To answer a lot of people's questions

[jazzimov]

about "WHY" would Obama offer Chained CPI in his pudget proposal, I think Ezra Klein and Evan Solta did a pretty good job of explaining it:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/04/05/wonkbook-obamas-budget-will-start-in-the-middle-but-where-will-it-end/

President Obama’s 2014 budget proposal will “incorporate the compromise offer Obama made to House Speaker John Boehner last December in the discussions over the so-called “fiscal cliff”,” reports Zachary Goldfarb in The Washington Post. That means it will include, among other things, cuts to Social Security through chained-CPI, and a variety of cuts to Medicare.

The upside of this strategy is clear: Obama gets “caught trying” on a budget compromise. House Republicans have put forward a series of extremely conservative budget proposals that show no interest in a compromise. Senate Democrats have a more modest plan, but one that doesn’t include any notable concessions to Republicans. Obama will position himself in the middle. His budget will incude high-profile concessions to Republicans — though he will emphasize that he’ll only accept those concessions if they come with significant new revenues. No one will be able to say he isn’t trying to reach a deal, and the cries from liberals will prove that he’s forcing his base to accept very tough medicine.

Moreover, all this will come at a moment when sequestration is truly beginning to bite. In the days immediately following the sequester’s imposition, there were few visible consequences, and many in Washington convinced themselves the cuts were merely hype. But they were, in fact, just slow moving, and now unemployment checks are about to be slashed, cancer patients are being turned away, layoffs and furloughs are beginning, services are being curtailed, and both politicians and voters are looking for relief.

The White House points out that the concessions they’re offering in this budget aren’t new. They didn’t just exist in the final, private offer to Boehner. They existed in public on the White House’s web site. For that reason, the White House didn’t see much reason to hold them back from the budget. Obama is already on record supporting this deal. Why not get the credit for it, and why not use it to burnish credibility with the Senate Republicans who he’s courting to serve as the nucleus for a deal. Plus, it puts the pressure on Republicans to respond with something serious, or be seen as intransigent and at fault for the sequester’s continued cuts.

(emphasis added)
(More at site)

I'm not suggesting that the Chained CPI is a good idea, I don't think it is. But it's something that Republicans asked for, and then refused. It's also important to remember that even if Obama and Republicans come to agreement, it still has to pass Senate Democrats. But if Obama can help define where the Republicans "draw the line" it will help Senate Democrats in their negotiations. Although Republicans are standing firm in their "cuts only" demands, as the sequestration continues they'll either have to re-think their positions or give up their seats - either of which is good for me!

Full disclosure: I plan to retire in about 11 years. I am NOT a "Blue Dog", a "Centrist", or an "apologist". According to Political Compass I'm left of Gandhi. I simply think everyone needs to be informed before they launch attacks. I do not agree with all of Obama's policies, but I do remember that he was the one who brought us the Lilly Ledbetter Act, the repeal of DADT, is about to repeal DOMA, and much, much more.

[cantbeserious]

1. Rationalizations Don't Work For Me Anymore - Stand Up For What Is Right - Grow A Spine

eom

[jazzimov]

2. How is this a rationalization?

Maybe your message is meant for Republicans.

[cantbeserious]

4. Clearly A Spinning Of The Facts And Position To Paint The Picture Of Strategy Where None Really Exists

eom

[babylonsister]

6. Yea, Ezra Klein does that all the time. nt

[Cha]

66. FACTS are FACTS. You can't spin them.

[cantbeserious]

69. Au Contraire - Washington Is The Center Of Fact To Fiction And Fiction To Fact Spinning

eom

[Cha]

70. Not FACTS. You're entitled to your own opinion but not your own set of FACTS.

[cantbeserious]

71. Fact - Obama Plans To Change SS Which Will Harm Senior Citizens - Spin That

eom

[Cha]

72. I don't have to spin anything. I appreciate the OP for bringing

more information to the board.

