Let's take a little stroll down memory lane. Back in January 2009, the very prescient Digby wrote this post after learning that Obama was going to hold a fiscal responsibility summit as one of his first priorities. See if it rings any bells. Is Obama is "winning" the debt ceiling debate - or is this more like a pro wrestling match?

Normally another Democratic run bipartisan commission on social security reform wouldn't alarm me so much as annoy me. After all, Clinton was forced by the incoherent "centrist" Bob Kerrey into appointing a social security commission and Bush promised to appoint one after the failure of his attempt to privatize the system. But this time could be different. The scope and complexity of the economic crisis could lead to politicians rushing forward with some bad plans just to appear to be doing something.

I believe that everything about this is a huge mistake. It validates incorrect right wing economic assumptions, incorporates their toxic rhetoric about "entitlements," focuses on the wrong problems and continues the illusion that social security is in peril when it isn't. The mantra of shared sacrifice sounds awfully noble, but it isn't very reassuring to talk about the government going broke at the moment, particularly when the cause of our problems isn't the blood-sucking parasites who depend on government insurance when they can't work, but rather the handiwork of the vastly wealthy who insist on operating without restraint and refuse to contribute their fair share. I would have thought that a bipartisan commission on financial system reform might have at least been on the agenda before social security.

Obama is empowering the Republicans and the Blue Dogs with this fiscal responsibility rhetoric and perhaps he believes they will reward him by acting in good faith. And maybe they will. Or perhaps he thinks he can jiu-jitsu the debate in some very clever way to actually bolster social security and enact universal health care. But it's a big risk. I believe that all this talk about "entitlements" and fiscal responsibility will make it much tougher to sell universal health care and easier to dismantle some of the safety net at a time when many people have just lost a large piece of their retirements, their jobs and their homes. It's very hard for me to understand why they think it's a good time to do this.

I know it's probably right that we give him a chance before we completely go postal about this, but I also know that if this were a Republican saying these things I'd certainly be doing everything in my power to oppose it. But then that's the beauty of the Nixon goes to China gambit, isn't it? It neatly shuts down the most fervent opposition. That's why it's so frightening. He might just get it done.

Remember this article from The Hill, about a split in the Obama administration on Social Security reform?

Social Security reform is splitting President Obama’s economic and political advisers. Obama is being pulled in opposite directions by those whose priorities are fiscal and those whose No. 1 concern is electoral Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, National Economic Council Director Gene Sperling and Sperling’s deputy, Jason Furman — leading figures in the president’s economic team — are pressing Obama to cut Social Security benefits if necessary, say sources familiar with their positions.

But Obama’s political team, led by David Axelrod, David Plouffe and Jim Messina, are urging the president to understand that backing benefit cuts could prove disastrous to his 2012 reelection hopes, sources say.

The political team is winning the argument so far, but internal debate rages at the White House as Republicans in Congress insist sweeping efforts to restore government finances must include Social Security reform. “Gene Sperling and Jason Furman and some of the Treasury people started with the posture that we’re the best people to reform Social Security — that was when the Democrats had a majority in both houses of Congress,” said a Democratic policy expert who has met Obama’s economic policy team over the past two years.

“The same people have continued to make that argument even as they’re now responding to conservatives who are stronger in the Congress,” the source, who strongly opposes benefits cuts, told The Hill. “There are two camps,” the source added. “One camp wants to be able to throw a bone to Republicans and some [centrist] Democrats.

“The political people would prefer not to be accused of being the party that cuts Social Security in those ways. Some political people would like to see the president out there defending the program and making the case that it has nothing to do with the deficit.”...read on

Every poll shows quite clearly that even Republican voters do not want a cut in these benefits.

If Sperling's argument is about reforming Social Security and Medicare without taking away from them, then OK, but that's not what I'm reading here. Do these creatures only listen to Villager gasbags who want working-class Americans to be the only people to "share" the sacrifice and suffer in America after Wall Streeters and their partners caused the Great Recession?

Guess who won?

President Obama will deliver a major speech this week about plans to reduce federal budget deficits and long-term debt, senior adviser David Plouffe said this morning. "He's going to lay out his approach very clearly," Plouffe said on CNN's State of the Union, one of a string of Sunday talk show appearances he made.

