Michael Maiello's picture

    The Secret Plan To Cut Your Benefits?

    By Michael Maiello on Tue, 02/15/2011 - 6:03pm | Politics

    This Slate article is pretty darned amazing.  John Dickerson imagines that President Obama is secretly working with the Republicans on some hardcore budget cutting.  Dickerson writes of this approvingly, as if a back room deal is the only way that we'll get to the Social Security and Medicare cuts that he believes we need.

    "It would be the smartest way to get anything done," Dickerson writes.  "It would keep the entitlement conversation from getting hijacked, and it would build on the model for interaction that helped bring about the agreement last year with Republicans on extending the Bush tax cuts."

    Hijacked.  Hijacked?  Why I do believe he means people like us having a voice in the discussion and talking about things like priorities and fairness and just not being quiet leaving the details to Joe Biden and Mitch McConnell.

    This, by the way, is what Dickerson imagines is going on.  He even quotes McConnell: "If we're going to do anything serious about entitlements, we're not going to negotiate it in public," McConnell told Politico's Mike Allen in a recent interview. "I don't necessarily conclude from the absence of any real discussion of entitlement reform that the president is not interested."

    So it's getting ugly out there.  Look, if there's a real national consensus among the American people that we absolutely have to cut public health care and retirement programs, then that's one thing.  As a society we do get to choose our own priorities.  If the Americans think it's more important to buy aircraft carriers or pay interest on Treasury bonds than it is to pay reasonable Social Security benefits to people who have earned them during a lifetime of work, then that's what Americans think.

    Except that the American people don't think that, which is inconvenient for politicians from both political parties who seem to believe that some cuts to these programs are in order.  Well, I suppose it's okay for politicians to buck the popular will in the service of some higher good.  But then we should expect them to bravely do it in the light of day, to accept that the public wants to be part of the conversation and to refrain from whining if their are electoral consequences down the line.

    Now it may be that Dickerson is wrong and that there's no back room deal or even any conversation.  That would be a good thing.  There's no point in having a president who talks to Americans as if they're adults if he's just going to spend his time whispering behind our backs.  If the President wants to discuss making cuts to two effective, well managed and well liked government programs, it's a conversation that we can have out loud.

    Topics: 
    Politics

    Comments

    Destor, I have less faith than you in the public discussion process. "Public debate" has come to mean a game of smash-mouth ping-pong between the left and the right. And as for the silent majority, it seems to want to cut the deficit, cut taxes, and preserve entitlements.

    Attempting to honor popular opinion seems like a recipe for gridlock and inaction. At this point, I'd welcome some LBJ-style backroom deals.


    by Michael Wolraich on Tue, 02/15/2011 - 6:28pm

    Genghis, I suspect this is impossible to answer but... do you think the people in the back rooms of today would be more or less corrupt than in LBJ's time?  I suspect things are worse if only because the stakes are higher.  There's just more power and wealth at play. 


    by Michael Maiello on Tue, 02/15/2011 - 6:58pm

    I guess it depends what we're talking about it. The chief problem with corruption, in my opinion, is not national policy but sweetheart deals that benefit particular companies. So if Obama and Boehner were to emerge with a budget that included weird loopholes and subsidies for donors and cronies, I would be concerned.

    But we're really dealing with more monumental issues here. The government seems paralyzed to address significant threats to the country's economy and institutions.

    To complete the analogy, the importance of passing the Civil Rights Act under LBJ trumped any corruption concerns. I think that today's crises compare in magnitude.


    by Michael Wolraich on Tue, 02/15/2011 - 7:20pm

    At this stage we've had nothing but backroom deals for the last two years. You make it sound like this would be something new.

    Also, haven't polls shown job creation has consistently been the #1 concern for Americans over the last two years? I think that should be on the list and the deficit should come off. There is very little evidence those actually living in the real world care about that much - even after tens of millions poured into trying to make this *THE* national concern. IMO you are mistaking the priority narrative corporations have invested huge sums of money to advance on the teevees for the desires of an imaginary "silent majority".

    If people have been silent, you can't possibly know what their priorities are ... I have it on good authority that by and large the silent ones are all in agreement with me, not you.


    by kgb999 on Wed, 02/16/2011 - 9:10pm

    Do you post in Slate's comment forum,The Fray?


    by bdtex on Tue, 02/15/2011 - 8:29pm

    Yep.  Well, occasionally.  Half the time the comments don't load and so I get fed up with it.  But I am a Slate fan.


    by Michael Maiello on Tue, 02/15/2011 - 9:02pm

    destor, I do not want to believe there are any backroom deals going on. I thought that the adults were in charge. Yesterday, the state government here announced cuts to essential services AS WELL AS, tax hikes across the board.