The White House points out that the concessions they’re offering in this budget aren’t new. They didn’t just exist in the final, private offer to Boehner. They existed in public on the White House’s web site. For that reason, the White House didn’t see much reason to hold them back from the budget. Obama is already on record supporting this deal. Why not get the credit for it, and why not use it to burnish credibility with the Senate Republicans who he’s courting to serve as the nucleus for a deal. Plus, it puts the pressure on Republicans to respond with something serious, or be seen as intransigent and at fault for the sequester’s continued cuts.

[cantbeserious]

75. Non Responsive To The Facts

eom

[newfie11]

3. Damn right. Nt

[babylonsister]

5. Thanks for the article and

clarification. It's nice to hear a voice of reason, especially Klein's.

[cantbeserious]

7. Voice Of Reason - Is Getting Caught Trying Reasonable - Please, This Must Be Sarcasm

eom

[babylonsister]

8. Hey. Don't tell me what I'm trying to say or what I think.

I'm perfectly capable of that. I'm allowed not to share your opinion.

[cantbeserious]

10. Reasonable To Me Would Have Been The Progressive Caucus Budget - Where Is Obama On That Reasonable

"Our Budget Eliminates the Deficit and Raises a $31 Billion Surplus In Ten Years
Our budget protects Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid and responsibly eliminates the deficit by targeting its main drivers: the Bush Tax Cuts, the wars overseas, and the causes and effects of the recent recession."

http://cpc.grijalva.house.gov/the-peoples-budget/

[jazzimov]

20. And Republicans are going to vote for that.....

why?

If they wouldn't accept Obama's proposals, why would they accept these?

[cantbeserious]

24. One Begins With A Strong Position To Force The National Debate - One Does Not Begin Negotiations

Based on a compromise.

That is always a losing strategy.

[jazzimov]

9. Sorry if the facts don't fit your outrage.

[cantbeserious]

11. Not Outraged Here - Just pointing Out That Obama Is Doing The Bidding Of The 1%

See earlier post on the Progressive Caucus budget that protects SS.

[jazzimov]

15. The 1% do NOT want this -

they want SS dead and fully privatized.

And I would prefer the Progressive Caucus budget. Any ideas how to get it passed?

[cantbeserious]

17. Of Course The 1% Want This - This Is Proverbial Camel Nose Under The Tent Strategy - Steady Erosion

The best way to get the Progressive Caucus budget passed is to have the balls to propose it.

Then we can have the national debate over merits and means.

Anything less is timidity of the highest order.

-------------------

If some need backbone and motivation on how to strangle the 1% - see Richard Wolff

[whathehell]

76. The 1% know that can't happen now, and so are willing to let Obama have first "stab" at it. n/t

[Summer Hathaway]

39. "Sorry if the facts don't fit your outrage."

Now THAT is the most succinct, and highly descriptive, response I've seen here of late.

Twisting the facts to fit one's outrage has become a creative pastime on this site. Some are, admittedly, better at it than others. Some are amateurs at the craft; others are professionals.

In the end, when the predictions of the Perpetually Outraged prove to have never come to fruition, they invariably retreat to one of the three possible corners they've painted themselves into:

1) Obama didn't do IT this time - but he will in future, mark my words!

2) He WAS going to do IT, but our petitions/phone calls/emails, etc., forced him to back off.

3) Okay, so he didn't do THAT, but he's now about to do THIS (insert new outrage-de-jour here).


Option No. 3 is by far the most popular, and most often used. It offers the Perpetually Outraged an "out" by changing the subject, in hopes no one will remember that the previous outrage they were so sure would happen came to naught.

[socialist_n_TN]

50. Well I suppose we'll have to see, BUT....

from all indications, Obama WILL propose a budget that cuts SS benefits. Benefits from a program that was enacted specifically so that it DID NOT add anything to the national debt. And a program that has been a cornerstone for keeping the elderly away from poverty for 80 years or so. Just PROPOSING that type of budget from a Democrat is like Daddy gambling with the rent money.

