tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-132087152024-03-13T15:03:37.726-05:00The Blue VoiceThe TBV Crewhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10242096660690825225noreply@blogger.comBlogger6475125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13208715.post-87862737449355959662012-12-22T17:31:00.000-05:002012-12-22T17:31:01.527-05:00Looking forward to holiday political chit-chat (Arrgg-ggh!)For those oh-some-pleasant holiday discussions about the latest political controversies, here's a little reference aid for one of them, <a href="http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2012/12/the_gun_glossary_definitions_of_firearm_lingo_and_types_of_weapons.html">The Gun Glossary: What’s a semi-automatic? What counts as an assault weapon?</a> by Mark Joseph Stern <i>Slate</i> 12/17/2012.<br />
<br />
One of my Facebook friends and one his commenters like the idea of armed guards in schools because it makes kids "feel good" to see them. It makes six-year-olds "feel good" to see a guy in a Santa Claus suit, too. But if you're an NRA True Believer, nothing is too silly an argument to repeat. As long as it changes the topic from enacting and enforcing sane gun laws. Putting armed guards in the schools - like they had at Columbine - isn't going to prevent or even much mitigate mass shootings as long as automatic and semiautomatic assault weapons are easily available with enormous clips and no background checks for buyers at gun stores and gunshows and widespread online ordering (called "mail-order" back in Lee Harvey Oswald's day). Besides in general being a shabby way to allocated police resources. And states with the most permissive gun laws also tend to be the ones who try to operate their public services at a minimal level. Like, you know, local police departments.<br />
<br />
And how many rent-a-cop security guards have the kind of training to take down a well-trained survivalist with assault weapons and body armor? But it doesn't matter. My friend said he once heard about some security guard who shot and killed some drunk who showed up at a school board meeting one time and fired off a couple of shots, or something like that. That was enough reason for him to cheer for the NRA!<br />
<br />
While I'm on the subject, what's with the Democrats talking about all the "responsible" members of the NRA? They haven't been a generic gun-safety group since the crackpot rightwingers took over in the 1970s. Their board of directors includes the xenophobe and patriot-militia nut Jim Gilchrist and professional loser Ted Nugent, who enjoys suggesting in public that it would be nice if somebody murdered the President. They're like a Ku Klux Klan group without the sheets. Anybody who supports today's NRA has no reason not to know who and what it is they're supporting. "Responsible" is not the word that comes to mind. Can you picture Harry Truman or LBJ appealing to "responsible" members of the KKK?<br />
<br />
For anyone who's serious about using guns for home security - the burglar breaking in during the night, the home invasion robbery - a shotgun with a self-defense load is probably more than you'll ever need. But people need to take it seriously and not just keep a loaded gun around the house for a kid to play with or an angry spouse to grab in a tense moment. Joseph McNamara, then Chief of Police in San Jose, did a book back in 1985 called <i>Safe & Sound</i> about personal safety and crime prevention. It obviously doesn't have much on Internet fraud. But his observations on self-defense with guns is still relevant nearly 30 years later.<br />
<br />
<blockquote><ol><li>Know the laws in your state concerning when you can use a gun.</li>
<li>Take professional lessons on how to shoot a gun.</li>
<li>Plan in advance how you will get to your gun and use it in case of emergency.</li>
<li>If you have children, or a spouse who does not know how to handle a gun, you must safeguard it. I suggest you keep all weapons unloaded, with the ammunition in a separate location. In the case of a revolver, place a lock through the open cylinder. On an automatic, a guard should be used to prevent the trigger from being pulled. A rifle or a shotgun are best stored if the safety bar is put through the trigger mechanism.</li>
</ol></blockquote><br />
In other words, for a gun to be useful for self-defense, it has to be in the defender's hand at the moment it's needed. It has to be loaded and in good working order at that moment. As McNamara put it, "What good is a weapon if it is locked and unloaded? Not much." And the user has to be able to shoot well enough to hit the target attacker in the torso and be willing and able to kill the attacker with it. The last one is a critical condition. McNamara didn't describe these things in comic-book or Wayne LaPierre fashion:<br />
<br />
<blockquote>I learned from my patrol days in Harlem that when a store owner keeps a gun, his wife stands a decent change of collecting on his life insurance policy. I remember one grocer - we nicknamed him "Wild West" - who kept several pistols in his store. He even killed two robbers in separate holdups. ON a third robbery attempt, it was Wild West who got splattered all over the tuna cases. I knew he was going to get it sooner or later. He had to. Every time he shot it out with a robber, the odds mounted against him. And he only had to lose once.<br />
<br />
Wild West was not your run-of-the-mill handgun owner. He knew how to fire a weapon. But when the crucial moment came for him to shoot, the robber beat him to the punch. The death of Wild West convinced me long ago that [for most people] the risk of owning a gun far outweighs the protection. Most law-abiding citizen who own guns will hesitate to pull the trigger; the armed robber will not. Once he reaches the stage where he points a loaded revolver in a shopkeeper's face, he has become a hardened criminal. That means he has probably committed other acts of violence. Many violent criminals consider it no big deal to take the life of a victim who resists. They've done it before and they may have to do it again. It's part of the job. You and I generally don't think that way.<br />
<br />
Compare the robber's motivation to that of the store owner who pulls his gun and yells for the robber to freeze. Chances are the shopkeeper has never shot anyone, nor does he want to kill another human being. All he wants is for the robber to leave him alone. The person who has second thoughts about taking another life had better not wave his gun at anyone. A shred of hesitation and he can be dead.</blockquote>The rightwing fanatics at groups like the NRA and the Gun Owners of America, guns are all opportunity and no risk. In their dystopian view of the world, the only risk is not having a loaded weapon strapped to your body at every moment.<br />
<br />
That's not the real world of guns.<br />
<br />
Tags: <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/gun+control" rel="tag" target="_blank">gun control</a>, <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/gun+massacres" rel="tag" target="_blank">gun massacres</a>, <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/joseph+mcnamara" rel="tag" target="_blank">joseph mcnamara</a> Bruce Millerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05022449143502020665noreply@blogger.com25tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13208715.post-83605286697046352762012-12-21T21:20:00.002-05:002012-12-21T21:20:26.734-05:00The NRA's solution to gun violence: more guns, more fearSomehow I listened to the presentation on Friday by the NRA's Wayne LaPierre without gaq reflexes kicking in. If you want to try it yourself, here's the whole thing, courtesy of PBS Newshour, <a href="http://youtu.be/Lgu9f-qd_Uo">NRA's Wayne LaPierre Calls for Armed Security in Every School</a> 12/21/2012:<br />
<br />
<div align="center"><iframe allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen" frameborder="0" height="360" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/Lgu9f-qd_Uo" width="640"></iframe><br />
</div><br />
LaPierre proposes armed security guards at every school as an excuse not to have any restrictions at all on the manufacture and sale of the kinds of weapons that were not so long ago banned as "assault weapons". But this week's Facebook setting don't seem to allow it. <br />
<br />
German cartoonist Klaus Stuttmann has a drawing (12/17/2012) of what LaPierre's ideal of a public school would be, captioned "the next thing".<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-KzzVJOmbdAs/UNUDl95lB9I/AAAAAAAALyI/qjPkaoNkGT4/s1600/klaus%2Bstuttmann-the%2Bnest%2Bthing-12-17-2012.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="280" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-KzzVJOmbdAs/UNUDl95lB9I/AAAAAAAALyI/qjPkaoNkGT4/s400/klaus%2Bstuttmann-the%2Bnest%2Bthing-12-17-2012.jpg" width="400" /></a></div><br />
Also, the Christian homeschool lobby would love to have public schools looking like this to market against. I wonder how many Christian homeschooling arrangements, which sometimes include classroom-size gatherings, have armed guards present trained to take down well-trained survivalists with automatic weapons and body armor. For that matter, how many private elementary/middle/high schools have them? But the NRA sells fear, and they are pretty successful at it.<br />
<br />
I haven't checked the figures, but I assume that there are lots of urban schools that may be near high-crime areas that have extra security coverage. Also, there's this story: Amanda Terkel, <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/21/columbine-armed-guards_n_2347096.html">Columbine High School Had Armed Guards During Massacre In 1999</a> <i>Huffington Post</i> 12/21/2012.<br />
<br />
Obama is endorsing the idea of an assault weapons ban, something he has nominally supported during his entire Presidency and done little or nothing to actively promote. How much we should expect from his vague calls for doing something is well illustrated by this animated cartoon from Mark Fiore, <a href="http://youtu.be/ucS08MKnB7Y">Condolencer-In-Chief</a> 12/20/2012 (embeddeing not available).<br />
<br />
There are a couple of things that I'm watching about Obama's position on gun violence. One is the connection he is careful to make between everyday street violence, illustrated by this screen shot from the <i>Huffington Post</i> homepage of .... The <i>Huffington Post</i> has been pushing Obama's framing in this sense in their coverage the last several days:<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-1I-C4CwIZ1c/UNUIL4L0lyI/AAAAAAAALzo/paTdICOU8D0/s1600/Time%2Bto%2BAct%2BHuffPo%2BHomepage%2B12-16-2012.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="426" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-1I-C4CwIZ1c/UNUIL4L0lyI/AAAAAAAALzo/paTdICOU8D0/s640/Time%2Bto%2BAct%2BHuffPo%2BHomepage%2B12-16-2012.jpg" width="640" /></a></div><br />
"We may never know all the reasons why this tragedy happened. We do know that every day since [the Newtown], more Americans have died of gun violence," Obama said on <a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/12/19/remarks-president-press-conference">12/19/2012</a>:<br />
<br />
The other is the stress he places in his presentations on <i>security</i>. For example:<br />
<br />
<blockquote>And every parent knows there is nothing we will not do to shield our children from harm. ... That this job of keeping our children safe, and teaching them well, is something we can only do together, with the help of friends and neighbors, the help of a community, and the help of a nation. ... Can we honestly say that we’re doing enough to keep our children -- all of them -- safe from harm? ... If there is even one step we can take to save another child, or another parent, or another town, from the grief that has visited Tucson, and Aurora, and Oak Creek, and Newtown, and communities from Columbine to Blacksburg before that -- then surely we have an obligation to try. (<a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/12/16/remarks-president-sandy-hook-interfaith-prayer-vigil">12/16/2012</a>)</blockquote><blockquote>And so I think all of us have to do some reflection on how we prioritize what we do here in Washington. And as I said on Sunday, this should be a wake-up call for all of us to say that if we are not getting right the need to keep our children safe, then nothing else matters. And it's my commitment to make sure that we do everything we can to keep our children safe. (<a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/12/19/remarks-president-press-conference">12/19/2012</a>)</blockquote>These statements in themselves are entirely compatible with Wayne LaPierre's approach. The NRA also claims they want to keep children safe, too, by making sure they are in the presence of loaded guns every minute of their lives.<br />
<br />
Obama earned an F rating from the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence for his first year in office:<br />
<br />
<ul><li>Brady Campaign, <a href="http://www.bradycenter.org/xshare/reports/fedleg/obama-1styear-report.pdf">President Obama's First Year: Failed Leadership, Lost Lives</a> (Jan 2010): "In a year [2009] punctuated by mass shootings, ambush killings of police, assault weapon-toting protestors, and profligate gun trafficking from U.S. gun shops that threatens the stability of Mexico, President Obama’s first-year record on gun violence prevention has been an abject failure. "</li>
<li>Michael O'Brien, <a href="http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/76717-gun-control-group-gives-obama-an-f">Gun control group gives Obama an ‘F’</a> The Hill 01/19/2010: " the Brady Campaign, a leading advocacy group for stricter gun laws, said Obama actually has done little to clamp down on firearms since being elected. Instead, the president has signed into law two bills that favored gun-rights supporters."</li>
</ul><br />
I haven't located their ratings from later years. Maybe this time he'll do a little more on gun regulation as a way of persuading supporters of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid not to raise too much of a stink about cutting those programs and putting them on the fast track to elimination. But his chronic unwillingness to promote an alternative framing to the issues is a real problem if he's serious about even restoring the assault weapons ban. Here is an example from his <a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/12/19/remarks-president-press-conference">12/19/2012 press conference</a> in which he tries to make an argument for better gun regulations within an NRA-friendly framing:<br />
<br />
Look, like the majority of Americans, I believe that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to bear arms. This country has a strong tradition of gun ownership that’s been handed down from generation to generation. Obviously across the country there are regional differences. There are differences between how people feel in urban areas and rural areas. And the fact is the vast majority of gun owners in America are responsible -- they buy their guns legally and they use them safely, whether for hunting or sport shooting, collection or protection. ...<br />
<br />
<blockquote>And here’s what we know -- that any single gun law can't solve all these problems. We’re going to have to look at mental health issues. We're going to have to look at schools. There are going to be a whole range of things that Joe's group looks at. We know that issues of gun safety will be an element of it. And what we've seen over the last 20 years, 15 years, is the sense that anything related to guns is somehow an encroachment on the Second Amendment. What we’re looking for here is a thoughtful approach that says we can preserve our Second Amendment, we can make sure that responsible gun owners are able to carry out their activities, but that we’re going to actually be serious about the safety side of this; that we're going to be serious about making sure that something like Newtown or Aurora doesn't happen again.<br />
<br />
And there is a big chunk of space between what the Second Amendment means and having no rules at all. And that space is what Joe is going to be working on to try to identify where we can find some common ground.</blockquote>So it wouldn't surprise me at all if Obama were hoping for the issue to quiet down, have Diane Feinstein's assault weapons bill die in the Senate next year with little if any help from Obama to pass it, and then announce a bipartisan compromise to put more armed guards in schools just like Wayne Pierre suggested.<br />
<br />
The Democrats need to take on the NRA and delegitimize their framing and wreck their credibility outside the Republican alternative-reality bubble. Mark Ames in <a href="http://truth-out.org/news/item/13457-from-operation-wetback-to-newtown-tracing-the-hick-fascism-of-the-nra">From "Operation Wetback" to Newtown: Tracing the Hick Fascism of the NRA</a> <i>Truthout</i> 12/20/2012 explains the radicalization of the NRA since the 1970s. (Also at <a href="http://www.nsfwcorp.com/dispatch/newtown">NEWSCORP 12/17/2012</a>) Alan Berlow in <a href="http://www.salon.com/2012/12/17/held_hostage_by_nra_paranoia/">Held hostage by NRA paranoia</a> <i>Salon</i> 12/17/2012 describes the NRA's grim success on various fronts in derailing, even outright suppressing, honest public discussion of gun violence.<br />
<br />
And, as Digby reminds us with particular reference to the NRA, "despite their freedom-loving libertarian, anti-government mantra, for the most part gun nuts are actually authoritarian bullies and closet totalitarians." (<a href="http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2012/12/free-to-live-in-totalitarian-society.html">Free to live in a totalitarian society</a> <i>Hullabaloo</i> 12/21/2012)<br />
<br />
Tags: <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/gun+ control" rel="tag" target="_blank">gun control</a>, <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/gun+massacres" rel="tag" target="_blank">gun massacres</a>Bruce Millerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05022449143502020665noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13208715.post-54037885870597853052012-12-20T16:21:00.000-05:002012-12-20T16:21:08.129-05:00If only ...<span style="font-size: large;">"And frankly, I’m convinced that the president is unwilling to stand up to his own party on the big issues that face our country." </span>- House Speaker John Boehner (Sabrina Siddiqui, <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/20/john-boehner-obama_n_2339940.html">John Boehner To Obama On Fiscal Cliff: Act On Plan B Or Get 'Serious'</a> <i>Huffington Post</i> 12/20/2012<br />
<br />
Tags: <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/barack+obama" target="_blank" rel="tag">barack obama</a><br />
Bruce Millerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05022449143502020665noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13208715.post-7436943178726377862012-12-20T14:35:00.002-05:002012-12-20T14:35:25.484-05:00Financial recovery and recovery in the "real" economuyYanis Varoufakis describes the experience of the eurozone with austerity policies, in the context of describing why the non-financial sector may not recover as fast as the financial sector (<a href="http://yanisvaroufakis.eu/2012/12/20/will-the-real-economy-rebound-following-wall-streets-resuscitation-and-what-of-europe-interviewed-by-el-confidencial/">Will the real economy rebound, following Wall Street’s resuscitation? And what of Europe? – Interviewed by El Confidencial</a> 12/20/2012):<br />
<br />
<blockquote>Rapid, unregulated growth is usually built on the back of a financial sector bubble; also known as irrational exuberance. Credit expands fast, increasingly risky bets are placed and a portion of this is channelled into productive investments in industry (the real economy, as you put it). Then the bubble bursts, liquidity disappears and the real economy entered a vicious cycle, of having to pay back unsustainable debts through austerity that causes investment to plummet, debt-to-income ratios to remain prohibitively high and, alas, growth to turn increasingly negative. In this sense, the answer to your question is bleak: No, there is no guarantee that industry will grow faster than the financial sector now. In fact, quite the opposite: Since governments and central banks are financing the banks, to refloat them, the financial sector is in the process to recovering, and growing again, while at the same time the real economy is continuing to shrink. <b>Especially in the Periphery of the Eurozone where the impossibility of devaluation, coupled with the disproportionate burden of adjustment falling on the deficit countries, guarantees a depression.</b> This is precisely what is meant by the trap of negative growth and high debt. It is a phenomenon that we first encountered in the 1930s, <b>from which Europe seems to have learned almost nothing</b>.</blockquote>It really is sobering to see the extent to which policymakers in both Europe and the US have ignored the practical lessons of the Great Depression in the current extended crisis.<br />
<br />
This reminds me, "depression" doesn't have the same kind of precise technical definition that "recession" does. I generally use the term to describe the current situation in Europe and the US, in which recovery from the recession that began in 2007 is slow, interest rates in the US are are up against the zero bound, and growth is fragile enough that a negative shock in aggregate demand could easily push economies back into recession. Varoufakis in that statement uses it more specifically for the conditions eurozone "periphery" countries like Cyprus, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Portugal and Spain are facing.<br />
<br />
Tags: <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/world+economic+crisis" target="_blank" rel="tag">world economic crisis</a>, <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/us+economy" target="_blank" rel="tag">us econom</a>Bruce Millerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05022449143502020665noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13208715.post-951661757186772052012-12-19T09:32:00.001-05:002012-12-19T09:32:24.351-05:00The theology of distraction and the Newtown mass gun murdersI've resisted trying to speculate about some of the more subjective aspects of gun violence in the US political culture because of the very reason Charlie Pierce mentions in his <a href="http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/newtown-before-obama-visit-essay-121712">The Night Before The President Came To Newtown</a> <i>Esquire Politics Blog</i> 12/17/2012: "One pastor got on TV and blamed "the evil in the heart of man." (Unless you adopt his particular interpretation of monotheism, there is something inherent in you that might put seven bullets into a seven-year old.) <i>This is convenient, because this is something against which we cannot legislate.</i>" (my emphasis)<br />
<br />
