"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying the cross."
-- Sinclair Lewis
Wednesday, October 07, 2015
Did Obama Just Doom Joe Biden's Candidacy?
>
by Gaius Publius
Recently, in writing about the newly-opened TPP issue — yes, it's about to be finalized, initialed and voted on — I said that three of the four major candidates had known positions. Trump and Sanders are strongly opposed (or so Trump says), and Biden is reportedly in favor. Clinton, the last candidate to declare her position, is going to be forced to make her views known soon, since she has tied her delay to the fact that the final text is unavailable. That's about to change.
In this piece, I want to look at Biden more closely. The evidence I had seen for Biden's TPP support — other than his history as a strongly pro-business "centrist" — is this, from Oliver Knox:
For those wondering (@armandodkos), Biden aide tells me: "The Vice President supports the TPP agreement and will help pass it on the hill."
Now, thanks to Dave Johnson at OurFuture.org, we have more. Johnson writes:
Can Biden Run For President With TPP Around His Neck?
Vice President Joe Biden is considering a run for president. But Biden is currently working behind the scenes to push the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), which most (if not all) core Democratic-aligned groups will likely oppose. Can Biden run for president as a Democrat after pushing TPP on us?
While TPP is being negotiated in secret, some parts of it have leaked. This limited information indicates that TPP is another “NAFTA-style” corporate-dominated agreement, designed to elevate corporations above government, limit the ability of citizens to make laws and regulations that protect them from corporate harms and scams, and to force wages down so a few executives and “investors” can pocket the wage differential.
Autos And Parts, For Example
One (only one) example of the “NAFTA-style” damage that TPP might do is a provision that actually weakens the limited protections NAFTA granted to auto and parts manufacturers.
Under NAFTA, auto companies and parts suppliers in countries in the agreement were given a level of tariff-free status through “content requirements.” But, according to leaks, in TPP the U.S. is actually pushing for lowered content requirements for cars and auto parts. (I explained the details in “TPP Terms Are Even Worse For U.S. Than NAFTA?“) This means China can get that business through Japan, which will force
layoffs of workers and closures of factories. This is just one example of how TPP is actually even worse for American (and Canadian and Mexican) workers than NAFTA was.
Johnson lists many more examples, then returns to Biden:
Biden Active In Pushing TPP
Biden does not just happen to be in an administration that is pushing TPP; he is working hard to push TPP himself.
Prime Minister Shinzo Abe and U.S. Vice President Joe Biden agreed Tuesday that the two countries will cooperate to conclude talks on a Pacific free trade initiative this week, both governments said.
Biden and Abe agreed that their negotiating teams for the Trans-Pacific Partnership would work closely together “with the goal of resolving the limited number of outstanding issues at the upcoming ministers meeting in Atlanta,” according to the White House.
… A Japanese official who attended the meeting quoted Biden as saying that the 12 countries engaged in TPP talks should strike a deal on this opportunity.
[...]
Can Biden Run As A Democrat After Pushing TPP?
There are some things that a candidate in the Democratic primaries just can’t do. A Democrat can’t be for cutting Social Security or Medicare when “the base” wants candidates who are in favor of expanding it. A Democrat can’t be in favor of cutting taxes for the billionaires and corporations.
A Democrat can’t be in favor of doing things that hurt the environment and increase the threat of climate change, such as building the Keystone Pipeline.
Those are some of the third rails for the kind of Democrats who are active, informed and vote in primaries. But in the next year – assuming TPP is even half as bad for 99 percent of us that leaks have indicated it is – TPP will be the third rail of all third rails. The one thing certain to kill the chances of being nominated as the Democratic presidential candidate is not being out there on the front lines fighting tooth and nail to stop TPP. Because of this, Joe Biden is not a Democrat who can run for president in 2016 and win the nomination.
I think Joe Biden is caught. His boss has tossed a trade "agreement" (remember, it's not a treaty) into the political process at the worst possible time — for everyone but Obama himself. Biden has whipped for Fast Track, actively. Will he whip for or against TPP when it comes up for a vote?
The Timing Is Against the Pro-TPP Candidates
Keep the timing in mind. As soon as Obama initials a final draft and signals his "intent to sign," the legislative clock starts ticking. Obama has 30 days to make the draft public, and Congress has at least 90 days for debate, but not much more, before it can or must vote. Fast Track means that after 90 days, the bill must move expeditiously through the House and Senate. Public Citizen figures that roughly 4½ months after the draft is initialed, we could see a vote.
If a final draft is initialed on November 1, it will be public on December 1. There's a Democratic debate scheduled for December 19 — the Saturday before Christmas — which means everyone on stage will be forced to comment on it in each other's presence. Ninety days from November 1 is February 1 (roughly). The Iowa caucus is February 1, and the New Hampshire primary is February 9.
Obama could delay a congressional vote by delaying the date he declares his "intent to sign." That might help a waffling Democratic candidate, if there is one, until the field is clear — after Super Tuesday, say, when Clinton hopes to deliver a knockout blow to Sanders — but it won't help Joe Biden. Unlike any of the other candidates, he's part of the administration. He'll therefore certainly be asked his opinion on TPP well ahead of a vote. What are his choices? He can say:
"I like it" and sink himself with Democrats.
"I don't like it" and sink himself with Obama.
"I'm not sure" ... and sink himself with Democrats and Obama.
Anything but a full-voiced Yes from Biden could threaten passage of the bill, and this administration, including Obama very very personally, wants TPP to pass badly. I think we can therefore say, based on what we know now, that Biden's presidential bid, if it ever existed, is over. Thanks to his boss, the timing, and thanks to TPP.
I haven't looked at Clinton and TPP very closely, since in the near term she's delaying judgment. Looking back through the decades until roughly a year or so ago, though, I think many of us are well aware of Clinton's fairly obvious support. Still, she could do with TPP what she did with Keystone and gay marriage — find that being wrong on these issues, in this year, is a bridge too far for a 2016 Democrat.
But like Biden, Clinton has the same three choices, and this deserves some thought. Don't consider what her choice might mean relative to Obama. Consider what her choice might mean relative to TPP passing Congress. What if she waffles, and Sanders is still in the race? Does TPP pass while her candidacy fails? What if she's opposed, and the bill has yet to be voted on? Does TPP fail while she stays viable?
I know what I'd like her to do, but that's all I do know. Interesting problem.
One more sign that Bernie Sanders is ready and willing to take up the "Warren mantle" as a presidential candidate. If Warren were a candidate, she'd be taking Obama apart over TPP and the Nike visit, the way she's taken him to task as a senator. Enter Bernie Sanders, candidate for the Democratic nomination, taking Obama apart over TPP and the Nike visit.
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) is calling upon President Obama to cancel his plans to visit Nike's corporate headquarters this week as part of the White House's push to drum up support for a major new trade agreement.
Sanders said the shoe giant, which has moved many of its manufacturing jobs to cheaper markets overseas, only epitomizes how previous trade deals "have failed American workers."
In a letter sent to Obama Wednesday afternoon and obtained by the Los Angeles Times, the self-identified socialist, who is now running for president as a Democrat, says the proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership, or TPP, would only boost Nike's profits while doing nothing to increase manufacturing jobs here.
"While manufacturing may not be the most glamorous job, I'm sure that there are workers across America, from Baltimore to Los Angeles to Vermont to Ferguson, who would be more than happy to be paid $15-$20 an hour to manufacture the Nike products they buy," Sanders wrote.
Sanders sure looks like he's stepping up to the plate. If you want to thank him, consider a donation. He can use all the support you can give him.
