Lesser Evil? Joe Biden's Grand Bargain

Top Trumpist Regime figures fanned out across the battleground states to reassure political and financial supporters that Trump isn't tanking, even if all the evidence says he he. And the Trumpist cabinet members brought promises of big money flows in return for loyalty. Associated Press reporters Bobby Calvan, Ellen Knickmeyer and John Flesher ventured that with Señor T "confronted by skyrocketing joblessness and the coronavirus pandemic as he campaigns for reelection against Democrat Joe Biden, members of his Cabinet are busy making time in pivotal states. They are carrying a message to voters about what the Trump administration is doing for them. At the same time, there are questions about whether these agency heads are running afoul of a law meant to bar overt campaigning by federal officials on the taxpayer tab... Cabinet-level leaders have come to Florida alone more than 30 times this year. Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Arizona have also seen visits from agency and administration chiefs discussing federal funding and initiatives for local interests-- and talking up Trump... Biden campaign spokesperson Michael Gwin accused the Trump administration of focusing on 'scoring political points, not delivering for the people they work for. With COVID-19 raging unchecked, more than 17 million Americans unemployed, and our country divided, it’s shameful that Trump’s Cabinet is campaigning on the taxpayer’s dime instead of doing their jobs.'"

On the other end of the conservative spectrum, there are Republicans rallying to Biden, the best conservative in the presidential race. Yesterday, The Guardian wondered aloud if it will help defeat the Orange Menace. "In 2016, as Trump steamrolled his way through the Republican primary," wrote Daniel Strauss, "some Republican lawmakers and operatives tried to mount an effort to stop him. Elected officials and veterans of previous Republican administrations organized letters, endorsed Hillary Clinton, and a few set up meager outside groups to defeat Trump. That’s happening again-- but there are differences. The outside groups are more numerous and better organized, and most importantly, Trump has a governing record on which Republicans can use to decide whether to support him or not." And they didn't really like Hillary-- just the lesser of two evils. But they love Biden. He's one of them in all ways except for that incongruous "(D)" next to his name.

The Republicans organizing for Biden this time, aren't just organizing against Trump; they want Biden. "We’re truly a grassroots organization. Our goal is to do whatever we can to elect Joe Biden as president," said John Farner, who worked in the commerce department during the Bush administration and is one of the founders of a new Super Pac called 43 Alumni for Biden. They say this is a one-issue election: "Are you for Donald Trump, or are you for America?"

The Economist doesn't think it's even necessary, that Trump has just done himself in. "Before covid-19 hit America," they asserted, incorrectly, "Trump looked likelier than not to be re-elected, thanks to a relentlessly growing economy. Incumbent presidents almost always win in such circumstances. Our election model made him a narrow favourite, even though he was a few points down in national polls with his rival, Joe Biden. However, the president is now in a deep hole. Mr Biden is up by nine points-- more in some polls. He is doing well in battleground states like Florida, Michigan and Wisconsin, and he has strong support among older voters and is doing surprisingly well among white voters who did not go to college. Our model now gives Mr Trump only a roughly 10% chance of winning. The virus has demonstrated something definitively to a large number of persuadable voters: that Mr Trump is just not that good at being a president."

They have higher hopes for Biden than I do-- not about November; I agree with their assessment that Biden is "in landslide territory [and that] Trump’s flailing has made a Democratic Senate majority possible."

But what I laugh about is that this landslide may see "a highly productive presidency which once seemed incon-ceivable." It once did seem incon-ceivable-- but it still does... because of who Joe Biden is and what he actually wants to accomplish-- and not accomplish.

The Economist: "Before COVID-19 and widespread social unrest, Mr Biden’s candidacy was about restoration-- the idea that he could return America and the world to the prelapsarian days of 2016. It transpires that he could have the opportunity to do something big instead. [T]o make lasting change through the federal government you need to win the Senate. And that cannot be done with a candidate at the top of the ticket who frightens the voters... [B]ecause he comes across as the grandfather he is, he is viewed with suspicion on the left."

The dream Biden would most like to accomplish-- the dream beyond his fondest dream-- would be catastrophic for America and for the idiots who have put him so close to the nomination: the Grand Bargain he's always wanted which would destroy Social Security (and Medicare), the #1 conservative goal since the 1930s.

"Yet that is precisely what makes him reassuring ... to voters in states like Montana and Georgia where Democrats must win to gain a majority in the Senate. It is Mr Biden’s caution that opens up the possibility of more change than a real radical would." If only they had the slightest idea of who Joe Biden really is!

It's February 20. Why Are People With Million-Dollar Salaries Celebrating?

The Pete Buttigieg Memorial Wine Cave Club. Members shown celebrating their early freedom from Social Security taxes.

by Thomas Neuburger

It's February 20. Why are people with million-dollar salaries celebrating? Because as of yesterday, they stopped having to pay for Social Security.

That's right. While the very very very wealthy, people like Jeff Bezos, stopped paying for Social Security a month ago, the only very wealthy, those with salaries of a mere million per year, stopped paying just after Presidents' Day.

These are the people who want to cut benefits for those far less wealthy than they, the working poor and struggling middle class. These people also finance candidates who, prior to campaigning for the presidency, happily proposed such cuts. See, for example, "Klobuchar: Grand bargain still within reach" from 2013.

