Month: July 2011

Herding Sacred Cows

by digby

Kevin asks and answers the 2 trillion dollar question:

Why isn’t Obama making it clear that Social Security checks will dry up if Republicans refuse to do a deal? Because that would put pressure on Republicans to simply cave in and raise the debt ceiling. But that isn’t what Obama wants. He wants a deal.

As he says, everything becomes much more understandable if you realize that Obama never wanted a clean debt ceiling bill — if he had, he would have fought for one. What he wanted was the pressure of pending default to allegedly make “both sides give up their sacred cows.” It would appear from the proposals that have been floated that he is less concerned with the GOP’s herd than the Democrats’. This makes sense since he evidently sees this debt ceiling as a way to enact the Deficit Commission framework which called for many more liberal cows to be slaughtered. Kevin explores the various reasons why he would want to do that, but I don’t think he’s been all that inscrutable about it.

January 2009:

Obama regularly offers three telltale notions that will define his presidency — if events allow him to define it himself: “sacrifice,” “grand bargain” and “sustainability.”

To listen to Obama and his budget director Peter Orszag is to hear a tale of long-term fiscal woe. The government may have to spend and cut taxes in a big way now, but in the long run, the federal budget is unsustainable.

That’s where sacrifice kicks in. There will be signs of it in Obama’s first budget, in his efforts to contain health-care costs and, down the road, in his call for entitlement reform and limits on carbon emissions. His camp is selling the idea that if he wants authority for new initiatives and new spending, Obama will have to prove his willingness to cut some programs and reform others.

The “grand bargain” they are talking about is a mix and match of boldness and prudence. It involves expansive government where necessary, balanced by tough management, unpopular cuts — and, yes, eventually some tax increases. Everyone, they say, will have to give up something.

Only such a balance, they argue, will win broad support for what Obama wants to do, and thus make his reforms “sustainable,” the other magic word — meaning that even Republicans, when they eventually get back to power, will choose not to reverse them.

It is riotously ambitious. But it’s worth remembering that in November, Americans elected a man who counts “audacity” as one of his favorite words.

It’s not like he’s ever hidden his agenda. I just don’t know that the agenda makes a lot of sense at a time of protracted high unemployment and an anemic economy. But nothing seems to deter him from his plans. They haven’t deviated an inch, even the catch-phrases are the same.

But as Kevin says, right now none of that matters:

Just do this: whenever you think Obama has done something dumb or weakminded or inexplicable, remind yourself that he doesn’t necessarily have the same goals as you. He sincerely wants a deal that involves concessions from both sides, and once you understand that his actions will suddenly seem a lot less dumb.

Update: On CBS earlier the interviewer prodded the President about this and he said he “couldn’t guarantee” that the Social Security checks would go out if the debt ceiling isn’t raised. So that’s good.

Update II: Jonathan Cohn comes to the same conclusion. So does Taibbi.

.

“What will it take to keep seniors alive?”

by digby

Here’s a bracing analysis from Trudy Lieberman at CJR on what one of the latest “responsible” plans to cut Medicare really looks like. It examines the Joe Lieberman/Tom Coburn proposal. I’ll leave it to you to read all the details, but the conclusion is stark:

Making people pay a lot more is precisely what Lieberman and other pols want. He cites studies showing that when people have to pay more for their care, they will use less of it, and claims his proposal will reduce the debt and “save more than $600 billion over 10 years.” In his press release he says: “We can only save Medicare if we change it. Our plan contains some strong medicine but that’s what it will take to keep Medicare alive.”

What will it take to keep seniors alive? That’s a good question for the press to explore. Half have annual incomes under $22,000, and the median income for older women on Social Security is only about $15,000. A recent RAND study, also missed by the press, found consumers with high-deductible insurance and lots of cost sharing did economize on going to the doctor even for preventive care covered by their policies.

“This has a perverse effect,” says Burns. “The older you are the more likely you’ll pay those high out-of-pocket expenses. They would hit women the hardest and shift more of them into Medicaid.” Given that states are having trouble paying for Medicaid and there’s talk of cutting the feds’ contribution through block grants, it’s fair to ask how will these women pay for their care. It’s also fair to ask how they will pay for it if proposed changes in Social Security’s cost-of-living formula now discussed as part of the deficit reduction package, become law. COLA changes are likely to result in smaller increases for many. Folks, this is really about the kitchen table connection.

Yes it is. But we are dealing in Grand Bargains and Big Abstractions right now. These plans will all come online for ordinary Americans long after Joe Lieberman and most of the rest are out of politics and enjoying their cushy sinecures.

Seriously, what are people supposed to do when their already meager old age incomes are even more meager? What magic is supposed to make this all ok?

.