Nike? Really?
All you need to know — Nike was Sweatshop Central, the poster corporation for using cheap Asian labor to make their founder, Phil Knight, obscenely wealth, until they were told that the sweatshop story was tarnishing "their brand." So they announced they were "instituting controls." Have they instituted real controls? Make your best guess, but there may be clues in the John Oliver video here.
In the meantime President Obama, all the money-bought Republicans, and all his billionaire buddies really want TPP, the next NAFTA, passed by Congress. It's a battle, though, so Obama is going to Nike headquarters — Nike? really? — to promote TPP and Fast Track.
No one on the progressive side of the fence, meaning no real progressive, wants this deal to pass. According to Dave Johnson, "no one" includes all of these groups:
Every Democrat [well, almost], every Progressive, every labor union [literally], over 2,000 advocacy organizations, faith groups, health groups, democracy groups, consumer groups, LGBT groups, immigrant rights groups, consumer groups, everyone who has had their job moved out of the country, everyone afraid their job will be moved out of the country, every company that wants to manufacture and/or do things in America, collectively known as We the People.
That's almost everyone on our side of the fence. You'd think that would be Mr. Obama's side of the fence as well — he's a Democratic president, remember — but he's apparently over the fence and with the Republicans on this one.
Sanders Takes a Stand. Where's Clinton?
So it's up to the Democratic candidates, it seems, to stand with Democratic voters on TPP. Sanders has weighed in, and forcefully. What's Hillary Clinton's stand on TPP? The last story I read says her team wants the issue to just go away. Literally:
Clinton Campaign Chairman On Trade Deal: 'Can You Make It Go Away?'
... At a closed-door gathering of wealthy progressive donors in April, Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta was asked how the campaign would deal with the issue.
"Can you make it go away?" Podesta replied jokingly, according to sources in the room at the time. His quip was an acknowledgement that the Trans-Pacific Partnership is a thorny political issue, but he didn't elaborate on Clinton's stance.
I don't think Team Clinton will get that wish. Mainly because Barack Obama, Clinton's former boss, seems to want TPP more than he wants the Democratic Party to win the next election. Or so it seems.
In covering the TPP battle between President Obama and the CEO class on the one side, and most of the rest of the country on the other, I've noted that the Tea Party right is as opposed as the "professional" left. (My own TPP coverage is collected here.)
Now comes more evidence of that. Let's start with The Hill (h/t Dave Johnson; my emphasis throughout):
Trade vote stirs angst on the right
Trade legislation is sowing discord among Senate Republicans that could make it tougher than expected to pass fast-track trade authority and the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP).
While much of the attention in the trade fight has focused on the divide between President Obama and liberal Democrats, Republican leaders are facing dissent within their own caucus because of currency manipulation and immigration concerns.
“The polling is bad, and some people are getting nervous,” said a GOP senator who requested anonymity to talk about his conversations with colleagues.
Senate Republicans are looking for political cover to vote for trade promotion authority (TPA) legislation, which would empower Obama to negotiate the TPP — a trade pact with 11 nations — that could not be amended or filibustered in Congress.
Potential Republican “no” votes on the bill include Sens. Jeff Sessions (Ala.), Lindsey Graham (S.C.), Richard Burr (N.C.) and Shelley Moore Capito (W.Va.).
There are 54 Republican senators, one of whom (Richard Burr, listed above) is likely to vote No on the floor since he voted No in the Finance Committee. If all four Republicans listed above vote No and support the filibuster — where the threshold is 60 votes — the Democrats will need to find ten votes at least to pass Fast Track in the Senate. We already know there are 7 Democratic votes for Fast Track, based on their Yes votes in committee:
Ten to 15 Senate Democrats are expected to vote for the fast-track bill, which means Republican leaders can only afford to lose fewer than 10 caucus members.
“I think it’s going to be tight,” said Sen. John Boozman (R-Ark.), who is leaning in favor of voting yes because the farm community supports the legislation.
Republican senators say Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and his leadership team have begun to count votes, a sign that they’re not taking passage of the measures for granted.
“It could be a problem depending on how few Democrats vote for it. The president has to step up and work it,” said another GOP senator, who requested anonymity to discuss his party’s whip count.
If the Republicans are down to 50 Yes votes, they'll need 10 Democrats in order to break the filibuster. If no more than 15 Democrats vote with the CEOs and the multinational corporations, Republicans can only lose another five votes:
Democratic aides say the final number of Democratic yeses is unlikely to exceed 15.
“It’s possible that more than half of the yes votes already voted for it in committee,” said a senior Democratic aide.
It's going to be tight, and pressure is building on both parties from their so-called "base":
While the trade deals are popular with the business community, they are controversial among the conservative base in states — such as Ohio, Illinois, Wisconsin, North Carolina and South Carolina — where Republican incumbents are running for reelection next year.
“Why would any Republican give President Obama more authority?” said Ed Martin, president of Eagle Forum, a conservative advocacy group.
Let's look at the Republican opposition more closely.
Republicans in Congress can read polls and letters from their constituents as well as Democrats, and they, as most Democrats already have done, are starting to realize that it might not be wise to rubber-stamp the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and the rigged fast track trade promotion authority process that will be used to pre-approve it. The tea party and the right generally are starting to ramp up their own opposition.
In support, he offers this. First, 87% of Republicans oppose Fast Track:
I noted in the recent post “A Look At The Fast Track Bill Shows It’s The Wrong Thing To Do” that polls show that many conservatives are opposed to fast track and the TPP, and that in Congress, “many ‘Constitution-based’ Tea Party Republicans are opposed to it.” Those polls show that “Republicans overwhelmingly oppose giving fast-track authority to the president (8 percent in favor, 87 percent opposed), as do independents (20 percent-66 percent).”
Americans for Limited Government, a conservative group founded by wealthy activist Howard Rich, will begin radio ads in New Hampshire on Thursday, calling on Sens. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), Rand Paul (R-Ky.) and Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) to oppose the fast-track legislation moving through Congress. All three senators are running for the 2016 Republican presidential nomination.
“Congress is getting ready to give Obama more power, just when we’re getting ready to choose his replacement,” the ad says. “If Congress gives Obama fast-track power, he’ll use it to write more regulations for our economy -- for the entire world. Rules that the next president won’t be able to change.”
Note that "next president" objection in the last line above. If that "next president" is Hillary Clinton, she'll have Fast Track power as well for any trade deal she wants to gin up. See what I mean by a bipartisan rejection of Fast Track? Only the money-bought want it, and I think I mean that literally.
Also, note those names listed above — Republican Sens. Cruz, Paul and Rubio. If all three decide to vote No, the Republican Yes votes fall to 47, and 13 Democratic Yes votes will be needed. Are there 13 Democratic Yes votes for Fast Track? You can help with that.
It's Going to Be Close
It's going to be close and also interesting. I personally think Ron Wyden should lose his job over his role in this, regardless of what happens. But that's for later (though you can always click here, give him a little call, and offer a little piece of your mind, especially if you vote in Oregon).
For now though, lobby your senators hard — both Democrats and Republicans. Senate phone numbers here. Call them both; you will never know until afterward who was about to fold and say No to Fast Track. This can still be won.
Can Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders And Sherrod Brown Stop The TPP?
