If you liked how the health care negotiations went down
by digby
…you’re going to love the budget talks:
…[W]hile opinions vary within the administration his advisers are united in the belief that achieving a workable deal with congressional Republicans will be difficult, and that it would be foolish for Obama to speak up now.
At a roundtable meeting earlier this month, a senior Treasury official described the landscape to about a dozen reporters and bloggers. The optimal moment for President Obama to substantively weigh in on Social Security reform proposals, the official said, will come when House Republicans unveil their budget resolution for fiscal year 2012 and a bipartisan working group in the Senate unveils its deficit reduction package, assuming they reach an agreement.
Those two proposals will force Republicans to grapple with the tensions between their broad opposition to increasing federal revenues and their professed goal in these discussions of reducing the deficit. It’s put them in a bit of a box, the official said, and it’s possible they may abandon their efforts, and lay the blame at Obama’s feet, before unveiling anything. But if their efforts are serious, Obama’s economic team sees an opening — to take pressure off the non-defense discretionary portion of the budget, and to send a signal to markets that the U.S. government isn’t so paralyzed that it can’t address larger, looming fiscal challenges.
Right. I’m not hearing anything much about defense but then that gets even more unlikely in light of our new war, so old and sick people are the only human sacrifices available to “send signals” to the Market Gods. They haven’t exactly made a secret of what “signal” they want to send, have they?
So what constitutes a serious effort? Basically a recognition that Social Security revenues and general revenues have to rise, if the administration is going to accept anything that cuts benefits, even modestly.
So, benefits cuts are on the table. Granted, they are allegedly on the table in exchange for tax hikes, but if there’s one thing we know from recent years, tax hikes are easily given back. (It’s yer money!) And tax cuts are forever. And there are many ways to define rising revenue that don’t entail “raising” revenue.
The administration has been purposefully evasive about what constitutes “slashing,” but the senior treasury official made it clear that the White House will only consider plans that harm their progressive interests if revenues are on the table in a significant way. Indeed, as something of an opening bid, Obama’s OMB director Jack Lew has recently, and prominently argued that Social Security is not driving current or medium-term deficits.
If the Deficit Commission Chairman’s unofficial report is any guide, and I’m fairly sure it is, this would be the basic “mix”:
On Social Security, gradually increase the retirement age to 69 by 2075. They would also institute progressive price indexing to cut scheduled benefits for middle and high-income earners. They would index cost of living increases to inflation and not wages. They would also increase the payroll tax to capture 90% of wages, rather than the current 86%. Social Security savings would stay inside the program to keep it solvent, not be used for deficit reduction.
I’ll probably be dead by the time that blows up, but I feel sad for any of you younger people who find yourselves in your older years in a “welfare” program that’s constantly on the chopping block from the likes of Paul Ryan —especially one you’ve paid even more into than you would have before they ‘reformed” it for you. I sincerely hope you all get very rich before that happens so you don’t have to worry about it, but at best the odds are that most of you will retire in the middle class. It looks like you’re going to be “sacrificing” a minimal guarantee of a decent retirement so that everyone can pretend that they are “sending signals” to bond traders — when they are really sending signals to wealthy donors.
Frankly, our best hope is that the Republicans are so intransigent and short sighted that they will refuse to take yes for an answer:
Republicans on the Hill are wary. House GOP leaders have promised that their forthcoming budget will include entitlement cuts. Others, like Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell insist Obama’s leadership is a predicate for any action. Thus, there’s still some chance that the GOP will back off, and retrain their focus on narrower aspects of the budget. Or — and this would make those Obama political advisers happy — the House GOP will introduce a heavily conservative approach, including partial privatization, and Democrats can unite in opposition to it.
Or they could “negotiate” their way back to the commission report, let the Democrats and a few “fiscally responsible” Republicans pass the bill — and then let Koch and Rove wrap it around their necks in the election.
Neither outcome would surprise a key member of Obama’s economic team. In his book, The Pro-Growth Progressive, Gene Sperling, who recently replaced Larry Summers as chief economic policy adviser, wrote, “There is no historical precedent for addressing a major entitlement challenge — whether to Social Security or Medicare — well in advance of a crisis.”
That’s true. But Sperling also said:
“I really hate the whole argument about, is this a crisis or is this not a crisis? Why do we not want to preempt a crisis. Why do we not want to do something early? It is a shame on our political system that there has never been entitlement reform without a gun to our head. . .Wouldn’t it be a tremendous confidence-building thing to act early and smart?”
I guess the question is, whose confidence are they trying to build?
This budget battle is looking more and more like a re-run of health care. I guess the administration considers that a great success story and an excellent template for the future. Only this time they are working with a GOP House, a smaller majority in the Senate and a looming presidential election. What could go wrong?
.