A lot of the pet theories that Christian fundamentalists in particular like to throw out there on these all-too-frequent occasions of mass gun massacres are just that: a cover for the gun lobby to focus people's attention on anything and everything <i>but</i> better gun regulations.<br />
<br />
For example, Franklin Graham - who apparently is more interested in being a new Jerry Falwell than a new Billy Graham - invoked video games and the Mystery of Evil as excuses not to regulate assault weapons any better. (<a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/guest-voices/post/why-the-shock-and-awe/2012/12/15/3920dab2-46e9-11e2-9648-a2c323a991d6_blog.html">Why the shock and awe?</a> <i>Washington Post</i> 12/15/2012) Mike Huckabee first blamed the public schools not forcing Jewish and Muslim and non-believing kids to pray rote Christian prayers for the deaths of the 20 kids and six adults in Newtown. He later went on to clarify he remarks and spread the blame to other favorite fundamentalist gripes about the decline of his version of "family," etc. (Mary Elizabeth Williams, <a href="http://www.salon.com/2012/12/17/huckabee_blames_gays_for_the_newtown_massacre/">Huckabee blames gays for the Newtown massacre</a> <i>Salon</i> 12/17/2012), in the process presenting his God in a very mean, astonishingly cruel and petty light.<br />
<br />
For evangelical Christian denominations that stress proselytizing as a central duty, it's normal to suggest, "This nation needs the gospel now more than ever. We need to reach everyone with the hope of Jesus Christ," as Greg Stier does in <a href="http://www.christianpost.com/news/another-tragic-school-shooting-how-should-we-react-86707/">Another Tragic School Shooting; How Should We React?</a> <i>Christian Post</i> 12/15/2012. How appropriate that might be face-to-face with a non-Christian parent whose child had just been murdered is another question. But if their "witness" for their faith includes trying to be a responsible citizen, this kind of perspective doesn't have to turn into a way to distract from policy discussion that actually address the problem of gun violence.<br />
<br />
I have some sympathy for the platitudes that people, including ministers, may wind up producing when they try to provide comfort or orientation to people affected in some way by an horrible event like the Newtown mass gun murders. Jim Denison in <a href="http://www.christianpost.com/news/god-on-trial-in-newtown-86778/">God on Trial in Newtown</a> <i>Christian Post</i> 12/17/2012 gives what might initially look like a serious attempt to deal with the issues that often occur to religious people confronted with such situations. But he winds up reducing the complex theological question of theodicy to cartoon charactures. Satan did it. The killer made bad choices. Then he "answers" four questions he posed on theodicy (without using that term) by basically just restating the question. He ends up with the ever-reliable it's-a-mystery answer. Declaring that God ultimately makes everything right, he explains, "This assertion does not guarantee that you and I will experience or even understand God's greater good on this side of glory." It's a mystery! He probably would have been better off citing the Book of Job and it conclusion that human being in the end don't know the ways of God. That way you end up at least with some sense of humility instead of making a bunch of village atheist arguments without answering them.<br />
<br />
But his presentation does keep the whole matter safely in the realm of "something against which we cannot legislate." And therefore of no direct practical relevance. Not that a message of comfort needs to. But it shouldn't be an excuse to <i>oppose</i> or <i>ignore</i> practical matters relating to the problem of mass gun massacres.<br />
<br />
And what does our reliably mealy-mouthed friend Dr. Al Mohler have to say about the Newtown shooting? In <a href="http://www.albertmohler.com/2012/12/14/rachel-weeping-for-her-children-the-massacre-in-connecticut/">Rachel Weeping for Her Children — The Massacre in Connecticut</a> 12/14/2012, he explains that The Fall (of Adam and that temptress bitch Eve) is to blame. Then there's this: "the Christian must affirm the grace of moral restraint, knowing that the real question is not why some isolated persons commit such crimes, but why such massacres are not more common." Which read to me as, what are you moaning about, it's not as bad as what you should expect! It's apparently also our Christian duties to indulge murderous fantasies about the shooter, and sneer at any suggestion that mental health issues might have some relevance: "Even if executed for his crimes, he could die only once. Even if sentenced to scores of life sentences to prison, he could forfeit only one human lifespan. ... No human court can hand down an adequate sentence for such a crime." Oh, a remember, if you're an adult and get murdered without believing in God according to Bro. Al's prescriptions, you're going to Hail! I doubt anyone is going to be terribly comforted by Bro. Al's message. I'm much more confident that they aren't going to take any decent Christian theology from it.<br />
<br />
And what about Bro. Wade "<a href="http://oldhickorysweblog.blogspot.com/2012/03/christian-ministerial-advice-on-killin.html">Sword of Vengeance</a>" Burleson, who takes his divine guidance from sources like the John Birch Society? In <a href="http://www.wadeburleson.org/2012/12/gun-control-and-tragedy-at-sandy-hook.html">Gun Control and the Tragedy at Sandy Hook</a> <i>Istoria Ministries Blog</i> 12/15/2012. He says the Newtown mass gun murder happened because, apparently, citizens need guns so they can execute criminals after they are convicted. And there's too many of them thar' gun laws around that prevent that. So God decided to bump off 20 little kids and six adults in Newtown as a message that we need more guns to be killing more people. Or something. I'm thinking Bro. Sword-of-Vengeance might want to cut down on the time he spends on Bircher websites. He seriously argues that this whole business of criminals being judged to have committed crimes against the state is wrong and instead individuals should just be able to gun down wrongdoers, sort of Hatfields-and-McCoys style, I guess. This whole rule-of-law nonsense just doesn't seem right somehow to Bro. Sword-of-Vengeance.<br />
<br />
Tags: <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/christian+fundamentalism" rel="tag" target="_blank">christian fundamentalism</a>, <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/second+subject" rel="tag" target="_blank">second subject</a>, <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/third+subject" rel="tag" target="_blank">third subject</a>, <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/fourth+subject" rel="tag" target="_blank">fourth subject</a>, <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/fifth+subject" rel="tag" target="_blank">fifth subject</a>Bruce Millerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05022449143502020665noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13208715.post-55775594100272952362012-12-18T12:25:00.002-05:002012-12-18T12:25:53.123-05:00Obama to seniors: Merry Christmas! I'm cutting your Social Security benefits!So President and Social Security opponent Obama has gone there. After he let people hope for a weekend that the Grand Bargaining to cut benefits on Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid might at least be on hold until January, on Monday comes the news that he's agreed with House Speaker John Boehner on a "fiscal cliff" plan. (Jonathan Weisman, <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/18/us/politics/president-delivers-a-new-offer-on-the-fiscal-crisis-to-boehner.html">Obama's New Offer on Fiscal Crisis Could Lead to Deal</a> <i>New York Times</i> 12/17/2012)<br />
<br />
The details are overshadowed by the only thing in it that really matters: cuts to Social Security benefits, <i>including current recipients</i>, by adopting the "chained CPI" inflation-adjustment measure. There are various places to find explanations of "chained CPI," e.g., David Dayen, <a href="http://news.firedoglake.com/2012/12/17/what-chained-cpi-means-and-why-a-cut-in-a-time-of-inadequate-social-security-benefits-makes-no-sense/">What Chained CPI Means, and Why a Cut in a Time of Inadequate Social Security Benefits Makes No Sense</a> <i>FDL News</i> 12/17/2012; Mide Konczal, <a href="http://www.nextnewdeal.net/rortybomb/cost-living-adjustment-social-security-fiscal-cliff">A Cost of Living Adjustment for Social Security in the Fiscal Cliff?</a> <i>Rortybomb</i> 12/17/2012; Bryce Covert, <a href="http://www.thenation.com/blog/171825/dont-chain-grandma-smaller-social-security-checks#">In Fiscal Cliff Deal, Don't Chain Grandma to Smaller Social Security Checks</a> <i></i>The Nation 12/18/2012; Dylan Matthews, <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/12/11/everything-you-need-to-know-about-chained-cpi-in-one-post/">Everything you need to know about Chained CPI in one post</a> <i>Wonkblog</i> 12/11/2012.<br />
<br />
This AARP video explains the basic concept, <a href="http://youtu.be/HcQlCgZ2fPg">Changing Social Security COLA Formula Would Hurt Current Retirees</a> 12/14/2012:<br />
<br />
<div align="center"><iframe allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen" frameborder="0" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/HcQlCgZ2fPg" width="560"></iframe><br />
</div><br />
The placing of that critical "detail" in the New York Times article linked above, the ninth paragraph, is a reflection of the success among the Beltways Villagers of Obama's approach to the "fiscal cliff" marketing of concentrating overwhelming on taxes, so that coverage of any such proposal like this would focus on the Social Security opponent Obama's supposed victory on taxes and ignore the very damaging cuts to Social Security benefits. (It's not clear from what I've seen how many other programs might be affected by "chained CPI," but it's my understanding that if Social Security is subjected to it, veterans benefits will also be.)<br />
<br />
It's bad enough that we have a Democratic President who is committed to cutting benefits on Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. If this is adopted, it will be open season on the program. Social Security is the Mississippi River of cash flows and Wall Street wants to find some way to tap into it, ultimately by privatizing it.<br />
<br />
It's politically important that this is a cut to <i>current beneficiaries</i>, a boundary that even privatization advocates like Bush II were generally unwilling to cross before now. And if a Democratic President and any substantial number of Democrats support it, the political firewall that has protected the program will be, well, badly damaged. A critical thing here will be how many Democratic members of Congress who support this cut to Social Security benefits are unseated in primaries in 2014.<br />
<br />
It also shows that Obama is going to continue his President Pushover act - in dealing with <i>Republicans</i>. We saw early on in the fight over a public option for health insurance that he <i>was</i> willing, even eager to fight "the left," aka, his voting base. Since "the left" now apparently includes everyone who opposes cutting benefits on Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, it's pretty much the Democrats' <i>entire</i> voting base. The Democrats will need some new approaches in 2014 if this thing goes through:<br />
<br />
Raven Brooks of Netroots Nation tweeted:<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet tw-align-center">If the Democrats want 2010 losses X 5 in 2014 they should go ahead and vote to cut Social Security.<br />
— Raven Brooks (@ravenb) <a data-datetime="2012-12-18T02:17:06+00:00" href="https://twitter.com/ravenb/status/280859200891011073">December 18, 2012</a></blockquote><script async="async" charset="utf-8" src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js"></script><br />
<br />
What's astonishing too is that Obama is willing to have himself and the Democrats be patsies for this. The Republicans will campaign against them in 2014 based on the Social Security cut if it goes through. The idea that they will observe a "Grand Bargain" by not using the Social Security cut against the Democrats is nonsense. Then when they capture both Houses of Congress, they can push Obama for more cuts in Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid and then make the Democrats own those in 2016. Awesome!<br />
<br />
Brian Beutler in <a href="http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/12/social-security-obama-boehner-chained-cpi.php">The Social Security Benefit Cut Obama May Agree To</a> <i>TPM</i> 12/18/2012 reports on several alleged Social Security supporters leaning toward backing this cut which would politically have the effect of throwing Social Security to the Wall Street wolves:<br />
<br />
<blockquote>Supporters like to describe it as a technical fix to the way the government calculates inflation. But in practical terms, <b>it will effectuate a genuine Social Security benefit cut</b>. If it’s applied across the board, it will also reduce food stamp benefits and veterans benefits, and function as a modest but regressive tax increase, as brackets grow more slowly and taxpayers find themselves pushed across income thresholds more quickly than in the past. <br />
<br />
Chained CPI differs from the way the government currently calculates inflation by taking a broader view of the behavioral changes consumers make when prices rise. It factors in a propensity to substitute cheaper, but similar products for ones that have become more expensive. And it has been criticized by advocates for being a less accurate measure of inflation for the products seniors rely on than Social Security currently uses. <br />
<br />
But Obama allies and and some liberal economists have identified it as the least-bad entitlement benefit cut and have given it their blessing provided it's one piece of a broader, balanced debt reduction plan, and includes protections for poorer seniors. Though the Congressional Budget Office has cautioned that indexing Social Security to chained CPI would be technically complicated, the liberal Center on Budget and Policy Priorities backed it under those circumstances. So did the progressive Center for American Progress, which has close ties to the White House.</blockquote>In <a href="http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2012/12/evaluating_the_coming_deal.php?ref=fpblg">Evaluating The Coming Deal</a> 12/16/2012, Beutler added an important aspect: "But even though it’s not as onerous as an increase in the Medicare eligibility age — and even though the Obama administration has never really had a problem with this particular reform — it's still a benefit cut, a real one, up front, with Obama’s fingerprints all over it." (my emphasis) As Sarah Palin might say, you betcha!<br />
<br />
I was unpleasantly surprised to see that even Paul Krugman went a little wobbly in writing about this awful proposal. Just the day before in, he <a href="http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/12/16/assimilated-by-the-peterson-borg/">Assimilated by the Peterson Borg</a> 12/16/2012 was writing about a "Peterson deficit-scold front group" fear-mongering about the fiscal cliff, and he observed, "The only way we could even get anything pretending to be a Grand Bargain would be for Obama to surrender completely, as he almost did in 2011; and a bargain like that wouldn't even deliver deficit reduction, because you know that Republicans would end up reneging on the revenue parts." And he reminds us of what today's Republican Party is:<br />
<br />
<blockquote>So this is ridiculous — and the fact that all these people don’t realize that is in itself evidence of the bubble in which Very Serious People still live. It’s also evidence of the desperation of the deficit scolds, who are evidently horrified that they aren’t managing to exploit the fiscal cliff — which has nothing at all to do with our debt — to ram their agenda through.</blockquote>This is one of the weaknesses that even sensible economists like Krugman or Robert Reich show on Social Security. For economists, a payroll tax cut looks like a technically efficient way to put more money immediately into consumers hands and one that even enhances the progressivity of the tax, since wealthy people pay a much smaller percentage of their total income on payroll taxes because of the cap and because it doesn't apply to income categories like capital gains.<br />
<br />
But <i>politically</i>, the payroll tax is an anchor of the Social Security and Medicare programs because it emphasizes their nature as social insurance and gives people a sense that "I've paid into this program my entire life," and therefore more ownership of the program. Reducing the payroll tax and replacing the lost revenue from the General Fund, which we've been doing the last couple of years, helps Social Security opponents like Obama and the Republicans stigmatize Social Security and Medicare as "welfare."<br />
<br />
That's even true of one of the reported elements of Obama's current proposal to cut Social Security benefits: the fact that the cut would be replaced by a subsidy of some kind to the lowest-income seniors. Another big and visible step toward making it "welfare."<br />
<br />
Tags: <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/austerity+economics" rel="tag" target="_blank">austerity economics</a>, <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/barack+obama" rel="tag" target="_blank">barack obama</a>, <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/chained+cpi" rel="tag" target="_blank">chained cpi</a>, <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/fiscal+cliff" rel="tag" target="_blank">fiscal cliff</a>, <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/grand+bargain" rel="tag" target="_blank">grand bargain</a>, <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/medicaid" rel="tag" target="_blank">medicaid</a>, <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/medicare" rel="tag" target="_blank">medicare</a>, <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/social+security" rel="tag" target="_blank">social security</a>Bruce Millerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05022449143502020665noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13208715.post-91420073176095509872012-12-17T11:17:00.001-05:002012-12-17T11:17:16.041-05:00Video of Obama's Sunday speech on the mass gun massacre in Newtown CTFrom PBS Newshour, <a href="http://youtu.be/ftlT41LpIOY">President Obama: 'Newtown, You Are Not Alone'</a> 12/16/2012:<br />
<br />
<div align="center"><iframe allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen" frameborder="0" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/ftlT41LpIOY" width="560"></iframe><br />
</div><br />
Ken Dixon and Neil Vigdor in The president comes to comfort Newtown <i>SFGate</i> 12/17/2012 managed to hear in this speech that the President "put Congress on notice about toughening gun laws in the wake of the fourth mass shooting during his tenure." Since he didn't even mention the word "gun," I'm not sure how they got that. <br />
<br />
Looking through the transcript, I didn't see any indication of a policy change, just a suggestion that maybe sometime we ought to possibly think about someday having a conversation about possibly doing something that might somehow improve things.<br />
<br />
President Obama in cases like this seems to be operating on a saying that was attributed to Richard Nixon during his Presidency though it doesn't necessarily describe well how Nixon ran his Presidency: give the liberals the rhetoric they like and they'll be satisfied, but you have to give conservatives the substance.<br />
<br />
Yet in Obama's case, the results often look downright bizarre. In the case of the Newtown mass gun massacre, he's talked vaguely often enough about some kind of unspecified action or change in approach that he gets interpretations of what he says such as that "he put Congress on notice about toughening gun laws," even though he's not actually demanding that Congress, you know, toughen gun laws.<br />
<br />
That gives the gun lobbies and far-right fear-mongers cover to tell their followers that the scary Kenyan Muslim atheist President who hates America is about to come confiscate all your guns and maybe force you to marry someone of the same sex, too. So run out quick and buy more guns before you lose the chance forever! Fear and hatred do sell guns. That's not new or unique to the United States.<br />
<br />
So Democrats get the worst of both ends. They wind up not getting better gun regulations passed and even ducking the issue so they don't get a lot of credit for trying. On the other hand, the Republicans react as though the Democrats <i>are</i> seriously trying to outlaw guns and they get maximum benefit from the fear-mongering. And the gun manufacturers and dealers do more business. Everyone but the dead and maimed wind up happy.<br />
<br />
Well, except for the Democrats, who wind up looking like schmucks. Awesome.<br />
<br />
Tags: <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/barack+obama" rel="tag" target="_blank">barack obama</a>, <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/gun+control" rel="tag" target="_blank">gun control</a>, <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/gun+massacres" rel="tag" target="_blank">gun massacres</a>Bruce Millerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05022449143502020665noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13208715.post-7644337983428565252012-12-14T18:53:00.002-05:002012-12-14T18:53:37.585-05:00Today's mass gun massacre in Connecticut<a href="http://youtu.be/8CHNEduPwdw">President Obama On School Shooting</a> 12/14/2012:<br />
<br />
<div align="center"><iframe allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen" frameborder="0" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/8CHNEduPwdw" width="560"></iframe><br />
</div><br />
President Obama, apparently thinking he was re-elected National Pastor in November, says in this short public statement on the Connecticut mass murder, "We've endured too many of these tragedies in the past few years. And each time I learn the news, I react not as a President, but as anybody else would as a parent. And that was especially true today. I know there's not a parent in America who doesn't feel the same overwhelming grief that I do."<br />
<br />
Yes, it was good theater that he seemed to tear up. I saw someone actually in tears after hearing it. But I'm to the point I really don't care what Barack Obama thinks as a person or as a parent about these things. He's right that when he has heard of these "tragedies," aka, mass gun murders, he's been reacting "not as a President," but instead he plays the sympathetic minister.<br />
<br />