>
Fox Business host Melissa Francis yesterday: "Without question, Elizabeth Warren is the devil"
Last week we looked at the growing opposition within the Democratic Party to the corporate trade policies-- particularly the Trans Pacific Partnership-- Obama is teaming up with McConnell and Boehner to ram through the Republican-controlled Congress next year. Alan Grayson called the TPP "the final nail in the coffin of the middle class in this country." Rosa DeLauro (D-CT), whose husband worked to pass NAFTA and whose tenant-- Rahm Emanuel-- is credited with getting it through the House, said "Enough is enough: no more offshoring, no more NAFTA-style trade deals." As we explained last week, the TPP represents a tradition of trade deals that are organized to wreck the bargaining power of ordinary Americans versus the bargaining power of Wall Street predators. Other deals like this include the Columbia free trade deal, which was paired with a commitment by the Columbia government to stop the killing of unionists (which has not stopped), and the deal with Panama, which was paired with a commitment by the Panamanian government to stop being a tax haven for anonymous flows of cash (which they have not). The administration knows all of this. But for them, the TPP is not really about economics, but geopolitics. The administration wants to use the TPP as leverage against China. Though China is a real threat to the U.S., and it picks off our industrial base strategically, the TPP is a dumb counter to China's growing power in the Pacific (and in the U.S.). NAFTA-style deals that prioritize a low cost and risky supply chain at the expense of genuine stability of our industrial systems cannot work to make the world safer. They are designed to do the opposite. If the government wanted to stop China, it could start by stopping the Chinese from supplying electronic components to U.S. military subcontractors. But that's not happening. Instead you have the TPP. Then Wednesday David Nakamura picked up the thread for the Washington Post by focussing on another source of opposition: Elizabeth Warren. And she was right in her wheelhouse, addressing fears that by bargaining away U.S. sovereignty the TPP "could erode U.S. financial safeguards designed to prevent future financial crises." Tammy Badwin (D-WI) and Ed Markey (D-MA), neither of whom tried to help her stop the derivatives deregulation in the CRomnibus last week, both signed on to Warren's letter to U.S. Trade Representative Michael Froman. "We cannot afford," they wrote. "a trade deal that undermines the government’s ability to protect the American economy."
In her letter, Warren raises concerns that the deal could include provisions that would allow foreign companies to challenge U.S. policies before a judicial panel outside the domestic legal system, increasing exposure of American taxpayers to potential damages. She also objects to potential provisions that she said would grant foreign companies access to U.S. markets without being subject to restrictions on “predatory or toxic financial products” and that would restrict the U.S. government’s ability to impose capital controls, such as transaction taxes, on international firms.
Here's the full letter Warren, Markey and Baldwin sent to Froman. But Obama and the Republicans teamed up against Warren in the CRomnibus battle-- and they beat her, bringing forth a horrendous conglomeration of devastating conservative ideas-- from dangerous Wall Street deregulation that puts the taxpayers at serious risk to goving college scholarship money to predatory lenders and to chopping off the legs of the EPA... and then there's the very bipartisan concept of given multimillionaires even more power over the electoral process than they had before. Wednesday, writing at Huff Po, Dave Johnson says Big Business/Wall Street forces and the politicians they own will use their CRomnibus game plan as a way to beat progressives on the TPP.
It is worth examining how the process was rigged to push that budget deal through Congress over the weekend that contained Citibank-written derivative deregulation and all kinds of other goodies for the rich and powerful. That's because the "cromnibus" formula will be formalized in the next big deal, in a process called "fast track." Congress passed the "cromnibus" (continuing resolution for omnibus budget) right at the deadline for another government shutdown. (After they extended the deadline, actually.) The budget contained a Citibank-written provision that undoes some Dodd-Frank Wall Street regulations. It authorizes a cut in many people's pensions by up to 60 percent, severely cuts the IRS budget and its ability to collect taxes, dramatically expanded the ability of big money to influence elections, reduced the EPA's authority, and included many other provisions that could not have passed in the light of day. This budget "deal" was pushed through Congress using a rigged process that kept representative democracy from stopping it. What lessons can we learn from the way the "Citibank" provisions in the budget deal were pushed through? How do these lessons apply to the next big fight? Fast Track: The Next Big Fight The next big fight in Congress will be about getting the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) passed. TPP is a huge "trade" agreement that goes far, far beyond what most people understand as trade. The TPP is currently being negotiated in secret, using a process designed from the start to end up with a corporate-favoring agreement. We know from leaks-- and from the results of other "NAFTA-style" agreements-- that the agreement elevates corporations above the laws of sovereign countries. TPP will prioritize the profits of giant, multinational corporations over the rule of law. For example, TPP will allow tobacco companies to sue governments for implementing anti-smoking initiatives-- and those suits will be heard in corporate courts, with corporate lawyers acting as the judges. After the budget, Congress' will push to pass "fast track" legislation, to grease the skids for the TPP. Fast track trade promotion authority rigs the legislative process, essentially pre-approving "trade" deals like TPP before they are even finalized-- before members of Congress even know what is in the treaties. Fast track is an extremely unusual legislative process that only applies to trade deals. With fast track, Congress agrees to set aside its constitutional duty to carefully review (and fix) trade deals. Among other things, Congress agrees not to amend the agreement, not to filibuster it and gives itself only 90 days after first seeing the agreement to approve the agreement. The argument for doing this is that it keeps Congress from "meddling" with the secretly negotiated agreement-- a process otherwise known as "democracy" and "transparency." Fast Track Formalizes Rigged Process That Passed CRomnibus Look at what happened with the budget. A massive, 1,600-page budget deal was negotiated in secret, and announced 51 hours before the shutdown deadline. The debate was about stopping a shutdown, instead of what was in the bill. (Democrats who voted for the Citibank Budget were held up as heroes for averting a shutdown.) Congress had to vote on it right away, or the government would shut down. There was no time for Congress to even read the 1,600-page agreement, let alone fix anything. There certainly was very little time to rally opposition to items in the agreement. Here are the lessons learned about how to rig a legislative process: ● Control who is at the table. The deal was negotiated with Republican House and Senate Democrat leaders. It is significant that Minority Leader Pelosi was not at cromnibus negotiating table. ● Leave little time to analyze the consequences. The 1,600-page deal was "announced" at the last minute. By the time the public began to learn what was in it, Congress was all ready to vote. ● Make it about the deadline. The deal was announced only 51 hours before the shutdown deadline. The debate was about "Will they shut down the government?" instead of "Will they vote against the Citibank provisions?" ● Allow special interests served by the deal time to prepare push-through strategy in advance. Supporters will have their forces lined up before the opposition even knows what's coming. Every step of the way, pro-democracy forces faced an uphill battle, not even knowing there was a battle until almost the last second. ● Make it all or nothing. With the budget battle they couldn't take the Citibank and other bad provisions out without killing the entire "deal" and starting over. The TPP process already rigs the negotiations by controlling who is at the negotiating table. With fast track, Congress actually agrees to make this rigged process into a formal legislative process that essentially pre-approves trade agreements. With fast track Congress agrees: ● To vote within 90 days of first seeing what is in the agreement. This means there is little time to read and analyze what is in the agreement. It gives opposition no time to reach the public, explain what is in the agreement and rally their forces. It makes the vote on the agreement about meeting the deadline, not about what is in the agreement. ● Not to amend or otherwise try to fix the resulting agreement in any way. Congress votes on whether to "make or break" the agreement, and not about what's in the agreement, or how to make it better. ● Not to filibuster the agreement. Even though there have been well over 400 filibusters since President Obama took office, with fast track Congress agrees in advance to surrender the filibuster. Senators who actually have time to read and understand the agreement will not be able to delay a vote, to buy time to get the word out to potential opposition. The big corporations are gearing up right NOW to launch a massive PR campaign when TPP is ready. They are planning it NOW, and will spend millions to ramp up the pressure. It will be on the scale of the "run up" PR campaign to launch the Iraq war. But potential opponents will only see the treaty after it is done. Ninety days is not enough time to read it, evaluate it, analyze the potential consequences of obscure provisions, and then if necessary to get the word out to rally forces and build public pressure against it. So passing fast track is really about pre-approving TPP, before they ever even see what is in TPP. Just like how we didn't know what was in the cromnibus until it was too late to do anything about it.
