out your children's Social Security, in exchange for letting you keep your own.
Your Democratic Party at work, folks. Here until progressives grow some stones and take some "tea party" action.
GP
(To follow on Twitter or to send links: @Gaius_Publius)
Read the rest of this post...
There are three Europe stories — the Republican story, the German story, and the truth
In his latest column and a related blog post, Paul Krugman revisits the Europe problem, which turns out to be two problems.
The first problem is, How do the struggling European economies — the GIPSIs, meaning Greece, Ireland, Portugal, Spain, and Italy — right themselves economically?
The second problem is, How (and why) do people persistently misstate and misunderstand the first problem?
Krugman looks at the second problem first. He sees three stories (explanations) of what went wrong in Europe. From the blog post (my emphases):
So much for "Republicans." What about the German story?
The best way to think about that last quote is as a simple supply and demand situation (phrases like "capital inflows" make the non-economist's brain hurt). When there's too much cash chasing not enough goods and services, prices simply go up. How can they not?
"Capital inflows" is economist-speak for "cash coming into a country." Investors dumped a lot of eager money into the peripheral countries, more money than the countries could absorb.
The eagerness of investors created a sellers' market for suppliers of goods and services (like manufacturing and labor). Sellers charged what the market would bear (why shouldn't they?) and the peripheral economies experience a bubble-like boom. The money flowed like wine (so to speak).
The same thing happened in the U.S. with the housing market. Take, for example, the temporary boom in towns like Hemet, California. In the days when "no one could lose money on housing," little Hemet was being build up as fast as money could be found to do it.
Why? Hemet was considered "driving close" (under an hour and a half) to the city of Riverside, a place with actual jobs, and houses in Hemet were cheap compared to those in Riverside. Buyers traded driving time for home prices, on the assumption that housing would never go down (and that gas would not go very far up).
Investors were eager to build in Hemet because buyers were eager to buy. Add in the illusion of safety, and the economy of sleepy little Hemet exploded — till it crashed.
The "illusion of safety" that did so much to wreck the U.S. economy also wrecked the peripheral economies of Europe. In the U.S., that illusion was supplied by the supposedly bullet-proof housing market — and by the ratings agencies that "blessed" with AAA ratings all of the mortgage-based derivative products the banks were buying and selling.
In Europe, the euro supplied the illusion. The common currency made everything magically safe. As long as France and Germany were strong, the euro would be strong everywhere. Investment in Portugal, Spain, and other peripherals was "blessed" by German strength, and investors in the GIPSI countries lined up at the door.
"Then the music stopped"
What happened next in Europe is the same as what happened here. After the crash, the elites (Our Betters) had only one bottom line. Make sure no banker loses money. Which explains Krugman's "Republican" and German stories perfectly.
■ "Republican" story — If it's the people's fault (for being lazy and spendy), then it's right to punish them by taking away their welfare benefits (and give it to the banks to make good their derivative-based losses).
■ German story — If it's the GIPSI's fault (for being "fiscally irresponsible"), then it's right to take the losses out of their hide (and give it to the banks to cover their now-vulnerable investments).
What's the answer to the first question above — "How do the GIPSIs right themselves?" They don't. They wait until the crisis is so great that leaving the euro won't make it worse, then they leave the euro, one by one. From the blog post (the article says roughly the same thing):
Why the scare quotes around "Republican"?
Those quotes are mine alone. Krugman calls his anti-welfare story Republican (no quotes) because the state of the Krugman is Dem-friendly in these articles.
Yes, the Republicans hate welfare, but they're not alone. The fact is that all of Our Betters, including the NeoLiberals, the Obamas and the Clintons, the Leahys and the Schumers, think like the so-called "Republicans."
It's not a Republican story, it's a Village story, an elite story, the DC cocktail story they all are telling.
Bill Clinton got caught here agreeing with Paul Ryan about the safety net.
By "paralysis" Clinton means "failure to cut the safety net." He might lie to you (remember all those NAFTA jobs?) but not to Paul Ryan. Village-on-Village violence is beyond the pale.
This is, unfortunately, the one time you can trust Bill Clinton. (Does the phrase "Tea Party the Democrats" suggest anything to you now?)
GP Read the rest of this post...
The first problem is, How do the struggling European economies — the GIPSIs, meaning Greece, Ireland, Portugal, Spain, and Italy — right themselves economically?
The second problem is, How (and why) do people persistently misstate and misunderstand the first problem?
Krugman looks at the second problem first. He sees three stories (explanations) of what went wrong in Europe. From the blog post (my emphases):
There are basically three stories about the euro crisis in wide circulation: the Republican story, the German story, and the truth.Why is the first the "Republican" story (more about those quotes in a second)? Because they love to tell that story, says the Professor in his column:
The Republican story is that it’s all about excessive welfare states ... [and] the German story is that it’s about fiscal profligacy, running excessive deficits.