    After an hour long morning commute, in which I suffered the whining of metro north commuters bitching about the service slow downs, and the whinning of otherwise intelligent people at work bitching about the tax increases, it occured to me that although our governor is trying to be an adult, there are few left in the state.

    According to someone on Bill Maher, (if you don't have HBO, there are ways and means), our tax rate is more closely aligned with those of third world countries. Me, I don't mind higher taxes, but I would expect more bang for the buck. Better public works, transportation, healthcare, safety nets, etc. Why is this so hard to explain to the American people?

    You have to pay to play.

    That's all there is to it.

    President Obama need to ask the American people this: WHAT DO YOU WANT? Do you want cutting edge services, the old young, and disabled well cared for, decent education, a LITTLE security? WHAT KIND OF SOCIETY DO YOU WANT? Simple question. Then explain the math. For years and years politicians have been getting elected by repeating a big lie: that we can have a decent standard of living and not pay for it.

    It's high time for some straight talk. I dunno if President Obama has the guts or the wit for it. So far he gets a big FAIL from me.


    by Bwakkie (not verified) on Tue, 02/15/2011 - 10:20pm

    BWAK!  Nice to see you.  And yes, the President needs to explain the math.  But he also needs to explain the home economics.

    Like, if I raise your taxes but give you health care at a lower cost than the premiums to currently pay, then you come out ahead.

    If I raise your taxes and use some of the money to subsidize your Metro North tickets so that prices can go down rather than up for once, then you make money.  If I make the service so good that you can get by without a carp payment and car insurance then you make a lot of money.

    If you pay your Social Security taxes and get a lifetime annuity as a result, in addition to your other savings and investments, you will be far ahead of somebody who must deal only with the whims of the market!

    You actually can pay taxes and come out ahead.


    by Michael Maiello on Wed, 02/16/2011 - 9:11am

    "You actually can pay taxes and come out ahead."

    Sure, of course you can pay taxes and come out ahead.

    BUT THAT'S CHEATING!

    You're only supposed to get ahead by hard work, tax cuts, privatization and union-busting. It's the American way...


    by Obey on Wed, 02/16/2011 - 9:21am

    Sorry, I forgot.  And, of course, "hard work" means ibanking.  Nothing else counts.


    by Michael Maiello on Wed, 02/16/2011 - 9:55am

    I don't think there is much confusion in America about this. And by and large I think we are all on the same page as citizens. The teaparty folks I talk to, the arch-conservatives ... pretty much everyone. Even the old-school Paultards appreciate getting O2 for grandma when she's sick and aren't under any illusions what makes that happen. There sure aren't many third world nations who are able to hand a billion dollars a year over to Egypt and Israel. Obviously our taxation provides quite a lot of revenue. If we'd stop handing national wealth gratis to bankers, military contractors and mega-millionaires things actually look like they pencil pretty well.

    I don't think people are really pissed with paying taxes. We're pissed about how they are squandering the billions and billions that they collect. *Nobody* supported extending tax cuts for the wealthy but the wealthy. Less that 10% of the nation were able to hold the other 90% of us "hostage" (i.e. make life politically difficult for Obama so he caves rather than take a political risk). They make the rules don't pay taxes and then raid the national coffers. It isn't a great big mystery why most people don't feel inclined to keep on paying for this bullshit.

    Its difficult for me to blame people when the articulation of frustrations follows one of the lines provided for them by the media establishment. Someone is PAYING big money to advertise these easy conclusions that distract focus from the real sources of anger. When actually talking to people (if you don't take the easy bait that always gets floated first), we are all a lot closer on core stuff than this "Who's more like Hitler ... conservatives or liberals?" bullshit would lead us to believe.


    by kgb999 on Wed, 02/16/2011 - 10:01pm

    Any "back room deal" focussed only on cuts is nutbar city limits.

    If people in the US are worried about the deficit, then higher taxes need to be front and center. Any comparison with any other Western nation shows this. It's not that the average US citizen gets too much from Gov't, it's that what they get isn't being paid for.

    The anti-tax mania, in the face of the fiscal abyss opening up, looks and sounds more and more like madness, mental illness. I read of states looking at bankruptcy, while their income taxes are at 3%... well, I've just reached the point that I say, "This is a country full of idiots. Buffoons. They simply want things for free. Well... fuck 'em."

    We pay 10%-15% income tax at a provincial level here. We pay sales taxes of 13%-14%. Plus, there's Federal income tax. Yet I see states looking at bankruptcy because they're at 3%-5%? A Federal Gov't that wants to extend the Bush cuts? Bizarre.