Harry Reid, Tax Extender Basics, And A Suggestion For Senate Progressives
>
by Gaius Publius Two of the most interesting lame duck battles are shaping up in the Senate. The first is the nomination of Antonio Weiss for an under-secretary job at Treasury. His nomination is strongly opposed by Elizabeth Warren and others. For more, see here (me on Warren), here (The Nation on Warren), here (Howie Klein on the pushback) and here (me on the pushback, plus some soothing music). The second is the battle over end-of-the-year "tax extenders" (extensions of tax breaks that expire each year). Consider this a backgrounder so you won't have to play catch-up when the December flies start hitting the ointment. I'll also consider whose flies are playing in this multi-sided game, and offer a simple suggestion to Senate progressives — if you play a strong hand, you won't do worse than playing a weak one. Opening Salvo in the Liberal Press The public fuss among progressives started, it seems to me, when Igor Volsky penned a strong piece at ThinkProgress called:
Congress Poised To Eliminate Key Tax Breaks For Middle Class, Provide Permanent Tax Breaks For Corporations
You can bet that got progressives' attention. In it he says:
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) has reached a compromise with House Republicans on a package of tax breaks that would permanently extend relief for big multinational corporations without providing breaks for middle or lower-income families, individuals with knowledge of the deal tell ThinkProgress. Under the terms of the $444 billion agreement, lawmakers would phase out all tax breaks for clean energy and wind energy but would maintain fossil fuel subsidies. Expanded eligibility for the Earned Income Tax Credit and the Child Tax Credit would also end in 2017, even though the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities estimates that allowing the provisions to expire would push “16 million people in low-income working families, including 8 million children into — or deeper into — poverty.” The proposal would help students pay for college by making permanent the American Permanent Opportunity Tax Credit, a Democratic priority. Meanwhile, two-thirds of the package would make permanent tax provisions that are intended to help businesses, including a research and development credit, small business expensing, and a reduction in the S-Corp recognition period for built-in gains tax. The costs of the package will not be offset.
A lot to unpackage, and a lot to hate if true:
▪ "permanently extend" corporate tax breaks ▪ "phase out all tax breaks" for clean energy ▪ "maintain fossil fuel subsidies" (!) ▪ expand some "Democratic priorities" ▪ the cost "will not be offset"
Also, two more pieces — Reid is painted as the perp, and Volsky's source is "individuals with knowledge of the deal". What to make of this? Progressive Pushback Was Immediate Criticism of the "deal" has come from a number of quarters, and rightly so. Howie Klein wrote this:
tying the battle against the deal both to Reid and to a nascent (and playfully named) "Open Rebellion Caucus" among Warren-style progressives in the Senate:
Sounds more like caving in than compromising, no? ... It should be interesting to watch which Democrats stand with Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, Jeff Merkley, Sherrod Brown and Brian Schatz and which will stand with Reid and the Republicans.
Meanwhile, I'm hearing from other reporters that the Reid people are saying, in effect, "this isn't what it looks like" and noting that the deal was never final. We get indications of that here (emphasis mine):
Immigration politics and Democratic infighting came together to doom the
$400 billion deal even before it had made it into print. The brinksmanship
threatens to disrupt the lives of millions of taxpayers who rely on the
mishmash of expired provisions the plan was trying to revive. ... Interviews with the key players showed that the two tax-writing panels in the
Senate and House had for weeks been making solid progress toward a final tax
package that looked like it would include the breaks for low- and middle-income
people sought by the president. But the deal fell apart just as it seemed to be coming together. The immigration executive order soured the GOP on the tax cuts for the
working poor and middle class sought by Democrats. Republicans worried
undocumented immigrants targeted by the order would begin claiming the
credits in droves. They found a friend in Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid,
who reluctantly agreed to drop his party’s demands to extend expiring parts of
the earned income tax credit (EITC) and its companion, the child tax credit.
In other words, by this telling, also anonymously sourced, Reid, knowing a deal would have to be struck, tried for the best one he could get ... until Republican opposition to executive branch immigration reform came along to ruffle their feathers (see the bolded part above). Then he reluctantly surrendered on the Earned Income credit and the Child Tax credit. Is This a Four-Handed Game? Progressives are rightly upset with the shape of this deal, and the White House has promised a veto. All this raises a bunch of questions:
▪ Who were Volsky's sources? ▪ Who were the sources for the immigration-themed story? ▪ Was Reid doing his progressive best or caving? ▪ Why aren't the Reid people telling their side publicly?
I've been reluctant to write about his myself because there's so much going on behind the scenes. So your first piece of background information is — this could be a four-handed game. If so, these are the players:
Conservative Senate Democrats (i.e., most of them)
Let's leave Reid out of it for now and assume he stands for the best deal he can get (admitting that this is an assumption unverified by publicly available facts). To illustrate what I mean by a "four-handed game," consider the difference in how you'd see this story if you knew Volsky's source was group 2 or group 4. If Volsky is hearing from group 2, Progressive Democrats, painting Reid as the perp helps progressives put Reid in a bind, forcing a maybe-better deal. If Volsky is hearing from group 4, the White House, painting Reid as the perp helps them distance themselves from, let's face it, a deal that the White House — filled as it is with corporate-friendly Democrats — always offers anyway at this time of year, but an even stinkier version of it. I take Volsky as an honest reporter and really like his work. But as he himself makes plain, he's telling someone's story. Whose? We don't know; we'll have to see it played out. So what are these "tax extenders"? And should they all expire? "Tax Extender" Basics This is the second part of your backgrounder — a primer on end-of-year tax extenders — nicely provided by the invaluable Dave Johnson, writing at OurFuture.org. We'll need this information in order to evaluate the deals that emerge (my emphasis below):
Every year Congress renews a package of “temporary” corporate tax breaks. The renewal process is called “tax extenders” because they extend the term of these temporary breaks. So now the Congress is working on this year’s extenders package, except this time it wants to just make many of them (the ones that mostly give handouts to giant corporations and campaign donors) permanent. The Washington Post calls this process “a periodic bonanza for lobbyists.” A few of the special tax breaks in the extenders package are really good and serve an important purpose. For example, part of the package is tax credits that provide incentives to invest in renewable energy. But most others are just giveaways and handouts to the already-wealthy, like depreciation tax breaks for people who own racehorses. (Yes, really.) Even worse, some of these are loopholes that actually encourage corporations to shift U.S. profits offshore into tax havens. (Yes, really.) The good breaks are used to grease the wheels to slip these special favors through – as in “if you want to get those wind tax credits you’re going to have to pass a tax break for Mitt Romney’s racehorses.”