Brendan Cole, writing at Newsweek (emphasis added):

Americans With Million-dollar Salaries Stop Paying Into Social Security Before March While Everyone Else Continues

The burden of sustaining Social Security is not being carried fairly by the rich, a U.S. think tank has said as it noted an American earning an annual salary of $1 million will effectively stop paying into the scheme on Wednesday, fewer than seven weeks into 2020.

Social Security, which provides retirement, disability, and survivor benefits to one fifth of the U.S. population, is funded by a payroll tax capped at the first $137,700 of earned wages, and excludes income from other sources such as capital gains.

Sarah Rawlins, from the Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR) noted that someone who earns $1,000,000 a year would have reached that cap by Wednesday, February 19.

"That makes a millionaire's effective tax rate well below the 6.2 percent of income that most Americans pay," Rawlins said. "Instead, it is less than one percent of a millionaire's income.

"The burden of Social Security taxes falls more heavily on those who make less," Rawlins noted, suggesting that to make the system more progressive, the government should look at "scrapping the payroll tax cap entirely and making everyone pay the same tax rate."

"Scraping the payroll tax cap entirely" is a fine idea. Unfortunately it's been co-opted by half-measures Democrats, who wish merely to raise it a little. Thus Pete Buttigieg wants to raise the cap from its current setting to just $250,000. Thus Amy Klobuchar with the same proposal.

In other words, under these proposals million-dollar earners would be taxed on 25% of their salaried income instead of 14%, while the rest of us, who earn below $137,700 per year, would continue to be taxed on 100% of our income.

Needless to say, this what democracy in an oligarchy looks like. But I think you knew that already.
 

Biden's Better Than Trump-- But Biden's The Worst Democrat Running Against Trump

I recall-- vividly-- Trump's flat-out lies about not accepting SuperPAC money. While he was doing everything he could to scrounge it up, he was making fun of Jeb Bush, Ted Cruz, Hillary Clinton and all the other 2016 presidential candidates for being puppets of the Big Money donors. He was too, of course, but he swore up and down he was self-financing his campaign. He lied from day one; and he never stopped lying. He still hasn't. You noticed that right?

The other day, Status Quo Joe Biden, who would cut off a limb to get Obama's endorsement might have thought he was fooling someone when he claimed that he asked Obama not to endorse him. If that were true, Obama would be the only Democrat alive ever elected to office-- and office--who Biden hasn't asked!



But that isn't the only bullshit Biden was flinging during his first hours as an official candidate. Biden says he doesn't want any money raised for him by BidenPAC (which has now changed its name to either For The People PAC or G Street, depending where you look ). All the other credible Democratic candidates had already publicly rejected the idea of accepting money from lobbyists or from Super PACs during the primary. Biden quickly realized he had no choice but to follow along, at least with the Super PACs. (His first fundraiser was hosted by a Comcast lobbyist and the mansion was lousy with lobbyists, each of whom had given Biden a check.) Kate Bedingfield is Biden's Deputy Campaign Manager for Communications:

No one looks like a liar compared to Trump, of course, but take him out of the equation and Biden looks bad-- really bad. Branko Marcetic pointed out on Friday that for all his posturing about being the guy who fights for organized labor, "an episode from the not-so-distant past cuts against this 'friend of the working man' image: Biden's leading role in the Obama administration's 2011 efforts to slash the deficit by offering Republicans spending cuts to Medicare and Social Security-- the so-called Grand Bargain that, luckily for the country, was killed by Tea Party extremism and overreach.

Biden's always been a completely worthless piece of shit. A proud neoliberal, he was calling for a spending freeze on Social Security and a higher Social Security retirement age since the 1980s. He always embraced GOP bullshit about balancing the budget, something Republicans are only for while Democrats are in power. Biden's one of the morons who has always fallen for the trap and has always been the first Democrat in any circumstance to advocate raising the retirement age. The Joe Biden I remember has always been the guy who could not wait to screw working families with Austerity, which is just what anyone supporting his presidential race should be ready for if he wins. Sacrificing people dependent on Medicare and Social Security was something Biden seemed as enthusiastic about as Paul Ryan was.

The crappy deal Biden negotiated with the Republicans for the Obama administration "extended the Bush tax cuts, cut payroll taxes by $112 billion and met a host of other Republican demands: a lower estate tax with a higher exemption, new tax write-offs for businesses, and a maximum 15 percent capital gains tax rate locked in for two years. In return, unemployment insurance was extended for 13 months and the Opportunity Tax Credit for two years.

House Democrats were furious at both the estate tax provision and the Bush tax cut extension, partly because, according to Woodward, Biden had failed to mention the extension was on the table when he briefed Democratic leaders during the talks. Even conservative Democrats like House Whip Steny Hoyer had strongly opposed the extension, and the deal drew consternation from across the party. Dianne Feinstein balked at its size, and Bernie Sanders and two other senators interrupted Biden's presentation of the package. Sanders later vowed to “do everything I can to defeat this proposal,” including filibuster it. However, enough Democrats eventually capitulated, with some grumbling, for the deal to pass, overcoming an eight-hour filibuster by Sanders.

