As a somewhat old OWS preemie, I'm unsurprised by recent revelations

[stupidicus]

The good cop/bad cop tactics of our pols in DC in particular has always been as obvious as the increased craziness of the rightwingers since Bush took the helm.

The reason why the OWS never formally chose a party side in this battle is because both sides have in varying degrees, been part of the underlying and continuing social injustice problems largely tethered to the wealth/income inequality issue. Saint Raygun launched the rocket that has made the disparity sky high, and every pres since, dem and repub alike, have had a hand in boosting it. http://www.economist.com/blogs/dailychart/2011/10/income-inequality-america

This is also why I suggested to those so highly critical of those being critical of BHO's apparent "willingness" to put SS on the chopping block, before and after the election, that they should refrain from all the name-calling, label assignments, etc, because inevitably they'd find themselves in a distinct minority given the high likelihood he'd do what he's done, and because on a very fundamental level and in a very real way, most of us on the left that congregate here are OWSers, particularly we older ones who've lived all the aforementioned history.

It's his willingness to put it on the chopping block that has damned him, whether you believe that willingness has it's origin in an honest desire stemming from his "Third way" nature, or because he's "bluffing" with the lives and risking potential human misery to be suffered by our fellow citizens with gamesmenship. Whether or not the rightwingnuts call his bliff doesn't change the fact that he's willing to do it, unless of course he's lying about that, which leaves only the supporting of a liar and a lie, and conceding that the rightwingers don't have a monopoly on the use of "the ends justify the means" BS that underlies all their lying. http://www.thenation.com/blog/173703/nothing-new-under-wingnut-sun-minoritarianism That's one of the few things Saint Raygun got right -- his observation that morality and politics are inseparable, and as I've long seen and argued it, it is the differences in morality between the left/right ideologies that plays an intregal role in and best explains in large part, the mysterious workings of the modern rightwingnut brain in terms of their fact/science/etc denials. They simply can't be wrong when their goals are always "right", even today when from a popularity standpoint, it's the wrong time to be on the right or pushing modern rightwingnut policies.

And it bears mentioning as well, much like the bluffer at the poker table, he's "willing" to risk the loss, but only to others in this case, given the state of his financial security. The only thing he's risking is the quality of his legacy, which I'd always hoped would be enough to avoid where we are today, but never put all my eggs in that basket.

Given all that, I am pleased that BHO has sought to cut or diminish the juice going to the third rail, because it should serve as a learning experience for those lacking in sufficient vision to see the big picture, which includes and really is or should be all about those who are and are not served in adequate measure and ways by our leaders in DC, not cheerleading for the home team that is increasing becoming a fale choice at worst, or one between the lesser of two evils at best. Had it not been for the Lewinsky affair, perhaps more eyes could have been opened to all of this back in the waning days of the Clinton admin. http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=clinton%20ss%20and%20lewinsky&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&ved=0CDgQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Ffiredoglake.com%2F2010%2F05%2F18%2Fhow-monica-lewinsky-saved-social-security-clinton-gingrich-bowles-and-the-pact%2F&ei=JzxkUeifAcLOyAHtoIGIAw&usg=AFQjCNHuiBTHssw01nPTGA487QqO7Iyyhg&bvm=bv.44990110,d.aWc

So can I get a "Well done, BHO!"?

[bigtree]

1. the flaw in that reasoning, stupidicus

. . . is that, politically - not virtually or projecting - you can't show where including this on the budget is much of a 'gamble.' At worst, it's a weak political ploy for 'bipartisanship' which is always going to fall on deaf ears over in the republican caucus.

SS cuts like the ones he proposed are DOA in the Senate. To underscore their fat chance of ever seeing daylight on the Senate floor (much less of a chance getting past the caucus) they are firmly tied to tax increases on the wealthy and corporations that will never be accepted by the republicans. It's as dead a budget proposal as any that have yet to actually be presented to Congress.

That's right . . . all of this blather over DOA proposals from the WH which haven't yet been presented at all. Some 'revelation.'

[stupidicus]

5. I could care less about the "gamble", and think it's BS anyway

since I don't think he's "gambling", but rather doing what he's wanting to do, as expressed by his "willingness" to do so as part of the "Grand Bargain". I don't have to show it isn't "much of a gamble" in terms of the rightwinger leadership accepting his current plan as proposed, because that much has long been clear, it's up to those like you to show it isn't gambling at all and won't be a part of what they eventually will accept as a "Grand Bargain" he's long been seeking.