    And yes, I get the "stimulus" arguments. But the thing is, whether the problem is boom or bust, deficit or surplus, the US has decided that the right tool to use is... the tax cut. Obama's "grand compromise" when faced with the GOP wanting to extend taxcuts? Yeah. More tax cuts. 

    Enough already.


    by quinn esq on Wed, 02/16/2011 - 3:09am

    Yeah, it's madness all right. But there is an old Chinese proverb: Don't play chicken with a madman.


    by Michael Wolraich on Wed, 02/16/2011 - 1:32pm

    Not sure if you are, but if you're referencing the idea that the Chinese and others can't dump US dollars, because they'd hurt themselves - " a game of chicken" - then I disagree. I know it's become a commonplace in the US, but that in itself worries me. It's the kind of theory that works until it doesn't. And once it doesn't, life turns bad. Really bad.

    People will find ways to not throw good money after bad. A bet that people will double down on their bad investments is a bad bet.


    by quinn esq on Wed, 02/16/2011 - 6:53pm

    The Republicans are the madmen. The "Chinese proverb" was a red herring, sorry.


    by Michael Wolraich on Wed, 02/16/2011 - 11:24pm

    If we could then, let's stick with these at Dag.

     

    And leave these for your fancy schmancy book audience friends. 


    by quinn esq on Thu, 02/17/2011 - 10:55am

    You also have a lot of folks down here smuggling stuff back up North to avoid the taxes. It really got noticeable when the exchange rate flipped.

    While we may all be idiots. Buffoons. We aren't so stupid that we can't recall the math that floated around just two months ago when the high-end tax cuts should have expired. The nation's rich could have balanced the budget by simply paying their fair share like the rest of us. But because they refuse - WE'RE the assholes for not wanting to shoulder their burdens? That's a pretty cute turnaround.

    No wonder the rich don't pay taxes ... when they refuse, the liberals are apparently all hyped to make up the difference by extracting revenue from the "buffoonish" middle class. Yes, let's raise our middle-class and state taxes on families while exempting the bulk of the nation's generated wealth from collections - because it's "rich people money" that can't be touched. Real social justice, there.

    I think you hit on the problem: Obama doesn't actually have any solutions of his own. But there is still no evidence that rank-and-file Americans wanted to extend the high-end tax cuts. So, let's be clear here Obama is an idiot and a buffoon. Don't blame the rest of us for that - or at lest blame the right people: Democrats worshiping at the alter of high Clintonian triangulation. They are the *only* ones supporting these crap policies beyond the traditional GOP elite who have always advanced them.


    by kgb999 on Wed, 02/16/2011 - 10:37pm

    I don't really have a problem with back-room deals. They're usually necessary on explosive or sensitive issues. But mistrust creeps in when you sense that no party in that back room sincerely and capably represents your interests.

    In this case, it looks to me like centrist 'fiscal conservative' dems and rabidly corporatist republicans trying to hash out the sacrifices they are going to demand of the working class. Given that liberals still overwhelmingly remain fiercely loyal to Obama, this bipartisan conservative coalition has a once-in-a-lifetime chance of gutting entitlements. Are forty dems really going to stand up to their party's leader? I don't see it happening.

    What a mess.


    by Obey on Wed, 02/16/2011 - 6:18am

    The folks who build aircraft carriers make a lot of money and they tithe all that money to their political friends.

    These masters of war have to pay both sides of course to prevent surprise at the polls.

    The political machinery must be kept running in order for the politician to spew out his propaganda and so that he can get elected and  that costs money.

    I just reviewed a long article at the Washington Post discussing the frauds involved in Newt's several nonprofit ventures.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/15/AR2011021506344_2.html?sid=ST2011021506417

    He collects all this money from the masters of war and commerce skimming 2/3 of the contributions for his own purposes. For every three bucks he collects, two bucks go for the cost of doing business. And the article convinces me that this was exactly the scheme that got him in trouble when he was Speaker. hahahaha

    It is worse than any Ponzi scheme developed by Wall Street.

    The only way that you can deal with this system is to remove the tax incentives.

    You ever notice that the same maniacs that laud capitalism love the concept of the nonprofit corporation?

    Basically they are saying that they are in it for the money but against making a profit!

    If we simply taxed all nonprofits, all lobbying groups, all fundraising organizations that money would take care of all of our 'entitlement' programs.


    by Richard Day on Wed, 02/16/2011 - 2:11pm

    I would second what Genghis first posted, adding whether it was even possible to have any substantial public discussion on a national scale that would lead to near-future policy decisions, especially when one is dealing with controversial issues such as social security.  Over time, through a multitude of interactions and discussions (face-to-face, online, over the airwaves, etc) there might be a significant shift on such issues that would lead to the inevitability of a particular policy path.  I think we saw that with the Civil Rights Movement, which took years and years.  