The Handler

by digby

This post at Swampland about Boehner handing the reins to the hapless Cantor is fascinating, but unconvincing. She claims that when Cantor walked off the talks, Boehner stepped in and negotiated the Grand Bargain. Cantor balked, making Boehner throw the hot potato back in his hands.

Isn’t it more likely that Cantor is the ambassador to the Tea Party, the guy who walked out, who balked at any tax hikes of any kind, who stood up to Boehner and Obama — and who then goes to them with the deal,says that he fought like hell to the end and this is something they can vote for?

One of the things that sells any deal to stakeholders is the belief that their negotiators did everything in their power to get what they wanted. If Cantor is the one who has the trust of the right flank in this one it stands to reason he’d be the one holding out at the end.

Remember, Cantor has been the freshman handler on the debt ceiling since January.

*I should note that the other way to do this is to tell the stakeholders that they will be responsible for the end of the world/letting people die/destroying their leadership if they don’t agree. Republicans laugh at such threats but it works well with Democrats.

.

Saving some good fights for later

by digby

Ezra Klein tells us what was in the Really Grand Big Deal and it’s enough to make you feel as if somebody slipped some LSD in your coffee:

I knew the White House wanted a compromise on the debt ceiling. I just didn’t expect them to do quite so much, well, compromising.

Here’s what appears to have been in the $4 trillion deal they offered the Republicans: A two-year increase in the Medicare eligibility age. Chained-CPI, which amounts to a $200 billion cut to Social Security benefits. A tax-reform component that would raise $800 billion and preempt the expiration of the Bush tax cuts — which would mean, for those following along at home, that the deal would only include half as much revenue as the fiscal commission recommended, and when you add the effect of making the Bush tax cuts a permanent part of the code, would net out to a tax cut of more than $3 trillion when compared to current law.

That last bit apparently killed the deal. But it was actually the biggest concession on the table. Currently, Democrats are bargaining for some revenues now, with the option of forcing much more in revenues later. All they need to do to get $4 trillion in revenues next year is fail to come to an agreement with the Republican Party. And is there anything Congress is better at than not agreeing?

The deal Obama offered Boehner would’ve traded away the option to force much more in revenues later in order to get slightly more in revenues now. And it would have thrown in a slew of entitlement cuts and spending cuts as a sweetener.

In part, this is because the Obama administration, much to the disappointment of liberals, doesn’t value the option to fight over taxes in 2012. They’d prefer to finish the debt debates now and move onto other issues after the election.

I’m fairly sure the Republicans didn’t see it as much of a concession. The idea that Democrats can “force much more in revenues later” is fairly remote unless they win in a landslide in 2012. (And judging from their behavior last time they won a landslide, they won’t do anything anyway.)Short of that, I would imagine the Republicans feel quite confident that they will be able to persuade the President to extend all the Bush tax cuts again and can keep him from raising taxes at all. Why wouldn’t they?

And I’m sure they’d love to have this allegedly “big fight” over taxes in 2012. It works great for them to win on the issue every two years. (And who knows, it’s always possible that Obama could lose, in which case the whole thing becomes moot.)

Ezra mentions in passing that the administration has no intention of letting all the Bush tax cuts expire, which seems to set off alarms. But I’m fairly sure he’s talking about the middle class tax cuts. The problem in 2012, as it was last winter when they faced this last time, is that the cuts needed to be decoupled when the Democrats held congress and had some juice during the early days of the economic crisis. Had they been smart enough to permanently extend the middle class cuts at the time and leave only the tax cuts for the wealthy n a temporary basis, the Republicans would be in a much weaker position. As it is, they’ll hold the middle class tax cuts hostage in the next lame duck just as they did before. I can see why the administration would have liked to get this one off the table. But why would the GOP have agreed when they have to give up nothing?

Update: This post theorizes that the White house put Medicare and Social security on the table just to scare Democrats into voting for the two trillion in cuts without getting anything in return. I might believe this if I thought they ever seriously thought there would be a problem getting Democrats to vote for the 2 trillion. Sadly, the President knows that the Democrats are not going to allow themselves to be the ones held responsible for default in any case. There wasn’t any need to scare them beyond that.

No, I think the Medicare and SS was as Ezra says — to sweeten the pot to get the Republicans to agree to take the Bush tax cuts off the table right now. And they didn’t see any need to give up one of their most potent weapons and agree to any tax hikes at all.

Keep in mind that Republicans don’t actually care about deficits. This is just a game for them. I’m not sure what it is for the Democrats. From the look of it they truly believe that austerity is virtuous and good for its own sake and that everyone will appreciate the “tough love” in the long run.

.

GOP holding out for their BFD

by digby

This is just getting funny:

If President Obama has agreed in principle to cut entitlements, over howls of protests from members of his party, what are Republicans prepared to offer that amounts to similar political risk in their own party.