But it's long past time he <i>starts</i> acting "as a President" and take the lead not only on rolling back the domestic massive arms proliferation,. And also start shoring up public mental health facilities so some of these killings could be prevented instead of babbling endlessly about The Deficit that only he and David Brooks actually care about anyway.<br />
<br />
Well, he did say he wanted to take "meaningful action," then proceeded immediately to talk about hugging his kids. But he'll get good press, and the Pod Pundits will all say how fine a statement it was.<br />
<br />
The gun lobby will keep right on saying he's going to confiscate everybody's huntin' rifles any day now, so he might as well push some policies to actually <i>do something</i> to mitigate these mass gun murders.<br />
<br />
I saw some fool on Facebook today who uses the name Bill Currie respond to someone's serious post about the Connecticut shooting with this:"We should get the first amendment while we are at it-the press has caused a lot pain and destructions of lives through accusations of innocent people. The founding fathers knew that the people need to be armed to protect themselves from teranical [sic] government." A few minutes later he followed it up with, "Lets not worry about the second amendment."<br />
<br />
My response to him was no doubt "uncivil" by media standards (for libruls); I've corrected it for typos:<br />
<br />
<blockquote>Yes, Bill, none of those elementary school kids murdered today in Connecticut will be tyrannizin' over anybody any more. Do any of you people who celebrate these mass gun murders actually read the 2nd Amendment: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Obviously it makes people like you feel FREEEEE to know that some people got gunned down in a mall in Portland or a bunch of children murdered in Connecticut. Just to mention the incidents of the last four days. But do you expect anyone but other fans of mass gun murders to pretend this has anything to do with "A well regulated Militia"?</blockquote>But the sad state of affairs these days is that he's probably not even slightly embarrassed. On the contrary, he probably takes it as a sign that he's good about pissing off libruls.<br />
<br />
But does this guy's family know that he thinks a mass murder of little children is something to make adolescent snark over? His wife/girlfriend/boyfriend? The people he works with? I mean, if I heard one of my officemates talking like this live and in person, I would wonder if it was safe to have him around.<br />
<br />
Oh, wait, after I wrote that, I see he responded:<br />
<br />
<blockquote>... Bruce Miller-I find it offensive that you say I "celebrate these mass shooting" **** you *** **** -the liberal left celebrates them because it gives them the opportunity to get what they want-gun control. You want the government to become more tyrinical than it is. So once again **** you and the horse you rode in on.</blockquote>To which I responded contritely, "Gosh, Bill, I'm so sorry! I didn't realize that guys who think a mass gun murder of little children is something to make adolescent snark over were so sensitive about people responding to what they post for the whole world to see. Gee, please forgive me for being 'uncivil'!"<br />
<br />
Meanwhile, the charming Bro. Mike Huckabee says that if we just had the little Jewish kiddies forced to pray Christian prayers, the bullets of mass murders would bounce off all of them. Or something. (Benjy Sarlin, <a href="http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/huckabee-schools-place-of-carnage-because-we-systematically">Huckabee: Schools 'A Place Of Carnage' Because We 'Systematically Removed God</a> <i>TPM</i> 12/14/2012)<br />
<br />
Actually, the Huck's statement is particularly cruel. He's effectively telling the parents of the murdered kids and the traumatized survivors that if they had just sent their kids to a Christian school instead of the Satanic public ones they would be alive now.<br />
<br />
You hardly need to look them up to know the kinds of responses people will be making. Another mass shooting incident in the US the same week as the one in Portland. Merry Christmas from the psycho-killers and the gun lobby!<br />
<br />
I really don't find it to be a good sign that these things have become effectively normalized now. A mass shooting occurs, the politicians' assistants call up their boilerplate about how they "regret the terrible tragedy" and their "thoughts and prayers are with the victims and their families," blah, blah. Then they don't have to bother to do anything in terms of actual policy. Except maybe to declare it's critical to the 2nd Amendment's requirement for a " well regulated Militia" to have weapons like the 223 Remington rifle the latest mass murderer reportedly used freely available (with lots of ammo, of course) to anyone and everyone who feels like shooting up a mall or an elementary school. Heck, it took me about five seconds on Yahoo! to find out where you can order one online if you have some mall shoppers or school children in mind you'd like to murder in large numbers.<br />
<br />
You don't even have to wonder whether someone will be saying this particular kind of weapon is especially good for deer huntin'. You can be sure they're already saying it.<br />
<br />
Tags: <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/barack+obama" rel="tag" target="_blank">barack obama</a>, <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/gun+massacres" rel="tag" target="_blank">gun massacres</a>, <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/mike+huckabee" rel="tag" target="_blank">mike huckabee</a>Bruce Millerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05022449143502020665noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13208715.post-20718728772684827932012-12-14T13:39:00.001-05:002012-12-14T13:39:16.508-05:00The week in fiscal cliffing and Grand BargainingObama's Grand Bargain to cut benefits on Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid had a bad week, it seems. Which means it was a good week for the vast majority of Americans.<br />
<br />
After the White House floated a trial balloon to cut benefits on Medicare by raising the eligibility age from 65 to 67, by Thursday his spokesperson on austerity policy, Sen. Dick Durbin, said that the proposal is "no longer one of the items being considered by the White House" in the current negotiations.<br />
<br />
Of course, as Digby points out (<a href="http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2012/12/more-fiscal-cliff-notes-1213.html">More fiscal cliff notes --- 12/13</a> <i>Hullabaloo</i> 12/13/2012), this was simultaneously an admission that Obama <i>had bee</i>n considering it.<br />
<br />
Also, the Republicans are reported to be stubbornly refusing to propose specific spending cuts, instead demanding that Obama come up with something they can like. Unlike his performance in the 2011 debt ceiling fight, Obama does appear less willing to let the Republicans just make a fool of him, at least this month. Or maybe just this week.<br />
<br />
But as Taylor Marsh pointed out a few days after the election, Obama showed in his first term how dedicated he was to pursue the Grand Bargain, which quickly evolved to being essentially about cutting benefits on Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid (<a href="http://www.taylormarsh.com/blog/2012/11/obamas-2011-grand-bargain-detailed-in-documents-obtained-by-bob-woodward/">Obama's 2011 Grand Bargain Detailed in Documents Obtained by Bob Woodward</a> 11/12/2012):<br />
<br />
<blockquote>Many people think of it [the Grand Bargain to cut benefits on Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid] as a "Nixon to China" moment, but it's not.<br />
<br />
Obama has always been fixated on Ronald Reagan and what he did, because that’s the president that impacted, impressed and embedded most in his mind when he was coming up. So, the grand bargain is about a Ronald Reagan – Tip O'Neill moment. An "I saved Social Security" for future generations deal, which will likely include a nod to the business community, whose "fiscal cliff" is the bookend meant to push the "grand bargain" to manifestation, in the mother of all Obama – Wall Street make-up sessions imprinted for history.</blockquote>So we're not out of the woods on this thing. And probably won't be as long as President Obama is in office.<br />
<br />
But any week where the Democrats and the Democratic President are forced into the position of acting like Democrats and defending benefits on Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid instead of looking for political cover from the Republicans to cut them is a good week for supporters of those programs.<br />
<br />
Digby also warns that we can't assume a December victory is the end of this Grand Bargain/Great Betrayal fight:<br />
<br />
<blockquote>Sure people want compromise --- if it ends up with policies they like. When it doesn't, they think it was a sell-out. The politicians usually know this even if the pundits don't. And this is one reason why I've been pessimistic that the Democrats were going to hold a tough line on the "entitlements." They've been signaling for months that they would be willing to cut them if they can only get these tax hikes from millionaires. And yet, <i>the tax hikes ... were going to happen anyway</i>. Can we all see the problem with that? I suppose that's a smart thing to do: set yourself as winning a big victory even if it was inevitable. That way you really can't lose. But it also begs the question: why put spending cuts on the table in the first place? True, much of that came out of the failed debt ceiling talks in 2011, but that was the result of a proposed Grand Bargain that was endorsed by the Democratic leadership. You can call that a mistake, but <b>I don't think it makes a lot of sense to get back in the same position unless this is a result you truly seek</b>. [my emphasis in bold]</blockquote>Obama wouldn't have played the December "fiscal cliff" negotiations the way he did, in other words, if he weren't still interested in his Grand Bargain to cut benefits on Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.<br />
<br />
Paul Krugman in <a href="http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/12/13/party-of-no-ideas/">Party of No Ideas</a> 12/13/2012 reflects on the implications of the Republicans' playing this game:<br />
<br />
<blockquote>This is not a negotiation in the normal sense, in which each side makes proposals and they dicker over the details; instead, Republicans are demanding that Obama read their minds and produce a proposal they’ll like. And Obama won’t do that, for good reason: he knows that they’ll just pronounce themselves unsatisfied with whatever he comes up with, and are indeed very likely to campaign in 2014 attacking him for whatever cuts take place.</blockquote>He concludes from the Republicans' general frivolity in making budget proposals and their negotiating intransigence, "We are at a strange and dangerous place in American political life."<br />
<br />
But on the "fiscal cliff" negotiations, the Republicans' experience in the debt ceiling fight in 2011 showed that that <i>could</i> punk the President in just that way. If Obama is not willing to have them jerk him around the same way any more, that's good and very understandable. But they could hardly be expected not to try it again since Obama was so willing in 2011 to beg them to let him "concede" and make benefit cuts in Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.<br />
<br />
David Dayen (<i>FDL News</i> 12/14/2012) seems to think the "fiscal cliff" farce for December is about over. The Republicans aren't going to make a deal. The Democratic base isn't being passive and compliant about accepting the Medicare benefits cut that the White House informally proposed via trial balloon. So the Bush tax cuts will expire on December 31. And Obama will be a strong position to force the Republicans to swallow his "middle class" tax cut proposal as a standalone cut. David sees the Republicans approaching the new year with this perspective:<br />
<br />
<blockquote>Republicans have located their strategy in the debt limit, seeking to retreat to higher ground and use that vote, and the threat of a default, to force fiscal changes. Speaker John Boehner admitted as much yesterday, saying that he wants to use the debt limit vote to "to bring fiscal sanity to Washington, D.C." He described the vote as Congress asserting its "ability to control the purse," which is completely illogical. Congress controls the purse when it makes appropriations. The debt limit vote merely authorizes the Treasury to pay for the obligations Congress already approved. So the proper analogy with the debt limit is Congress controlling the ability to dine and ditch if it so chooses.<br />
<br />
This probably isn't all that informative a post, but that's the state of play. In a matter of weeks, the tax-side issues will get dealt with. <b>Then Republicans will take the debt limit hostage and try to negotiate over spending and social insurance. However they want Democrats to dictate the spending cuts so they can pin them on their opponents.</b> In addition, they really want to attack programs for the poor, rather than those for the elderly, which represents a substantial portion of their base. And hitting the poor isn't all that popular.</blockquote>The initial makeup of the new Congress also looks more favorable than the current one for defenders of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. Corruption happens, both the illegal kind and others, and lobbyists like the various incarnations of the Peterson Foundation will continue to push for benefit cuts on Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. But getting past December is a real plus for those programs' supporters.<br />
<br />
Tags: <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/austerity+economics" rel="tag" target="_blank">austerity economics</a>, <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/barack+obama" rel="tag" target="_blank">barack obama</a>, <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/fiscal+cliff" rel="tag" target="_blank">fiscal cliff</a>, <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/grand+bargain" rel="tag" target="_blank">grand bargain</a>, <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/medicaid" rel="tag" target="_blank">medicaid</a>, <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/medicare" rel="tag" target="_blank">medicare</a>, <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/social+security" rel="tag" target="_blank">social security</a>Bruce Millerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05022449143502020665noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13208715.post-34514612049767179372012-12-13T20:14:00.000-05:002012-12-13T20:14:09.242-05:00Italy and the fight against austerity economics in EuropeLike the Great Depression, the current one has brought some surprising developments in politics in Europe and the United States, hopefully none of which will turn out to have the sort of adverse military consequences that some of them in the Great Depression did.<br />
<br />
The latest event to cause the eurozone house of cards constructed by German Chancellor Angela "Frau Fritz" Merkel was the announcement by crooked rightwing plutocrat Silvio Berlusconi that he wants to become Prime Minister of Italy again. He's ready to seize the opportunity offered by the damage being done to Italy by Frau Fritz' <a href="http://oldhickorysweblog.blogspot.com/2012/10/heinrich-bruning-and-angie-nomics-1930.html">Heinrich Brüning</a> economic menu, <br />
<br />
Wolfgang Münchau explains in <a href="http://www.spiegel.de/wirtschaft/berlusconis-comeback-durchbricht-sparkonsens-in-europa-a-872452.html">Willkommen zurück, Cavaliere!</a> <i>Spiegel Online</i> 12.12.2012<br />
<br />
<blockquote>Der Grund meiner Freude liegt darin, dass er im bevorstehenden Wahlkampf den hartnäckigen politischen Sparkonsens brechen wird. Durch seine Rückkehr in die Politik erleben wir jetzt zum ersten Mal, dass die Krisenpolitik zum Kernthema eines Wahlkampfs in einem großen Land wird. Das war bei den spanischen Wahlen 2011 nicht der Fall, auch nicht 2012 in Frankreich. Und Peer Steinbrück und Angela Merkel unterscheiden sich in ihrer Krisenpolitik eher durch rhetorische Nuancen.<br />
<br />
[The basis of my happiness [at Berlusconi's attempted comeback] lies in the fact that in the forthcoming election campaign, the hard-necked political austerity consensus (<i>Sparkonsens</i>) will be broken. By his return to politics, we will now experience for the first time that the crisis policies will become the central theme of an electoral campaign in a large country. That was not the case by the Spanish election of 2011 and also not in 2012 in France.]</blockquote>I would partially question his comparison to the French election. The Socialists' promises to push back on Frau Fritz' austerity madness and to force a renegotiaton of her fiscal suicide pact were prominent themes in that campaign and certainly were part of the program on which now-President François Hollande only to betray his voters and immediately embrace both. Not unlike what President Obama's is current doing with his trial balloon proposal for a major cut in Medicare benefits.<br />
<br />
A chance for the Italian Social Democrats to exploit the situation and regain the political initiative for stimulus and a sensible solution to the euro problems, you say? Yes, that would make lots of sense. Except that, according to Münchau's account, social democratic leader Pier Luigi Bersani, whose party leads the polls and good pull well over 30% in the next election, pretty much aspires to be an Italian Heinrich Brüning: "Bersani verspricht noch mehr Härte, noch mehr Sparen, nur etwas gerechter." ("Bersani promises even more [fiscal] toughness, even more cuts, only somewhat more just ones.") Again, not unlike President Obama's sad and endlessly repeated call for our present-day American robber barons to just pay "a little bit more" in taxes.<br />
<br />
Awesome. Like President Obama in the US, Europe's social democrats now aspire to become the largest conservative parties! It's not working very well so far, and it's likely to wind up with their losing their relevance and their ability to become ruling parties at all. Their current leaders may be well compensated for getting them to that point. But their base constituencies are being very poorly served by this process.<br />
<br />
Italy actually has two official social democratic parties, i.e, members of the Socialist International: <a href="http://www.partitosocialista.it/default.aspx">Italian Socialist Party (PSI)</a> <a href="http://www.dsonline.it/">Democrats of the Left (DS)</a>.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
David Dayen explains in <a href="http://news.firedoglake.com/2012/12/10/berlusconis-return-roils-italian-markets/">Berlusconi's Return Roils Italian Markets</a> <i>FDL News</i> 12/10/2012 - his coverage of the euro crisis is also something I'll miss when David stops blogging at <i>FDL News</i> on the Mayan-calandar-not-really-the-end-of-the-world date of December 21 - that the austerity policies and the bullying by Germany that essentially forced Berlusconi out of government to be replaced as Prime Minister by a non-elected "technocrat" are issues that have to be taken into account, apart from Berlusconi's more unpleasant characteristics:<br />
<br />
<blockquote>I hardly hold any brief for Berlusconi, a corrupt tyrant who has been bilking the Italian public for well over a decade now. Alexander Stille’s book The Sack of Rome details this expertly. However, the fact that he was basically overturned by international bureaucrats in favor of an unelected member of their posse should not be lost here. Especially because that unelected bureaucrat, Mario Monti, did not really do that great a job if you look at key indicators ...<br />
<br />
While Monti – with a giant assist from Mario Draghi’s backstop at the ECB – did stabilize borrowing costs for a time, the economy suffered with the austerity measures, growth went negative and unemployment rose. This is not the pedigree of a saviour of Italy. And it risks a return to power for Berlusconi, who has a long list of indignities forced on the Italian people by the last government to call on. He can merely say that Italians deserve a voice in their nation’s future rather than a set of policies imposed from the outside.<br />
<br />
Monti wasn’t able to deliver on growth because his prescriptions inhibited growth. His obsessions with “reform,” aligned with the European leadership, ended up sinking Italy deeper into recession and depression, without building a coalition of support. And so the slightest shift can and will cause chaos, as we’re seeing today.<br />
<br />
And incidentally, Italy is the third-largest economy in the Eurozone. If it wobbles, so do the other member states, as we’re seeing today.</blockquote>William Black has an interesting piece skewering the <i>New York Times</i> for their reporting on two contrasting political figures, one who conforms to the Washington Consensus (Italy's Mario Monti) and another who isn't completely sold on the neoliberal gospel (Ecaudor's Rafael Correa), <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/william-k-black/new-york-times-profile_b_2269009.html">Why Is the Failed Monti a 'Technocrat' and the Successful Correa a 'Left-Leaning Economist'?</a> <i>Huffington Post</i> 12/09/2012<br />
<br />
Here is a Spanish-languagen video of Rafael Correa discussing, among other things, the European crisis, <a href="http://youtu.be/S7Mstv5hV7c">El presidente de Ecuador en Buenos Aires: La crisis europea según Correa</a> 12/08/2012:<br />
<br />
<div align="center"><iframe allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen" frameborder="0" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/S7Mstv5hV7c" width="420"></iframe><br />
</div><br />
Tags: <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/angela+merkel" rel="tag" target="_blank">angela merkel</a>, <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/austerity+economics" rel="tag" target="_blank">austerity economics</a>, <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/br%C3%BCning" rel="tag" target="_blank">brüning</a>, <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/eu" rel="tag" target="_blank">eu</a>, <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/euro" rel="tag" target="_blank">euro</a>, <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/european+union" rel="tag" target="_blank">european union</a>, <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/france" rel="tag" target="_blank">france</a>, <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/fran%C3%A7ois+hollande" rel="tag" target="_blank">françois hollande</a>, <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/italy" rel="tag" target="_blank">italy</a>, <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/rafael+correa" rel="tag" target="_blank">rafael correa</a>, <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/weimar+republic" rel="tag" target="_blank">weimar republic</a>Bruce Millerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05022449143502020665noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13208715.post-13521435428219059522012-12-12T11:41:00.002-05:002012-12-12T11:41:29.657-05:00Shifting fortunes on the fight to prevent cuts in Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid benefitsDavid Dayen, who will be missed when he <a href="http://news.firedoglake.com/2012/12/06/a-programming-note/">takes a blogging break</a> from his FDL News gig after December 21, writes about a hopeful development on the "fiscal cliff"/Grand Bargain front in <a href="http://news.firedoglake.com/2012/12/11/450000-seniors-would-lose-coverage-under-medicare-eligibility-age-increase/">450,000 Seniors Would Lose Coverage Under Medicare Eligibility Age Increase</a> FDL News 12/12/2012. The data referenced in the title on how many seniors would be hurt by the White House's trial balloon proposal to cut Medicare benefits by increasing the eligibility age from 65 to 67. The good news is that Nancy Pelosi is publicly defending Medicare benefits now.<br />