So there you go — a few "good breaks" like renewable energy credits and tax credits for the poor that "grease the wheels" for mega-giveaways (a "bonanza") to corporations. (On the right, this is called the "honey" that catches the flies: us.) Who's getting the better end of this deal? Obviously the rich; they get the better end of every deal. So who really wants their part more? Interesting question and one almost never asked. There's a way to find out though, with almost no downside to our side, and potentially a very large upside. Suggestion to Progressives — Threaten to Let Them All Expire Let's take what Dave Johnson says seriously. Most of these "extenders" are a rich-person's wet dream, and the ones we like are just "grease." So one way to negotiate, the weak way, is to protect as much of the grease as you can while handing the other side everything it wants. This assumes that the grease is so critical that even a little of it is more valuable than everything else you've surrendered. I call this the "weak way" because you end up with less and less grease, while handing a bigger and bigger "bonanza" to the other side in exchange. (This, by the way, is true of real progressives — that the "grease" has value — but merely a cover story for non-progressive Democrats. For the latter, what matters is the "bonanza" that rich people get, and from which they take a cut. Keep that in mind when you consider statements from the White House, for example, which helps bankers far more than desperate mortgage-holders, or from less-than-progressive Senators.) Again, one way to negotiate is from weakness, attempting to stave off total failure by surrendering more and more. But for uncompromised-by-money real progressives, there's another way to negotiate. The fact is — the wet dream part is what this deal is all about, and that dream is critical to each of the other three groups in our four-handed game. Only progressives are opposed to the rich-people's gifts. So, progressives — Merkley, Warren, Reid (are you with us?) and friends — why not play a strong game instead of a weak one? Instead of surrendering almost everything you care about to get the least bit of something, progressives should threaten everything the other side wants and frankly, call their money-loving bluff. The White House wants the rich to have these gifts in their stocking; all Senate Republicans agree; and so does every corporate-loving Democrat (like "sorry for playing hard" Michael Bennet). Make the other side fight for the money, and look like it. Could progressives kill the whole deal if they don't get what they want? If you put me in charge of the Open Rebellion insurgency, I'd try. After all, the entire left press is on your side — consider that Volsky's source could already be Senate progressives. In addition, the issue is hugely visible. And even if you lose, you'll get the best deal possible, not the worst one available. Just say to the other three players:
"Progressives in the Senate stand for working people and those struggling with poverty. The deal on the table is unacceptable in every way. We would rather have no deal than the one on offer. If you want our vote, put the deal on the table in 2014 that we voted for in 2013. That way everyone wins. That or nothing from us."
The White House and less-progressive senators will play the kitten card and complain, "But what about the poor?" You then say:
"We care as much as you do. In fact, we care so much about the poor, we want the best deal possible, not the worst."
"Triangulate this," in other words. The White House has already come out against the size of the "bonanza." This offers them a chance to look even better by siding with you (they've already promised a veto, your own bottom line) — and at the same time, shows them a corner and offers a paint brush if they don't. I think this is worth a test. Progressives who really care about people are always blackmailed — far too successfully in my opinion — with a "kitten held hostage" as I alluded to above. Here the kitten (and believe me, kitten lives are valuable) is a set of tax breaks for the poor and renewable energy credits, items of real value. But the only way to end blackmail is to walk away from it. "Do you love your kitten as much as we love ours? Let's find out. No kitten needs to suffer in this deal." Another Opportunity for Progressives to Play Strong I hear Mr. Reid is a pugilist who likes to play a strong smart hand. Mr. Reid, here's a chance to do that. Ms. Warren, we know what you can do. Mr. Merkley, care to help out? Play a strong hand and you could scare the shinola out of all the other players, the White House included. Yes, progressives care about the poor a whole lot. But count on it — your opponents care about the rich a whole lot more than that. How much more? You could test it; they could be far more vulnerable to your blackmail than you think. Besides, this is one lame duck issue that won't wait until next year, when Democrats lose the majority. They're "end-of-year tax extenders." Good; another positional advantage, a stalemate if nothing happens. My suggestion — go for it. You can't do worse than the deal you were about to get. Mes petits sous, GP
More than two decades ago, House Speaker John Boehner said, he floated an idea that was controversial: Why not privatize the Department of Veterans Affairs? The idea was soundly rejected by veterans’ organizations. Now, in the midst of a sweeping scandal over allegations that government officials falsified reports on how long veterans were waiting for medical treatment, Boehner said yesterday that the idea still has merit. “I still like the idea, and especially now,” he said. He said he doesn’t think that the VA’s funding is the problem. He said there have been “sizable increases” in VA funding in the past 15 years, plus “all kinds of promises that things would be better.” “It’s clear that even with all the additional funds given to them, things have not gotten better; they’ve gotten worse,” he said. “If money were to solve the problem, it would’ve been solved a long time ago.”
Dr. Michael Roizen of the Cleveland Clinic doesn't agree with Boehner. He blames Congress for the problems with the V.A. "[T]he VA's medical leaders of the 90s were so superb that they literally leapfrogged past many of us in the academic and private sectors of medicine to set the standard in quality and in information technology… [M]y guess is that… when these wars were started, our government didn't plan for the VA budget to treat the soldier victims. And Congress still hasn't allocated enough funds to adequately do so." Writing for ThinkProgress last week, Igor Volsky made the point that "While veterans have struggled to gain adequate access to care since the Kennedy administration, plagued by staffing shortages, delays and funding shortfalls, the health services they do receive are the best in the nation. That dynamic has pushed many veterans into a love-hate relationship with the organization they depend on."
“Most veterans are very pleased with the care they receive, but when it comes to standing in line, they do and should rightfully expect to be seen as quickly as possible, especially if the wound, illness or injury could worsen,” Joe Davis, Public Affairs Director for Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW), said. He pointed to the annual Independent Budget, a dream budget published by four leading veteran organizations. It has consistently found that the VA serves as “a model health-care provider that has led the way in various areas of medical research, specialized services, and health-care technology.” It provides “quality and expertise on veterans’ health care” that “cannot be adequately duplicated in the private sector” and has become “the most efficient and cost-effective health-care system in the nation,” the document notes. A 2005 survey from the RAND Corporation similarly found that “VA patients were more likely to receive recommended care” and “received consistently better care across the board, including screening, diagnosis, treatment and follow up.” The VA also outperforms the nation’s health care system in delivering chronic and preventive care, treating diabetes. A 2013 survey released by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs found that 93 percent of veterans who use the VA health care system have a favorable impression of it. A forthcoming independent survey of veterans scheduled to be released next month by Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America (IAVA) will echo that sense.