-More than any other film on this list, this nail-biting “conspiracy a-go-go” thriller, released over 30 years ago, could literally have been “ripped from today’s headlines”-as in, “turn on CNN right now”. Expertly directed by James Bridges (who co-scripted with Mike Gray and T.S. Cook), it centers on an ambitious reporter (Jane Fonda) who ends up in the “wrong place at the right time” while doing a routine interview at a nuclear power plant. Her cameraman (Michael Douglas, who produced) captures (at first accidently, then surreptitiously) potentially damning footage of what appears to be a serious radioactive containment issue and subsequent scramble by officials to cover it up. To their dismay, Fonda and Douglas discover that getting the truth out to the public might require moral compromises that they are loathe to make, not only with plant officials, but with the big brass back at the television station. Jack Lemmon is excellent as a plant manager who wrestles painfully with his conscience. It’s a dire warning about the inherent dangers of nuclear energy…and of an overly compliant MSM.
-A genuine cult item from Troma Entertainment, the ultra-low budget NYC-based indie film house that seems to have adapted and post-modernized the business model pioneered by sci-fi/horror schlockmeister Roger Corman in the mid-50’s. One of the “better” (for lack of a better word) offerings from the production company that has graced us with such fine cinematic fare as 
, 
, and 
=. All is not well at Tromaville High, and it might have something to do with the proximity of the local nuclear power plant, which sits a scant ¼ mile from the school grounds. It certainly doesn’t help that the plant is run in a somewhat lackadaisical fashion (let’s just say that public safety doesn’t appear to be a priority). Something is definitely awry when the studious boys and girls of the school’s Honor Society suddenly transform into a gang of punked-out Neanderthals who rename themselves “The Cretins” and set about terrorizing their classmates. When the gang starts selling some “special” weed that is grown from the toxic waste on the nuclear facility’s grounds, all hell begins to break loose. The movie is somehow clever, stupid, repulsive and hilarious all at once (and not for the faint of heart). Best line: “Oh, Warren…FUCK the Fellini festival!” Don’t say that I didn’t warn you.
– Written and directed by Val Guest, this cerebral mix of conspiracy a-go-go and sci-fi has always been a personal favorite of mine. Simultaneous nuclear testing by the U.S. and Soviets triggers an alarmingly rapid shift in the Earth’s climate. As London’s weather turns more tropical by the hour, a Daily Express reporter (Peter Stenning) begins to suspect that the British government is not being 100% forthcoming on the possible fate of the world. Along the way, Stenning has some steamy scenes with his love interest (sexy Janet Munro). The film is more noteworthy for its smart, snappy patter than its run-of-the-mill f/x, but still delivers a compelling narrative.
-In case you’ve forgotten what a truly great actor Jon Voight can be, take a gander at this overlooked gem from 1986. Voight is an embittered, paranoid, alcoholic WW2 vet, making a living running a “last chance” gas station on the outskirts of Las Vegas in the early 1950s. He makes family life a nerve-wracking, day-to-day guessing-game for his long-suffering wife (JoBeth Williams) and three daughters. On a “good” day, you could say that Dad is an engaging, loving and even erudite fellow. But there are more “bad” days than good, and that’s when Mr. Hyde comes to visit. This is particularly stressful to his eldest daughter (whose character is actually the central protagonist of the story). Annabeth Gish makes an astonishing film debut in that role, holding her own against Voight in some very intense scenes. Ellen Barkin is outstanding as a free-spirited and empathetic aunt who comes to visit, setting off the emotional powder keg that has been brewing within this very dysfunctional family for some time. Director Eugene Corr and screenwriter Linda Remy draw insightful analogies between the fear and uncertainty of nuclear threat that permeated the country at the time (the story takes place on the eve of a nuclear test in the nearby desert, which figures significantly into the narrative) and the fear and uncertainly of growing up with an alcoholic parent. This is a unique, powerful and touching coming-of-age tale, beautifully made and splendidly acted by all.
-It’s no secret that “king of all monsters” was borne of fear; the fear of “the Bomb” as only the Japanese people could have truly understood it back in 1954 (especially when one considers it was released only 9 years after Hiroshima and Nagasaki). It’s also important to distinguish between this original Japanese cut of the film, and the relatively butchered version released in the U.S. in 1956 as 
. That is because the original Japanese cut not only has a more haunting and darkly atmospheric quality, but carries a strong anti-nuke message as well (it’s an American H-bomb test that awakens the long-slumbering beast from his deep-sea hibernation). The U.S. cut downplays this subtext (replacing cut footage with inserts featuring Raymond Burr). The 1954 version is the first and the best of what was to ultimately become a silly franchise.
-Another ho-ho from Toho! Released the same year as 
(1958), this low-budget but enjoyable Toho Studio “monster movie” could be viewed as that film’s Japanese cousin; the main difference being that whereas the American production’s people-devouring, creeping slime creature dropped in from outer space, the “H-Men” are the spawn of U.S. nuclear tests in the Pacific. A strange mix of police procedural and sci-fi mystery, the story centers around a nightclub where we get to enjoy several gratuitous sequences of hilariously arrhythmic bikini-clad dancers lurching about the stage. After a singer who works at the club reports her drug-dealing boyfriend missing, the cops put her under surveillance. To the poor girl’s befuddlement, some of her boyfriend’s shady gangster pals begin to take a keen interest in her as well, but soon they too are mysteriously disappearing (quite literally…leaving behind naught but their clothes and shoes). After a hospitalized fisherman reports seeing one of his crew mates “disappear” in similar fashion, right in front of his eyes while their boat is enveloped in a mysterious mist out in the middle of the Pacific, the inevitable scientists get into the act, everyone puts 2+2 together, and the culprit slime creatures are “outed”. The final showdown occurs in the sewers under Tokyo (shades of 
) and has to be seen to be believed.