<br />
In a <i>USA Today</i> op-ed, <a href="http://m.usatoday.com/article/news/1761101?preferredArticleViewMode=single">Truth about Medicare age</a> 12/11/2012, she does what all Democratic leaders and elected officials should be doing, which is opposing the Grand Bargain proposal to cut benefits on Medicare. She calls it "a reflection of the broader Republican plan: an assault on the middle class, seniors -- and our future."<br />
<br />
She is politic in keeping quiet about it being the Democratic President Obama who has been reflecting such bad, destructive Republican ideas as cutting benefits on Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid as part of the Grand Bargain he's been pursuing for his entire first term. David writes, "Pelosi's being a good soldier by calling this 'the Republican plan.' In reality, this makes it extremely difficult for any Democrats to carry this plan forward, at least if they expect to get votes of Democrats in the House."<br />
<br />
Hopefully, it will also make it harder for <i>President Obama</i> to endorse this portion of "the Republican plan." This part of Pelosi's op-ed could be read as directed to Obama and other Democrats who are willing to support "the Republican plan" to cut benefits on Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid: "Republicans like to talk about their ideas in terms of abstract numbers. However, we cannot ignore the adverse impacts of their policies on the American people."<br />
<br />
Pelosi spells out in very accessible language what the "Republican" proposal to cut benefits on Medicare by raising the eligibility age to 67 would mean, e.g., "raising the Medicare age asks the most vulnerable citizens to pay more with little to show for it in terms of long-term deficit reduction or more affordable care, for seniors or anyone else. It increases health spending across-the-board. It takes money out of the pockets of a small slice of Americans."<br />
<br />
And she frames Medicare issues in <i>Democratic</i> terms of the need to protect benefits and address overall health care expenses:<br />
<br />
<blockquote>Make no mistake: Democrats are ready to discuss even more savings that extend the life of Medicare without hurting beneficiaries. We should reduce health expenditures and build on our work in the Affordable Care Act to slow the growth of health costs. We should be strengthening Medicare, not undermining it.<br />
<br />
The Republican plan, which would be phased in over more than a decade, may sound simple enough. But remember: it is brought to you by the same people who think it's a good idea to end the Medicare guarantee and turn Medicare into a voucher system -- putting seniors at the mercy of insurance companies.<br />
<br />
Raising the Medicare age represents more of the same. For seniors nearing retirement, it means less security for themselves and their families. It betrays the bedrock promise of Medicare: that Americans who work hard and take responsibility all their lives can know dignity in their later years.</blockquote>Earlier Dayen reported on other signs that the Democrats were backing away from Obama's trail baloon about cutting Medicare benefits by raising the eligibility age, <a href="http://news.firedoglake.com/2012/12/10/medicare-eligibility-age-increase-rejected-by-obama-allies/">Medicare Eligibility Age Increase Rejected By Obama Allies</a> 12/10/2012.<br />
<br />
This doesn't mean we're out of the woods on the Grand Bargain/Great Betrayal fight for December. Pelosi herself was reportedly ready to support Obama's 2011 debt-ceiling proposal to cut benefits on Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. But it's a good sign.<br />
<br />
Tags: <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/austerity+economics" rel="tag" target="_blank">austerity economics</a>, <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/barack+obama" rel="tag" target="_blank">barack obama</a>, <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/fiscal+cliff" rel="tag" target="_blank">fiscal cliff</a>, <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/grand+bargain" rel="tag" target="_blank">grand bargain</a>, <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/medicaid" rel="tag" target="_blank">medicaid</a>, <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/medicare" rel="tag" target="_blank">medicare</a>, <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/social+security" rel="tag" target="_blank">social security</a>Bruce Millerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05022449143502020665noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13208715.post-14072358766838390632012-12-10T17:05:00.000-05:002012-12-10T17:05:05.834-05:00Supporters of Medicare are calling Obama on his trial balloon to cut proposal benefits in the programLately I've gotten into one of those phases where I'm wondering if I should just post two or three times a day, "read Digby" or "read Charlie Pierce." Both are following the "fiscal cliff" drama, which is a farce that could have literally deadly implications for people who will be hurt by the human sacrifice in terms of cuts to benefits in Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid that elite political and media consensus have decided are necessary and unavoidable.<br />
<br />
But for whatever value I'm adding, if only a tiny bit more noise on the issue in the blogosphere, I'm adding my own transmission of their information here. Pierce in <a href="http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/medicare-age-increase-and-alzheimers-121012">The Actual Cost Of Washington's Clever Debt Deal</a> <i>Esquire Politics Blog</i> 12/10/2012, he takes up the issue of Alzheimer's, which Peter Coy mentioned in his Bloomberg Businessweek article (<a href="http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-12-06/the-fiscal-cliff-isnt-the-problem">The Fiscal Cliff Isn't the Problem</a> 12/06/2012) that I <a href="http://oldhickorysweblog.blogspot.com/2012/12/some-real-world-features-of-current.html">discussed yesterday</a>. Pierce's take:<br />
<br />
<blockquote>We are on the brink of an epidemic of AD in this country. There are 5.4 million people with the disease right now, and there are estimated to be another 15 million people — mostly, aging spouses and economically stressed children — providing what amounts to $210 billion in unpaid care. (There are estimated to be 800,000 people with the disease who are living alone.) The disease already costs $140 billion to Medicare and Medicaid. By 2050, it is estimated, and assuming a cure is not found, the total cost of caring for Alzheimer's patients could soar past $1 trillion.<br />
<br />
The current plan being bruited about in Washington would raise the Medicare eligibility age from 65 to 67 years of age. This is the low end of the Alzheimer's spectrum, but the increase in diagnosed cases is still significant, rising three percent per thousand people nationally just between 2000 and 2008. In John Boehner's Ohio, there are 13,000 people roughly within that window with the disease. There are 7,100 in Eric Cantor's Virginia, and 5700 in Paul Ryan's Wisconsin. All of these people represent not only the ravages of the disease, but the severe emotional and economic strain that it puts on their families. All of these people represent a considerable amount of pain that is not being factored into the shrewd political calculations that get you on the Sunday shows.</blockquote>Pierce also looks at what's left of "welfare" proper (the Supplemental Security Income Program) in <a href="http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/nicholas-kristoff-social-security-fraud-121012">The Voices Missing From The Safety Net Debate</a> <i>Esquire Politics Blog</i> 12/10/2012 and explains one of the common scams used to denigrate poor people and smear federal assistance to them, in this case brought to us by alleged liberal Nicholas Kristoff. Pierce:<br />
<br />
<blockquote>Oh, dear god, have I seen this movie before. You have the heartbroken local bureaucrat without any specific examples, just "many people." You have the statistics-free analysis of programs, and you have the <a href="http://www.aei.org/scholar/richard-burkhauser/">pet "scholar"</a> from the American Enterprise Institute who, in a stunning coincidence, writes a book concluding pretty much the same thing about social-welfare programs that everyone else at AEI believes. Indeed, his work reinforces the ideas that the AEI was set up in the first place to promote. (Burkhauser, you will note, has made a career out of suggesting an increased work ethic on people who are not him.) And, of course, there is the anguished liberal conscience of the <i>Times</i> columnist. What's missing, of course, are any of the actual people who allegedly are getting fat on disability payments.</blockquote>Liberals like Kristoff in this mode are indispensable for the Republican reactionary project of gutting social services in the US. From Herman Melville's <i>The Confidence Man</i>:<br />
<br />
<blockquote>"You are an abolitionist, ain't you?" [the rough Missourian asked the herb-doctor]<br />
<br />
"As to that, I cannot so readily answer. If by abolitionist you mean a zealot, I am none; but if you mean a man, who, being a man, feels for all men, slaves included, and by any lawful act, opposed to nobody's interest, and therefore, rousing nobody's enmity, would willingly abolish suffering (supposing it, in its degree, to exist) from among mankind, irrespective of color, then am I what you say."<br />
<br />
"Picked and prudent sentiments. You are the moderate man, the invaluable understrapper of the wicked man. You, the moderate man, may be used for wrong, but are useless for right."</blockquote>Digby not only has excellent political analysis. She also has the right attitude. In <a href="http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2012/12/day-of-action.html">Day of Action</a> <i>Hullabaloo</i> 12/10/2012, she writes about the "fiscal cliff" drama: "Going over the cliff is entirely in the president's hands. He just handily won re-election and he can dictate the terms. There is no reason for any 'concession', certainly not now."<br />
<br />
Digby also points to and recommends Joan Walsh's article, <a href="http://www.salon.com/2012/12/10/fiscal_cliff_cruelty/">"Fiscal cliff" cruelty</a> <i>Salon</i> 12/10/2012 in which she explains that the Medicare benefit cuts proposed by the White House in trial balloon form is a terrible idea. She reminds us not to be naive about trial balloons and how they work. They are a long-established political tool: "The worst sellouts of liberal principles allegedly under consideration by the White House, particularly a hike in the Medicare eligibility age from 65 to 67, may be trial balloons by staffers, or outrages floated in order to make other compromises more palatable to progressives later."<br />
<br />
She also says, and very rightly so, "Raising the Medicare eligibility age is so bad that I literally can’t believe the president would consider it. Even though there’s evidence he might."<br />
<br />
And as long as I'm fiscal cliffing here, this from Joan's article reminds me of something:<br />
<br />
<blockquote>Meanwhile, a compromise on the top tax rates is likewise a bad idea, because 39.6 percent is already a compromise. Everyone who talks about rebuilding the middle class needs to acknowledge how we did it last time around: with a top marginal tax rate above 90 percent through both Eisenhower administrations. John F. Kennedy cut it to 70 percent, and that’s where it stayed until Reagan slashed it – and we know how good the Reagan revolution was for the middle class. I’m not saying that’s where it should return, but if we keep sacrificing progressivity, we’ll never have the money we need to do what we need to do. Tax rate hikes shouldn’t stop at $250,000. There should be more, and higher, tax rates on the super rich.</blockquote>Listening to some of the chatter on the "fiscal cliff" hoo-hah, I've started to wonder how many people actually know what marginal tax rates are. Because I rarely if ever see it explained in news articles. I'm guessing there is some large portion of the public who thinks that a 90% marginal tax rate on the <i>highest portion</i> of income means 90% tax on <i>all</i> income.<br />
<br />
This is an important part from Joan's article on current politicking <s>to cut benefits on Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid</s> around the "fiscal cliff":<br />
<br />
<blockquote>The White House seems to be playing both sides of the street on the question of whether it’s thinkable to go over the cliff. On Wednesday, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner told reporters the administration is “absolutely” prepared to do so if the GOP won’t budge on top tax rates. But that same day, the White House was meeting with Latino groups to build support for a theoretical fiscal cliff deal, by outlining the ways Latinos would be hurt by the tax hikes and program cuts that would (eventually) be triggered. Thursday they did the same thing with African-American groups. As long as we’re getting racial, it’s worth pointing out that keeping the top tax rates low, or compromising at 37 percent, is an absolute Christmas gift for wealthy white people, who make up a wildly disproportionate share of the top earners. And the lower life expectancy of African-Americans makes raising the Medicare eligibility age particularly cruel.</blockquote>And it's very true that cutting benefits on Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid will hit minorities disproportionately hard. Journalists should be jamming Obama and other Administration officials on that point. David Dayen discusses this point in <a href="http://news.firedoglake.com/2012/12/10/medicare-eligibility-age-increases-particularly-levies-pain-on-seniors-of-color/">Medicare Eligibility Age Increases Particularly Levies Pain on Seniors of Color</a> <i>FDL News</i> 12/10/2012: "coverage disparities between the rich and poor melt away at 65 right now, and particularly between whites and minorities. Delaying that two years just means two more years where poor people of color will defer medical care and live without health insurance."<br />
<br />
And, yes, cutting benefits on Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid would be a terrible betrayal of the solid majority that just re-elected Obama. Joan Walsh:<br />
<br />
<blockquote>So yeah, I think these are appalling ideas. <b>We just had an election in which the president promised to protect Medicare, and never once publicly supported raising the eligibility age to 67, while Romney’s advisers said his plan included hiking the age.</b> (Romney himself avoided details about any of his plans.) Post-election polls find that <b>two thirds of voters oppose increasing the Medicare eligibility age</b>. Should this deal become reality, <b>it would reinforce the cynicism Americans harbor about government – and about Democrats. Deservedly.</b><br />
<br />
The truth is, Obama should be pushing to lower the Medicare eligibility age, to let those 55 and over opt to buy into the program with their own money. The premiums paid by a younger, healthier cohort would help stabilize the program, while the benefits of getting that population insured earlier would keep costs down later. That’ll never happen, you say? Well, we can make sure it’ll never happen if progressives never ask for it.<br />
<br />
Honestly, <b>the only real reason to throw seniors into the Obamacare pool is to put more people at the mercy of private insurance, and weaken both the economic and political basis for Medicare</b>. [my emphasis]</blockquote>Tags: <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/austerity+economics" rel="tag" target="_blank">austerity economics</a>, <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/barack+obama" rel="tag" target="_blank">barack obama</a>, <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/fiscal+cliff" rel="tag" target="_blank">fiscal cliff</a>, <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/grand+bargain" rel="tag" target="_blank">grand bargain</a>, <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/medicaid" rel="tag" target="_blank">medicaid</a>, <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/medicare" rel="tag" target="_blank">medicare</a>, <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/social+security" rel="tag" target="_blank">social security</a>Bruce Millerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05022449143502020665noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13208715.post-63986393599221350812012-12-10T13:34:00.002-05:002012-12-10T13:43:52.810-05:00Neoliberalism and the left: Democrats, the "social" version and the American versionI've written here a lot lately about the role of the left-center parties in advanced countries in the neoliberal scheme of things. Yanis Varoufakis takes a look at what happened to Europe's social-democratic parties in that scheme.<br />
<br />
This Klaus Stuttmann cartoon of 12/06/2012 illustrates the situation of the German Social Democratic Party (SPD). Though the SPD is the main opposition party, they have faithfully supported Chancellor Angela "Frau Fritz" Merkel's disastrous policies on the euro and the EU and failing to offer any alternative framework for the issues Europe and Germany face. It shows the SPD and its corporate-toady Chancellor candidate for the 2013 elections, Peer Steinbrück, being overshadowed by Frau Fritz:<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-_V2UjxPoAds/UMYOyTrbDZI/AAAAAAAALvA/7fZMWqoOpA8/s1600/Angie%2Bund%2BSPD-Klaus%2BStuttmann-12-06-2012.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="280" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-_V2UjxPoAds/UMYOyTrbDZI/AAAAAAAALvA/7fZMWqoOpA8/s400/Angie%2Bund%2BSPD-Klaus%2BStuttmann-12-06-2012.jpg" width="400" /></a></div><br />
(On the SPD of Peer Steinbrück, see also my post of 10/02/2012, <a href="http://oldhickorysweblog.blogspot.com/2012/10/neoliberalism-and-center-left-politics_2.html">Neoliberalism and center-left politics: Germany</a>.)<br />
<br />
Varoufakis uses the symbol of the Global Minotaur to describe the current world financial system, which first emerged in the 1970s focused around how the world economy would sustain what are known as the "twin deficits" of the US, our public budget deficit and our trade deficit:<br />
<br />
<blockquote>My tentative answer is that Europe's Left fell for the Global Minotaur's old trick. They saw the rivers of privately minted money that the financial sector was printing (while labour was squeezed and real estate prices soared) and thought they could harness some of it in order to pursue social democratic policies! Rather than (as the social democrats of the previous, Kreisky era had to do) target the profits of industry, as a source of funding social programs, social democrats thought they could tap the rivers of cash produced in the context of financialisation. <b>Let finance free to do as it pleased and then tap into some of its proceeds to fund the welfare state.</b> That was their game and, at the time, it seemed to them a better idea, more fathomable, than having to be constantly in conflict with industrialists, seeking to tax them in order to redistribute. In contrast, bankers were quite easy going. As long as the 'leftist' politicians let them do as they pleased, they were happy to give them some crumbs off their gargantuan dinner table.<br />
<br />
Indeed, some of these social democrats, for some time, were funded by the financial sector quite generously so as to run their welfare programs (e.g. the Blair government’s considerable boost in public spending, similar programs in Spain by the PSOE government, etc.). Alas, to be allowed that small portion of the financialisation torrent, for the purposes of social programs, social democrats had to swallow financialisation's logic hook, line and sinker. They had to shed their distrust for unfettered financial, labour and real estate markets. They had to suspend their critical faculties. And so, when in 2008 the tsunamis of capital produced by Wall Street, the City and Frankfurt crashed and burnt, <b>Europe’s Social Democratic side of politics did not have the mental tools, or moral values, with which to subject the collapsing system to critical scrutiny. They were, thus, ripe for acquiescence, for total capitulation, to the toxic remedies (e.g. the bailouts) whose purpose was to sacrifice working people, the unemployed and the weak for the benefit of the financiers.</b> The rest is a very sad, never ending, history.[my emphasis]</blockquote>A similar process also seems to have occurred with the Democratic Party in the United States. I've also discussed this problem in <a href="http://oldhickorysweblog.blogspot.com/2010/05/neoliberalism-and-left-1.html">Neoliberalism and the left (1)</a> 05/12/2012 and <a href="http://oldhickorysweblog.blogspot.com/2010/05/neoliberalism-and-left-2.html">Neoliberalism and the left (2)</a> 05/12/2012. In the first of those, I quoted Michael Lind on the US Democratic and British Labour Parties:<br />
<br />
<blockquote>The decision in the last generation of the Third Way "progressives" to be more pro-banker and pro-business than the right is one reason that the center-left in the U.S. and Europe is incapable of rising to the challenge of the economic crisis. Having mortgaged their parties to donors in Wall Street and the City of London, the Democratic and Labour Parties cannot engage in more than token reform of the bloated and dangerous financial sector without biting the hands that feed them.</blockquote>This is how we get to a situation where a Democratic President just re-elected by a solid margin that rejected the reactionary economics advocated by plutocrat Mitt Romney and his running mate Paul Ryan, just a few weeks later floating a plan to cut Medicare benefits and instead of mobilizing the public to defend Medicare instead insists on only nominal tax increases for the wealthiest ("a little more from those who can most afford it"), and instead of insisting that the LOSER party go along with his plans, instead asks them to please let him compromise with them to cut Medicare benefits. At least that's how I read his feeble appeal in his <a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/12/08/weekly-address-congress-must-extend-middle-class-tax-cuts">weekly Saturday address of 12/08/2012</a>, "It’s not about which political party comes out on top, or who wins or loses in Washington. ... And if both sides are willing to compromise, I believe we can give businesses and families a sense of security going into the New Year."<br />
