This might be the best article I've read in the last few weeks.

One of President Barack Obama's Senate allies said Thursday that an increase in the Medicare eligibility age is "no longer one of the items being considered by the White House" in negotiations with top Republicans on avoiding the so-called fiscal cliff. But Illinois Democratic Sen. Dick Durbin said he didn't get it directly from the president or the White House.

However, he is regularly updated on the negotiations.Increasing the eligibility age is a key demand by Republicans seeking cost curbs in popular benefit programs in exchange for higher tax revenues.Obama and House Speaker John Boehner remain far apart on a potential agreement to avoid a looming "fiscal cliff" of expiring tax cuts and across-the-board spending cuts.

Durbin is cued into the Obama administration so if he said this then at least it's most probably true. Obama might cave on us, but this is the first real positive stance I've read coming out of the White House on the age of our earned benefits.

I can understand why Republicans feel the need to inflict a massive amount of pain on the elderly population of America (even though raising the age doesn't help alleviate their deficit fetish one bit) because they are sore f*&king losers and need to lash out and hurt someone. It's been their way for over thirty years now and with the lunatic fringe making up the majority of the GOP that trait won't let up any time soon. The villages and absolutely lost when it comes to this. How do they make the argument that we need a bipartisan agreement (which means heavy cuts to entitlements) after Democrats just crushed Conservatives in a huge election?

Digby explains:

Everyone wants compromise in theory, but in reality they don't want vital programs cut. From the Pew Poll also released yesterday:

The polling also suggests that the public generally supports the budget priorities that have been outlined by Democrats. Nearly seven in 10 voters want to raise income tax rates on incomes of more than $250,000, while 54 percent support limiting deductions and 52 percent want to raise the tax rate on investment income. The only entitlement reforms to receive support from more than half of all Americans are reductions in Medicare and Social Security benefits for high income seniors. Majorities of those surveyed oppose raising the Social Security or Medicare eligibility age, and 52 percent say they do not want to limit the home mortgage interest deduction. Also unpopular are opposed cuts to the defense budget and welfare programs. More than two-thirds of Americans also object to infrastructure and education cuts.

The confusion is among the Villagers. They seem to think that the proper "compromise" must consist of millionaire chump change in exchange for suffering from the elderly and the sick. (And apparently, many Democrats have signed on to that too --- "everyone has to suffer sacrifice a little bit.") Sure people want compromise --- if it ends up with policies they like. When it doesn't, they think it was a sell-out. The politicians usually know this even if the pundits don't.

Digby links up a great post by Barney Frank in which he describes the insane amounts of money the Military Industrial Complex is costing America and how that should be handled in these negotiations. I just wrote a post called : Why Were Defense Cuts Off The Table On Sunday Morning Shows?

The fiscal cliff once again dominated the Sunday morning talk shows (which isn't a surprise), and entitlement cuts were indeed a focal point by the lead bobblehead of each show. But what I found most offensive was that not one Villager or politician discussed cuts to defense spending as a solution for the Mayan Apocalypse of the federal deficit. In part, the reason the fiscal cliff is coming is because the sequester deal has massive cuts to defense spending

Please read all of Digby's post and then reread all my examples of Sunday talk show malfeasance over the lack of dialogue about defense spending's role in the federal deficit.

(start the video at the 1:51 mark)
Anyone who's paying attention knows that Social Security DOES NOT add one red cent to the federal deficit. So it's nice to finally some Democrats are speaking out against including Social Security in any talks for a fiscal cliff solution.

Social Security does not contribute to the federal deficit and should not be a part of ongoing negotiations to avoid the so-called fiscal cliff, Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) said Tuesday, in a speech billed as a "major address making the progressive case for a bipartisan fiscal cliff deal." Durbin's line in the sand on Social Security reflects an increasingly aggressive effort by Democrats to block changes to the program.
---
Yet on Monday, White House spokesman Jay Carney appeared to back up Durbin's position, suggesting a "separate track" be used to reform Social Security. "We should address the drivers of the deficit, and Social Security currently is not a driver of the deficit," he said.
--
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) has said that he won't be part of any negotiations that include Social Security. "Social Security is not part of the problem. That's one of the myths the Republicans have tried to create," Reid said. "Social Security is sound for the next many years. But we want to make sure that in the outer years, people are protected also. But it's not going to be part of the budget talks as far as I'm concerned." And at a press conference on Tuesday, Reid said that President Barack Obama had told the fiscal cliff negotiators at a recent meeting that "Social Security is not going to be part of this."