[Summer Hathaway]

55. When Daddy knows the other side is holding

a losing hand, offering to throw the rent money into the pot is a meaningless gesture.

[socialist_n_TN]

57. The other side is holding a losing hand?........

It doesn't sound like it to me. It sounds like all they have to do is take Obama's deal and they get their foot in the door of destroying Social Security. That's NOT a losing hand.

[Summer Hathaway]

59. His proposals include

revenue-raising measures the GOP have already said they will never go along with.

If they're not holding a losing hand, if "all they have to do is take Obama's deal", why haven't they jumped in to take it? Why not jump in now, claim the pot, and claim victory?

Because the 'pot' includes the very things they've told their constituents, over and over, they will NEVER accept, that's why.

[Andy823]

13. +1000 nt

[Andy823]

12. Thanks for the post

I tend to agree with Mr. Klein and Mr. Sota, however a lot of poster here on DU seem to think the world is coming to an end, and it's all president Obama's fault for "caving" in. Be prepared to be attacked, even though you make a lot of sense. I myself want to actually see what it is the president is putting out in his budget. I hear it's coming out on Wednesday. I plan on waiting till I hit 65, 3 more years, before applying for SS, so I am concerned about what may happen, but I won't jump the gun until the facts come out, and like the article says, I to know that the republicans are not going to go for whatever it is the president puts out, they just won't. Until it's all said and done I really think we should see just what the plan really is, and not let the right wing talking heads in the media get us all worked up for what is most likely nothing at all!

Just my opinion.

[cantbeserious]

14. The Better Starting Position Would Have Been The Progressive Caucus Budget

http://cpc.grijalva.house.gov/the-peoples-budget/

Snip ...

The People’s Budget eliminates the deficit in 10 years, puts Americans back to work and restores our economic competitiveness. The People’s Budget recognizes that in order to compete, our nation needs every American to be productive, and in order to be productive we need to raise our skills to meet modern needs.

Our Budget Eliminates the Deficit and Raises a $31 Billion Surplus In Ten Years
Our budget protects Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid and responsibly eliminates the deficit by targeting its main drivers: the Bush Tax Cuts, the wars overseas, and the causes and effects of the recent recession.

Our Budget Puts America Back to Work & Restores America’s Competitiveness
• Trains teachers and restores schools; rebuilds roads and bridges and ensures that users help pay for them
• Invests in job creation, clean energy and broadband infrastructure, housing and R&D programs

Our Budget Creates a Fairer Tax System
• Ends the recently passed upper-income tax cuts and lets Bush-era tax cuts expire at the end of 2012
• Extends tax credits for the middle class, families, and students
• Creates new tax brackets that range from 45% starting at $1 million to 49% for $1 billion or more
• Implements a progressive estate tax
• Eliminates corporate welfare for oil, gas, and coal companies; closes loopholes for multinational corporations
• Enacts a financial crisis responsibility fee and a financial speculation tax on derivatives and foreign exchange

Our Budget Protects Health
• Enacts a health care public option and negotiates prescription payments with pharmaceutical companies
• Prevents any cuts to Medicare physician payments for a decade

Our Budget Safeguards Social Security for the Next 75 Years
• Eliminates the individual Social Security payroll cap to make sure upper income earners pay their fair share
• Increases benefits based on higher contributions on the employee side

Our Budget Brings Our Troops Home
• Responsibly ends our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to leave America more secure both home and abroad
• Cuts defense spending by reducing conventional forces, procurement, and costly R&D programs

Our Budget’s Bottom Line
• Deficit reduction of $5.6 trillion
• Spending cuts of $1.7 trillion
• Revenue increase of $3.9 trillion
• Public investment $1.7 trillion

Snip ...

[jazzimov]

16. That is the starting point - for the House.

There is a different starting point for the Senate.