But don;t expect that to put a crimp in the Republican privatization frenzy. Dave Johnson's OpEd for Nation of Change, debunking the privatization scam is something you should arm yourself with for the inevitable battles with co-workers and brothers-in-law who get their information for Fox and Hate Talk Radio. "For decades," he points out, "we’ve been subjected to constant propaganda that government is inefficient, bureaucratic and expensive. We’re told that the answer is to 'privatize,' or 'outsource' government functions to private businesses and they will do things more efficiently and everyone comes out ahead. As a result we have experienced decades of privatization of government functions. So how has this wave of privatization worked out? Has privatization saved taxpayers money and improved services to citizens? Simple answer: of course not. If a company can make a profit doing something the government had been doing, it means that we’re losing out one way or another. It’s simple math. And the result of falling for the privatization scam is that taxpayers have been fleeced, services to citizens have been cut way back and communities have been made poorer. But the companies that convinced governments to hand over public functions have gotten rich off of the deal. How is this a surprise?" He then offers 5 solid and catastrophic examples. Here are two of them:
Chicago Parking Meters The mother of all privatization horror stories is what happened with Chicago’s parking meters. In 2008 the city “financialized” its parking meter revenue stream. It leased the rights to collect from parking meters to a consortium led by Wall Street bank Morgan Stanley. The lease is for 75 years. Right away parking-meter rates went up fourfold and meters stopped working. The city’s residents were unhappy, but there was nothing they could do about it. But wait, it gets worse. Unsurprisingly, it turns out that the big Wall Street bank was more interested in making money than in giving Chicago the best deal it could. An inspector general looked into the deal and found that the city was shortchanged by at least $974 million. But a 2010 Forbes story says the Morgan Stanley consortium may realize a profit of $9.58 billion after paying Chicago only $1.15 billion. To top it off, the city not only gave up 75 years of revenue for not nearly enough up-front cash, it had signed a contract prohibiting the city from interfering with Morgan Stanley’s ability to profit from the deal. This means the city can’t build parking structures where they are needed and can’t even give out disabled parking permits. The city can’t even close streets to have street fairs or festivals without paying Morgan Stanley for lost meter profits. …Prisons for Profit Imagine a system where someone makes a profit if more and more people are put in prison. This is known as a “perverse incentive.” Really, can you think of anything worse than getting a profit to get people put in jail? What you think could go wrong is exactly what does go wrong. These companies want profits, so rehabilitation becomes a “cost.” These companies push for government policies that put more people into prison for more crimes and for longer sentences. Prison-for-profit companies working with the corporate/right-wing lobbying outfit American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) came up with model legislation pushing things like “three strikes” and “truth in sentencing” which greatly increase the number of prisoners and the amount of time they serve. But the worst part of prison privatization is companies saving on “costs” by cutting back on staff, food quality and you-name it. A 2013 Palm Beach Post investigation found that “dangerously low numbers of corrections officers-- including local guards with criminal backgrounds-- and reports of squalor, rape and riots dog corporate prison operators. …Audits, security reports, lawsuits, government records and state and federal investigations in 21 states unveil a startling pattern of murder, riots and sexual assault at private prisons nationwide. Often, those failures stem from not enough guards.” Nine major riots erupted since 2000. At least 25 inmates died amid claims of mistreatment, inadequate medical care or in riots. Three prisons for teenagers were shuttered between 2000 and 2012 after discoveries of squalor and sex abuse. A women’s prison was emptied after widespread reports of rape by staff. How does this compare to prisons that are not run by private companies for profit? At Florida’s state-run prisons in the same 12-year period: No major damage or severe injuries from riots; no closures over squalor; no Justice Department investigations over human rights. In another example in Mississippi, a private company called the GEO Group ran the Walnut Grove Youth Correctional Facility. The Justice Department spent two years looking into conditions at the facility and issued a report saying the facility engaged in “systemic, egregious and dangerous practices.” A judge wrote the company “has allowed a cesspool of unconstitutional and inhuman acts and conditions to germinate, the sum of which places the offenders at substantial ongoing risk.” A recent In the Public Interest report, The Costs of Private Prisons, says “the promised cost savings often fail to materialize.” The report looked at more than 40 studies of private prisons and how this turned out, in five states. They found “no cost advantage” and that for-profit prison companies, “employ questionable methodology when calculating costs of private facilities. This includes finding ways to hide the costs of private prisons, ensuring that increased costs are not apparent until after the initial contract is signed, and using inflated public prison costs during comparisons.”
Is that giving to stop your Limbaugh-listening brother-in-law? Not, not mine either. And not John Boehner.
Is Wikipedia's real problem really that it's become un-"cool"?
>
by Ken
So Wikipedia has troubles.
No, founder Jimmy Wales isn't talking about passing the hat, at least not just now. He told the AP Thursday ("Wikipedia Says It's Losing Contributors"), during the website's annual conference in Haifa ("attended by some 650 Wikipedia contributors and enthusiasts from 56 countries," including "contributors . . . from Venezuela and Indonesia, though neither country has diplomatic relations with Israel"):"We are not replenishing our ranks. It is not a crisis, but I consider it to be important."
Administrators of the Internet's fifth most visited website are working to simplify the way users can contribute and edit material. "A lot of it is convoluted," Wales said. "A lot of editorial guidelines ... are impenetrable to new users."
Wikipedia has more than 3 million entries but has been marred by subjective entries and pranks. Even so, Wikipedia cites studies that compare the website's accuracy favorably to more conventional encyclopedias, while other studies give it lower marks.
Despite Wikipedia's wide-reaching popularity, Wales said the typical profile of a contributor is "a 26-year-old geeky male" who moves on to other ventures, gets married and leaves the website. Other contributors leave because, 10 years after the website was launched, there are fewer new entries to add, he said.
By March, Wikipedia had about 90,000 active contributors. The goal is to tack on another 5,000 by June of next year, said Sue Gardner, executive director of the nonprofit that runs the website.
Among its steps, Gardner said the nonprofit is expanding a program that encourages university professors to assign the writing of Wikipedia entries to their students, particularly in India, Brazil, Canada, Germany and Britain.
Wikipedia needs to get cool again, somehow. When Wikipedia launched in the early naughts it was attractively subversive -- it pissed off your teachers, journalists and any square over 40, basically. Idealistic young nerds flocked to the site with that early web 2.0 communitarian fervor. But new editors aren't showing up at the same rate. After years at the top result on practically every Google search, Wikipedia has lost its urgency. Kids who were in 8th grade in 2004 have gone through their entire high school and college careers consulting (i.e. plagiarizing) Wikipedia; to them, Wikipedia is a dull black box—editing it seems just a bit more possible than making revisions to Pride and Prejudice.
And Twitter and Facebook have sucked up all the cognitive surplus younger internet users might have once devoted to building up Wikipedia and shattered it into a million fleeting hashtags. Wikipedia should try to somehow harness the new fickle hive mind: Remember when hordes of Beliebers descended on Esperanza Spalding's Wikipedia page and ravaged it after she beat out Justin Bieber for the Grammy? All you've got to do is get 15-year-old girls as interested in, say, Princess Alexandra of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha. Good luck with that, Jimmy Wales!
But maybe Wikipedia's inscrutable "editorial" policies and procedures raise problems other than the interest level of 15-year-olds. Our friend Dave Johnson, one of the sanest as well as smartest people we know, calls attention to a post he wrote for HuffPost in March 2009: "Watch Out for Wikipedia."
Try this: start or edit a Wikipedia article that includes information that might be unfavorable to conservative corporate interests, perhaps in the area of tort reform (incl medical malpractice, etc) or trade/protectionism, etc. Try adding citations to studies that show that tort reform is a corporate-funded effort to keep people from being able to sue companies that harm them... I tried it and it was removed in a few minutes. . . .
Try editing entries covering other issues around trade, economics or corporate issues. See how long it takes before a pro-corporate viewpoint is returned to the article. Or add an article about a progressive organization. I added an article about the Commonweal Institute, and it was immediately removed, so I put another up and it was immediately flagged for removal. (I am working to save it...) An article about me -- put up and edited by others -- was also removed twice. The circumstances involved a professional "leading tort-reform advocate" -- while I'm the person who wrote this report about how the tort reform movement is involved with the corporate/conservative movement. Go figure.
The lesson, clearly, is that there are cadres of right-wing zealots, possibly on someone's payroll, standing "guard" over Wikipedia, pumping it as full as they can get away with with their lies and delusions and making sure that any contrary truths are whipsawed. ("I know of one corporate-funded conservative movement insider who spends much of the normal workday and evenings editing Wikipedia," Dave wrote.)
So it seems the Wikipedia organization may be unable to sufficiently police the site to keep this from happening, and to keep new people from having unpleasant experiences and being shouted down and driven away. There are so many areas of political life where conservatives shout down or intimidate everyone else until they give up and go away. Wikipedia is fast becoming one more.
This has real-world implications. Wikipedia shows up at the top of many if not most Google searches, and people tend to believe this means it is a reliable source. This positioning implies a public-interest responsibility for accuracy and objective presentation of material. On non-controversial topics Wikipedia is a very reliable and possibly the best source for information because over time the "wisdom of crowds" effect brings increased expertise to bear.