The moronic CNBC reporter covering the story says that this is just a bargaining ploy by Sen. Durbin because if a comprehensive solution is to be done then Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid has to be included in any deal. Gee, that's why I'm not for a villager solution.

Meanwhile, Greg Sargent reports this encouraging news:

Now this is encouraging. I’m told that representatives of major unions and progressive groups met privately this morning with senior Obama administration officials at the White House — and were pleased with what they heard.

---
Indeed, one person at the meeting — which included people from the AFLCIO, AFSCME, SEIU, MoveOn and others — came away convinced that the White House would ultimately prove willing to go over the fiscal cliff if necessary, rather than give ground on core demands, though this is not by any means a desired option and isn’t being discussed as a strategic possibility. The attendee tells me the White House is cool to the idea of going over the cliff, but added: “Would they if it’s between that and compromising their core principles? I was left with the impression that they would.”“They remain in the same place: They expect taxes to go up on the wealthy and to protect Medicare and Medicaid benefits,” the attendee added. “They feel confident that they don’t have to compromise.”

White House officials also signaled in the meeting that they are going to insist that Republicans agree to resolve the need to raise the debt ceiling as part of the fiscal talks — and won’t abide a separate fight over it, attendees said. Also key: Attendees got the impression the White House does not view this looming debt ceiling battle in the same terms as the 2011 fight, where Republicans had the leverage.“ They don’t seem to have the same fear now,” the attendee said. “They intend to get this wrapped up in these negotiations, and don’t intend to have a separate fight. Their position is this needs to be resolved all at once.”

Oh, if could only believe this. But with all the chatter coming out of the White House I'm not confident at all that this is how they will act. I'm not much on the confidence fairy stuff.

DOWNLOADS: (121)

PLAYS: (724)

Embed

I love watching millionaire politicians divvy up our safety net, don't you? So does George Stephanopoulos, since he brings it up Every. Single. Chance. He. Gets. The thought of some working class schmoe having a dignified retirement really, really gets to the Villagers, apparently:

Senators, welcome. And, Senator Durbin, let me begin with you. You see those markets going up in anticipation of a deal. Are they right to be optimistic?

DURBIN: Well, they should be optimistic, because we can solve this problem. Unfortunately, for the last 10 days, with the House and Congress gone for the Thanksgiving recess, there hasn't much -- much progress hasn't been made. But tomorrow there's no excuse. We're back in town.

And, George, let me tell you, it gets down to the basics. The House of Representatives has a bipartisan bill passed by the Senate that will spare 98 percent of taxpayers across America from any income tax raises and 97 percent of businesses. It's a bipartisan bill the House should pass to make sure that we go forward with these negotiations without this specter of tax increases for working families.

They also, I might add, have a bipartisan farm bill sent by the Senate that they've been unable to pass and a bipartisan bill for the Violence Against Women Act reauthorization. It's time for the House in the closing days of this session to at least take up those three measures and pass it.

STEPHANOPOULOS: OK, Senator Graham, you've signaled that you're willing to raise revenues as part of an overall deal that also includes spending cuts, and that's drawn the fire of Grover Norquist, you know, the author of that no-tax pledge that's been in place among so many Republicans for 20 years right now. He thinks the best solution is actually not to negotiate a compromise right now, is to go over the cliff. He says the world won't come to an end if this isn't resolved before January. Take the sequester. The only thing worse than sequester cuts is to not cut spending at all. He's saying don't raise taxes, accept those spending cuts.

Grover, of course, using the old Brer Rabbit strategy: "Oh please, please throw us into that sequester patch!"

GRAHAM: Well, what I would say to Grover Norquist is that the sequester destroys the United States military. According to our own secretary of defense, it would be shooting ourselves in the head. You'd have the smallest Army since 1940, the smallest Navy since 1915, the smallest Air Force in the history of the country, so sequestration must be replaced.