Including it in his budget proposal makes that "willingness" clear, and it's the willingness he's long been indicted for, not what the content of the Grand Bargain might eventually be. All this "gambling" stuff is just a distraction from that. Any lefty can rightly/justifiably be critical of him on the basis of that alone, which in the final analysis, is all we've had to be critical of from the beginning since we can't read the future either. And given that uncertainty, even though it "ain't much of a gamble", hardly makes it "NO gamble at all", so even if the focus was put instead on the gambling angle as so many of you have, it's still a "gamble/gambling" one can reasonably be critical of as well.

I'm far from the only one that's noted this, and this isn't the first time for me. Maybe you should go over here and join the fray.

But it wasn't entirely Republicans Obama was reaching out to, Beutler says, and that part of his goal "was to win the battle for elite opinion by positioning himself between those on his left criticizing him for preemptively conceding (and, worse, putting Social Security on the chopping block) and the entire GOP, which evidently can’t take yes for an answer." If so, mission not accomplished. Elite opinion is essentially Republican opinion. If Republicans will use Orszag's argument as ammunition against Obama, the elites—the Very Serious People—will use it as proof that much, much more needs to be done to hurt the elderly if the deficit beast is to be tamed. Even though Social Security does not contribute to the deficit. That doesn't matter. What matters is Obama's willingness to make people actually hurt. So even just as an effort triangulation to prove that he is really willing to piss off his base, it is likely to fail.

The good news is that this budget is almost certainly DoA. The bad news is that the Rubicon has been crossed. A Democratic president, who still has three years in office to try to prove himself to the VSPs, has sacrificed Social Security benefit cuts, and set himself up to be pushed into offering up much, much more.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/04/09/1200374/-Chained-CPI-could-kill-this-grand-bargain-but-what-about-the-next-nbsp-one?detail=hide

[KoKo]

2. "The Pact"--Clinton, Gingrich, Bowles

How Monica Lewinsky Saved Social Security: Clinton, Gingrich, Bowles and “The Pact”

Please welcome Steven Gillon, author of The Pact: Bill Clinton, Newt Gingrich, and the Rivalry that Defined a Generation

Gillon writes:

In private conversations with Gingrich and with Texas Republican Bill Archer, powerful head of the House Ways and Means Committee, the president promised to “provide political cover” for Democrats and Republicans by announcing his support for raising the minimum age required for Social Security and for changing the COLA formula. The president was willing to oppose the leadership of his own party and support the Republican demand for private accounts.

According to Gingrich:

“I understood that I would have to fight some of my old guard,” Gingrich recalled. “He understood that he would have to fight his hard left. Together we could shape about a 60 to 65 percent majority. I was happy for him to be a successful president. He was comfortable with us being a successful Republican congress.”

It looked like they had a path to success. Clinton would take the heat from Democrats and work through “centrist” Democrats and Republicans, as he had when he passed NAFTA and welfare reform.

And then Monica Lewinsky broke into the headlines:

Politically, it forced Clinton to seek refuge in the liberal wing of his party, the same group he had agreed to abandon a few months earlier. “All opportunities for accomplishment were killed once the story came out,” reflected a senior White House official. “If we cut a deal with the Republicans on Social Security there was every possibility that the Democrats, who were the only people defending him in Congress against these charges, could easily get angry and abandon him.” With conservatives in an uproar, Gingrich lost his political wiggle room and was forced to appease his right-wing base. If Gingrich did not “feed the conservative beast,” recalled a colleague, he would have been removed from his job as Speaker.

As Erskine Bowles himself said, “Monica changed everything.”


http://firedoglake.com/2010/05/18/how-monica-lewinsky-saved-social-security-clinton-gingrich-bowles-and-the-pact/

[woo me with science]

3. Very interesting post.

Thank you.

Clinton, Paul Ryan caught on camera re: cutting Medicare: 2011

[KoKo]

4. History is Repeating.....

Creepy isn't it...the cast of characters.

Will this Second Push....be the one that achieves the Goal.

[stupidicus]

6. yep, that's the scary part

the repeated effort.

People need to understand that damaging bipartisanship is no longer confined to just empire building and maintenance -- foreign policy -- as it use to largely be.