But like so many things today, in areas where corporate resources can be focused, the subject matter increasingly reflects the viewpoint that serves the interests of the few at the top. Wikipedia's prominence is the likely reason this conservative information-purging occurs. It is also the reason Wikipedia has a responsibility to do something about it.
Would you guess that the situation has gotten better since 2009? I tend to use Wikipedia mostly for those "non-controversial topics," but even I notice that anytime there's material that could be interpreted as not calculated to gladden the heart of a right-wing zealot, there's controversy -- and that doesn't include situations where there's no visible controversy, where the right-wing moles have calmly and quietly performed their surgeries.
By the way, I found the cartoon at the top of this post (by Wilcox for Australia's The Age, apropos of a scandal in which the Australian PM's office and cabinet were caught scrubbing Wikipedia entries) from a post on the Brisbane Grammar School Library website, "10 Reasons Not to Use Wikipedia for Assignments."
10 good reasons why you should never trust Wikipedia as an accurate source of information: 10. You must never fully rely on any one source for important information
9. You especially can’t rely on something when you don’t even know who wrote it
8. The contributor with an agenda often prevails
7. Individuals with agendas sometimes have significant editing authority
6. Sometimes “vandals” create malicious entries that go uncorrected for month
5. There is little diversity among editors
4. The number of active Wikipedia editors has flat-lined
3. It has become harder for casual participants to contribute
2. Accurate contributors can be silenced
And the number one reason:
1. It says so on Wikipedia
"Wikipedia says, "We do not expect you to trust us." It adds that it is “not a primary source” and that “because some articles may contain errors,” you should “not use Wikipedia to make critical decisions.”
Furthermore, Wikipedia notes in its “About” section, “Users should be aware that not all articles are of encyclopedic quality from the start: they may contain false or debatable information.”
Why The Democrat Grassroots Should Withhold Contributions From Obama's Reelection Campaign
>
Like many people I know, I held my nose in 2008 and voted for Barack Obama, a junior senator with a voting record I kept warning people meant we were electing an untrustworthy conservative. No, not a reactionary and not as untrustworthy or even as conservative as John McCain, but, to be charitable, nothing to write home about. Other than the symbolism of electing an African-American and an intellectual. But, like almost everyone I knew, I was aware we would be getting-- at best-- another spineless, status quo drone like Bill Clinton. As you may have been able to discern from my comments Monday on Frank Rich's New York piece, I have no intention of holding my nose and voting for Obama again. If he can't win in California without my vote, he has no shot whatsoever.
Last year it was strongly suggested Blue America endorse Obama and raise money for him. I laughed-- and then made some changes to the PAC in response. If there was no chance of Blue America asking our contributors for money for Obama in 2008, there's even less of a chance that we'd consider anything like that for 2012 now that he's proven all of our worst fears to be completely founded. In 2007 I explained my reluctance over and over again, like here, discussing environmental reform. Obama, I insisted at the time, was certainly no better than Hillary Clinton.
A consistent and craven compromiser on almost every progressive value or principle he's had to confront since being elected to the Senate (from Republican "tort reform" to legalizing credit card usury), Obama's environmental record has clearly been "one of accommodation to big corporate interests" and "his 'new kind of politics'" is nothing more than a charismatically delivered sham: "the old kind of influence peddling, caution, and smallness that most Democrats [at the grassroots level] reject." His environmental record is nothing Bush Republicans need to fear.
He is the Senate's leading Democratic supporter of "coal to liquid," a technology that can make gasoline out of coal. Only problem: it produces double the global warming pollution that regular old dirty oil does. As if that wasn't bad enough, Obama actually voted for George Bush's energy bill despite more than $27 billion in subsidies for the oil, nuclear and coal industries, its weakening of clean air and water laws, and the fact that it gave electric companies the power to charge consumers high rates while doing almost nothing to tackle global warming or increase consumer protections.
Why is Obama so willing to "trim his sails" so often-- despite the consequences to working and middle class Americans and the environment? It's not just that he apparently believes accommodation-- even of right-wing extremists-- can be both right and politically useful. It's something deeper. In his autobiography, The Audacity of Hope, Obama admits he has a hard time feeling a truly pressing sense of urgency about the great issues of the day.
He's not the leader America so desperately needs to clean up after the worst presidential regime in history, no more than Hillary Clinton is. It's not enough to drive Republicans out of government, even if that is a well-deserved and worthwhile first step. It's just as important to find BETTER Democrats.
That's still what Blue America is dedicated to and what we ask our supporters to help with. And, on top of Obama's all too predictable colossal cave-in-- or worse-- to the Republicans this week, that work takes on an even greater urgency.
President Obama is pressing congressional leaders to consider a far-reaching debt-reduction plan that would force Democrats to accept major changes to Social Security and Medicare in exchange for Republican support for fresh tax revenue.
At a meeting with top House and Senate leaders set for Thursday morning, Obama plans to argue that a rare consensus has emerged about the size and scope of the nation’s budget problems and that policymakers should seize the moment to take dramatic action.
As part of his pitch, Obama is proposing significant reductions in Medicare spending and for the first time is offering to tackle the rising cost of Social Security, according to people in both parties with knowledge of the proposal. The move marks a major shift for the White House and could present a direct challenge to Democratic lawmakers who have vowed to protect health and retirement benefits from the assault on government spending.
“Obviously, there will be some Democrats who don’t believe we need to do entitlement reform. But there seems to be some hunger to do something of some significance,” said a Democratic official familiar with the administration’s thinking. “These moments come along at most once a decade. And it would be a real mistake if we let it pass us by.”
Rather than roughly $2 trillion in savings, the White House is now seeking a plan that would slash more than $4 trillion from annual budget deficits over the next decade, stabilize borrowing, and defuse the biggest budgetary time bombs that are set to explode as the cost of health care rises and the nation’s population ages.
As a liberal, I believe that if Obama comes in and implements a bunch of muddled centrist policies, proposing tax cuts to deal with poverty and an expanded military and entitlement reform along with a weird convoluted health care reform, he will fail because basic liberal ideas like accountability, oversight, and integrity in leadership will not be embedded into our institutions. The rich have left us with a massive bill in the form of an intractable trade deficit, national debt, and oil addiction, and someone's going to pay it. If it's the public instead of the people who ran up the country's credit cards (take a look at the nation's billionaires), it's going to make a lot of people much angrier than they are right now.
This anger will go somewhere; right now anger is going against Bush, but he's out of the picture come 2009, though we can kick his corpse for a few years or so if Democrats act smartly (which they won't). If Obama's centrist policies fail, and he is considered a big government liberal or progressive, the public will reject liberalism and progressivism, as it has for the last forty years. But this will not be a result of disliking progressive ideas, but as a result of believing that bad centrist ideas are progressive ideas.
So, as liberals who believe in a different vision for America than Obama, it's important that Obama's centrist policy sympathies are blamed for what goes wrong when he takes over and screws up the country worse than it is right now, which we'll notice after our honeymoon of hoorays some time after the transition.
Dave Johnson was also quick to realize the danger we were putting Social Security-- and wjat's left of the New Deal-- in by electing a weak, vacillating and basically conservative Barack Obama.
Barack Obama is echoing the right's destructive narrative about Social Security being in crisis. The crisis is that Reagan and then Bush took all the money from the Social Security Trust Fund to use for tax cuts for the rich. (Clinton's surpluses were paying it back, Bush reversed that.) And now the Trust Fund is going to need some of that money back.