Biden subsequently led the debt negotiations with then-House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, Sen. Jon Kyl and other Republicans. Biden's “opening bid” was cutting $4 trillion in spending over ten years, with a 3 to 1 proportion of cuts to revenue. Biden later proposed $2 trillion in cuts to general spending, federal retirement funds, Medicare and Medicaid, and, at Cantor's urging, food stamps.

At one point, Biden suddenly called for $200 billion more in cuts that had never been discussed, which, according to Woodward, led then-Maryland Rep. Chris Van Hollen-- also involved in the negotiations-- to believe Biden had gone over to the Cantor-Kyl side. Biden again crossed Van Hollen when he offered to take revenue-raising out of the “trigger”-- a combination of revenue raising and spending cuts meant to be equally unpalatable to both parties, which would automatically kick in if a deal failed to be reached.

Later in the negotiations, Biden dangled the possibility of Medicare cuts in return for more revenue-- meaning higher taxes. Soon after, he suggested Democrats might be comfortable raising the eligibility age for entitlements, imposing means testing and changing the consumer price index calculation, known as CPI. (Means testing is often seen a Trojan horse for chipping away at these programs, because their universality is one of the reasons they've remained virtually untouchable for almost a century. It’s also been criticized for imposing an unnecessary and discouraging layer of bureaucracy.)

At one point, Biden reportedly called the Medicare provider tax a “scam.” “For a moment, Biden sounded like a Republican,” Woodward notes. Biden’s team was forced to remind him that such a move would force states to cut services to the poor, to which he replied, “We're going to do lots of hard things,” and so “we might as well do this.”

As Woodward writes, “this was a huge deal” for Cantor (“Biden had caved”), and showed the administration had adopted the Republican view on the matter of the Medicare provider tax. Despite this giveaway, the Republicans continued their stubborn opposition to any revenue increases in the proposed deal.

The negotiations were ultimately scuttled by Cantor, after Biden inadvertently revealed to him that then-Speaker of the House John Boehner was secretly holding his own “grand bargain” talks with Obama. But the Biden portrayed in Woodward's book continued this pattern of bending over backwards to achieve the Republicans' cooperation in subsequent negotiations.

...[T]here are indications that another “grand bargain” may be in the cards should Biden win the presidency. In a speech last year at a joint event held by the Brookings Institution and the Biden Foundation, Biden said, “Paul Ryan was correct when he did the tax code. What’s the first thing he decided we needed to go after? Social Security and Medicare. We need to do something about Social Security and Medicare.” At the event, Biden suggested the programs should be means tested, and would require “adjustments.”

Biden’s willingness to go after the last remnants of the New Deal may well win him points from the political establishment, which has long treated such an approach as a mark of seriousness. Whether it wins him points among voters, who are overwhelmingly supportive of such programs, is another story altogether.

In The Republican War Against The Poor, Not All Democrats Are On The Right Side

You probably saw the anti-union, food stamp-cutting governor of Ohio, John Kasich, publicly bitching the other day that his political party is engaged in a merciless war against the poor. “I’m concerned," said Kasich, "about the fact there seems to be a war on the poor. That, if you’re poor, somehow you’re shiftless and lazy.” He may well have had Republican House budget chairman and class warrior Paul Ryan in mind. The Paul Ryan who has been working single-mindedly to demolish the social safety net and famously quipped that it has become “a hammock that lulls able-bodied people to lives of dependency and complacency.”

Friday, the first batch of cuts to food stamps kicked in. They translate to 20 fewer meals per month for every child and every vet who is struggling to survive on food stamps). And Congress is far from finished cutting back. They've barely started. As Catherine Rampell pointed out in Friday's NY Times, on top of the billions of dollars that were shaved from the food stamps program Friday, "the Republican-controlled House version of the farm bill proposes cutting $39 billion from the program over the next decade; the Democratic-controlled Senate would cut $4 billion over the same period."

Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program benefits were increased in 2009 as part of a suite of measures intended to support struggling workers and stimulate the economy in the wake of the financial crisis. The maximum monthly amount received per food stamp beneficiary rose by 13.6 percent at the time.

Food stamp caseloads have swollen in the last few years: In fiscal year 2007, before the recession began, there were about 26 million people receiving food stamps. As of this past July, the most recent month of data available, there were nearly 48 million, representing about a seventh of the American population. The increase has been attributed to more people losing their jobs and needing food assistance; government efforts to increase usage by families that did not know they were eligible; and to a lesser extent, policy changes in some states that relaxed eligibility requirements, according to Stacy Dean, vice president for food assistance policy at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a left-leaning research organization.

The 2009 increase in maximum monthly food stamp benefits was designed to be temporary. But as with other stimulus measures or social safety programs that received temporary increases during or after the recession-- like the payroll tax holiday, or extended unemployment benefits-- advocates have been fighting to push expiration off longer.

These arguments are made on the grounds of both compassion and the fragility of the recovery. Measures that grant more spending power to lower-income people generally have strong effects throughout the economy because the money is spent immediately and then re-spent. Moody’s Analytics has estimated that every additional dollar spent on food stamps generates about $1.74 in economic activity.

A key component in the Republican War Against the Poor, this is a move that "not only will cost them money they use to feed their families but is expected to slightly dampen economic growth as well." Why, you may be wondering, are Democrats going along with this charade? Sure they don't want to deprive poor children from eating as many meals, but the Senate Dems cuts-- "only" a tenth of what the Republicans want to slash-- are still devastating cuts.