Obama will address cuts to defense and domestic spending, as well as what to do with the growing entitlement programs of Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, Plouffe said. He will talk about "dollar amounts" over "a period of years." "We have got to make sure that we are taking a balanced approach to this," Plouffe said.

The president's deficit speech is set for Wednesday.

It comes as the nation is set to hit its $14.3 trillion debt ceiling in mid-May.

It's interesting that Plouffe didn't want this to happen, but he was put on the Sunday talk-show circuit to be the one to tell us about Obama's upcoming speech.

If the President approaches it with no cuts to Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid and actually frames the debate by demonstrating that Paul Ryan's ludicrous budget plans are in fact ludicrous, then it may not be as bad I think it will be. But I don't have much faith in that, now that more information has been released on the budget deal. Also, once he sets out his plans for what appears to be austerity, then I'd calculate that it'll be at least 50% worse than what he's going to propose nationally, since they terribly negotiated the 2011 budget.

Steve Benen says as much:

But then there's the flip side. Once Democrats commit to systematic debt reduction as policymakers' principal goal -- as opposed to, say, economic growth -- it sets the terms of the debate. The unyielding dynamic locks everyone into answering the same question: how do we tackle the deficit and the debt?

That's the question Republicans (and much of the media) want as the central focus, but there are more pertinent and important questions that should be prioritized, such as, "How about a jobs plan to reduce unemployment?" Or maybe, "How will taking money out of the economy and reducing public investment lead to more growth?"

What's more, it also sets baselines for a "compromise." If Obama presents a credible vision for long-term debt reduction this week, we'll have one pillar, which will serve as a counterweight to Paul Ryan's radical House budget plan presented a few days ago. But a moderate counterweight may not be wise -- if recent history is any guide, negotiations will produce a deal that's somewhere between them.

In this case, that'd be a disaster. Even halfway to Ryan's roadmap would destroy much of the modern American social compact, and prove devastating to the middle class.

mcjoan of DKos explains:

With Republicans coming off of their big win Friday night, with an additional $6.2 billion more in cuts than they went into the negotiations asking for, it's hard to see getting out of the budget and debt ceiling negotiations with Medicare and even Social Security largely intact. Now that Obama is offering up Medicare, well, get that spare bedroom ready for the parent or grandparents.

But in case the administration really wants to think about some policy alternatives to save Medicare and Medicaid some money, they might start with breaking the the policy they helped kill during the Affordable Care Act negotiations. It'd be a start.

Paul Krugman writes:

You might have expected the president’s team not just to reject this proposal, but to see it as a big fat political target. But while the G.O.P. proposal has drawn fire from a number of Democrats — including a harsh condemnation from Senator Max Baucus, a centrist who has often worked with Republicans — the White House response was a statement from the press secretary expressing mild disapproval.

What’s going on here? Despite the ferocious opposition he has faced since the day he took office, Mr. Obama is clearly still clinging to his vision of himself as a figure who can transcend America’s partisan differences. And his political strategists seem to believe that he can win re-election by positioning himself as being conciliatory and reasonable, by always being willing to compromise. But if you ask me, I’d say that the nation wants — and more important, the nation needs — a president who believes in something, and is willing to take a stand. And that’s not what we’re seeing.

Wednesday is his chance to lead.

You find the darndest things on Craigslist, don't you?

Looks like the The Peter G. Peterson Foundation is putting together another scare piece (remember "I.O.U.S.A."?) to use in their latest attempt to kill Medicare and Social Security.

As a Philadelphian, I'm thrilled we were chosen to take part - even if they picked us because tightwad billionaire Peterson knew it would be cheaper than filming in New York.

But this is more than mere marketing - and it isn't even the major thrust of his sophisticated astroturf campaign. The fact is, billionaire Peterson has spent decades of his time - and millions of dollars - pushing for the eventual gutting of these two programs. He's a deficit hawk, all right - but only when there's a Democratic administration.

And in a classic piece of disaster capitalism, he and his powerful allies are moving in for the kill. Be very, very afraid.