Here’s what they’ve settled on: We’ll agree to raise the debt limit!

At his weekly press availability House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA) said the key Republican concession is “the fact that we are voting — the fact that we are even discussing voting for a debt ceiling increase.” He claimed this was a significant move. “What I don’t think the White House understands is how difficult it is for fiscal conservatives to say they’re going to vote to pay for a debt ceiling increase.”

Just before leaving for the White House, Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) also told reporters that a “balanced” approach is one where Obama agrees to the GOP’s fiscal framework and Republicans agree to prevent a default.

“Most Americans would say that a balanced approach is a simple one: the administration gets its debt limit increase, and the American people get their spending cuts,” Boehner said.

The glaring problem with this interpretation is that Republican leaders have admitted that raising the debt ceiling is imperative — not an arbitrary policy preference of the President’s.

Well yes. But why should they give up real anything at this point when they are still getting so much without it?

I would imagine they will end up agreeing to something like a firm promise to talk about “tax reform” in the very near future or a trigger mechanism down the road to require some subsidies to expire if certain deficit targets aren’t met. But at this point, with the President publicly jumping on the third rail without getting anything in return and agreeing that huge cuts will have a positive effect on the economy, they have little reason to end this until the last minute. Since the President has already announced that he is willing to hugely cut spending, as they demanded, they will now say that just like all Democrats he’s the one who’s willing to tank the economy rather than give up his socialist dream of raising taxes in an economic slump. After all, raising taxes is all they’re arguing about.

And who knows what goodies they can still squeeze out of them?

Update: By the way, there is talk of the whole thing falling apart and going back to a clean vote. It is most fervently to be hoped that it happens.

But unfortunately, the Democrats rhetorically gave away their position as protectors of the New Deal and it’s hard to see how they get that back. Still, giving it away rhetorically is better than signing it away in reality, so thank heaven for small favors if that’s how this ends.

Update: Mark Thoma is very shrill.

Update II: I see that Boehner says the debt ceiling is “Obama’s problem.” Funny guy.
.

Republican Authoritarians for Freedom

by digby

Liberty:

After two embarrassing arrests of local citizens for videotaping police as they carried out official duties, the city of New Haven, Connecticut issued a policy preventing police officers from arresting bystanders who videotaped their actions.

When the state’s Democrats attempted to turn that policy into state law earlier this year, the proposal came under fire from state Republicans, who offered a host of excuses for why a law promoting transparency and openness in law enforcement was a bad idea. Senate Republicans then successfully watered down the bill before it came to a vote, where they were nearly unanimous in their opposition to it. The bill passed the state Senate on June 3 with only one Republican vote, but the state House of Representatives ran out of time before it could vote on the bill.

Here are some of the excuses:

“Well what do you think happens in the real world with recording devices? It’s the same thing. People look to catch you on the smallest phrase taken out of context.”

“Are we that skeptical of our policemen that we have to say when you get there we’re going to tape every action you use, every second you take, every word you speak?”

I don’t want that police officer to be thinking for a second, ‘wait a minute, I’ve got this new law I might be liable. Oh darn. What am I going to do?'”

How can any Libertarian of good conscience vote for someone like this simply because they refuse to raise taxes?

.

Drilling down to the lizard brain

by digby

To those who continue to believe that the “pro-life” movement is concerned with cute little babies and not the sexual behavior of women, I offer this:

“Planned Parenthood has stopped providing birth control pills and other contraception in New Hampshire after the state’s executive council rejected up to $1.8 million in funding for the group” because it also provides privately-funded abortions. After losing its contract — which paid for education, distributing contraception, and the testing and treatment of sexually transmitted infections — the centers have “turned away 20 to 30 patients a day who have arrived to refill their birth control prescriptions”

Ok, but why?

New Hampshire’s Council rejected the contract in a 3-2 vote, arguing that taxpayers should not fund abortions or so-called irresponsible behavior. “I am opposed to abortion,” said Raymond Wieczorek, a council member who voted against the contract. “I am opposed to providing condoms to someone. If you want to have a party, have a party, but don’t ask me to pay for it.”

I think that clears that up, don’t you?

I know that the issue of abortion rights isn’t popular, even among progressives, many of whom just want it to go away. Polling shows that many young women are, shall we say, less than animated by it and don’t see any real margin in fighting for it. But it’s important to realize that the right to abortion isn’t just about pregnancy, it’s about a woman’s freedom to control her reproduction at all. These people believe that women should not have sex unless they are prepared to be pregnant. This is far more related to primal images of the evils of female sexuality than it is to specific religion.