NONE of them will get passed.

Obama's budget won't get passed, either. But he showed that he's willing to consider Republican proposals. Didn't read the article?

[cantbeserious]

18. Which Just Proves That He Is Doing The Bidding Of The 1% - One Does Not Compromise At The Start

Of negotiations.

[jazzimov]

22. Negotiations started a long time ago.

And it proves nothing of the sort. If he were, he'd wouldn't have demanded higher taxes on them.

[Andy823]

27. Well

If nothing happens, if republicans refuse to even talk about things, and they will, then who comes off looking like the obstructionists who simply don't want to help fix things? Republicans can play the same game they played for the last four years, but it didn't work very well, Romney did not get elected, and if they continue to play this way, it will hurt them next year. Do you really think republicans are going to support any budget the president puts out? Do you really think republicans can come up with an alternative plan of their own? I don't see how the president is doing the bidding of the 1% if his budget isn't voted into law, and that isn't going to happen. Republicans have already come out and said they won't support the presidents plan. I really don't see them changing their mind.

[cantbeserious]

31. That Is An Old Story - Republicans Are Already Obstructionists - Time To Move On And Take Action

eom

[jazzimov]

26. Awesome post! thanks!

BTW, I'm shooting for 67 - I get higher payments by waiting.

[GoCubsGo]

19. I'm glad somebody else sees it. n/t

[cantbeserious]

21. That Ones Opening Position Is A Compromise - Is That The Best Way To Negotiate?

Typically one negotiates from strength - like winning the last election for starters.

[jazzimov]

23. Again, read the article. nt

[cantbeserious]

25. I Have - "Getting Caught Trying" Is Not A Successful Negotiating Strategy - One Is Perceived As Week

From the outset.

[jazzimov]

29. That's what you got?

What about this part:

it puts the pressure on Republicans to respond with something serious

And what about the rest of the sentence that you "cherry-picked"?

And what about the fact that the Senate and House Democrats also have budgets, one of which you graciously posted.

And what about the fact that nothing in this proposal is anything new? As I said, the negotiations began a long time ago. This is hardly a "beginning position". What Obama did was to show Boehner for the liar that he is.

[cantbeserious]

33. The Republicans Will Never Respond With Something Serious - That's Cannon Fodder For The Press

eom

[bobduca]

40. The conceit in all this Kabuki Theater is that R leaders are rational

Clearly that is not the case. so i have to think that the white house knows this too.

What do they get from pretending to expect them to behave rationally to "pressure".. frankly this will just be spun as more spinelessness.

[GoCubsGo]

30. What makes you think there will be any negotiating?

The republicans refused to do so all along, it this time will be no different. I know this. The president knows this. Most people here at DU know it. The republicans want to crash the economy and blame it on Obama, even if it means passing up a chance to chip away at Social Security. They're not about to make a deal with him, especially since he tied the SS to tax increases and loophole closures. He has already said he would remove it from the table if they refuse that--and they will.

[cantbeserious]

34. Yes - Better To Be Bold And Have A National Debate That Exposes The 1% For What They Truly Are

eom

[jazzimov]

46. Exactly.

[dawg]

28. If that is the President's reasoning ...

then he is a far, far less intelligent man than I took him to be.

Being caught "trying" will not impress any Republicans. Who does it impress? The public (even Republicans) is overwhelmingly against cuts to Social Security and Medicare.

Who is he trying to impress here? And for what possible purpose?

Does he want the Washington Post to write a nice editorial about him? Does he want a nice lunch date with David Brooks?

What is the point?

I'll tell you. There is none.

"You know, I suspect that, on Social Security, we’ve got a somewhat similar position." - Barack Obama, referring to opponent Mitt Romney.

[jazzimov]

32. You answered your own question.

The public (even Republicans) is overwhelmingly against cuts to Social Security and Medicare.