This story is, by the way, a perennial right-wing favorite: back in 1991, when Sweden was suffering from a banking crisis brought on by deregulation (sound familiar?), the Cato Institute published a triumphant report on how this proved the failure of the whole welfare state model.The story is false, as this chart shows (click to open in a new tab). The red bars are the GIPSI states, the rest are in blue. Tall bars mean higher "welfare state" spending. Note that of the GIPSIs, only Italy is in the top six of welfare spenders, behind four rather healthy economies.
So much for "Republicans." What about the German story?
[T]he German story ... is that it’s all about fiscal irresponsibility. This story seems to fit Greece, but nobody else. Italy ran deficits in the years before the crisis, but they were only slightly larger than Germany’s (Italy’s large debt is a legacy from irresponsible policies many years ago). Portugal’s deficits were significantly smaller, while Spain and Ireland actually ran surpluses.And the truth?
[T]he creation of the euro fostered a false sense of security among private investors, unleashing huge, unsustainable flows of capital into nations all around Europe’s periphery. As a consequence of these inflows, costs and prices rose, manufacturing became uncompetitive, and nations that had roughly balanced trade in 1999 began running large trade deficits instead. Then the music stopped.Where did the GIPSIs (and the U.S.) go wrong?
The best way to think about that last quote is as a simple supply and demand situation (phrases like "capital inflows" make the non-economist's brain hurt). When there's too much cash chasing not enough goods and services, prices simply go up. How can they not?
"Capital inflows" is economist-speak for "cash coming into a country." Investors dumped a lot of eager money into the peripheral countries, more money than the countries could absorb.
The eagerness of investors created a sellers' market for suppliers of goods and services (like manufacturing and labor). Sellers charged what the market would bear (why shouldn't they?) and the peripheral economies experience a bubble-like boom. The money flowed like wine (so to speak).
The same thing happened in the U.S. with the housing market. Take, for example, the temporary boom in towns like Hemet, California. In the days when "no one could lose money on housing," little Hemet was being build up as fast as money could be found to do it.
Why? Hemet was considered "driving close" (under an hour and a half) to the city of Riverside, a place with actual jobs, and houses in Hemet were cheap compared to those in Riverside. Buyers traded driving time for home prices, on the assumption that housing would never go down (and that gas would not go very far up).
Investors were eager to build in Hemet because buyers were eager to buy. Add in the illusion of safety, and the economy of sleepy little Hemet exploded — till it crashed.
The "illusion of safety" that did so much to wreck the U.S. economy also wrecked the peripheral economies of Europe. In the U.S., that illusion was supplied by the supposedly bullet-proof housing market — and by the ratings agencies that "blessed" with AAA ratings all of the mortgage-based derivative products the banks were buying and selling.
In Europe, the euro supplied the illusion. The common currency made everything magically safe. As long as France and Germany were strong, the euro would be strong everywhere. Investment in Portugal, Spain, and other peripherals was "blessed" by German strength, and investors in the GIPSI countries lined up at the door.
"Then the music stopped"
What happened next in Europe is the same as what happened here. After the crash, the elites (Our Betters) had only one bottom line. Make sure no banker loses money. Which explains Krugman's "Republican" and German stories perfectly.
■ "Republican" story — If it's the people's fault (for being lazy and spendy), then it's right to punish them by taking away their welfare benefits (and give it to the banks to make good their derivative-based losses).
■ German story — If it's the GIPSI's fault (for being "fiscally irresponsible"), then it's right to take the losses out of their hide (and give it to the banks to cover their now-vulnerable investments).
What's the answer to the first question above — "How do the GIPSIs right themselves?" They don't. They wait until the crisis is so great that leaving the euro won't make it worse, then they leave the euro, one by one. From the blog post (the article says roughly the same thing):
[I]f you’re running a peripheral nation, and the troika [European Commission, IMF, World Bank] demands austerity, you have no choice except the nuclear option of leaving the euro, coming soon to a Balkan nation near you.Count on it.
Why the scare quotes around "Republican"?
Those quotes are mine alone. Krugman calls his anti-welfare story Republican (no quotes) because the state of the Krugman is Dem-friendly in these articles.
Yes, the Republicans hate welfare, but they're not alone. The fact is that all of Our Betters, including the NeoLiberals, the Obamas and the Clintons, the Leahys and the Schumers, think like the so-called "Republicans."
It's not a Republican story, it's a Village story, an elite story, the DC cocktail story they all are telling.
Bill Clinton got caught here agreeing with Paul Ryan about the safety net.
By "paralysis" Clinton means "failure to cut the safety net." He might lie to you (remember all those NAFTA jobs?) but not to Paul Ryan. Village-on-Village violence is beyond the pale.
This is, unfortunately, the one time you can trust Bill Clinton. (Does the phrase "Tea Party the Democrats" suggest anything to you now?)
GP Read the rest of this post...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