<br />
In Italy, we now have the crooked rightwinger Silvio Berlusconi declaring his intent to return to power. And Frau Fritz' faithful "technocrat" head of government in Italy, Mario Monti, has already declared his intention to step down in a month. We'll see what kind of changes the new round of turmoil in Italian politics will produce, and whether Italian left parties can use Frau Fritz' destructive austerity policies to successfully articulate a clear democratic alternative.<br />
<br />
Tags: <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/neoliberalism" rel="tag" target="_blank">neoliberalism</a>, <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/italy" rel="tag" target="_blank">italy</a>, <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/spd" rel="tag" target="_blank">spd</a>, <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/yanis+varoufakis" rel="tag" target="_blank">yanis varoufakis</a>Bruce Millerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05022449143502020665noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13208715.post-54656803423790001992012-12-09T17:48:00.000-05:002012-12-09T17:48:08.812-05:00Some real-world features of current federal budget needs<i>Bloomberg Businessweek</i>'s Peter Coy steps outside the "fiscal cliff" conventional wisdom and actually explains several practical real-world issues around them well in <a href="http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-12-06/the-fiscal-cliff-isnt-the-problem">The Fiscal Cliff Isn't the Problem</a> 12/06/2012. Though not without some flotsam and jetsam of the CW. Particularly at the end, where he devotes a long paragraph to letting a Blue Dog Democrat hyping a version of the "inter-generational accounting" scam without pointing out that's what he's describing.<br />
<br />
But on the realistic side, he explains on Social Security, "Social Security’s imbalance could be fixed by raising the ceiling for wages subject to the payroll tax." He doesn't even mention the proposal to cut benefits for existing and future retirees by tying inflation adjustments to the "chained CPI" measure.<br />
<br />
The piece in both print and online is accompanied by an illustration by Ana Benaroya that works well in spoofing the excessive hype around the "fiscal cliff" and the potential harm that could come from addressing it in bad ways:<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-_LQDLnnpAOo/UMUTu8QFmFI/AAAAAAAALtg/iV-qa6o1D4o/s1600/Economic%2BCrisis%2BCartoon%2BAna%2BBenaroya%2B12-06-2012.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="425" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-_LQDLnnpAOo/UMUTu8QFmFI/AAAAAAAALtg/iV-qa6o1D4o/s640/Economic%2BCrisis%2BCartoon%2BAna%2BBenaroya%2B12-06-2012.jpg" width="640" /></a></div><br />
But I also have to wonder about the "Don't Feed the Animals" sign it features. Among the more enthusiastically segregationist-minded, a meme became popular this past year comparing ordinary people receiving some sort of government assistance to wild animals who shouldn't be fed by people. Although I'm more inclined to read this use of it as a spoof of segregtationist and conservative attitudes.<br />
<br />
Coy also gives us a non-crazy description of the real issue around projected Medicare and Medicaid cost issues (although he doesn't mention more recent projections that suggest the problem may be less severe than often thought):<br />
<br />
<blockquote>The knottier problems are Medicare and Medicaid, whose costs have been driven up by extraordinarily inefficient health-care spending. The U.S. spends 53 percent more on health care per capita than No. 2 Norway while getting worse results. (Norwegians’ life expectancy at birth is a year and a half longer.)</blockquote>The per capita cost and value-per-amount-spent are two areas in which the United States really does have an argument that we're "exceptional."<br />
<br />
And he connects the costs of health care to federally-funded research, or lack thereof:<br />
<br />
<blockquote>Making benefits less generous is the no-brainer way to close the gap [on Medicare and Medicaid]. The forward-thinking way is to conquer diseases that sap America’s human and economic potential, as Jonas Salk’s vaccine did for polio in the 1950s. Medicare and Medicaid alone spend $140 billion a year on dementia care, the Alzheimer’s Association estimates, yet the U.S. spends only about half a billion dollars a year researching cures. George Vradenburg, chairman of USAgainstAlzheimer’s, argues that the disease could be mostly eliminated by 2020 with Manhattan Project-size funding; cuts to research could make the problem worse. "This disease could very well become the financial and social sinkhole of the 21st century," says gerontologist Ken Dychtwald, chief executive officer of the consulting firm Age Wave.</blockquote>Coy might have added that cutting benefits on Medicare and Medicaid, as President Obama proposed in 2011 in the debt-ceiling negotiations, is not only a "no-brainer" but a no-heart-er approach. But in the context, "no-brainer" would not only mean an approach that requires no thought but one that doesn't make good sense.<br />
<br />
He makes an obvious and accurate Keynesian point that contradicts Republican economic dogma, "What’s limiting business investment and hiring today isn’t the prospect of slightly higher tax rates but the fear that there won't be enough customers."<br />
<br />
And he explains how protracted depression can produce major long-term damage to the economy:<br />
<br />
<blockquote>Weak, uncertain demand is the lasting legacy of the Great Recession and the slow rebound since. In manufacturing, mining, and utilities, depreciation has outpaced fresh investment since the start of the recession in December 2007, leaving the sector with a decline in productive capacity, according to Federal Reserve data. Recessions have lasting consequences: Eroding capacity, they limit the economy’s ability to grow—and generate tax revenue—in the future.</blockquote>Coy also talks about the importance of engaging in public research for "education, scientific research, and infrastructure." But I'm getting more and more indifferent to those vague formulations that are often found in close company with neoliberal assurances that the Great God Free Market will take care of everything as long as we have fewer unions and less protection for workers ("labor market flexibility" in the jargon) and also fewer government services, lower or nonexistent pensions, and restricted access to health care for all but the One Percent ("enhancing national competitive" in the neoliberal mantra). Coy does point out an important aspect of infrastructure investment, though:<br />
<br />
<blockquote>Physical capital is underfunded as well. In 2009 the American Society of Civil Engineers gave the U.S. a grade of D for infrastructure. It’s doubtful that things are much better now; only about $100 billion of the Obama administration’s nearly $800 billion stimulus program went toward roads, bridges, and other needs. Infrastructure investment would make the U.S. more competitive in the long run while creating jobs in the short run, and since the U.S. can borrow for next to nothing, the financing would be cheap. But Boehner is opposing Obama’s debt proposal—which includes $50 billion in infrastructure spending—because it doesn’t cut spending enough. That's unfortunate.</blockquote>And he even says that holding back necessary spending right now "by spending cap or sequester would be as dumb as discarding coffee filters to lighten one’s backpack." He also notes, perhaps with an ironic twist, "The U.S. spends more on its military than the next 13 countries combined; that would suggest potential for some nips and tucks." Yeah, "nips and tucks."<br />
<br />
Coy's article is nevertheless framed in the context of making responses to the "fiscal cliff" pseudo-crisis less damaging than they might be.<br />
<br />
And that's part of the more general problem. Both Democratic and Republican leaders are focusing their emphasis on reducing the deficit in the middle of a depression, not on the immediate need for strong stimulus spending. Vague magic formulas about the need to spend more on "education, scientific research, and infrastructure" don't count.<br />
<br />
Tags: <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/austerity+economics" rel="tag" target="_blank">austerity economics</a>, <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/fiscal+cliff" rel="tag" target="_blank">fiscal cliff</a>, <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/grand+bargain" rel="tag" target="_blank">grand bargain</a>, <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/medicaid" rel="tag" target="_blank">medicaid</a>, <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/medicare" rel="tag" target="_blank">medicare</a>, <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/social+security" rel="tag" target="_blank">social security</a>Bruce Millerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05022449143502020665noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13208715.post-60135231737013384442012-12-07T17:26:00.002-05:002012-12-07T17:26:31.953-05:00Fiscal cliffing ourselves into austerity economics in the middle of a depressionDigby has a good roundup on austerity-economics news in Europe and Australia in <a href="http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2012/12/austerity-has-been-disaster-everywhere.html">Let's do it anyway, shall we? </a><i>Hullabaloo</i> 12/07/2012. Guess what? It's making their economies shrink!<br />
<br />
The most important immediate issue in the Fiscal Cliff farce is maintaining the benefits on Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. Wall Street, the Republicans, and - sadly, President Obama - are using this ginned-up pseudo-crisis to try to cut benefits on those programs as a way for Wall Street to tap into the Mississippi River of cash flows that privatized versions of those programs could provide for banks, brokers and insurance copies to suck gigantic fees from at the expense of the majority of the country.<br />
<br />
But those cuts wouldn't provide immediate pro-cyclical effects. i.e., making the recession worse. The whole debate in which the President, leading Democrats and the whole Republican Party are calling for deficit reduction in the middle of a depression just shows the ghost of Herbert Hoover running wild.<br />
<br />
Mike Koncza in gives some examples of the toxic economy analysis that One Percenter think tanks have been cranking out, in particular over the issue of the debt ceiling, and concludes, "There's no good reason for the debt ceiling, and now there are really bad consequences for its existence. Time to end it." (<a href="http://www.nextnewdeal.net/rortybomb/another-reason-kill-debt-ceiling-conservative-think-tanks-responses-default">Another Reason to Kill the Debt Ceiling: Conservative Think Tanks' Responses to Default</a> <i>Rortybomb</i> 12/05/2012)<br />
<br />
Jared Bernstein takes a look at some current real-world figures and points out something relevant to the deficit:<br />
<br />
<blockquote>In fact, if any column in the table is flashing red (other than unemployment), it’s the revenue column. Since 2009, revenues are up only 0.7% of GDP while spending is down 2.4%. <b>That’s the largest three-year spending contraction since the mid-1950s.</b> The 3.1% of GDP decline in the budget deficit since 2009 is the largest three-year drop since the 1940s. To be fair, it’s also the case that the increase in the deficits up to 2009 were historically very large as well. But they needed to be. (emphasis in original)</blockquote>And Yves Smith at <i>Naked Capitalism</i> asks us to be alert for "shameless cases of fearmongering and distortions" during the budget/fiscal cliff/deficit/Grand Bargain debates. And gives us an example: <a href="http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2012/12/fiscal-cliff-propaganda-watch-business-owner-says-the-fiscal-cliff-made-him-fire-his-son.html">Fiscal Cliff Propaganda Watch: Business Owner Says the Fiscal Cliff Made Him Fire His Son</a> 12/07/2012. Several examples, actually:<br />
<br />
<blockquote>The lies told to sell the chump public on the necessity of enduring cuts to the social safety net are already at a breathtaking level. Where would you like to begin? The idea that big reductions in spending (going over the edge of the world off the fiscal cliff would be horrific, while only somewhat big cuts would be salutary? That Social Security “reforms” are necessary to fix the budget? Even former budget chief Peter Orszag ‘fessed up that one was not true. Or the favorite refuge of the Republicans, that raising taxes on the wealthy will hurt job creation. Ahem, we’ve pushed the low taxes model further than any other advanced economy, and the result is crumbling infrastructure, an overpriced and mediocre health care system, and record corporate profits combined with extreme measures to pay more to workers and a lack of new investment (the corporate sector has been a net saver since the early 2000s).</blockquote>I've gotten as tired of hearing the phrase "crumbling infrastructure" as that cute little girl in the <a href="http://youtu.be/OjrthOPLAKM">pre-election YouTube video</a> crying about how tired she was of hearing about Bronco Bamma and Mitt Romney. But his point is right.<br />
<br />
We would have a better chance of have some really constructive solutions to the depression if we had a President who didn't have to be constantly pressured to act like a Democrat at all on economic issues. But at least he's not Mitt Romney, and that's good.<br />
<br />
Tags: <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/austerity+economics" rel="tag" target="_blank">austerity economics</a>, <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/barack+obama" rel="tag" target="_blank">barack obama</a>, <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/fiscal+cliff" rel="tag" target="_blank">fiscal cliff</a>, <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/grand+bargain" rel="tag" target="_blank">grand bargain</a>, <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/medicaid" rel="tag" target="_blank">medicaid</a>, <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/medicare" rel="tag" target="_blank">medicare</a>, <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/social+security" rel="tag" target="_blank">social security</a>Bruce Millerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05022449143502020665noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13208715.post-35818024677265764092012-12-06T14:40:00.002-05:002012-12-06T14:40:22.822-05:00The fight to save benefits on Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid from Obama's "Grand Bargain"I'm to the point on the Grand Bargain/Fiscal Cliff show that I'm reluctant to take seriously anything anyone says on Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid unless I know that same person is saying that the benefits on those programs are good things and it would be a very, very bad idea to cut them.<br />
<br />
So when I see Linda Bergthold write, "Whatever laws will expire December 31, there will be a solution and at some point we will need to restructure and reform some of our government programs. Which ones? Probably Medicare. Maybe Medicaid. And at some point, although certainly not urgent now -- Social Security," (<a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/linda-bergthold/is-health-care-part-of-th_b_2241810.html">Is Health Care Part of the "Fairy Dust" Talk About the Fiscal Cliff?</a> <i>Huffington Post</i> 12/05.2012) I'm ready to assume that she's making propaganda for cutting benefits on those programs.<br />
<br />
But she actually goes on to explain the problems in cutting benefits on Medicare and Medicaid in a pretty decent way:<br />
<br />
<blockquote>We call Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security "entitlements" <i>although this term does recall something akin to Romney's 47 percent idea</i>. Perhaps we should rename these programs. Does everyone who depends on these programs think they are somehow "entitled" to something they don't deserve? We pay into Social Security. We pay for Medicare -- and don't you think we do not. (<i>Medicare Part A may be without premium, but Medicare Parts B and D extract significant premiums from beneficiaries, and the more you make the more you pay for these "entitlements".</i>) Don't even get me started on why we need to attack these programs and gut them. They protect some of the most vulnerable disabled and elderly among us. If you had to look these folks in the eye and tell them they were taking too much and not giving enough back -- good luck if they could reach out and punch you.<br />
<br />
So what are the proposals for -- let's call it "saving money" in Medicare and Medicaid? I'm leaving out Social Security since it is not in urgent need of reform at this time. <i>It is solvent until the late 2040s or early 2050s.</i> There are a number of legitimate ways that we can modernize and improve the Medicare program. <i>Many of these proposals are already being implemented as part of the Affordable Care Act.</i><br />
<br />
Raising the eligibility age from 65 to 67 is <b>not</b> one of the best ideas for saving money in Medicare. Sounds like a reasonable idea, right? We are living longer, so why not work longer. Well, it's not quite that simple. Yes, there are savings to the government if people don't depend on Medicare until they are 67 or older. But who ends up paying for health care for people who do not get it from Medicare when they turn 65? It would be the private sector and other programs. If the age limit were to be raised, roughly half of potential beneficiaries would work longer, thus requiring their employers to continue covering them; about 5 percent would remain uninsured. Of the remainder, one-third would seek coverage and potentially subsidies through the state exchanges, which would raise the premium costs for everyone. A Kaiser Family Foundation study estimates that <i>raising the Medicare eligibility age would increase overall premiums in the state exchanges by 3 percent and 8 percent for younger members</i>. And while this increase in eligibility age would net the Federal Government $5.7 billion, <i>it would cost 65- and 66-year-olds $3.7 billion in additional out of pocket costs</i>. [my emphasis in italics]</blockquote>It's getting increasingly frustrating to see President Obama out there like he was yesterday at the Business Roundtable talking to CEOs about the need for "entitlement reform" with word one about how necessary it is to preserve benefits on Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. He wouldn't be presenting things that way if he were expecting to make deals that would <i>cut</i> those benefits. The Democratic President should be fighting to <i>protect</i> those benefits, not positioning to making deals to sell out the vast majority of the country that depend on them at some point in our lives.<br />
<br />
Tags: <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/austerity+economics" rel="tag" target="_blank">austerity economics</a>, <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/barack+obama" rel="tag" target="_blank">barack obama</a>, <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/fiscal+cliff" rel="tag" target="_blank">fiscal cliff</a>, <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/grand+bargain" rel="tag" target="_blank">grand bargain</a>, <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/medicaid" rel="tag" target="_blank">medicaid</a>, <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/medicare" rel="tag" target="_blank">medicare</a>, <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/social+security" rel="tag" target="_blank">social security</a>Bruce Millerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05022449143502020665noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13208715.post-12311749145570873912012-12-05T19:02:00.000-05:002012-12-05T19:02:06.574-05:00Obama at the Business Roundtable talks about "entitlement reform," does not defend benefits on Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid<br />
The speech has the two basic flaws most of his speech on the "fiscal cliff" nonsense have: he doesn't defend benefits on Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid ("entitlements" in the jargon of the opponents of those programs) and he uses Republicans framing about the importance of reducing deficits rather than using federal stimulus to grow the economy out of the depression. Here is the video:<br />
<br />
<div align="center"><iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/dPLufmf50sg" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe><br />
</div><br />
Now, any President speaking to the Business Roundtable would be expected to flatter them a bit, something to which Obama is more than receptive to doing. But there's fluff flattery. And there's stuff like this:<br />
<br />
<blockquote>And I've said this to some of the small groups, let me repeat it to the large group -- I am passionately rooting for your success, because if the companies in this room are doing well, then small businesses and medium-sized businesses up and down the chain are doing well. If companies in this room are doing well, then folks get jobs, consumers get confidence, and we're going to be able to compete around the world.</blockquote>He goes on to say, "Many of you, over the last two, three years, have experienced record profits or near record profits, and have a lot of money where you're prepared to invest in plants and equipment and hire folks."<br />
<br />
He uses his Republican friendly framing in talking about the "fiscal cliff" farce:<br />
<br />
<blockquote>During the entire campaign, I talked about the importance of short-term measures to boost growth but also a long-term plan to make sure that we've got our fiscal house in order, and I called for a balanced and responsible plan. My budget reflects a balanced, responsible plan, and I've shown myself willing to make some tough decisions when it comes to government spending -- because, despite, I think, my reputation or the reputation of Democrats, I don't think every government program works exactly the way it should. I think there are efficiencies that can be gained; there are some programs that used to work and just don't work now the way they were intended. And as a consequence, working with Democrats and Republicans last year, we were able to cut over a trillion dollars of spending -- the largest cut, by the way, in discretionary spending in history. <b>So we're prepared to make some tough decisions when it comes to spending cuts.</b> [my emphasis]</blockquote>And he uses the buzzword "entitlements" to refer to Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, which invariably suggests that the speakers favors <i>cuts in benefits</i> to those programs:<br />