[dawg]

36. If he believes he's impressing the public with this then he's delusional.

Dangerously so.

[bhikkhu]

35. In a funny way, this does undermine the repugs pretty well

they can't very well run on cutting entitlements after having declined to cut entitlements. They can't very well support the president's proposal because, first, that would be agreeing with the president, and then they'd have to bear the consequences of having cut entitlements. Not to mention the tax increases attached.

In a similar way, are they going to run in 2014 as "strong on defense", after slashing the pentagon's budget in the sequester?

I'm not worried about SS - there's no support anywhere to cut it, and the kind of repugs that might have largely lost their asses in the last round. The next election should be a good one to watch!

[dawg]

37. They will say President Obama wanted to cut *your* Social Security ...

in order to spend more on *those* people. Food stamps, welfare, Obamacare.

That's why the brave Republicans stood up and said no.

[jazzimov]

49. Exactly!

[mike_c]

38. I don't give a rat's buttocks what games he's playing....

Fuck that noise. Period.

[BlueStreak]

41. The GOP will take the parts they like and ignore all the rest

It is a foolish way to begin negotiations. If this were the first time, it would be called learning curve. Now that Obama has played his hand this way about 10 times in a row, I think we can call it a trend, and fully intentional.

He does not represent us.

[jazzimov]

51. They can't.

[BlueStreak]

58. Of course they can

Obama's budget means nothing. The appropriations emerge from the House. And now that he has (apparently) put this in writing, Ryan will take that as a new starting point. Nothing to negotiate.

All Obama can do is threaten to veto. And let's see how serious a threat that would be. Do you recall the last bill he vetoed?

[jazzimov]

61. True that they EMERGE from the House,

but the Senate must approve it.

[BlueStreak]

63. It is a lot harder to get that out of the bill once Obama has endorsed it

In fact I will say there aren't 10 Senators who would stand up on their own to block challenge that. The only way it doesn't end up as law now is that if the left makes such a huge uproar that the politicians decide to back off. But that would be an incredible waste of political capital on what really is a relatively minor issue. And while we are distracted with that, things that are 100 times worse will slip through, just like the recent Monsanto thing.

This is all so very unnecessary. Foolish, foolish move by Obama.

[dgauss]

42. "it puts the pressure on Republicans to respond with something serious,

or be seen as intransigent"

The whole country has been watching these assholes since 2000.

Iraq? Outing a CIA agent? Economic meltdown? And on and on...

If somebody doesn't see the Republican party as the problem at this point, we're supposed to believe this subtle chess maneuver to make them look bad will suddenly open their eyes?

[jazzimov]

47. It will push some over the edge.

We've witnessed a steady decline, with a few bumps. The Tea Party wouldn't have been able to get so much control if the Republican party didn't already have cracks. Now, they're just widening those cracks.

This gambit won't cause a sudden migration - but it will be enough to push many over the edge.

As one of my favorite DUer's used to say:

Drip. Drip. Drip.

[MadHound]

43. Sorry, you don't put the family jewels on the table, even in a bluff,

Because you're risking too much, especially if your bluff is called.

Why wouldn't the 'Pugs call Obama's bluff. They lose a few tax loopholes, big fucking deal. It isn't like there are thousands more out there to exploit, it isn't like they can't ram their old ones through at some later date when all the brouhaha dies down, that's why they've got lobbyists on speed dial.

[duffyduff]

45. Exactly. It's only because he believes the same thing the GOP does on this and other issues

that he pulls this crap.

No Republican would EVER get away with this bullshit Obama is pulling. It takes a "Democrat" to do it.

[duffyduff]

44. You don't get it at all

Obama, as an alleged Democrat, is NOT supposed to be putting "entitlements" on the table at all. Do you understand that?

The reason he keeps on with this bullshit is because HE BELIEVES IT. He has NEVER been a friend of traditional Democratic Party values.

When will people here finally get a clue about what this president REALLY is about?