This week Nancy Pelosi reiterated again that the Democrats in Congress will go along with the GOP war against the poor, but only if they get what they want as part of the deal. With progressives recognizing that Social Security benefits need to increase, Pelosi and other top Democratic leaders have gotten behind Obama's and Boehner's "Grand Bargain" that features Chained CPI, a scheme to cut the inflation-protection mechanisms in cost-of-living adjustments. Instead of letting the Republicans electrocute themselves on the Third Rail of American Politics, the Democrats are offering to help decouple monkeying with Social Security from the Third Rail. And all for a relatively worthless and very temporary tax increase. At this point Obama, somewhat desperate, is even thinking about going forward with his Grand Bargain without the tax increases. The answer from progressives is the same-- with or without tax increases, no cuts to Social Security or Medicare or Medicaid. The one reform to Social Security everyone should agree on is lifting the cap on the taxes for the very wealthy so they also pay their fair share, just like everyone else. Pelosi:

“Our position is that we're going to the table in order to reduce the deficit, grow the economy, create jobs, end the sequester-- revenue needs to be on the table… You can't just take a piece here [and] a piece there; it has to be comprehensive. And if you're not going to have revenue, who's going to pay? Granny on Medicare? That's not something we can accept.”

The comments arrive on the same day that a bipartisan group of negotiators from both chambers met officially for the first time in an effort to resolve the differences between the House and Senate 2014 budget bills.

The issue of tax revenue is certain to play a central role in those talks, as Democratic leaders have insisted that new revenue be included in such a deal, while Republicans have been adamant in their opposition.

Indeed, it took little time on Wednesday for the conference leaders, Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) and Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), to clash over that thorny topic.

Murray, who heads the Senate Budget Committee, said Democrats are willing to accept entitlement cuts that are unpopular in their party, but only if Republicans will give on taxes.

“While we scour programs to find responsible savings, Republicans are also going to have to work with us to scour the bloated tax code-- and close some wasteful tax loopholes and special interest subsidies,” she said

. Ryan, chairman of the House Budget Committee, countered with the warning that, “if this conference becomes an argument about taxes, we’re not going to get anywhere.”

Obama entered the debate on Wednesday after the Wall Street Journal, citing unnamed administration sources, said the president has recently told GOP senators that he might be willing to accept a narrow sequester deal that cuts entitlement programs but raises no new revenue.

Pelosi, for her part, is siding squarely with Murray and Senate Democrats on the issue.

“We Democrats are committed to reaching across the aisle to find common-sense solutions, but the Republicans must be willing to compromise, too, and drop their refusal to consider cutting wasteful tax loopholes and not bringing revenue to the table,” Pelosi said.

  “Our position is the Senate Democratic position,” she added.

Pelosi also amplified her earlier call that the negotiators finalize a budget deal before the Thanksgiving recess rather than extend the talks to the Dec. 13 deadline. Prolonging the talks, she warned, could undermine the holiday shopping season.

Will The AFL-CIO Really Support Primaries Against Democrats Who Try To Help Obama And Boehner Cut Social Security Benefits?

Progressives like Pennsylvania state Senator Daylin Leach, who's running for the open PA-13 congressional seat, is never going to sell out Social Security, Medicare or any social insurance policies for middle and working-class American families. In fact, his record in the legislature makes it clear that he will fight to expand and strengthen them. Watch his new video above-- and then consider helping him win his crowded primary against a bunch of conservative Democrats. And conservative Democrats are almost as eager as Republicans to cut benefits for Social Security and Medicare recipients. The whole key is to detach tampering with Social Security to the political Third Rail it's been since the GOP ran on repealing it in 1936 and wound up winning 2 states in the presidential election, 88 House seats and with a total of 16 Senate seats. Obama has been completely complicit in that decoupling campaign-- and he's still up to it.

Instead of advocating eliminating or raising the cap, Obama and other economically conservative Democrats-- basically the New Dems, Blue Dogs and fellow travelers-- are pushing the disastrous GOP idea of Chained CPI-- cutting benefits to needy seniors. In his speech Thursday about how Congress ended the government shutdown, he quickly pivoted to the Grand Bargain he and Boehner have long wanted to force down Congress' throats, cutting Social Security benefits.

But to all my friends in Congress, understand that how business is done in this town has to change. Because we've all got a lot of work to do on behalf of the American people-- and that includes the hard work of regaining their trust. Our system of self-government doesn’t function without it. And now that the government is reopened, and this threat to our economy is removed, all of us need to stop focusing on the lobbyists and the bloggers and the talking heads on radio and the professional activists who profit from conflict, and focus on what the majority of Americans sent us here to do, and that’s grow this economy; create good jobs; strengthen the middle class; educate our kids; lay the foundation for broad-based prosperity and get our fiscal house in order for the long haul. That’s why we're here. That should be our focus.

Now, that won't be easy. We all know that we have divided government right now. There's a lot of noise out there, and the pressure from the extremes affect how a lot of members of Congress see the day-to-day work that’s supposed to be done here. And let's face it, the American people don’t see every issue the same way.  But that doesn’t mean we can't make progress. And when we disagree, we don’t have to suggest that the other side doesn’t love this country or believe in free enterprise, or all the other rhetoric that seems to get worse every single year. If we disagree on something, we can move on and focus on the things we agree on, and get some stuff done.