Everyone assumes that women’s rights can’t go backwards now that women are in the workforce and have achieved such prominence in the world at large. But these primitive, archetypal beliefs are extremely well-embedded in the human psyche and thinking society can’t go back is extremely short sighted. Women are not equal if they do not control their own bodies and they are not free if their natural human sexuality is considered frivolous “partying” unless they are prepared to procreate.

I’m afraid the female frog is heating up slowly, thinking it’s in a nice comfortable hot tub.

.

Panetta channels the codpiece

Pivoting off the table

by digby

I just read the transcript of this morning’s press conference and was struck by this:

Republicans gave me this list at the — at the beginning of this year as a priority, something that they thought they could do. Now I’m ready to do it and so far we haven’t gotten the kind of movement that I would have expected.

Perhaps this wasn’t literal, but even if it isn’t, it’s a fairly revealing comment. Do you suppose he gave the Republicans a similar list or did he just trust them to meet him halfway?

What we can do is to solve this underlying debt and deficit problem for a long period of time, so that then we can get back to having a conversation about [jobs]. Since we now have solved this problem, that’s no longer what’s hampering economic growth. That’s not feeding businesses uncertainty. Everybody feels that the ground is stable under our feet. are there some strategies that we could pursue that would really focus on some targeted job growth.. .

We can’t even have that conversation if people don’t feel as if we don’t have our fiscal house in order. So let’s act now, let’s get this problem off the table, and then with some firm footing, with a solid fiscal situation, we will then be in a position to make the kind of investments that I think are going to be necessary to win the future.

Forgetting the numerous instances of catapulting the conservative propaganda in that statement (why bother even mentioning it anymore?) he really does appear to believe they can take deficit reduction “off the table” and then “pivot” to jobs. I guess hope springs eternal in the Democratic heart.

Here’s a little reminder of how that tends to work out for them, circa 2002:

The debate and vote on the resolution will bring closure on the extended Iraq debate that has crowded out the country’s domestic agenda as Congress concludes. But there is substantial evidence, as we indicated at the outset, that voters are very ready to turn to domestic issues. It is important that Democrats make this turn and provide a compelling reason to vote Democratic and turn down the Republicans.

In this survey, we tested two message frameworks – one offers a transition to the domestic agenda (“We need independent people in Washington who will be a check on what is going on and pay attention to our needs at home”) and one focuses on corporate influence (“Washington should be more responsive to the people and less to big corporate interests”). Both frameworks defeat the Republican alternative that begins with support for the President’s efforts on security.

I’m sure you’ll recall how cooperative the Republicans were with that “pivot.” They won back the congress. Counting on the GOP allowing the Dems to take something off the table that’s working for them is naive. And Republicans have been calling the Democrats “tax ‘n spend” liberals as long as I can remember. It is permanently bolted on to the table.

Update: Actually, as I just looked over the transcript, I see that the president did draw a line in the sand: he said he would veto any short term deal.

.

Eat Our Peas

by digby

Dday has the rundown on the press conference this morning, which I missed. It sounds to me as if everything’s where it was last week — he wants a Grand Bargain and the Republicans are refusing to give an inch while he’s pretty much willing to give away the store. (I haven’t seen him draw a line in the sand, but perhaps I missed it.)

On cutting entitlements, he made his pitch thusly. “Medicare in particular will run out of money and we will not be able to sustain that program… If you’re a progressive who cares about the integrity of Medicare and Social Security and Medicaid, then we have an obligation to make sure we make those changes required to make it sustainable on those terms… We won’t make progress on the values we care about without getting our fiscal house in order. If you care about those things, then you’ve got to be interested in figuring out how we pay for all that in a responsible way.” As for Social Security, which he acknowledged is not the source of any deficit problems, he basically said that, as long as we’re doing a big deal, we might as well throw that in. “The reason to include that in this package is, if you’re going to take a bunch of tough votes, you might as well do it now,” Obama said. He did not specify the changes.

So tactical or not, he’s certainly committed to a big deal that includes trimming benefits and some revenues, in a ratio massively tilted toward cuts. “I would want more revenues, and fewer cuts to programs for middle class families,” he said. “But that’s the point. I’m willing to move in their direction to get something done. And that’s what compromise entails.”

He concluded that getting the deficit conversation out of the way would enable the country to move with a laser focus to jobs and investment. I don’t know why anyone would think that deficits could be taken off the table forever, but that’s his argument.

The accusation that those of us who are upset about cuts to Medicare, medicaid and Social security don’t care about the programs is especially clever, I have to admit. That will prove to be quite useful I imagine. For Republicans.

“I think it would give the American people enormous confidence that this town can actually do something one in a while,” Obama said.

I think the President’s goal is exactly what he says it is: to do Big Things.I just don’t think it matters much what the substance of those Big Things is.

.