Can The Democratic Party Survive An Obama-Boehner Grand Bargain?

The challengers Blue America has endorsed so far this year-- Andrew Hounshell (D-OH), Nick Ruiz (D-FL) and Carl Sciortino (D-MA) for House seats and Ed Markey (D-MA) for an open Senate seat-- have all publicly endorsed the Grayson-Takano No Cuts letter. It states very clearly that "we will vote against any and every cut to Medicare, Medicaid, or Social Security benefits-- including raising the retirement age or cutting the cost of living adjustments that our constituents earned and need."

The most recent signer, this week, was Emanuel Cleaver (D-MO), who joined over two dozen other House Members who are signaling Obama and the House leadership that they will not go along with a Grand Bargain that seeks to balance the budget on the backs of those least able to absorb the hit. This is the actual letter every Democrat in Congress has been asked to sign:

Dear President Obama:

We join millions of Americans in applauding your Inaugural Address declaration that “we reject the belief that America must choose between caring for the generation that built this country and investing in the generation that will build its future.”

Democrats have built the most popular government programs in American history-- including Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security-- by working with Republicans whenever possible and by defeating Republican opposition whenever necessary. The torch has been passed to today’s elected officials, and we must carry it forward boldly.

Voters across the political spectrum oppose cuts to Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security benefits, and we must do whatever it takes to protect these vital benefits from cuts.

That’s why we write to let you know that we will vote against any and every cut to Medicare, Medicaid, or Social Security benefits-- including raising the retirement age or cutting the cost of living adjustments that our constituents earned and need.

We firmly believe that the best way to reduce our deficit and make our economy grow is to create jobs, and we look forward to a returned focus on this core issue.

We also know that there are common-sense reforms that would reduce health-care costs and save taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollars without cutting benefits. If Republicans oppose these reforms, and insist on benefits cuts, that proves they are not concerned about the deficit – but instead are trying to tear the social safety net and cause pain for our constituents who can least absorb it.

Finally, Americans agree that there is more that must be done to require the rich and giant corporations to pay their fair share. Indeed, it is their patriotic duty to do so.

As you negotiate with Republicans, you deserve to know that millions of Americans and the below signed Members of Congress stand ready to fight for the principles listed above.

So far the only ones who have signed it are Corrine Brown (D-FL), Matt Cartwright (D-PA), Kathy Castor (D-FL), Lacy Clay (D-MO), Emanuel Cleaver (D-MO), John Conyers (D-MI), Danny Davis (D-IL), Pete DeFazio (D-OR), Keith Ellison (D-MN), Alan Grayson (D-FL), Gene Green (D-TX), Raul Grijalva (D-AZ), Luis Gutierrez (D-IL), Alcee Hastings (D-FL), Mike Honda (D-CA), Marcy Kaptur (D-OH), Barbara Lee (D-CA), Stephen Lynch (D-MA), Carolyn Maloney (D-NY), Ed Markey (D-MA), Jim McGovern (D-MA), Jerry Nadler (D-NY), Grace Napolitano (D-CA), Rick Nolan (D-MN), Jose Serrano (D-NY), Mark Takano (D-CA), Nydia Velázquez (D-NY), and Maxine Waters (D-CA). It's difficult to imagine endorsing any incumbent who breaks the precepts of the letter-- whether they sign it or they don't.

Shamus Cooke cuts right to the chase in a CounterPunch exposé of the Obama-Boehner Grand Bargain. He certainly doesn't cut Obama-- or the Democrats-- any slack whatsoever. Are the Democrats, in his view, any better than the Republicans? It doesn't appear so.

Essentially the Grand Bargain is a bi-partisan plan that does two things: 1) reduces the national deficit by cutting so-called “entitlement programs” (Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, education, etc.) and 2) raises revenue via taxation (not necessarily from the wealthy and corporations).

Does this make Obama a treacherous renegade of the Democratic Party? Not quite.