Let me be specific about three places where I believe we can make progress right now. First, in the coming days and weeks, we should sit down and pursue a balanced approach to a responsible budget, a budget that grows our economy faster and shrinks our long-term deficits further.

At the beginning of this year, that’s what both Democrats and Republicans committed to doing. The Senate passed a budget; House passed a budget; they were supposed to come together and negotiate. And had one side not decided to pursue a strategy of brinksmanship, each side could have gotten together and figured out, how do we shape a budget that provides certainty to businesses and people who rely on government, provides certainty to investors in our economy, and we’d be growing faster right now.

Now, the good news is the legislation I signed yesterday now requires Congress to do exactly that-- what it could have been doing all along.

And we shouldn’t approach this process of creating a budget as an ideological exercise-- just cutting for the sake of cutting. The issue is not growth versus fiscal responsibility-- we need both. We need a budget that deals with the issues that most Americans are focused on: creating more good jobs that pay better wages.

And remember, the deficit is getting smaller, not bigger. It’s going down faster than it has in the last 50 years. The challenges we have right now are not short-term deficits; it’s the long-term obligations that we have around things like Medicare and Social Security. We want to make sure those are there for future generations.

So the key now is a budget that cuts out the things that we don’t need, closes corporate tax loopholes that don’t help create jobs, and frees up resources for the things that do help us grow-- like education and infrastructure and research. And these things historically have not been partisan. And this shouldn’t be as difficult as it’s been in past years because we already spend less than we did a few years ago. Our deficits are half of what they were a few years ago. The debt problems we have now are long term, and we can address them without shortchanging our kids, or shortchanging our grandkids, or weakening the security that current generations have earned from their hard work.

Using Republican talking points to go after Social Security is not going to endear Democrats to base voters. In fact, the AFL-CIO may be talking about backing primaries against Democrats who vote with the GOP against Social Security. Greg Sargent:

With the crisis chatter in Washington now turning to speculation about the coming budget talks and the possibility of a “grand bargain” to replace the sequester, liberals and unions are getting increasingly nervous that Congressional Dems will give up entitlement benefits cuts in exchange for, well, whatever is on offer from Republicans, which isn’t at all clear.

In an interview, Damon Silvers, the policy director of the AFL-CIO, laid down a hard line, putting Dems on notice that any agreement that cuts entitlement benefits-- even in a deal that includes GOP concessions on tax hikes-- is a nonstarter. Silvers strongly suggested labor would withhold support in 2014 from any Dem lawmaker who supports such a deal.

“We are opposed to Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid benefits cuts. Period,” Silvers told me. “There will be no cover for members of either party who vote for such a thing.”

Silvers said the AFL-CIO also opposes the entitlements cuts in the President’s budget, such as Chained CPI and a form of Medicare means testing. It’s unclear how, or whether, those will figure in what Dems bring to the table in the budget talks, which are mandated by the deal just reached to end the crisis.

“Chained CPI is like the vampire of American politics,” Silvers said. “It keeps being shot through the heart and it keeps reviving. The reason it keeps coming back is because it has billionaires behind it.”

Silvers was referring to individuals and groups like Pete Peterson, a Wall Street billionaire whose lavishly-funded foundation has been pushing for cuts to these programs for years, Fix the Debt, which is pushing for deficit reduction, and GOP-aligned groups that have in recent years promoted the Paul Ryan budget. All of these are expected to spring into action when this fall’s fiscal fight-- and talk of a “grand bargain”-- heats up.

Silvers characterized the posture of those groups as follows: “Now that the last round of insanity is over, time to attack the social insurance system.”

“Cutting Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid benefits is not a route to a grand bargain; it is a route to deadlock,” Silvers continued. “We and a lot of folks are going to oppose it categorically, and everything will grind to a halt.”

Pressed on whether the AFL-CIO would support primary challengers to any Dems who support benefits cuts, Silvers demurred, but he said that all of the material created in such a battle-- video, ads, etc.-- would be available to any primary challenger, and added: “That’s the minimum we’re going to do. It only gets worse from there.”

In an interview with the Huffington Post, Harry Reid said Dems would not agree to any deal in the budget talks that simply trades entitlement cuts for relief to the sequester. That suggests Dems think they are in a strong political position heading into the budget talks, and that they want to lay down a hard marker in response to Republicans who have already ruled out agreeing to new revenues.

But that doesn’t preclude the sort of “grand bargain” that might include entitlement benefits cuts and the closing of loopholes on the rich and corporations. Even this is a non-starter for labor unions and liberal groups, who believe that despite yesterday’s big victory, Dems must continue to resist allowing the looming political battle to get pulled on to GOP turf, where we’d be debating still more spending cuts-- including to social insurance system benefits-- at a time when austerity is already crippling the recovery.

Well, at least Obama will have Wall Street, K Street, mainstream conservatives and New Dems on his side. We'll soon see if it's enough. On his blog Thursday, Robert Reich, says we know what to expect during the "cease-fire." He fears the President will "cave" to Republican demands for cuts to Social Security. Cave? This is what Obama has always said he wants.