I'm willing to generate revenue. It's fair to ask my party to put revenue on the table. We're below historic averages. I will not raise tax rates to do it. I will cap deductions. If you cap deductions around the $30,000, $40,000 range, you can raise $1 trillion in revenue, and the people who lose their deductions are the upper-income Americans.

But to do this, I just don't want to promise the spending cuts. I want entitlement reforms. Republicans always put revenue on the table. Democrats always promise to cut spending. Well, we never cut spending. What I'm looking for is more revenue for entitlement reform before the end of the year...

(CROSSTALK)

STEPHANOPOULOS: I want to ask Senator Durbin about that, but let me press you one more time on Grover Norquist, because he's had some tough words for you. In the end, he says, you're not going to go through on this promise to raise revenues, because you, quote, "like being a senator." Your response?

GRAHAM: I love being a senator, and I want to be a senator that matters for the state of South Carolina and the country. When you're $16 trillion in debt, the only pledge we should be making to each other is to avoid becoming Greece, and Republicans -- Republicans should put revenue on the table. We're this far in debt. We don't generate enough revenue. Capping deductions will help generate revenue. Raising tax rates will hurt job creation.

So I agree with Grover, we shouldn't raise rates, but I think Grover is wrong when it comes to we can't cap deductions and buy down debt. What do you do with the money? I want to buy down debt and cut rates to create jobs, but I will violate the pledge, long story short, for the good of the country, only if Democrats will do entitlement reform.

The game's laid out for us. Republicans want to trade teeny, tiny deduction cuts for Big Bold CUTS in the national safety net. Will Obama let them?

STEPHANOPOULOS: Let's talk about that entitlement reform, Senator Durbin, because you see your allies in the Democratic Party are already starting to mobilize with ads from labor unions, the AARP airing across the country right now. I want to show part of it right now.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

(UNKNOWN): How do we move our country forward and reduce the deficit? By creating jobs and growing our economy, not by cutting progress that families rely on most. For working families, it's all about putting Americans back to work, not cutting the things we rely on most.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

STEPHANOPOULOS: They are signaling that they can't accept the kinds of entitlement reforms, especially in Medicare and Social Security, that Senator Graham is saying are prerequisite to a deal.

DURBIN: Let me tell you, first, George -- and you know this -- Social Security does not add one penny to our debt -- not a penny. It's a separate funded operation, and we can do things that I believe we should now, smaller things, played out over the long term that gives it solvency.

Continue reading »

Dear God, Andrea Mitchell is just as obnoxious as Sally Quinn at her worst. "How are we going to pay for all that?" And she's hounding Dick Durbin about why, why, WHY isn't this stubborn president cutting all that wasteful spending and pushing Simpson-Bowles to make her and her husband's friends on Wall Street happy.

Notice how Durbin hastens to assure her that Obama didn't embrace it because it would have hardened the Republican opposition, and that the Simpson-Bowles report (the Catfood Commission report) has been and will continue to be the template the president will follow. Oh, goody:

Like the Republicans, Democrats cherry-pick. Pelosi, for example, says she is all for Simpson-Bowles, except for that pesky Social Security part.

That "part" would be the Simpson-Bowles proposals to increase the retirement age over the next 50 years from 66 to 69 and the age for early retirement from 62 to 64. This would result, under Social Security formulas, in a 7 percent reduction in benefits for every year the full retirement age is increased, says the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. At the same time, elderly and disabled Medicare beneficiaries would have to pay higher out-of-pocket expenses.

Liberals quail, as well, at the way Simpson-Bowles would cap federal revenue and spending at 21 percent of gross domestic product and limit the rate of growth of federal health care costs for the poor, the elderly, children, veterans and military families, to the growth of GDP plus 1 percent.

So if the rate of for-profit healthcare increases outstrips GDP plus one percent, doesn't that leave us with... a voucher system?

Various Democratic interest groups shudder at the proposals to freeze pay for federal workers, slice military and civilian pensions, cut the federal workforce by 10 percent, end congressional earmarks, reform the tort system, cut the corporate tax rate, and adopt a “territorial” tax system for multinational firms in which most or all of overseas profits would not be subject to U.S. corporate income tax.