Many Democrats are leading the attack on popular “entitlement” programs erected under Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s New Deal (Social Security) and enhanced by Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society programs (Medicare). These are the bedrock social programs of the modern Democratic Party. But even bedrock turns into quicksand over time. The Democrats of today have been radically transformed, thanks to a monsoon of corporate cash that has eroded the parties affiliation to its past.

...But what about the progressive caucus Democrats in the House of Representatives? They too are complicit in the crimes of the corporate Blue Dog Democrats. For example, you would be hard pressed to find even the most progressive Democrat publicly denounce Obama’s scheming to cut Social Security and Medicare; instead, these progressive Democrats spend their time pointing out the obvious — that Republicans would like to cut these popular programs.

This type of distraction provides vital political cover for Obama to continue his right wing policies. The progressive caucus thus minimizes or ignores the sins of its leadership, guaranteeing that the rightward drift of the Democrats will continue.

It’s true that the progressive caucus released a progressive budget as an alternative to the Republican’s-- and Obama’s-- budget. But this budget has no chance of being passed, and progressive caucus Democrats have no intention of building a movement that might give life to such a budget, since it would make their leadership look bad and divide their party.

At the end of the day the progressive Democrats will fall in line with the Democratic leadership, as they typically do. If Obama needs the votes, the progressives will cough them up.

...[P]rogressive caucus complicity was also noted recently by Norman Solomon, (a longtime associate of the media watch group Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting) who noticed that curiously little progressive caucus members had signed onto a letter that pledged to vote against any budget that included cuts to Social Security and Medicare. The political winds have shifted to the right, and the progressives would like to stay Democrats, which now means supporting cuts to Social Security and Medicare.

This wouldn’t be a surprise to anyone who had read the recent article by John Stauber, who traced the origins of the “Progressive Movement,” which was set up by the rich Democrats who lead the party, as a way to counteract the Republicans media savvy. The point of the Progressive Movement and progressive Democrats is not to change society, but to beat Republicans in elections by creating the appearance of a groundswell of support for Democratic Party policies.

At the end of the day a so-called progressive Democrat is still a Democrat, and the Democratic Party has re-made its image to reflect the interests of its new big donors from Wall Street, who now feel as comfortable buying Democrats as they do purchasing a Republican politician.

Both Republicans and Democrats know that a Grand Bargain comes with gigantic political risks, most notably political suicide, since the party that cuts Social Security and Medicare will earn the hatred of 99% of Americans. Their ingenious answer is to blame each other. The progressive Democrats and Tea Party Republicans who stand on the sidelines during this fiasco-- without taking any real action to stop it-- stand to benefit from the outcome, and will loudly denounce the treachery post-treachery, their own names remaining unbesmirched.

But the majority of people in the U.S. will see through such blatant opportunism, and will trust neither party again. The far right will thus rush to organize a new political party, while the labor and community groups supporting the Democrats will either do the same or continue hitching their fortunes to a flagship sinking to the bottom of the ocean.

There is no mistake a Democrat can make bigger than doing any harm to Social Security or Medicare. And the Republicans know it-- and will lead them down the path to get Obama and fools in Congress to not just commit political suicide but to wreck the Democratic Party the way the GOP has been wrecked. If there's one Democrat who can be counted on to not sell out to the corporate interests, it's Nick Ruiz. This morning, he told us "This is certainly the heart of the matter, no? Corporations have a role to play in a healthy society, it is true. And it should start with corporate social responsibility. But not like this. Not by simply buying their way into every conversation and political party, then demanding that their will be done. It's a very different society than the one we envision as a representative democracy that allows itself to become the by-product of a tiny fraction of profiteering interests. There are monarchies and plutocracies elsewhere in the world, with differing respective cultures and business to conduct in relation to their citizens and domestic collective of contemporary mores, tolerances and desires. American Democrats, on the other hand, are supposed to advance the progressive tradition of social justice-- where are they? What has become of them?"