We know the parameters of the upcoming budget debate because we’ve been there before. The House already has its version-- the budget Paul Ryan bequeathed to them. This includes major cuts in Medicare (turning it into a voucher) and Social Security (privatizing much of it), and substantial cuts in domestic programs ranging from education and infrastructure to help for poorer Americans. Republicans also have some bargaining leverage in the sequester, which continues to indiscriminately choke government spending.

The Senate has its own version of a budget, which, by contrast, cuts corporate welfare, reduces defense spending, and raises revenues by closing tax loopholes for the wealthy.

Here, I fear, is where the President is likely to cave.

He’s already put on the table a way to reduce future Social Security payments by altering the way cost-of-living adjustments are made – using the so-called “chained” consumer price index, which assumes that when prices rise people economize by switching to cheaper alternatives. This makes no sense for seniors, who already spend a disproportionate share of their income on prescription drugs, home healthcare, and medical devices – the prices of which have been rising faster than inflation. Besides, Social Security isn’t responsible for our budget deficits. Quite the opposite: For years its surpluses have been used to fund everything else the government does.

The President has also suggested “means-testing” Medicare-- that is, providing less of it to higher-income seniors. This might be sensible. The danger is it becomes the start of a slippery slope that eventually turns Medicare into another type of Medicaid, a program perceived to be for the poor and therefore vulnerable to budget cuts.

But why even suggest cutting Medicare at all, when the program isn’t responsible for the large budget deficits projected a decade or more from now? Medicare itself is enormously efficient; its administrative costs are far lower than commercial health insurance.

The real problem is the rising costs of healthcare, coupled with the aging of the post-war boomers. The best way to deal with the former-- short of a single-payer system-- is to use Medicare’s bargaining power over providers to move them from “fee-for-services,” in which providers have every incentive to do more tests and procedures, to “payments-for-healthy-outcomes,” where providers would have every incentive to keep people healthy. (The best way to deal with the latter-- the aging of the American population-- is to allow more young immigrants into America.)

More generally, the President has been too eager to accept the argument that the major economic problem facing the nation is large budget deficits-- when, in point of fact, the deficit has been shrinking as a share of the national economy. The only reason it’s expected to increase in future years is, again, rising healthcare costs.

Our real economic problem continues to be a dearth of good jobs along with widening inequality. Cutting the budget deficit may make both worse, by reducing total demand for goods and services and eliminating programs that lower-income Americans depend on.

The President has now scored a significant victory over extremist Republicans. But the fight will continue. He mustn’t relinquish ground during the upcoming cease-fire.

Bad Solutions-- Whether Bipartisan Or Not-- Are Still Just Bad Solutions

THE PROBLEM SOLVERS (pretty painting by Attila Richard Lukacs)

Obama pressured Democrats into a putrid deal with Republicans (and through them, Wall Street) on the student loan debacle. Jenna Johnson reports for the Washington Post that "the deal was brokered by a bipartisan group of senators who have been negotiating for weeks, with the help of Department of Education staffers who have been camped out in their offices. On Tuesday, the senators ventured to the White House to meet with President Obama, who urged them to make a decision."

Under this new deal, finalized Thursday morning, undergraduates would all pay the same interest rate, a change from recent years when some low- and middle-income students received a lower rate. Graduate students and parents of students would have their own rates, which would be higher than those for undergraduates and have higher caps. The plan is expected to save the government $715 million over a decade, according to aides.

For the coming school year, undergraduates would see rates of 3.86 percent. That’s lower than the current fixed rate of 6.8 percent, but the new rate could go as high as 8.25 percent in future years.

Graduate students would pay about 5.41 percent for the coming year and up to 9.5 percent in the future. Loans taken out by parents for their dependent children would have an interest rate around 6.41 percent and could go as high as 10.5 percent. Right now, graduate students have interest rates of 6.8 and 7.9 percent, while parents pay 7.9 percent.

Democrats had been pushing for lower rates-- Elizabeth Warren's plan was to give students the same thing banks get 0.75%-- and Republicans have been pushing for higher rates. If the Senate passes this already horrible plan next week, it will go into a joint Senate-House Committee, where House Republicans will demand the rates go even higher. This isn't a deal, it's a surrender the Senate Democrats were forced into by Obama. Here's a statement by Jim Dean, chairman of DFA, which is pretty typical of progressive response across the board:

"The so-called 'deal' on student loans is a craven attempt to pit today's students against future students. Even worse, this raw deal is built on the backwards notion that students are merely Washington cash cows waiting for the slaughter rather than national assets to be built up and invested in. Democracy for America and its million members nationwide strongly oppose this sad excuse for a deal on student loans and the shackles of debt it imposes on future students and we intend to let the Senate know it."

But at least it's "bipartisan."