<br />
<blockquote>And what I've proposed, what I put forward in the campaign and what I think a majority of the American people agreed with -- in fact, there's some folks who didn't vote for me that focus groups and polls show nevertheless they agreed with my concept when it comes to deficit reduction -- is that an approach that says we're going to raise additional revenue particularly from those who have done best in the economy over the last decade, combined with some smart cuts and with <b>entitlement reform that can strengthen our social safety net over the long term but do so in a responsible way</b> -- that's the way to go forward. And that's what we've put forward. [my emphasis]</blockquote>And he refers to his current official proposal this way, again using the hostile term "entitlement" for Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid:<br />
<br />
<blockquote>So what we've said instead is let’s allow higher rates to go up for the top 2 percent -- that includes all of you, yes, but not in any way that’s going to affect your spending, your lifestyles, or the economy in any significant way; let’s make sure that 98 percent of Americans don't see a single dime in tax increases next year, 97 percent of small businesses don't see a single dime in tax increases next year -- and by doing that alone we raise almost a trillion dollars without any adverse effects on the economy.<br />
<br />
Let’s combine that, then, with some additional spending cuts and some <b>long-term entitlement reform</b> that can get us to a number close to $4 trillion, which stabilizes our debt and our deficits relative to GDP for at least a decade, perhaps more. [my emphasis]</blockquote>He returns to the theme again: "I think there’s a recognition that maybe they can accept some rate increases as long as it’s combined with serious <i>entitlement reform</i> and additional spending cuts." (my emphasis)<br />
<br />
And again: "So, with that, let me just say we've got one path where we resolve this fairly quickly -- we've got some tough spending cuts, we <i>reform our entitlements</i>, we have modest revenue increases." (my emphasis)<br />
<br />
<b><span style="font-size: large;">Nowhere in his speech did he defend benefits on Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid in any way.</span></b><br />
<br />
This is not a good thing. The only encouraging part of this speech are the parts where he seems, maybe, we can hope, to realize that the Republicans jacked him around pitifully on the debt ceiling fight in 2011 and he doesn't want to do that again:<br />
<br />
<blockquote>Let me make one last point and then I'll start taking questions. There had been reports -- and these are not necessarily confirmed, and maybe some of you have more insight than I do on this -- that perhaps the Republicans go ahead and let the middle-class tax cuts get extended, the upper-income tax cuts go up, otherwise we don't get a deal, <b>and next year we come back and the thinking is Republicans will have more leverage because there will be another vote on the debt ceiling and we will try to extract more concessions with a stronger hand on the debt ceiling.</b> <br />
<br />
I have to just tell you that is a bad strategy for America. It is a bad strategy for our businesses. <b>And it is not a game that I will play.</b> <br />
<br />
Most of you were involved in discussions and watched <b>the catastrophe that happened in August of 2011</b>. Everybody here is concerned about uncertainty; there's no uncertainty like the prospect that the United States of America, the largest economy that holds the world’s reserve currency potentially defaults on its debts; that we give up the basic notion that the United States stands behind its obligations. <br />
<br />
<b>And we can't afford to go there again.</b> And this isn't just my opinion; it’s the opinion of most of the folks in this room. So when I hear some on the other side suggesting that to resolve the possibility of a perpetual or a quarterly debt ceiling crisis that there is a price to pay -- well, the price is paid by the American people and your businesses and the economic environment worldwide. <b>And we should not accept going through that.</b><br />
<br />
John Engler, who is, I think -- he and I philosophically don't agree on much -- (laughter) -- no, I'm just being honest about John, and he’s a great politician but he -- he originally comes from the other party -- but John is exactly right when he says <b>the only thing that the debt ceiling is good for as a weapon is just to destroy your credit rating</b>.<br />
<br />
So I want to send a very clear message to people here: <b>We are not going to play that game next year</b>. If Congress in any way suggests that they’re going to tie negotiations to debt ceiling votes and take us to the brink of default once again as part of a budget negotiation -- which, by the way, we had never done in our history until we did it last year -- <b>I will not play that game. Because we've got to break that habit before it starts.</b> [my emphasis]</blockquote>The only "catastrophe" that happened over the debt ceiling was that it made Obama look really bad. Maybe that's what he's referring to. And, if so, that's a good thing!<br />
<br />
Tags: <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/austerity+economics" rel="tag" target="_blank">austerity economics</a>, <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/barack+obama" rel="tag" target="_blank">barack obama</a>, <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/fiscal+cliff" rel="tag" target="_blank">fiscal cliff</a>, <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/grand+bargain" rel="tag" target="_blank">grand bargain</a>, <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/medicaid" rel="tag" target="_blank">medicaid</a>, <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/medicare" rel="tag" target="_blank">medicare</a>, <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/social+security" rel="tag" target="_blank">social security</a>Bruce Millerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05022449143502020665noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13208715.post-27062344305176561292012-12-04T17:11:00.002-05:002012-12-04T17:11:51.875-05:00Tony Blair annoys me even more than Bernard-Henri LévyListening to Tony Blair about anything is kind of like watching FOX News to get informed about current events, or consulting Mitt and Ann Romney on how to show the common touch.<br />
<br />
But here is Lord Blair, holding forth about Britain and the European Union, <a href="http://www.social-europe.eu/2012/12/the-uk-should-shape-the-future-of-europe-not-withdraw/">The UK should Shape the Future of Europe, not Withdraw from it</a> 12/04/2012 (speech of 11/28/2012). We should remember he that the main thing the pro-Europe Tony Blair did for the EU during his long stint as Prime Minister was to divide its members in a major way by acting as "Bush's poodle" on the Iraq War, joining the conservative governments of Spain and Portugal to be Europe's leading cheerleaders for the invasion to get the non-existent "weapons of mass destruction."<br />
<br />
A devout devotee of the neoliberal gospel, Lord Blair illustrates that really bad ideas can and sometimes do spread across the Atlantic, in this case the "Grand Bargain":<br />
<br />
<blockquote>So the flagship policy of Europe is listing dangerously. As I have said before, to save it, I believe, requires a kind of 'Grand Bargain' approach rather than incremental steps, in which Germany agrees, effectively, to some form of mutualisation of debt; the debtor countries carry out profound structural reform; and the ECB stands fully behind the bargain. There are some signs this may happen. But even if it does, Europe will suffer for some time to come. ...<br />
<br />
So the real issue for us should be: what type of EU? And here there is no doubt that Europe needs fundamental, far reaching reform. Many of those reforms are precisely what the UK has been arguing for, like reform of the social model. It should be pointed out that these reforms are partially being made. Spain's labour costs have declined substantially since the crisis began. Italy has grasped crucially important reforms in areas like pensions. Greece has cut spending by a bigger amount proportionally than any country in Europe since the War.</blockquote>Like the American version of the much-discussed Grand Bargain to cut benefits on Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, this one is aimed at impoverishing the people of countries like Greece, Italy, Ireland, Spain and Portugal for the benefit of (primarily) Germany. This is what "profound structural reform" actually means.<br />
<br />
Like the tax side of the American "Grand Bargain" scheme, the revenue side of Lord Blair's is pretty weak. I assume that what he means by "some form of mutualisation of debt" means that the eurzone has to recognize that Greece is never going to be able to pay back the debt load they current have and still have any kind of half-decent economy, so Germany is going to have to eat a bunch of losses. But that's going to happen anyway. His endorsement of Germany Chancellor Angela "Frau Fritz" Merkel's brutal austerity demands is the only real substance to that suggestion.<br />
<br />
Lord Blair can earn healthy speaking fees at One Percenter gatherings with blather like the following: "Changes to the labour market, pensions, welfare and the way the State operates are necessary in all Western countries for reasons of demography, technology and external competition. The European social model has to change radically for Europe to prosper." All of which means weaken unions, cut wages, increase unemployment, remove worker protections, cut government services, and let Grandma eat catfood.<br />
<br />
Lord Blair realizes that Britain outside the EU is likely to suffer a relative loss in power. But he really offers nothing in terms of the kinds of changes, like creating a full political, budget and transfer union, that would be necessary for a truly vital, well-functioning EU. Britain's foreign policy subservience to the US, of which Blair was fully supportive as Prime Minister, prevents it from being a true EU partner. The US has a foreign policy of global dominance or global hegemony, and part of what flows from that is preventing the rise of a "peer competitor" to the US, which the EU at least once had the potential to be. As long as Britain is nothing but a servant of the US in foreign policy, if a sometimes annoying one, they will continually push to keep the EU a weaker union, one that can't deal with the kind of problems the currency union is now facing.<br />
<br />
The Labour Party that Tony Blair headed is officially Britain's social-democratic party. Blair's One Percenter outlook as the former Labour Prime Minister and party head illustrates some of the severe problems its much smaller sister party in Greece, PASOK, is currently having. Already badly battered in the last national election, PASOK now is polling down around the five percent level. John Psaropoulos describes in <a href="http://www.thenewathenian.com/2012/12/socialist-schism-could-weaken-government.html">Socialist Schism Could Weaken Government</a> <i>The New Athenian</i> 12/04/2012 how PASOK is steadily shrinking even before any new elections:<br />
<br />
<blockquote>Pasok suffered the loss of six MPs on November 7, who were expelled for voting against a package of painful austerity measures amounting to 13.5bn euros. One more departed later. It is now down to 25 MPs from 33 after the June election. ...<br />
<br />
The socialists' fortunes have gone from bad to worse since they ceded power to a technocrat interim prime minister last November. In back-to-back elections last May and June they took 13 percent and 12 percent of the popular vote, respectively, in a steep tumble from 44 percent in 2009.</blockquote>The European social democrats have proved themselves very ill-prepared to take political advantage of the political conditions of a depression. Even in France, where François Hollande's Socialist government took power campaigning against austerity and demanding to renegotiate Frau Fritz' fiscal suicide pact, then promptly once in office proposed a nasty austerity budget and approved the fiscal suicide pact with any attempt to renegotiate it.<br />
<br />
Tags: <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/angela+merkel" rel="tag" target="_blank">angela merkel</a>, <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/austerity+economics" rel="tag" target="_blank">austerity economics</a>, <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/eu" rel="tag" target="_blank">eu</a>, <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/euro" rel="tag" target="_blank">euro</a>, <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/european+union" rel="tag" target="_blank">european union</a>, <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/france" rel="tag" target="_blank">france</a>, <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/fran%C3%A7ois+hollande" rel="tag" target="_blank">françois hollande</a>, <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/greece" rel="tag" target="_blank">greece</a>, <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/tony+blair" rel="tag" target="_blank">tony blair</a>, <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/neoliberalism" rel="tag" target="_blank">neoliberalism</a>Bruce Millerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05022449143502020665noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13208715.post-41703540211666852232012-12-03T12:58:00.002-05:002012-12-03T13:01:10.272-05:00Deadlock on the "fiscal cliff" negotiations? That would be good news for Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid benefitsPaul Krugman is impressed at the determination of the Republican opposition to block action on budget issues proposed by President Obama. In <a href="http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/12/02/operation-rolling-tantrum/">Operation Rolling Tantrum</a> 12/02/2012,he writes:<br />
<br />
<blockquote>Oh, boy. This isn’t going to end, even when or if a deal is reached on defusing the austerity bomb; John Boehner has just declared that he's going to hold the full faith and credit of the United States hostage every time we hit the debt limit. Nor will it be a case of holding the nation at gunpoint until it meets GOP demands; Republicans are signaling that they don’t intend to make any specific proposals, they’re just going to yell and stamp their feet until Obama soothes them somehow.</blockquote>This is good news as far as it goes for benefits on Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. As much as Obama may hope for a Grand Bargain to cut benefits on those programs, the only way he can hope to make that the start of his utopian postpartisan future is <i>if the Republicans agree on a deal that includes it</i>. But, in the scenario Krugman describes - "if the next two years are, as they seem likely to be, one long Republican tantrum" - they may not even be able to agree on anything they can pass off as a comprehensive package to solve the problem of the Gentle Fiscal Slope scheduled to begin January 1.<br />
<br />
And if the Republicans continue with a strategy of fundamental opposition to try to keep the economy ailing and make Obama look bad, not only does he not get the Grand Bargain and postpartisan harmony. He may also have to act like a Democratic President who won re-election by a strong margin and <i>fight the Republicans</i>.<br />
<br />
<i>Politico</i>, which Charlie Pierce calls <i>Tiger Beat On The Potomac</i> because of its often flighty, gossipy reporting seems to be working off some alternative script about what's really being proposed and at least tacitly agreed to in the "fiscal cliff" negotiations. But this piece by Jennifer Haberkorn and Paige Winfield Cunningham spells out ways cutting Medicare benefits would hurt large numbers of people, <a href="http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=49D74E42-759D-4F8F-AA47-2BC3F26F910D">The cold, hard realities behind Medicare cuts</a> 12/02/2012. On raising the eligibility age from 65 to 67:<br />
<br />
<blockquote>Most Democrats on Capitol Hill have lined up against the idea, arguing that doing so would leave 66- and 67-year-olds without access to affordable coverage. Plus, the 66- and 67-year-olds aren’t the ones sinking the Medicare trust fund; they’re typically the cheapest beneficiaries.<br />
<br />
But they likely would become the costliest in the private insurance market, which could make coverage hard to find if they don’t already have it through the workplace — and they’d probably have to pay more out of pocket than they would under Medicare. ...<br />
<br />
An ABC News/Washington Post poll released Wednesday shows that 67 percent of people surveyed oppose the idea, too.</blockquote>And they remind us, "Obama tentatively agreed to raise the eligibility age during his summer 2011 debt ceiling negotiations with House Speaker John Boehner."<br />
<br />
On increasing the Medicare Part B premium to cover 35% of its costs: "This is by far the biggest saver — but it’s also one that would clearly violate the Democrats’ pledge not to shift costs to seniors."<br />
<br />
There is a drug rebate requirement that falls on drug companies that was reduced under the Bush Administration in Medicare Part D, i.e., drug companies have had to pay less in rebates since 2006. Restoring that rebate, which <i>Politico</i> calls "dual-eligible rebates," would save money without reducing benefits. <i>Politico</i> notes, "Drug companies will fight to make sure the idea never sees the light of day."<br />
<br />
Another benefit-reducing idea is to increase the amount recipients have to pay for Medicare and Medigap cost-sharing. Increasing the required payments from recipients is itself a benefit reduction and means that it puts more pressure on recipients to forego or postpone treatment to to cost considerations.<br />
<br />
Means testing for Medicare would also be a reduction in benefits. Haberkorn and Winfield don't explain Democratic opposition to this well. Medicare supporters are leery of means-testing for Medicare because that makes it easier for enemies of the program to stigmatize it as "welfare." Like Social Security, Medicare is a defined-benefit plan to which future beneficiaries contribute during their working careers.<br />
<br />
The last option they discuss is cuts in reimbursements to Medicare providers. That is not a cut in benefits unless the reductions were so poorly designed and/or so drastic that it actually interfered with delivery of services. There's not magic measuring stick here; it requires people who know what they are doing on the Medicare side to negotiate, implement and monitor the changes, and decent performance and financial audits to evaluate such reductions when they are implemented.<br />
<br />
Tags: <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/austerity+economics" rel="tag" target="_blank">austerity economics</a>, <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/barack+obama" rel="tag" target="_blank">barack obama</a>, <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/fiscal+cliff" rel="tag" target="_blank">fiscal cliff</a>, <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/grand+bargain" rel="tag" target="_blank">grand bargain</a>, <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/medicaid" rel="tag" target="_blank">medicaid</a>, <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/medicare" rel="tag" target="_blank">medicare</a>, <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/social+security" rel="tag" target="_blank">social security</a>Bruce Millerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05022449143502020665noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13208715.post-46097848913360760262012-12-02T16:03:00.003-05:002012-12-02T16:03:31.887-05:00Obama's "fiscal cliff" road show, Dec. 1President Obama used his regular Saturday message to hype the phony "fiscal cliff" and to promote Republican Party framing of the deficit as an urgent priority and of tax cuts as the most important priority in the current "fiscal cliff" drama, <a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/12/01/weekly-address-urging-congress-extend-middle-class-tax-cuts">Weekly Address: Urging Congress to Extend the Middle Class Tax Cuts</a> 12/01/2012.<br />
<br />
<div align="center"><iframe allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen" frameborder="0" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/QCwaFaBx-9A" width="560"></iframe><br />
</div><br />
The thing that I most notice here is that the central issue of the "fiscal cliff" farce - the Grand Bargain to cut benefits on Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid - isn't mentioned in the President's address. He doesn't say a word about defending benefits on Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.<br />
<br />
Meanwhile, Sen. Minority Leader Mitch McConnell is calling publicly for cuts in benefits to Social Security and Medicare, as Rachel Weiner reports in the <i>Washington Post</i> (<a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2012/11/30/mcconnell-outlines-entitlement-wish-list/">McConnell pushes entitlement wish list</a> 11/30/2012) quoting from a <i>Wall Street Journal</i> story based on a McConnell interview:<br />
<br />
<blockquote>In an interview, Mr. McConnell said if the White House agrees to changes such as higher Medicare premiums for the wealthy, an increase in the Medicare eligibility age and a slowing of cost-of-living increases for programs like Social Security, Republicans would agree to include more tax revenue in the deal, though not from higher tax rates.</blockquote>Tags: <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/austerity+economics" rel="tag" target="_blank">austerity economics</a>, <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/barack+obama" rel="tag" target="_blank">barack obama</a>, <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/fiscal+cliff" rel="tag" target="_blank">fiscal cliff</a>, <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/grand+bargain" rel="tag" target="_blank">grand bargain</a>, <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/medicaid" rel="tag" target="_blank">medicaid</a>, <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/medicare" rel="tag" target="_blank">medicare</a>, <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/social+security" rel="tag" target="_blank">social security</a>Bruce Millerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05022449143502020665noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13208715.post-13547230065574183092012-11-30T19:36:00.002-05:002012-11-30T19:36:31.432-05:00Obama's "fiscal cliff" road-show: Friday 11/30President Obama spoke in Hatfield PA Friday, <a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/11/30/remarks-president-visit-rodon-group-manufacturing-facility">Remarks by the President in Visit to Rodon Group Manufacturing Facility</a> 11/30/2012. He's promoting his current plan to avoid the fake "fiscal cliff".<br />