    But decisions need to be right now.  That isn't going to happen with, as Genghis put it, "ping ponging" between the two sides which won't give an inch.  It is hard to have a discussion with someone on SS when to even bring up the idea of whether to increase the age by one in year demonstrates one's true intent to gut SS and make the elderly eat cat food.  Moreover, to be seen negotiating with the "enemy" (a view of the Other that tends to lessen the quality of discussions) is seen as sign of weakness and lack of leadership.  Unfortunately, every issue seem to become wrapped up in every other issue in some grand battle and so giving a little here to the other side, means one is going to give it all to them over there.  All the sides seems to have taken the NRA's playbook on "negotiating" at least when it comes to the discussions done in public. 

    I say let them broker a deal and then let the elections come.  What is done ultimately can be undone, just as what is left undone can be eventually done.  Given enough time.  Which is what we're running out of.


    by Elusive Trope on Wed, 02/16/2011 - 3:04pm

    My problem is that I don't see the urgency here at all.  Count me in the camp of not willing to give an inch on the retirement age.  It's already going up to 67.  That's more than high enough from the standpoint of any working individual.  If Obama disagrees with that, then let him make his case.  But I'd like him to make it to me.


    by Michael Maiello on Wed, 02/16/2011 - 5:10pm

    There are two reasons for urgency:

    1.

    2.

    Yes, we can address these issues by raising taxes, cutting the military, etc., but we can't pass those without some kind of compromise because this country is filled with millions of people won't touch either. So if Obama can cut a deal with them, I'm for it, even though I strongly believe that we shouldn't reduce benefits if we have any other other alternative.


    by Michael Wolraich on Wed, 02/16/2011 - 5:34pm

    Does anyone else see these images? They're not showing up on my browser.


    by Michael Wolraich on Wed, 02/16/2011 - 5:35pm

    I can't see them but I'll trust you that they're either funny or on point or both.


    by Michael Maiello on Wed, 02/16/2011 - 5:47pm

    You were using "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:USDebt.png". I think the second colon bollixed it up. I found better URLs on wiki.


    by Donal on Wed, 02/16/2011 - 6:53pm

    Thanks, Donal


    by Michael Wolraich on Wed, 02/16/2011 - 11:23pm

    The SS Trust would grow larger if Obama hadn't given the FDIC tax holiday, and say...just an idea here...creating jobs would also add to the kitty.  Instead, a jobless recovery is seemingly fine by all those Austerity Freaks as long as Wall Street is flush (and boy, it it.)


    by we are stardust on Wed, 02/16/2011 - 9:02pm

    There are Austerity Freaks out there, but I don't think that worrying about the government's long-term solvency makes you one.


    by Michael Wolraich on Thu, 02/17/2011 - 12:14am

    Riddle me this. You are asserting as given that Social Security needs some sort of decision "right now". Why?

    If the economy never comes back, we're solvent at 100% benefit to 2037. That's American money that we invested - it's not an "entitlement" beyond the fact that we're entitled to our own damn money. There isn't really anything that needs to be discussed at this point in regards to Social Security. In fact, it is the only thing in America that actually works right now. It also has absolutely nothing to do with the deficit. Nothing. Even the catfood commission's report states this unequivocally.

    What, besides Obama creating a false imperative, makes Social Security reform crucial just 24 months after an election where such a policy wasn't even discussed - let alone a course of action presented to the voters and approved?

    So, after not being honest about his four year agenda during a campaign undertaken a few months ago, you support making the decision over something that impacts every single American and has been a birthright for generations in secret - never giving the voters an opportunity to participate in a single election between the time the imperative was pulled out of thin air and a solution promulgated as law?

    2037 gives us two decades to make a solid plan, get public buy-in and actually vote - like we live in a democracy or something. Why do you say we are running out of time and why do decisions on social security need to be "right now?" There is no emergency.


    by kgb999 on Wed, 02/16/2011 - 11:11pm

    In 2037, assuming that government revenue remains consistent as percentage of GDP, entitlements exceeds revenue. Forget military, debt payments, discretionary budget; we're talking all government revenue going to SS, Medicare, and Medicaid.

    How long do you feel that it's OK to ignore this issue while our national debt grows? What is the nature of this promised "solid plan" that will somehow solve the problem without cutting benefits? What are we waiting for?


    by Michael Wolraich on Wed, 02/16/2011 - 11:38pm

    Latest Comments