And that brings us to the No Labels clusterfuck in Washington on Thursday. Several dozen mostly conservative Democrats-- primarily New Dems and Blue Dogs with a sprinkling of bumbling and confused Dems unsure of what it means to fight for working families-- bonded with mostly non-Tea Party Republicans to push what they call a Problem Solvers approach to congressional gridlock. The group claims to be "unlike anything that has existed on Capitol Hill, where there is no forum for large groups of Democrats and Republicans to actually meet together to work through problems. Each party has its own weekly meetings, but there is no opportunity to hear from or reason with the other side. The Problem Solvers offers a new way forward. The Problem Solvers are committed to regular across-the-aisle meetings, embracing the new attitude of problem solving and being real leaders." It reminds me of Steve Israel's old Center Aisle Caucus which served primarily to serve Wall Street special interests in the name of bipartisanship. And when you examine who's already joined this band of lunk-heads you can see that that is clearly the direction. Most of the Democrats are Wall Street shills who live to sell out working families. Most of the Republicans are endangered and desperate to be seen as working with Democrats towards nonpartisanship. The House Dems:

• John Barrow (New Dem/Blue Dog-GA)
• Ami Bera (New Dem-CA)
• Sanford Bishop (Blue Dog-GA)
• Julia Brownley (CA)
• Cheri Bustos (IL)
• Tony Cardenas (CA)
• Joaquin Castro (New Dem-TX)
• David Cicilline (RI)
• Jim Cooper (Blue Dog/Blue Dog-TN)
• John Delaney (New Dem-MD)
• Chaka Fattah (PA)
• Tulsi Gabbard (HI)
• Joe Garcia (New Dem-FL)
• Janice Hahn (CA)
• Jim Himes (New Dem-CT)
• Jared Huffman (CA)
• Ann Kirkpatrick (AZ)
• Dan Lipinski (Blue Dog-IL)
• Dave Loebsack (IA)
• Dan Maffei (New Dem-NY)
• Sean Patrick Maloney (New Dem-NY)
• Jim Mathesom (Blue Dog-UT)
• Mike Michaud (Blue Dog-ME)
• Jim Moran (New Dem-VA)
• Patrick Murphy (New Dem-FL)
• Rick Nolan (MN)
• Bill Owens (New Dem-NY)
• Scott Peters (New Dem-CA)
• Jared Polis (New Dem-CO)
• Raul Ruiz (CA)
• Brad Schneider (New Dem-IL)
• Kurt Schrader (New Dem/Blue Dog-OR)
• Kyrsten Sinema (New Dem-AZ)

Basically, this is a list primarily of the Democrats who vote with the Republicans all the time anyway. There are a few exceptions, like Rick Nolan and Chaka Fattah, but most of the Democrats on this list are completely worthless when it comes to the crucial issues of economic justice. And all this... just in time for the governing elites to breath life back into Obama's cherished Grand Bargain, the ultimate sell-out of working families and the capper to Obama's wretched presidency.

“Everybody's trying to assess whether we can accomplish something that would be big,” said Republican Sen. Richard Burr of North Carolina, who has attended the meetings. “Big is reforming entitlements and it’s impossible to see a path where you get additional revenue without tax reform being part of it.”

This fall, the country will hit its debt limit and be unable to pay its bills unless Congress authorizes additional borrowing. Republicans plan to use the debate over raising the debt limit to force Democrats to cut spending-- a negotiation Obama has said he won’t engage in. But these meetings demonstrate that the president is in fact engaging Republicans in a broader discussion about debt and spending.

White House Chief of Staff Denis McDonough runs point and has included Office of Management and Budget Director Sylvia Mathews Burwell in the discussions. The Republicans in the group include Sens. Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire, Saxby Chambliss and Johnny Isakson of Georgia, Bob Corker of Tennessee, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, John Hoeven of North Dakota, and Burr, said John McCain of Arizona, who also sits in.

...An administration official said White House aides have made clear to Republicans that the president’s offer from December-- including $600 billion in new tax revenue for $400 billion in Medicare and other health care cuts-- still stands.

Sounds like a bunch of rich political elites still want to start the gutting of Social Security on behalf of their liege-lords on Wall Street. Watch Chained CPI start being pushed by asskissers in the Beltway media any minute now.

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?"

How Many Democrats In Congress Will Vote To Keep Obama And Boehner From A Grand Austerity Bargain?

Even Bernie Sanders couches his criticism of Obama's willingness to sell out working families and seniors to Republican predators in terms that almost never acknowledge any fumbling by Obama. It's always, "Let's support the president's pledge to protect working families" and stuff like that. That approach is going to get harder in coming weeks as it becomes more and more transparent that Obama starts bargaining away pieces of the social safety net to Republicans whose only motivations are to wreck his presidency and make themselves heroes to the one percent.

Last week a Member of Congress called and asked if Blue America would be interested in hosting a chat about Obama going down the wrong path. "Of course," I responded. "Isn't that what Digby and DWT do everyday anyway? This Obama push behind the chained CPI is going to cause a real break between the corporate Democrats (and the blind Obamabots) and genuine progressives. Sanders actually already uttered the words, that Obama is "dead wrong" to go along with the GOP on this assault against seniors who can least afford it. Kate Nocera did the reporting at Politico:

President Barack Obama may be thinking about a “grand bargain” to address spending and the federal deficit, but there’s a key constituency he has to persuade to come along.

Democrats.

The talk of any deal with congressional Republicans-- and for now, it’s just that: talk-- has liberals worried the White House will give in to changes to safety net programs including Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security.

Republicans say such changes are an essential part of any big deal. And Obama previously has been open to a number of reforms that irk the liberals, such as raising the retirement age of Medicare, means-testing and adopting an inflation calculation, known as chained CPI, for Social Security.