<br />
The first thing to note is that this speech contains no defense at all of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.<br />
<br />
Here's what it does contain:<br />
<br />
<blockquote>Now, on this last point, you’ve probably heard a lot of talk in Washington and in the media about the deadlines that we’re facing on jobs and taxes and investments. This is not some run-of-the-mill debate. <b>This isn't about which political party can come out on top in negotiations.</b> We've got important decisions to make that are going to have a real impact on businesses and families all across the country. <br />
<br />
Our <b>ultimate goal</b>, our <b>long-term goal</b> is to get our <b>long-term deficit</b> under control in a way that is balanced and is fair. That would be good for businesses, for our economy, for future generations. And I believe both parties can -- and will -- work together in the coming weeks to get that done. We know how that gets done. We’re going to have to raise <b>a little more revenue</b>. <b>We've got to cut out spending we don't need</b>, building on the trillion dollars of spending cuts we've already made. And if we combine those two things, we can create a path where America is paying its bills while still being able to make <b>investments in the things we need to grow like education and infrastructure</b>. So we know how to do that. <br />
<br />
But in Washington, nothing is easy, so there is going to be some prolonged negotiations. And <b>all of us are going to have to get out of our comfort zones to make that happen. I’m willing to do that</b>, and I’m hopeful that enough members of Congress in both parties are willing to do that as well. We can solve these problems. But where <b>the clock is really ticking right now</b> is on middle-class taxes. At the end of the year, middle-class taxes that are currently in place are set to expire -- middle-class tax cuts that are currently in place are set to expire. [my emphasis]</blockquote>Here there are several reasons for concern in what he says there:<br />
<br />
"This isn't about which political party can come out on top in negotiations." Actually, yes, it is. The President and his Democratic Party just won a national election decisively. They should "come out on top" with a victory that reflects <i>the program on which they ran successfully</i> in the election.<br />
"a little more revenue": Whenever we're talking about the wealthiest people in the country, the ones who are getting the greatest material benefit from what the US has to offer in terms of opportunity, Obama consistently talks about it needing to be "a little bit more" or some similar term. If he asks for "a little more", he may get a <i>little</i> more. But it doesn't really have the feel of aiming high, does it?<br />
"We've got to cut out spending we don't need": more of Obama preaching austerity economics during this depression<br />
"all of us are going to have to get out of our comfort zones to make that happen. I'm willing to do that": Obama has made it clear in past years that he expects supporters of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid to "get out of our comfort zones" and not complain when he pushes completely unnecessary and highly destructive cuts in benefits to Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. When he says, "I'm willing to do that," that's presumably what he means. But Obama is actually <i>in</i> his comfort zone pushing such cuts. A full-on defense of benefits on Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid would be him getting out of <i>his</i> comfort zone.<br />
"the clock is really ticking right now": maybe in David Brooks' head. But there is no actual "fiscal cliff" from which the economy will fall on January 1. Obama is promoting a sense of urgency which is likely to facilitate only the promotion of bad policy ideas.<br />
"investments in the things we need to grow like education and infrastructure": this has become such a stock phrase, "education and infrastructure," that one hardly notices it any more. But this is a favorite part of "left" neoliberal ideology of deregulation and de-unionization and civilian government austerity. Health care and income support for old people are a waste of public money in the neoliberal view. But the promise to the public is that we're going to spend some of that money instead on "education and infrastructure" and that will bring pie in the sky by and by for everyone!<br />
<br />
<blockquote>I want to reward manufacturers like this one and small businesses that create jobs here in the United States, not overseas. (Applause.) And by the way this is a company -- one of the few companies in the toy industry that have aggressively moved jobs back here. (Applause.) That's a great story to tell because we've got the best workers in the world and the most productive workers in the world, and so we need champions for American industry creating jobs here in the United States.</blockquote>As long as he's pushing the incentives for corporations to export jobs overseas that he's been supporting in the Trans Pacific Parnership (TPP) negotiations so far, I'm not able to take talk like this seriously from Obama.<br />
<br />
<blockquote>So that's one path: Congress does nothing, we don't deal with this looming tax hike on middle-class families, and starting in January, everybody gets hit with this big tax hike and businesses suddenly see fewer customers, less demand. The economy, which we've been fighting for four years to get out of this incredible economic crisis that we have, it starts stalling again. So that's one path.</blockquote>Fearmongering. If Obama is serious about ending the Bush tax cuts and getting prolonged middle-class tax reductions, he can just let the Bush tax cuts expire at the end of the year and then propose the ones he wants. The idea that calamity will set in January 1 as a result of the end of the Bush tax cuts and the start of the spending reduction triggers is not credible.<br />
<br />
This is bad:<br />
<br />
<blockquote>The sooner Congress gets this done, the sooner our economy will get a boost. And it would then give us in Washington more time to work together on that long-range plan to bring down deficits in a balanced way: Tax reform, <b>working on entitlements</b>, and asking the wealthiest Americans to pay a little bit more so we can keep investing in things like education and research that make us strong. [my emphasis]</blockquote>Given Obama's history of pushing to cut benefits on Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, every time Obama says the word "entitlements" - which in any case is a propaganda term to diminish the value of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid in people's minds - I assume he means he intends to keep pushing to cut benefits on those programs.<br />
<br />
<blockquote>We've got some disagreements about the high-end tax cuts, right? Republicans don't want to raise taxes on folks like me; I think I can pay a little bit more to make sure that kids can go to college and we can build roads and invest in NIH so that we're finding cures for Alzheimer's. And that's a disagreement that we're going to have and we've got to sort out.</blockquote>It always bothers me when Obama refers to the wealthy as "folks like me." It always sounds to me as though he's emphasizing his identification with the wealthiest.<br />
<br />
The bottom line is that the Democratic President should be defending immediate stimulus <i>spending</i>, and defending benefits on Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid instead of promoting phony scares about The Deficit and trying to out-Republican the Republicans talking about tax cuts. And he shouldn't be pushing austerity economics at all.<br />
<br />
Tags: <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/austerity+economics" rel="tag" target="_blank">austerity economics</a>, <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/barack+obama" rel="tag" target="_blank">barack obama</a>, <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/fiscal+cliff" rel="tag" target="_blank">fiscal cliff</a>, <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/grand+bargain" rel="tag" target="_blank">grand bargain</a>, <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/medicaid" rel="tag" target="_blank">medicaid</a>, <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/medicare" rel="tag" target="_blank">medicare</a>, <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/social+security" rel="tag" target="_blank">social security</a>Bruce Millerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05022449143502020665noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13208715.post-59378809608490237802012-11-30T17:17:00.000-05:002012-11-30T17:17:24.697-05:00Greece and the politics of austerityGeorgios Papandreou was the social-democratic Prime Minister of Greece for the PASOK party from 2009-2011. By caving in to German Prime Minister Angela "Frau Fritz" Merkel's demands for destructive austerity policies in response to the Greek debt crisis, Papandreou put his party on the fast track to non-existence. PASOK is a junior member of the current conservative-led Greek government. But polls show it now polling around the 5% range. The Syriza coalition has emerged as the main left party now, and polls are showing it as having the largest support of any party at the moment.<br />
<br />
So, for putting his country under Frau Fritz' economic jackboot and ruining his own political party, he now gets to appear as statesman-at-large.<br />
<br />
He provides a vapid statement of why it would be nice if the eurozone and the European Union <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/george-papandreou/the-politics-of-fear_b_2212050.html">The Politics of Fear</a> 11/29/2012:<br />
<br />
<blockquote>Like ghosts from the past, we see political violence, xenophobia, migrants being scapegoated and extreme nationalism creeping into our public debates -- even into our parliaments. This is a Europe diverging from its founding principles. Principles that rendered nationalistic hatreds an anathema.<br />
<br />
But it is these politics of fear that seem to have incapacitated Europe. A Europe seemingly incapable of ending this crisis, a fractious Europe. This has undermined a sense of trust between us and in our European institutions. <b>This climate does not inspire confidence either in our citizens or the markets. Nor will our retreat into a renationalization of Europe be the solution.</b><br />
<br />
My recent experience in dealing with the financial crisis in Greece and in Europe has confirmed my belief that this is a political crisis more than a financial one.<br />
<br />
I am convinced that, with the political will, we could have avoided much pain, squelched market fears and stabilized the euro, while at the same time reformed ailing, unsustainable economies such as ours in Greece.<br />
<br />
Despite media hype to the contrary, it is the Greek people who first and foremost have wanted this change.</blockquote>There's additional blather about "real, necessary reform and fiscal responsibility."<br />
<br />
But it's all more than a bit disgusting from a leader who was democratically elected to represent the people of Greece and tossed his responsibilities onto the funeral pyre of a destructive neoliberal notion of "Europe." And thereby contributed mightily to the likely disintegration of the EU, both its neoliberal reality and the democratic hope that remains.<br />
<br />
Here is a video of him, sounding like one of the American CEOs who we hear lobbying for austerity economics from a presentation of 10/31/2012, <a href="http://youtu.be/6xKJRrjD73w">Is Europe a straitjacket or is it empowering us? - Giorgos Andrea Papandreou</a> <i>Berggruen Governance</i>:<br />
<br />
<div align="center"><iframe allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen" frameborder="0" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/6xKJRrjD73w" width="560"></iframe><br />
</div><br />
<a href="http://www.thenewathenian.com/2012/11/new-poll-confirms-rise-of-extremes-in.html">New Poll Confirms Rise of Extremes in Greece</a> <i>The New Athenian</i> 11/29/2012 reports on poll results he sources to <a href="http://www.epikaira.gr/epikairo.php?id=51297&category_id=88">Δημοσκόπηση VPRC για τα "Επίκαιρα": Πάνω από 30% ο ΣΥΡΙΖΑ</a> <i>Επίκαιρα Online</i> 28.11.2012:<br />
<br />
<blockquote>The poll, which appears in the weekly magazine Epikaira, gives conservative New Democracy 26.5 percent of the popular vote, and Syriza 31.5 percent. It also confirms the oft-predicted rise of the far-right Golden Dawn party to third place with 12.5 percent.<br />
<br />
Beyond these three, the field is flat, with a clutch of four small parties claiming between five and 6.5 percent. This is important for three reasons. First, it sinks New Democracy's main coalition partner, the socialist Pasok, to the order of five percent, even lower than its lowest ever election showing of 12 percent last June, and indistinguishable from the likes of other small fry. Pasok had already been cast down from the ranks of potential ruling parties; now it is also on death row. This now should mean that both Pasok and the third coalition partner, the Democratic Left, ought to be more deeply invested in the ruling coalition, for the wilderness awaits them after a Syriza victory ...<br />
<br />
Second, the poll implies that, unless something radical happens, the next parliament will also have seven parties, making it almost impossible for one of the two big players to secure single-party rule. New Democracy has picked its friends. Syriza has taken a step towards doing so. In a press conference two weeks ago its leader, Alexis Tsipras, opened the door a crack to a possible collaboration with the anti-austerity Independent Greeks. The party's main obsessions since it entered parliament in May have been charging the Germans reparations for illegal wartime loans, drilling for mineral resources and hauling off socialist and conservative politicians to the gallows for bringing the country to this pass. The two parties may come from opposite sides of the ideological divide, but they are both reactionary and possibly vindictive.</blockquote>Syriza leader Alexis Tsipras was pointing this week to the leadership failures of Papandreou and his PASOK party, as Andy Dabilis reports in <a href="http://greece.greekreporter.com/2012/11/30/syriza-bid-for-greek-bailout-probe-nixed/">SYRIZA Bid for Greek Bailout Probe Nixed</a> <i>Greek Reporter</i> 11/30/2012:<br />
<br />
<blockquote>To no surprise, a request by the major opposition Coalition of the Radical Left (SYRIZA) to investigate the decisions that led to Greece seeking bailouts from international lenders was easily defeated in the Parliament controlled by the ruling coalition government.<br />
<br />
The three ruling parties, the New Democracy Conservatives of Prime Minister Antonis Samaras, the PASOK Socialists and Democratic Left [the three governing parties] all voted against the proposal, which got only 119 votes in the 300-member body. Before the June elections, New Democracy and the Democratic Left said it would support the investigation but reversed themselves. ...<br />
<br />
SYRIZA wanted to know how the government in 2010, then led by former PASOK head George Papandreou, came to ask the IMF initially for aid after the prime minister said repeatedly that there was plenty of money to run the country. The leftists had wanted former Finance Minister Giorgos Papaconstantinou and Papandreou to be questioned. SYRIZA leader Alexis Tsipras lambasted the government for refusing an inquiry.<br />
<br />
“It may be the case that those responsible will not sit in court, but they will sit – some are already sitting – in the margins of history,” said Tsipras, who accused the coalition of maintaining an "omerta," or code of silence, on the issue. Earlier the rapporteur for the proposal, SYRIZA’s Yiannis Dragasakis, had described the coalition as being the product of a "business relationship."</blockquote>Tags: <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/angela+merkel" rel="tag" target="_blank">angela merkel</a>, <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/austerity+economics" rel="tag" target="_blank">austerity economics</a>, <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/eu" rel="tag" target="_blank">eu</a>, <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/euro" rel="tag" target="_blank">euro</a>, <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/european+union" rel="tag" target="_blank">european union</a>, <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/georgios+papandreou" rel="tag" target="_blank">georgios papandreou</a>, <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/greece" rel="tag" target="_blank">greece</a>Bruce Millerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05022449143502020665noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13208715.post-64318466547246649232012-11-30T14:05:00.002-05:002012-11-30T14:05:20.893-05:00The "fiscal cliff" negotiating danceAs President Obama undertakes his national tour to promote his passionate conviction that we should be "asking the wealthiest Americans to pay a little more," there is a confusing flow of leaks and trial balloons and so forth on who's angling for what in the "fiscal cliff" negotiations.<br />
<br />
So it's well to keep in mind through this messy farce what Jamie Galbraith wrote about it this month <a href="http://www.alternet.org/economy/6-reasons-fiscal-cliff-scam?paging=off">6 Reasons the Fiscal Cliff is a Scam</a> <i>Alternet</i> 11/22/2012):<br />
<br />
<blockquote>Stripped to essentials, the fiscal cliff is a device constructed to force a rollback of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, as the price of avoiding tax increases and disruptive cuts in federal civilian programs and in the military. It was policy-making by hostage-taking, timed for the lame duck session, a contrived crisis, the plain idea now unfolding was to force a stampede.</blockquote>Our plutocrats will keep right on lobbying for their preferred tax breaks, because that's just what they do.<br />
<br />
Plus, the arguments over the fiscal cliff are premised on the absurd assumption that the austerity that will kick in with the "fiscal cliff" triggers in January would be very harmful to the economy, so we need to quick replace them with even more drastic austerity measures! The premise is false, and the conclusion doesn't make jack for sense.<br />
<br />
It's a real problem that the Obama Administration is focusing its push for a "fiscal cliff" deal on taxes, without so far prominently defending benefits for Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. So we have to pay some attention to pieces like this one from Jim O'Sullivan, <a href="http://www.nationaljournal.com/member/magazine/social-security-still-off-limits--20121129">Social Security: Still Off-Limits?</a> <i>National Journal</i> 11/29/2012, which argues that cutting benefits on Social Security could very well end up as part of the "fiscal cliff" deal.<br />
<br />
<blockquote>The faith of the "Professional Left," to borrow a phrase, in Obama’s progressivism has always been warped to the point that its vision has been obstructed. And, despite the dispositive support he received from liberals earlier this month, Obama could spot in Social Security the sort of proactive, rather than react-and-rescue, initiative scarce elsewhere on the docket.</blockquote>Don't anyone tell O'Sullivan, but anyone who might self-identify as part of the "Professional Left" is extremely skeptical of Obama, especially on the Grand Bargain to cut benefits on Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.<br />
<br />
I hope his closing observation is nothing more than wishful thinking by corporate Democrats, one of which he quotes at the end:<br />
<br />
<blockquote>A "hands-off" opening bargaining position makes sense, because the Left is mortified of what could happen; labor activists fanned out on the Hill on Wednesday to lobby against cuts to the safety net. But Obama also has incentives to bargain, and progressives to assent: Packaging Social Security reform with Medicare and Medicaid, effectively aggregating the savings, could soften the health care cuts by imposing tax hikes on higher-income seniors.<br />
<br />
That means that Social Security could end up as part of a big deficit-reduction deal after all. Decoupling the issue now from the fast-track negotiations will only delay reform but not necessarily shelve it. The breadth of the gyre of deficit-reduction decisions that must be, or could be, made might increase the prospects for bipartisan Social Security reform, argued Jim Kessler, senior vice president for policy at Third Way, the center-left think tank. “It’s rare that you see members of Congress rushing to raise taxes,” he said. "That’s happening right now. And people are supporting it. So this is a special time right now."</blockquote><br />
"Reform" of Social Security in Beltway-Speak is a variation of "entitlement reform" which means "cut benefits on Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid."<br />
<br />
Part of the Administration's posturing on this is to make cutting benefits on SocSec, Medicare and Medicaid the "moderate" position, so they are positioning the pro-Social Security posture as "left" or "Left", which I think is supposed to look more ominous. That last quote reminds me of one of the only decent things David Frum ever said: the Republicans are afraid of their base, the Democrats hate theirs. Overgeneralized but too true for comfort.<br />
<br />
And could anyone but a star pundit or a corporate Democrat who has actually drunk the Kool-Aid <i>actually think</i> that this unintelligible argument - "Packaging Social Security reform with Medicare and Medicaid, effectively aggregating the savings, could soften the health care cuts by imposing tax hikes on higher-income seniors" - could be a reason to support benefit cuts in Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid?<br />
<br />
Ryan Grim reports on the Administration's formal opening offer in the negotiations to the Republicans, which in itself isn't bad, in <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/29/fiscal-cliff-talks_n_2215089.html">Fiscal Cliff Talks: Behind Obama's Opening Bid</a> <i>Huffington Post</i> 11/29/2012. Charlie Pierce in <a href="http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/president-obama-debt-deal-113012">How We Can Help President Obama Today</a> <i>Esquire Politics Blog</i> 11/30/2012 explains that he wants Obama to keep acting like a Democratic President who just decisively won re-election:<br />