It's NOT tenth-dimensional chess or a bluff--THIS IS WHAT THE MAN BELIEVES AS A NEOLIBERAL HEAVILY BACKED BY WALL STREET.

[jazzimov]

48. I'm afraid that you're the one that doesn't "get it".

This isn't about purity tests. This is the real world. This is about real, hard-line negotiations with people who don't want to negotiate or compromise.

This is about getting shit DONE.

[socialist_n_TN]

52. And if nothing gets done?...

Sometime doing nothing is better than a bad deal.

[Hoyt]

54. In this case, we all go down if this stalemate continues.

As one eligible for SS, and who'll be dependent upon it, I'm willing to put the short-term loss on yhe line (as long as those on low end are protected). I'm convinced we will all be better off for it. I'll adapt in short - term.

[socialist_n_TN]

56. But everybody else who supports this budget by Obama says........

that the Republicans will never accept it. Ergo, the stalemate WILL continue. if those posters are correct. So if the stalemate continues, why even bring something like this up for debate?

[Skittles]

60. Duffy gets it just fine

it is CRUEL and UNNECESSARY to kick around SS and Medicare like political footballs - it is DISGUSTING

[whathehell]

77. +1 n/t

[pa28]

62. Getting what shit done?

What shit is so vital to getting done that we have to put Social Security on the table?

To me it looks like he wants to cut SS and he's said so. This is not a game or a bluff.

[Babel_17]

53. TPM Editor’s Blog: Obama’s Dangerous Game

Covers the same ground but with a somewhat different take and a different conclusion.

editors.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2013/04/obamas_dangerous_game.php

But there’s the third point that I think is most important to understanding what’s going on here. This isn’t only about President Obama’s negotiating acumen. In conversations with the president’s key advisors and the President himself over the last three years one point that has always come out to me very clearly is that the President really believes in the importance of the Grand Bargain. He thinks it’s an important goal purely on its own terms. That’s something I don’t think a lot of his diehard supporters fully grasp. He thinks it’s important in longrange fiscal terms (and there’s some reality to that). But he always believes it’s important for the country and even for the Democratic party to have a big global agreement that settles the big fiscal policy for a generation and let’s the country get on to other issues — social and cultural issues, the environment, building the economy etc.

This has always struck me as a very questionable analysis of the where the country is politically and what it needs. But I put it forward because I don’t think these moves can really be understood outside of this context.

[bbgrunt]

64. sorry. more apologist bs.

[Cha]

68. Actually, they're just facts.

[JHB]

78. Not quite: they are puzzle pieces that Klein thinks come together in a certain way...

...and he could be mistaken. Or passing along after-the-fact insider spin.

It won't actually be a fact until it pans out, by which time it's a little to late to comment if it pans out in a different direction than you think.

[Marr]

65. You suck at sales. /nt

[BlueCheese]

67. Ezra Klein is an Obama apologist to the end.

Obama could propose selling California to the Chinese and he'd find a way to support it.

[cali]

79. oh codswallop. I'm so bored with these nonsensical accusations

I frequently read Klein and he's often been critical of Obama and the admin, but whatthefuckever.

[Kablooie]

73. That's pretty much what I thought.

He doesn't expect it to pass but is using it to discredit Republicans publicly so Democrats have a better chance of retaining or gaining power in 2014.

It's a dangerous gamble but if he does nothing the Republicans have a better chance at controlling both the house and Senate particularly when Obama starts getting blamed for the problems that will emerge from the sequester.

[Maraya1969]

74. A post denigrating our President gets to the top of the Greatest page

and this was at 12 recs when I added my one.

No wonder we lose state houses and might lose the house again. People don't think, they react. This is especially true of Democrats.

If we don't stay together in this fight we will lose in 2014 and more republicans will gain in state houses and we will continue on this anti-woman, anti-anything not rich and white fiasco.

And people turning against the President is the way it starts.