White House officials said this week that the offer is still on the table. – Obama’s evolution: Behind the failed ‘grand bargain’ on the debt
How quickly people forget.
A 2010 Gallup poll serves as a reality backdrop to this tale.
The report in the Washington Post over the weekend gives you an idea of the dynamics in the debt ceiling negotiations, as well as what could play out in Obama’s second term. It also illustrates the traditional media sympathies for a grand bargain on entitlements. This sentiment is woven throughout the report, but also across the cable infotainment shows.
While Republicans distract everyone with 19th century debates on women’s contraception, Democrats are once again being lulled into forgetting some of the things that caused Pres. Obama so much trouble in his first term.
That night, Obama prepared his party’s congressional leaders. He warned Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) that he might return to the position under discussion the previous Sunday — that is, cuts to Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid in exchange for just $800 billion in tax increases.
Would they support him?
The Democratic leaders “kind of gulped” when they heard the details, Daley recalled.
By this time, Obama had become the face of the bitter debt-ceiling talks and his poll numbers were dropping. His allies on Capitol Hill cringed at his predicament but also at what he was asking them to do.
Dan Pfeiffer, the White House communications director, recalled that the president and his team felt the weight of the global economy “on our shoulders.”
“Is there political benefit to coming to a big budget deal with John Boehner? Sure,” Pfeiffer said. “But every other political and message imperative was thrown out the door to prevent a disaster and do the right thing for the country. That’s why we were willing to do things we wouldn’t normally do.”
Reluctantly, Reid and Pelosi agreed to do their best to support the plan.
I’ve argued from the start of this discussion that this is a seminal part of Pres. Obama’s willingness to choose conservatism and compromise, allowing Republicans to win arguments that are diametrically opposed to what the public wants. Even Tea Partiers want their entitlements.
This is also part of the problem with our politics, because Congress is nothing more than a rubber stamp for the chief executive, with members willing to sell out principle for a president, if he’s in their own party. It’s the best case for fewer Democrats and Republicans in Congress, allowing more Independents into the conversation in Congress.
But you have to wonder, now that entitlements are seen to be the biggest problem and impediment to our economic health across the political landscape, if an effective campaign can even be waged over the ridiculous notion that entitlements are a bigger problem than our Pentagon spending.
In his second term, Pres. Obama will be freer to get a grand bargain, which he and Democratic leaders clearly were ready to do in his first. Of course, if Republicans had their way cuts to entitlements would look even worse, opening the lesser of two evils argument that partisans invariably use, with this issue revealing why it works.
That’s the big two corporate parties, who differ in varying degrees on their notions of what should be done with entitlements, but who basically agree that this is the path to solving our fiscal challenges.
A second Obama term or a Mitt Romney first, entitlements are very likely “on the table.”
So, the Republican “war on women” has had a secondary affect. It’s taken Democratic eyes off of another fundamental tenet of progressive economic policy, making people forget why after Obama’s back room health care deals, there were other issues that had succeeded in dampening enthusiasm for Pres. Obama.
The Grand Bargain we need is higher taxes on the wealthy, and if I pay higher taxes DIRECTLY into my social security account (not to finance wars) I am happy to pay more into it so I can have more when I am too old and frail to work.
We need the safety net and retirement and aging with dignity in the United State.
Our government representatives should be fighting for a way to increase the citizen’s safety net not dismantle it.
Undeclared war over 10 years cost – 2 or 3 TRILLION dollars? How much went to enrich crooks, contractors, munitions makers and the military industrial complex. 800 Billion to bail out banks that we are now lending money to at about 0.0% while they try to loan it to us via credit cards for 15 to 28%?
If Obama goes there again to cut social security I hope the Occupy movement takes center stage as the only group that cares about the PEOPLE in our country.
Considering the pole, and the unpopularity of changing benefits for those 55 and younger, as someone who is almost 50, and has been working and paying into SS, medicare since she was 14, and has never stopped, even while in college, and is looking forward to retiring at 62 or 63, I find it terribly annoying that suddenly, my benefits may change. That perhaps I will now have to work until 70, or something else. Grrr…….
Obama WANTS to fiddle with SS and Medicare just as much as GWB WANTED to go to war and be a “war president”. This has been obvious from the get go. Obama represents the 1%, not the rest of us. I actually think that Romney would have a harder time making changes to SS and Medicare, so maybe Obama is NOT the lesser of two evils.
I agree completely. Obama wants to be the 1% hero. He’s been far too willing to put Social Security and Medicare on the table for a self-respecting Democrat. Apparently, a significant portion of the Democratic party has crossed over to the 1% side and it is shameful. It’s why I no longer contribute to the party and why I will not vote for Obama. I agree with Uh-oh that the chances of dismantling these important programs for the American people are going to be greater under Obama.
What a bunch of BS Taylor. You are spinning anonymous remarks given to the media. President Obama has never agreed to or discussed cutting Medicare benefits.The GOP and Taylor Marshians keep promulgated the myth that Obamacare cut 500 billion dollars in Medicare benefits. Not so, Obamacare cut 500 billion dollars out of Medicare costs, not benefits. Under Obamacare Medicare benefits actually increased including annual free physicals with no co-pay and a closing of the ‘donut’ whole which costs thousands of seniors thousands of dollars.
One of the largest cuts in costs for Medicare is cutting the taxpayer subsidies to private health insurance companies that offer Medicare Advantage and Medicare Complete health insurance programs. The 2004 Bush Adminstration prescription drug bill excluded Medicare from offerring any prescription drug plan. That led to the birth of the Medicare Advantage and Medicare Complete programs. How do they work? I should know I have Medicare Complete coverage offered by United Healthcare. By joining the Medicare Complete program solely to have prescription drug coverage I had to join United Healthcare’s HMO. Any claim I might have for any service, not just prescriptions but surgery,medical tests, hospatlization, seeing specialists, medical therapies everything that is covered by basic Medicare is by Untied Healthcare to the provider..
The cost for signing up with a Medicare Complete progam? ZERO,there is no premium charge for joining Medicare Complete. Every claim I incurr is paid by United Healthcare’s HMO directly to the provider. How do they makre a profit when the cover everything Basic Medicare covers and still charge a ZERO premium?
Every claim I incurr and that was paid by United Healthccare is submitted to Medicare who pays the cost of the claim plus a 14% transaction charge for every dollar of claims covered by Medicare. All Obamacare did was to reduce this absurd transaction chage from 14% to 7%.
Try to get the facts right first Taylor before joining Fox News amen choir on the myth that President Obamna cut 500 billion dollars oujt of Medicare benfits. Either youy know nothing about jhow Medicare works or you just are susceptible to any myth promulgated by the GOP that fits your negative attitude towards President Obama.