-This 1955 Akira Kurosawa film was the great director’s follow-up to 
, and arguably one of his most overlooked efforts. It’s a melodrama concerning an aging foundry owner (Toshiro Mifune, disguised in exaggeratedly theatrical Coke-bottle glasses and silver-frosted crew cut) who literally “lives in fear” of the H-bomb, to the point of obsession. Convinced that the “safest” place on Earth from radioactive fallout is in South America, he tries to convince his wife and grown children to pull up stakes and resettle on a farm in Brazil. His children, who have families of their own and rely on their father’s factory for income, are not so hot on that idea. In fact, they take him to family court and have him declared incompetent. This sends Mifune’s character spiraling into madness. Or are his fears really so “crazy”? It is one of Mifune’s most powerful and moving performances. Kurosawa instills shades of Shakespeare’s “King Lear” into the narrative (a well he drew from again some 30 years later, in 
).
-The versatile American director Robert Aldrich arguably peaked early in his prolific four decade-long career with this influential 1955 pulp noir, adapted for the screen by A.I. Bezzerides from Mickey Spillane’s novel. Ralph Meeker is the epitome of “cool” as hard-boiled private detective Mike Hammer, who gives a ride to a half-crazed (and half-naked) escapee from “the laughing house” (Cloris Leachman) one fateful evening after she flags him down on the highway, setting off a chain of events that quickly escalates from pushing matches with low-rent thugs to an embroilment with a complex conspiracy involving a government scientist and a stolen box of highly radioactive “whatsit” that is being coveted by any number of parties with dubious motivations. The sometimes confounding plot takes a back seat to the film’s stylized visuals and its “feel”, which are light years ahead of its time. The expressive and inventive camera angles, the striking black and white cinematography (by Ernest Laszlo), the shocking brutality of the violence, the existential nihilism of the characters-you would be hard pressed to find another American film of the mid-50s that comes close to this one. The film is purported to have been a major influence on the French New Wave (you can definitely see that link when you watch this back-to-back with Godard’s 
). British director Alex Cox paid homage in his 1984 cult film, 
(both films feature a crazed scientist driving around with a box full of deadly radioactive material in the trunk), and Tarantino had a scene with a mysterious box of “whatsit” in 
.
-This 1980 documentary was compiled with highlights from a five-night Madison Square Garden concert series and one-off Battery Park rally organized the previous year by Musicians United for Safe Energy (“MUSE”), a collective of activists and Woodstock generation music icons aiming to raise awareness of non-nuclear energy alternatives in the wake of the Three-Mile Island plant incident. It’s a real 1970s “soft rock” time capsule: Jackson Browne, The Doobie Brothers, Bonnie Raitt, James Taylor, Carly Simon, and Crosby, Stills, & Nash are all here in their full glory. They’re all in fine form, but the “California mellow” contingent is roundly blown off the stage by a rousing and cacophonous 20-minute finale courtesy of Bruce Springsteen and his E Street Band-at the peak of their powers. It may not be the most dynamically produced concert film (don’t expect the cinematic artistry of 
), but the performances are heartfelt, and the message is a positive call to action that is more timely now than ever.
-The tagline for this 1983 film was intriguing: “On November 13th, 1974, Karen Silkwood, an employee of a nuclear facility, left to meet with a reporter from the New York Times. She never got there.” One might expect a riveting conspiracy thriller to ensue; however what director Mike Nichols and screenwriters Nora Ephron and Alice Arden do deliver is an absorbing character study of an ordinary working-class woman who performed an act of extraordinary courage which may (or may not) have led to her untimely demise. Meryl Streep gives a typically immersive portrayal of Silkwood, who worked as a chemical tech at an Oklahoma facility that manufactured plutonium pellets for nuclear reactor fuel rods. On behalf of her union (and based on her own observations) Silkwood testified before the AEC in 1974 about ongoing health and safety concerns at her plant. Shortly afterwards, she tested positive for an unusually high level of plutonium contamination. Silkwood alleged malicious payback from her employers, while they countered that she had engineered the scenario herself. Later that year, on the last night of her life, she was in fact on her way to meeting with a Times reporter, armed with documentation to back her claims, when she was killed after her car ran off the road. Nichols stays neutral on the conspiratorial whisperings; but still delivers the goods here, thanks in no small part to his exemplary cast, including Kurt Russell (as Silkwood’s husband), and Cher (who garnered critical raves and a Golden Globe) as their housemate.