A New York City Production Company is looking for participants for a documentary web series about the financial issues facing everyday people. We are interviewing real people, not actors, talking about their lives, experiences, and thoughts about one or more of the major issues facing Americans today.

We are looking to cover stories from as many different ethnicities and political viewpoints as possible. Whatever your age, background, or income, if you have an interesting story, we'd love to hear from you.

Since this is documentary journalism we can not by law compensate the interviewees but we will pay for travel and food. The shoot should take a few hours and we will do our best to schedule around your convenience.

What do you suppose the odds are of my viewpoints being included in this "documentary journalism"?

You will be helping other people by telling your story. Other Americans who feel alienated and hopeless will gain comfort by knowing they are not alone. And together we can make a difference in the future of our country and for our children.

Yes, we'll be stripping the recession-battered country bare of what tattered remnants of a safety net that remain - and we'll make you like it! It certainly will make a difference.

The videos are for The Peter G Peterson Foundation, a non-profit, non-partisan, organization whose only mission is to educate the American people about the country's financial situation and incite them to take action on their behalf.

Dear sweet Jesus, shoot me now. The man worked for Nixon. He was the CEO of Lehman Brothers, which held the same kind of influence we now see with Goldman Sachs. (So you know he has only our best interests at heart!)

You don't have to be a political expert to participate. We just want to know your personal story.

The topics are:

1. The Healthcare System - What it does to the participants and the need for reform in a way that works.

2. The Tax System - How complicated and unfair it is.

3. Social Security and Medicare - What will happen to the younger generations once the Entitlements go broke.

4. The Federal Government's Financial Situation - 11 trillion in National Debt with no plans to balance the budget and pay it back.

5. Our own personal financial issues - High school loans, credit card debt and mortgage rates are crippling Americans.

Some of the possible "stories" we're looking for:

* A person who can't pay their mortgage or their taxes

* A recent college graduate with credit card debt and student loans.

* A young family adjusting to the costs involved in raising children.

* A person with serious healthcare expenses.

* A small business owner who would like to provide healthcare but can't.

* A person who has been or is being audited due to a mistake by their accountant or not knowing how to file taxes properly.

* Anyone who is infuriated by these issues.

Please remember, the types listed above are only possible guidelines. If you have an interesting story about your financial struggles, we'd love to hear from you!

I think you know what to do. Let's send these sorry excuses for human beings back to Wall Street with some real stories.

The series will premiere on prominent websites with potential TV airings.

If interested, please send an email with your name, contact info, and a brief description of your your situation to John at casting@dynamiccontentproductions.com. We will be shooting in Philadelphia mid to late January so time is of the essence.

Look, if the healthcare battle hasn't opened your eyes to the fact that immensely wealthy and powerful corporate interests are perverting our democracy, you're not paying attention. Why else do you suppose the Washington Post turned over a chunk of their news section the other day to a piece of Peterson propaganda - disguised as news content?

The Washington Post published in its news pages an article by The Fiscal Times -- "an independent digital news publication reporting on fiscal, budgetary, health-care and international economics issues" -- that promoted the creation of a task force to reduce the deficit in part through cuts to Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. But the Post did not disclose that the Times is funded by conservative billionaire Peter G. Peterson, whose organizations have long advocated reducing the deficit through entitlement cuts and have called for the creation of such a commission.

The Fiscal Times article ran on Page A10 of the January 31 edition of the Post. The article's byline noted that authors Elaine S. Povich and Eric Pianin report for The Fiscal Times; a note at the end of the article stated that it "was produced by the Fiscal Times, an independent digital news publication reporting on fiscal, budgetary, health-care and international economics issues."

Oddly enough, there was no inclusion of opposing views in this "news" piece. But then, the Washington Post has a long and proud tradition as a willing handmaiden to powerful interests.

So here it comes, the cranking up of the Mighty Wurlitzer. If they want a fight, bring it on.

This time, we're ready.

David Sirota calls it "czarism on steroids," this rising up of various interests to "reform" Social Security in a very big hurry, citing an urgent need to sidestep the normal democratic process.

Well. Isn't that special!