Inevitably, if there is an agreement on a big deal, Democrats will have to get on board for it to pass. But the 2012 election brought in new Democratic members of the House and Senate who are more liberal and more outspoken, strengthening the left wing of the caucus.

One hundred and seven of the 200 House Democrats signed a letter to Obama threatening to 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.”

Instead, they want the White House to “rely on economic growth and more fair revenue-raising policies to solve our fiscal problems,” like getting rid of subsidies for big businesses and raising taxes on the wealthiest Americans.

“I only know one thing: I’m against cutting Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid,” said Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.), co-chairman of the Congressional Progressive Caucus in the House. “I don’t really care who is pushing it. It doesn’t matter who says it’s a good idea. It’s a bad idea.”

Ellison said the early resistance from House Democrats to cutting benefits was an indication “they won’t be able to do it.”

And then there's the line-in-the-sand Grayson-Takano letter, co-signed by over two dozen progressives: "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." This is in line with recent polling that shows the vast majority of Americans do not want to see Congress (and Obama) cut Social Security and Medicare. And that even includes a startling 62% of Republican voters! The Boehner-Obama strategy is to assume voters are so stupid they won't understand that the chained CPI is a significant cut to Social Security. Their allies in the Village are already pushing that implausible line relentlessly. The Progressive Caucus has an entirely different line than that: The Back to Work Budget. This is the antithesis of the failed European (ad Paul Ryan) Austerity agenda:

As our jobs crisis continues, more families are falling behind while the richest 1 percent of Americans take home an ever larger share of our nation's gains. The Back to Work Budget invests in America's future because the best way to reduce our long-term deficit is to put America back to work. In the first year alone, we create nearly 7 million American jobs and increase GDP by 5.7%. The budget gets us to near 5% unemployment in three years with a jobs plan that includes repairing our nation's roads and bridges, and rehiring teachers, cops and firefighters who have borne the brunt of our economic downturn. We reduce the deficit by $4.4 trillion by closing tax loopholes and asking the wealthy to pay a fair share. We repeal the arbitrary sequester and the Budget Control Act that are damaging the economy, and instead strengthen Medicare, Medicaid and programs that give struggling Americans a chance to succeed. This budget proves that if we invest in our middle class, America's best days are ahead.

Job Creation

• Infrastructure- substantially increases infrastructure investment to the level the American Society of Civil Engineers says is necessary to close our infrastructure needs gap

• Education- funds school modernizations and rehiring laid-off teachers

• Aid to States- closes the recession-caused gap in state budgets for two years, allowing the rehiring of cops, firefighters, and other public employees

• Making Work Pay- boosts consumer demand by reinstating an expanded tax credit for three years

• Emergency Unemployment Compensation- allows beneficiaries to claim up to 99 weeks of unemployment benefits in high-unemployment states for two years

• Public Works Job Programs and Aid to Distressed Communities- includes job programs such as a Park Improvement Corps, Student Jobs Corps, and Child Care Corps

Fair Individual Tax

• Immediately allows Bush tax cuts to expire for families earning over $250K

• Higher tax rates for millionaires and billionaires (from 45% to 49%)

• Taxes income from investments the same as income from wages

Fair Corporate Tax

• Ends corporate tax bias toward moving jobs and profits overseas

• Enacts a financial transactions tax

• Reduces deductions for corporate jets, meals, and entertainment

Defense

• Returns Pentagon spending to 2006 levels, focusing on the needs of modern security

Health Care

• No benefit cuts to Medicare, Medicaid, or Social Security

• Reduces health care costs by adopting a public option, negotiating drug prices, and reducing fraud

Environment

• Prices carbon pollution with a rebate to hold low income households harmless

• Eliminates corporate tax subsidies for oil, gas, and coal companies

Real progressives are signing the Grayson-Takano letter

Meanwhile, Bernie Sanders told Greg Sargent Monday that he's ready to get together with other progressives in the Senate to filibuster any Grand Bargain that chips away at Social Security, Medicare or Medicaid in the name of a balanced budget. Sanders is helping Sragent understand that Democrats need to build a coalition to leverage public opinion to force Republicans to accept a resolution that combines judicious spending cuts with new revenues from the rich and corporations-- while preserving entitlement benefits.

“It’s a question of making Republicans an offer they can’t refuse,” Sanders tells me. “Their position is no more revenues. You and I know that is not the position of the American people. One in four corporations doesn’t pay any taxes. What Democrats and progressives should say is, `Sorry, we’re not going to balance the budget on the backs of the vulnerable.’” Sanders described the idea of cutting education, Social Security, Medicare and veterans’ benefits as an “obscenity.”

...I asked Sanders if he would filibuster any grand bargain that cuts entitlement benefits. “It’s more than just the filibuster,” he said. “That’s a one day tactic. This is about rallying the American people and winning.” He predicted liberals in the Senate (Jeff Merkley, Sherrod Brown, and Elizabeth Warren come to mind) would likely band together to adopt a range of tactics to block such a grand bargain. “Filibustering may be part of it,” he said.

Don't leave out Tammy Baldwin (D-WI), Mo Cowan or Ed Markey (D-MA), Mazie Hirono (D-HI), Brian Schatz (D-HI), Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) and Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI). Maybe even Tom Harkin (D-IA) and Tom Udall (D-NM).