<br />
<blockquote>It should be made plain to them [the Republicans], by the president, and by the 53 percent of the people who voted for him, that what was presented to them yesterday are the basic parameters of any deal. Period. There will be increases in the tax rates, no phony gobbledegook about "reforming the tax code." Some people will pay more, and it will be the people who can best afford to do so. There will be stimulus spending, and a lot of it, to fix all the broken stuff we have in this country. ... The deal will lean more than a little on the side of middle-class families and it will spend a lot less time soothing the wounded fee-fees of Geithner's lunch buddies. And later, when everything cools down, and enough Republicans have regained their sanity, John Boehner has regained his balls from the mason jar in which Eric Cantor has buried them out in the back yard, maybe we'll talk about some spending cuts and some careful changes in how Medicare is administered.<br />
<br />
<b>This should not be the "opening bid." This should be the deal.</b> There inevitably will be tinkering around the edges, but the basic principles and parameters established yesterday should be the foundation of any agreement. Failing that, down the Gentle Fiscal Incline, we slide. But, as the president seems to be acknowledging by taking his act on the road again, much to the dismay of Mitch McConnell, it is up to the country to explain to the Republicans (again) that they lost the election, and to explain the consequences of that loss, and to explain precisely why the loss happened. It was because the country chose to support policies that are closer to the ones that the president sent up the Hill yesterday rather than support the ones to which the congressional Republicans cling. <b>It is up to the country to own its decision, and to see that the ideas that the country so clearly supported are carried out.</b> It is not entirely the president's job to call this bluff. It is ours, too. [my emphasis]</blockquote>Tags: <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/austerity+economics" rel="tag" target="_blank">austerity economics</a>, <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/barack+obama" rel="tag" target="_blank">barack obama</a>, <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/fiscal+cliff" rel="tag" target="_blank">fiscal cliff</a>, <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/grand+bargain" rel="tag" target="_blank">grand bargain</a>, <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/medicaid" rel="tag" target="_blank">medicaid</a>, <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/medicare" rel="tag" target="_blank">medicare</a>, <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/social+security" rel="tag" target="_blank">social security</a>Bruce Millerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05022449143502020665noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13208715.post-69449986364852906922012-11-29T16:28:00.000-05:002012-11-29T16:37:32.158-05:00The Grand Bargain to cut benefits on Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid is alive and prospering, according to PoliticoMedicare opponent and Senate Democratic Chair of the Budget Committee Kent Conrad, who is not standing for re-election and therefore has substantial financial incentive to make himself attractive to One Percenter lobbies, appeared today on MSNBC talking up the "fiscal cliff" deal. <a href="http://youtu.be/TUfl7KDpLX8">Chairman Conrad Appearance on MSNBC Live</a> 11/29/2012:<br />
<br />
<div align="center"><iframe allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen" frameborder="0" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/TUfl7KDpLX8" width="420"></iframe><br />
</div><br />
Digby notes on Twitter today, "I hate to say it but MSNBC is almost as bad as Fox and CNBC on 'fiscal cliff' stuff. CW [conventional wisdom] crapola all the way."<br />
<br />
There's certainly no hint in the Conrad interview that the "fiscal cliff" drama is a staged drama.<br />
<br />
Medicaid opponent Conrad griped about "some on our left" who "have their shoes in concrete" because "they don't want to touch any spending." No doubt warming David Brookes' heart, he appealed to "people in the sensible center," by which he means people who take the very unpopular, minority position among the American public that it's good policy to cut benefits on Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid as Social Security opponent Kent Conrad does.<br />
<br />
<i>Politico</i> über-hacks Jim VandeHei and Mike Allen give their description of the current state of the negotiations, either leaked from who-knows-who or concocted from Beltway gossip of the day, <a href="http://www.politico.com/story/2012/11/84364.html">Inside the talks: Fiscal framework emerges</a> 11/29/12<br />
<br />
<blockquote>Cut through the fog, and here’s what to expect: Taxes will go up just shy of $1.2 trillion — the middle ground of what President Barack Obama wants and what Republicans say they could stomach. Entitlement programs, mainly Medicare, will be cut by no less than $400 billion — and perhaps a lot more, to get Republicans to swallow those tax hikes. There will be at least $1.2 trillion in spending cuts and “war savings.” And any final deal will come not by a group effort but in a private deal between two men: Obama and House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio). The two men had a 30-minute phone conversation Wednesday night — but the private lines of communications remain very much open.</blockquote>The core of this fiscal cliff farce is beginning the process of cutting benefits on Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. Any Democrat who votes for the following should face a major primary challenge in their next election:<br />
<br />
<blockquote>There is only one way to make the medicine of tax hikes go down easier for Republicans: specific cuts to entitlement spending. <b>Democrats involved in the process said the chest-pounding by liberals is just that — they know they will ultimately cave and trim entitlements to get a deal done.</b><br />
<br />
A top Democratic official said talks have stalled on this question since Obama and congressional leaders had their friendly-looking post-election session at the White House. "Republicans want the president to own the whole offer upfront, on both the entitlement and the revenue side, and that's not going to happen because <b>the president is not going to negotiate with himself</b>," the official said. "There’s a standoff, and the staff hasn't gotten anywhere. Rob Nabors [the White House negotiator], has been saying: 'This is what we want on revenues on the down payment. What's you guys' ask on the entitlement side?’ And they keep looking back at us and saying: 'We want you to come up with that and pitch us.' That’s not going to happen."<br />
<br />
<b>Sen. Dick Durbin</b> (D-Ill.) told "Morning Joe" on Tuesday that he could see $400 billion in entitlement cuts. That's the floor, according to Democratic aides, and it could go higher in the final give and take. The vast majority of the savings, and perhaps all of it, will come from Medicare, through a combination of means-testing, raising the retirement age and other "efficiencies" to be named later. <b>It is possible Social Security gets tossed into the mix, but Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) plans to fight that, if he has to yield on other spending fronts.</b><br />
<br />
Democrats want most Medicare and other entitlement savings to kick in between 10 and 20 years from now, which will make some Republicans choke. Democrats will point to the precedent set by House Budget Chairman Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) of pushing most mandatory savings off until a decade from now. [my emphasis]</blockquote>Several thoughts: "The President is not going to negotiate with himself"?!? Good grief, the man pre-negotiates with himself and starts conceding from there - when it's <i>Republicans</i> on the other side of the negotiation.<br />
<br />
Is a Democratic Administration really negotiating with the loser Republicans by asking, "What's you guys' ask on the entitlement side?" That is truly pitiful. The only thing the Dems should be saying on that is, "Don't even <i>think about</i> proposing cuts in benefits on Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid."<br />
<br />
"Democrats involved in the process said the chest-pounding by liberals is just that — they know they will ultimately cave and trim entitlements to get a deal done." This is a real challenge for Democrats in Congress. The fight over the public option in the health-care reform package was a key moment for Obama's opinion of "the left", in this case the Progressive Caucus. After establishing the public option as a "red line" item they had to have, the Dems mostly caved and voted for the plan without that in it. If they had been as willing as the less numerous Blue Dogs to kill the law without the public option, things could well have worked out much better. But once the White House punked them on that, Obama knew he didn't have to take them seriously and could use the Blue Dog Dems as a cover and excuse for conservative positions he preferred to take.<br />
<br />
"It is possible Social Security gets tossed into the mix, but Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) plans to fight that, if he has to yield on other spending fronts." If that's true, it means: (1) Obama still wants a cut to Social Security benefits as part of the Fiscal Cliff deal; and, (2) Harry Reid has agreed to benefit cuts in Medicare and probably Medicaid.<br />
<br />
And, once again, Dick Durbin proves that the Democratic base can't expect anything good from him.<br />
<br />
Where are Reid and Pelosi on this? According to <i>Politico</i>:<br />
<br />
<blockquote>Everyone has an opinion on the grand bargain. But only two matter: Obama’s and Boehner’s. Any deal will ultimately be hammered out between the two men, whose on-again, off-again relationship is stronger than most people realize.</blockquote>Maybe some Beltway hackery completely took over on that paragraph. Or maybe not. After a strong win by the Democrats in the election three weeks ago, the only person in Congress who matters in a deal to cut benefits on Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid is ... the House leader of the loser party?<br />
<br />
<blockquote>Bluster aside, both know they have a heavy incentive to cut a deal, and quick. Boehner knows the president isn't bluffing on letting the Bush tax cuts lapse to get his way on raising rates on the rich. Obama knows the last thing he wants at the start of a second term is an economic funk caused by Washington dysfunction, even if Republicans get more of the blame.<br />
<br />
People involved in the talks over the past six months say House Minority Leader Nancy <b>Pelosi is at best a bit player in the unfolding drama, and virtually certain to back any deal Obama blesses. Reid runs the Senate and has more juice than Pelosi, but he knows his role is to play bad cop until it's time to play loyal soldier to pass the final package.</b> Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, facing a reelection two years from now in conservative Kentucky, will defer to Boehner in brokering any compromise and might even break with his fellow GOP leader on a final vote. [my emphasis]</blockquote>In <i>Politico</i>'s scheme, the voters don't even exist. Reid and Pelosi are far more aware of our existence.<br />
<br />
This sounds like Obama-like postpartisanship:<br />
<br />
<blockquote>To those involved in the talks, it/s not really a mystery how big the overall hike will be. Boehner was for $800 billion before the election, and Obama slapped down an opening bid of $1.6 trillion after. So it doesn't take Ernst and Young to add those numbers, divide by two and know the president wants to end up close to $1.2 trillion.</blockquote>Except that, you know, we just had a big Presidential and Congressional election. One side won big-time, the other lost.<br />
<br />
And since Obama has repeatedly said he is only "asking the wealthiest Americans to pay a little more" in the tax part of the deal, everyone has reason to wonder about the following:<br />
<br />
<blockquote>Officials familiar with the White House position say Obama plans zero flexibility on his insistence on a higher tax rate for top earners. He plans to take what one aide called a "trust but verify" position: He will insist on a higher rate in the year-end deal. Then next year, during tax-reform negotiations, "the onus will be on Republicans to propose something that raises the same amount of revenue,” the aide said. "He's going to pocket their rate hike on the top two brackets at first, and then he’s going to say to them in the 2013 process that we set up: If you think you can realize these same revenues in a different way, prove it to me."</blockquote>Tags: <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/austerity+economics" rel="tag" target="_blank">austerity economics</a>, <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/barack+obama" rel="tag" target="_blank">barack obama</a>, <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/fiscal+cliff" rel="tag" target="_blank">fiscal cliff</a>, <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/grand+bargain" rel="tag" target="_blank">grand bargain</a>, <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/medicaid" rel="tag" target="_blank">medicaid</a>, <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/medicare" rel="tag" target="_blank">medicare</a>, <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/social+security" rel="tag" target="_blank">social security</a>Bruce Millerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05022449143502020665noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13208715.post-50831264910975758892012-11-29T11:46:00.000-05:002012-11-29T11:46:03.878-05:00The "fiscal cliff": there's reality and then there's Beltway Village fantasyWhen I was going to the <i>National Memo</i> to read Gene Lyons weekly column, I wound up at the National Journal instead. Which led to discovering and interesting set of contrasts.<br />
<br />
Gene's piece is <a href="http://www.nationalmemo.com/pity-the-poor-plutocrats/">Pity The Poor Plutocrats</a> 11/28/2012, in which he relates the ridiculous spectacle of a courier journalist from CBS News doing a fawning interviewing with Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein. This is one that really needs to be read in full. But what does this leading One Percenter think the country needs to do urgently?<br />
<br />
<blockquote>"You’re going to have to undoubtedly do something to lower people’s expectations," he said. "The entitlements, and what people think that they’re going to get, because it’s not going to–they’re not going to get it."<br />
<br />
"Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid?" Pelley asked.<br />
<br />
"Some things," Blankfein said. "... You can go back and you can look at the history of these things, and Social Security wasn’t devised to be a system that supported you for a 30-year retirement after a 25-year career. So there will be certain things…the retirement age has to be changed, maybe some of the benefits have to be affected, maybe some of the inflation adjustments have to be revised."</blockquote>Gene then proceeds to explain how bogus this argument is, aside from how ludicrous it sounds coming from such a messenger:<br />
<br />
<blockquote>Blankfein must think most Americans earn their first paychecks at age 42, retire at 67, and then draw Social Security until age 97.<br />
<br />
The actuarial reality, of course, is that most Americans first go to work during their teens, pay Social Security taxes for 50 years, and then draw benefits for an average of 16 years. Twice the work, half the benefits Blankfein pretended to imagine.</blockquote>But Wall Street would love to take a large cut out of what currently goes into paying payroll taxes to finance the trust funds for Social Security and Medicare.<br />
<br />
The sad contrasting article comes from Major Garrett, former FOX News reporters who just this month became the chief White House correspondent for CBS News, <a href="http://www.nationaljournal.com/columns/all-powers/holiday-hysteria-over-the-fiscal-cliff-may-spur-politicians-to-cut-a-deal-20121127">Holiday Hysteria</a> <i>National Journal</i> 11/27/2012 (w/ update 11/29/2012. Garrett sounds giddy in his admiration for the way opponents of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid are exploiting this phony "fiscal cliff" scare to push their austerity agenda and cut benefits on the programs just named.<br />
<br />
<blockquote>If there is one redeeming feature of the otherwise gutless and indolent sequestration process, it is the underappreciated component of hysteria.<br />
<br />
And this is a good thing. After all, everything else in this great nation’s political tool kit has failed. Governing for governing’s sake is dying, if not dead. Bipartisanship and compromise as legislative art forms are more lost than Jon Stewart at CPAC. And politics as a means of comprehending and responding to economically transformational technologies has never been our strong suit (See: Gilded Age, the)—it’s just worse and more dangerous now.<br />
<br />
So, hysteria is all we’ve got left. The politicians want it and need it to cut a fiscal-cliff deal.</blockquote>Is Garrett completely out of it and really believes what he's writing, or is he just reflexively parroting Washington Beltway conventional wisdom? Where Gene Lyons explains to his readers early on that the so-called fiscal cliff is "the latest phony, made-for-TV Washington melodrama," Garrett has the following to say:<br />
<br />
<blockquote>Washington, if it remains paralyzed, will sentence the country to the first premeditated recession not imposed by German bankers (pity the Greeks) in the history of Western civilization.<br />
<br />
America won’t stand for it. Not this time. The hair-trigger loathing of Congress is real. President Obama, though reelected, has no hope of a second-term legacy of immigration reform, tax reform, or climate-change legislation (if he even wants it) if he drives the nation off the cliff.</blockquote>And who's really hot for the big deal? Garrett is much closer to reality on that score:<br />
<br />
<blockquote>... Republicans and their backers in business crave a big deal. They’ve held off the higher tax revenue wave as long as possible. They will trade it for entitlement savings and less-aggressive defense cuts. U.S. Chamber of Commerce President Tom Donohue met on Monday with Obama’s top economic advisers in sessions that Donohue’s allies describe as “very constructive.” Donohue wants a grand bargain and may be asked to provide political cover to Republicans who support raising taxes. John Engler, head of the Business Roundtable, got similarly good vibrations from White House meetings on Monday. Together, the two business groups could provide more political cover than Chris Christie’s fleece.</blockquote>But it's unusually hard to tell what the various players are doing with their positioning in this "fiscal cliff" farce. President Obama is also hyping the sense of panic over what is not a crisis situation except in Washington's staging of it. Robert Reich observes of the current moment in these negotiations (<a href="http://robertreich.org/post/36748734666">Bungee-Jumping Over the Fiscal Cliff</a> 11/28/2012) :<br />
<br />
<blockquote>Obama’s only real bargaining leverage comes from the fact that when the Bush tax cuts expire at the end of December, America’s wealthiest will take the biggest hit. The highest marginal income tax rate will rise from 35 to 39.6 percent (for joint filers), and the capital gains rate from 15 to 20 percent.<br />
<br />
This will happen automatically if nothing is done between now and then to change course. It’s the default if Republicans won’t agree to anything else. It’s Obama’s trump card.<br />
<br />
So rather than stoking middle-class fears about the cliff, the White House ought to be doing the opposite – reassuring most Americans they can survive the fall. To utilize his trump card effectively, Obama needs to convince Republicans that the middle class is willing to jump.</blockquote>It has been clear since the debt-ceiling fight in 2011 that Obama wants to make a Grand Bargain to cut benefits on Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid and was willing to hype the deficit crisis to get that in place. Why he is so dedicated to that is another question. It's presumably some combination of bad policy ideas and a vain hope that cutting benefits on Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid would usher in a technocratic dream era of postpartisan harmony.<br />
<br />
Obama seems to be comfortable with the "fiscal cliff" arrangement that was part of the agreement over the debt ceiling. It gives advocates of the Grand Bargain to cut benefits on Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid a chance to jam through drastic changes in a period where the public's attention to the harm being done might not be as intense as other times. Also now, the election results mean that the more Democratic Congress coming in January will likely to be less favorable to cutting benefits for Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid than the current one.<br />
<br />
So Obama is hyping the phony "fiscal cliff" non-crisis big time. And given his famously disastrous negotiating skills shown in the debt-ceiling fight, it's no cause for relief for supporters of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid that Obama is framing his opening demand in the negotiations as "asking the wealthiest Americans to pay a little more." (<a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/11/28/remarks-president-extending-tax-cuts-middle-class">Remarks by the President on Extending Tax Cuts for the Middle Class</a> 11/28/2012)<br />
<br />
Tags: <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/austerity+economics" rel="tag" target="_blank">austerity economics</a>, <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/barack+obama" rel="tag" target="_blank">barack obama</a>, <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/fiscal+cliff" rel="tag" target="_blank">fiscal cliff</a>, <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/grand+bargain" rel="tag" target="_blank">grand bargain</a>, <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/medicaid" rel="tag" target="_blank">medicaid</a>, <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/medicare" rel="tag" target="_blank">medicare</a>, <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/social+security" rel="tag" target="_blank">social security</a>Bruce Millerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05022449143502020665noreply@blogger.com0