How nice that they're all so concerned - especially the Blue Dogs who had absolutely no qualms whatsoever about Bush running up a trillion dollar deficit over his little Iraq misunderstanding, but now have such grave concerns about spending on social programs during a global economic crisis. (As Jane Hamsher recently noted, she loves how these self-styled patriots "crawl out from under their slimy rocks every time there’s a Democrat in office to preach 'fiscal responsibility,' which somehow always has to start with the social safety net but never quite works its way up to the F-22.")

David Walker to Obama:

WALKER: You mentioned in January about the need to achieve a Grand Bargain involving budget process, social security, taxes, health care reform. You're 110% right to do that. Question is, how do we do it? Candidly, I think it takes an extraordinary process that engages the American people, provides for fast track consideration and with your leadership that can happen. But that's what it's going to take.

This is what it's about for these "Shock Doctrine" partisans, because they just don't like democracy. That's why they'd rather buy off legislators: because they know if the American people ever get a clear fix on what they're really up to, they'll be drawn and quartered. That's what Sirota points out:

Why is democracy such a threat to those who want to slash Social Security or pass corporate-written trade deals? Because those right-wing ideologues know that if any mildly democratic institution even vaguely accountable to the public is allowed to weigh in on those proposals, those proposals will be seriously amended to reflect the will of the people who, for instance, don't like the idea of Social Security cuts or more NAFTAs. Put another way, they know that the public intensely hates their ideas, and that thus, the only way to get their ideas enacted into law in the United States is to crush democracy before it is allowed to interfere.

What's funny, of course, is that democracy and checks and balances were set up specifically to prevent the kind of thing that the Blue Dog Democrats are now trying to impose on the country. The Founding Fathers set up the legislative process - with its debates and amendments and deliberations - so as to prevent a tiny minority of elites from enacting policies that the broad majority of the public opposes. They didn't want a government like there was in Britain - a dictatorship where whatever the king wanted was the law, regardless of whether it had popular support.

Now, in order to destroy the most popular program in history, America is seeing the revival of the Royalists - the people who are effectively insisting that their will should be imposed on the rest of us, regardless of what the rest of us want, regardless of whether the rest of us even get a say.

If there's one thing we all know about dogs, it's that they need to be trained. House-broken, as it were.

Primary challenges, anyone?

DOWNLOADS: (188)

PLAYS: (846)

Embed

Third Way released a brand new memo on how the Democratic Party’s only hope for the 2012 election is to cut the programs for the broad middle class that are their most popular legacy and the cornerstone of their brand: Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. It is an interesting strategy based on this reasoning:

• The deficit will be the key defining issue in 2012
• Voters want to do something about it
• Republicans are winning on the deficit issue
• Democrats can’t win an election anymore by defending Social Security and Medicare
• The public holds “nuanced” views on the issue of whether to cut Social Security and Medicare

Alongside these political arguments, naturally, they restate their long-held policy argument that cutting these benefits is the right thing — indeed the “progressive” thing — to do. And after making these points, they then do a tutorial for those Democrats who want to follow their lead as to how to talk about making these cuts, which leads with the exact same line the Republicans are using, which is that only by cutting these programs will we be able to preserve them for the long run. (Third Way’s talking points on how to sell these cuts to voters — i.e. we are making these cuts to “ensure that Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid will always be there for those who need it” — actually remind one how popular these programs actually are.) They then go into the Pete Peterson rhetoric about all the new retirees overwhelming the system, tell people to emphasize that these are “small adjustments, not major sacrifice,” and make it clear that “Washington must do its share.” They emphasize that this must be “bipartisan from start to finish.”

It is an interesting argument given how strong and overwhelming the polling is, and always has been, to not mess with Social Security and Medicare. For an organization that spends so much time focusing on polling data and making political arguments based on it, this can only mean one thing: they really, really want to cut Social Security and Medicare benefits. I mean I knew they did already, given their January policy memo on doing just that; despite acknowledging that the future shortfall of Social Security could easily be fixed by lifting the payroll tax cap for wealthier people, Third Way preferred cutting benefits. But rather than speculating as to why they want to do this, even though the average senior citizen gets just $14,000 a year from Social Security, let's analyze the political arguments they are making on their own merits:

Continue reading »