The right's line is that this means Social Security is in crisis, is "not going to be there" for the next generation, and "tough choices" are required. The audacity-- they took the money, and now they say this is Social Security's problem, and that we have to fix Social Security! They say this to distract the public from asking for the money back, and to get them to support efforts to privatize the program.
And Barack Obama has joined them in this! Recently an Obama ad reinforced the right's bamboozlement that Social Security is running out of money. speaking on Meet the Press:
Now, we've got 78 million baby boomers that are going to be retiring, and every expert that looks at this problem says "There's going to be a gap, and we're going to have more money going out than we have coming in unless we make some adjustments now." ... I want to make sure that it's there not just for this generation, but for next generations. So that means that we're going to have to make some decisions...
Paul Krugman pleads with him to stop. A few years ago the right tried to go after Social Security and there was:
... a determined defense by progressives in the media, on the blogs, and in Congress beat back one spurious argument after another, while the American people made it clear that they really want a program that guarantees a basic retirement income that doesn't depend on the Dow. And Social Security survived.
All of which makes it just incredible that Barack Obama would make obeisance to fashionable but misguided Social Security crisis-mongering a centerpiece of his campaign.
The American people don't want to see cuts to Medicare and Social Security. They want the rich to pay their fair share and they want tax loopholes for Big Oil and other corporate monsters to be closed. But Obama is playing it like his hand is being forced. It isn't. This is just what he wants. He'll have the Republicans backing him, of course, but which Democrats have the courage to stand up to him? Watch this space.
UPDATE: Can Chris Van Hollen Be Trusted... A Little?
Van Hollen was just on CNN with Ali Velshi claiming Democrats won't vote to balance the budget on the backs of Social Security recipients. Van Hollen is a sneaky, untrustworthy character and if he's what's standing between the New Deal and fascism, we're sunk. Here's most of the transcript:
VELSHI: Do you know anything about the reports the President is prepared to talk about Medicare and Social Security with the Republicans in exchange for their support to raise the debt ceiling?
REP. VAN HOLLEN: Ali, I do not know the details on this. I saw the reports and will hear a lot more from the President around eleven o’clock when he meets with bipartisan group at the White House. I do know that the President has been looking for a comprehensive deal that gets about $4 trillion in deficit reduction. That was along the lines of the proposal from the bipartisan Simpson-Bowles Commission. But with respect to the story that appeared this morning on Social Security I do not know what exactly the President is referring to. And I should be clear that Congressional Democrats are not going to support something that seeks to balance the budget on the backs of Social Security beneficiaries. What we have said is that if the President wants to adopt a separate track, just as Tip O’Neill and Ronald Reagan did in the 1980s, to strengthen Social Security, that’s one thing. But to try and balance the budget on the backs of Social Security beneficiaries would be unacceptable and I’m pretty confident that is not what the President is referring to.
VELSHI: Let's set the stage what here with what kinds of things could you, and Congressional Democrats, with respect to Social Security might support. If we support an increase in the age when you get Social Security for people who are younger at this point so it phases in over some time. Is that the kind of thing we could be talking about?
REP. VAN HOLLEN: I think that would meet with a lot of resistance for this reason. It's easy for people who make a living like you and I do; talking, to retire a little bit later. It’s a lot harder for someone who has been doing back-breaking work. What we could do-- this is something part of the design of the existing system-- you don't take away the option to retire early but if you do retire early you do get a lower benefit over a period of time. That is part of the design in the current system. You could build on that. There are other options that we have discussed, for example, lifting the cap on the payroll tax. That would bring in more revenue, so there are ways to strength Social Security. Obviously, an important issue-- but don’t do that as way to balance the rest of the budget.
VELSHI: Part of the reports coming out that the President would agree to or push for $3 to $4 trillion in cuts over the next ten years. Where do Congressional Democrats stand on that?
REP. VAN HOLLEN: Well, the President's proposal that he laid out just a short time ago at George Washington University called for about a $4 trillion in cuts over 12 years. And while I think you'd find people disagreeing with some of the details, the overall architecture of that proposal is something that certainly I could support because it was a balanced approach. It said we got to close a lot of these corporate tax loopholes. We have to ask the folks at the very top to go back to paying what they did under-- during the Clinton administration. But it also called for significant cuts which we are going to have to do on domestic discretionary spending. But the President was clear that while we make cuts on the domestic side of the ledger we have to look at Pentagon spending and some the bipartisan commission also recommends.
VELSHI: Congressman, you're a leader in the Democratic Party. So, at some point, we know that Republicans have dug in about nothing that looks, smells, or walks like a tax increase or an elimination of a credit. You do have to compromise and you will probably tell me that you and Congressional Democrats have, but the bottom line is what can you do to bring hard line fiscal conservatives over who will not get off of that mantra?
REP. VAN HOLLEN: That is exactly the question I think all of us need to ask and I, frankly, do not have a good answer for you. Because what you've got right now is a dynamic in the Republican Party, especially with the Tea Party movement, that says that we're not going to support closing corporate tax loopholes even for the purpose of deficit reduction. And until the Republican Party is more worried about the deficit than they are about Grover Norquist, and that whole part of their coalition, then we’re going to have a real problem. Now maybe the ice is beginning to break a little bit there. I haven't-- you know, there were some signs yesterday although you have to see it to believe it. I need to see an actual proposal.
Keith Ellison, co-chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, may not have the institutional clout Van Hollen does, but he's far more trustworthy and far more a champion of working families. This morning on Morning Joe he defended Social Security in no uncertain terms-- from both sides. He tried to refocus the debate on the central problem that seniors and the poor are being asked to sacrifice greatly while the richest Americans are being protected by congressional Republicans: "Social Security actually is not contributing to the deficit. Social Security loans us money. So at the end of the day, all this discussion about how we’re going to cut Social Security is very distressing to me because Social Security isn’t the problem… This is inequitable and regressive… We’re asking the poorest Americans to sacrifice. When are the wealthiest Americans going to step up and do the patriotic thing, which is to contribute to deal with this budget deficit."
And Elison's co-chairman, Raúl Grijalva (D-AZ), was among over a dozen progressive leaders vowing to oppose cuts to Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid listed as part of any deficit reduction package combined with a proposal to raise the $14.3 trillion debt limit. They signed a letter to Obama that makes the case that “job creation is the most important issue facing the country-- not deficit reduction... [A]ny cuts to Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid should be taken off the table,” the letter said. “Second, revenue increases must be a meaningful part of any agreement.”
Grijalva: “I think we are allowing the conversation to be skewed by the Republican leadership. The demand on these three programs [Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid] is more political than it is fiscal. It’s a political statement they are making. For the president or for the Congress to allow them to make that statement, when there’s no fiscal rationale for it, is something that we can’t support.”
And, over on the Senate side, there's a champion for working families as well, Bernie Sanders: “Let us be clear,” Sanders said. “Social Security has not contributed one nickel to our deficit or our national debt. Social Security is funded by the payroll tax, not the U.S. treasury... I am especially disturbed that the president is considering cuts in Social Security after he campaigned against cuts in 2008." [Obama made his position clear on Sept. 6, 2008, when he said: “John McCain's campaign has suggested that the best answer for the growing pressures on Social Security might be to cut cost of living adjustments or raise the retirement age. Let me be clear: I will not do either,” Obama said.] “The American people expect the president to keep his word,” Sanders said.
Obama isn't the only Democrat supporting Wall Street's dream to end Social Security and privatize Medicare. Predictably, corporate whores Third Way is backing Obama.