That kind of shared pain, of course, is what gives Simpson-Bowles such potential as a “framework” or “template.” Everyone has some skin in the game.

Simpson-Bowles lets us “know what the options are,” says Boehner. “All we have to do is have real leadership and courage.”

Personally, I'd rather President Obama state that he will veto the real budget buster: the Bush tax cuts. But that's just me.

This is a great idea. It provides a legitimate basis for the feds to intervene in this madness that's spreading through the country like wildfire:

WASHINGTON -- Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) announced the introduction of a bill that could make it considerably more difficult for cash-strapped states and cities to lease their transportation assets to private investors.

The bill would require states and cities to repay any federal funds they used to build or maintain the assets, such as toll roads or airports, as a condition of leasing them, likely thwarting many deals before they happen. It would also call for more transparency in the negotiation of such deals.

In recent years some local governments, such as the City of Chicago and the State of Indiana, have traded their right to collect money on toll roads to foreign investors in exchange for billion-dollar up-front payments. Critics say such deals are short-sighted budget gimmicks that could end up burdening generations down the road.
Chicago's Midway Airport, where he spoke today, was nearly leased for $2.5 billion two years ago, but the deal fell apart.

"I'm really trying to stake some ground here on a principle and position that we ought to reflect on," Durbin told HuffPost. "The federal government is in debt. We are borrowing money to sustain our operations, and we're sending some of that money to states and localities for investment in infrastructure. We're making quite a sacrifice. If a decision is made by a local unit of government to privatize that public infrastructure, federal taxpayers should have a seat at the table."

As states and cities across the country face grim budgets, more and more are looking to stem their shortfalls by leasing existing assets, such as roads, lotteries or government buildings. The City of Harrisburg, Pa., may soon lease its parking meters to a private investors, as Chicago has already done for a 75-year period starting in 2008. Durbin remarked that he's already watched the cost of parking soar in Chicago since that city's deal was inked."It's a caution to all of us," Durbin said. "When we look at privatization, we have to look at the long-term."

Maybe bin Laden's death is just the cover story the Democrats have needed all along. You have to figure: None of them are happy about going home and telling the voters they're cutting popular social programs, right? And they know where all the money's going. If we pull out of Afghanistan, a major budget problem is solved:

Early on in a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing about Afghanistan today, Medea Benjamin of Code Pink interrupted a discussion about whether the United States should maintain current troop levels or draw down to a smaller force focused on counter-terrorism operations. “There is another opinion—just leave,” she said.

Senator John Kerry (D-MA), the committee’s chairman, quickly gaveled the hearing into a brief recess, and Benjamin left the room. Had she stuck around, she might have been surprised to hear the number-two Democrat in the Senate essentially echo her position.

Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL), the Democratic Party whip, asked by far the hearing’s most important question and one of the most pointed by a Democratic leader to date: “If you believe that resolution of this conflict by military means is highly unlikely and not a realistic basis for US policy, how can we send one more American soldier to fight and die in Afghanistan?” he said.

Durbin noted that “Afghanistan has been a graveyard of empires,” and repeatedly invoked the human cost borne by American soldiers. “We are now in a very sterile conversation about diplomacy and foreign policy,” he said. “The reality is they’re fighting and dying over there. And the question is—how long will we keep sending them?”

Aside from Durbin, other senators who attended the hearing—both Republican and Democrat—voiced serious concerns about extended commitments to Afghanistan. Not one openly called for staying the current course.

Senator Richard Lugar (R-IN) cited President Obama’s recent $100 billion budget request for fighting the war in fiscal year 2012, along with a strategy that “appears to be devoted to remaking the economic, political, and security culture of that country,” and said that “it is exceedingly difficult to conclude that our vast expenditures in Afghanistan represent a rational allocation of our military and financial assets.”

Lugar’s concerns were echoed by Senator Robert Menendez (D-NJ), who said plainly that “I’ve been supportive of the administration so far, but I have a real hard time as we move forward.” Menendez wondered aloud whether there was “an amount of money or plan that can actually work here.”

The only other Republican to speak, Senator Bob Corker (R-TN), also raised questions about the amount of money being spent. “I think the one thing that would stun the American people on the ground in Afghanistan, is how much we are investing in this country, and what we are investing in,” he said.