The Decider's picture

    How NOT to negotiate

    Hello my liberal friends.  I hope you will forgive me and not think me arrogant if I suggest that I know a bit more about negotiating than your hero, President Obama. As you probably know, Obama has offered a budget that seeks to find "smarter cuts" in spending than the sequester, "close tax loopholes" to generate very minor amounts of additional revenue, and (of great interest) use the chained CPI to adjust spending on social security benefits over time.

    The first point that I would make, and have made many times, is that you don't begin giving away your position before negotiations even start. The President should have suggested a budget with huge tax increases and very large spending increases tied to his major constituencies. In other words, exaggerate your position and then work back towards your realistic expectations through the negotiating process. Right now, all the Republicans need do is to wait until he offers up more and more compromise.

    Second, identify the problem. House Republicans say that it is the deficit. Well, social security has no impact on the deficit--it's on a different ledger. Make your opponent expand the field of play. Then, offer a solution such as means testing (which would be just as effective in fixing the long term problems) and force the Republicans to give up something in order to obtain the CPI approach. This also keeps your own forces in line because you don't appear to be screwing your friends (which is exactly the feeling that most liberals have right now).

    Third, let your opponents claim victory by acceding to your position. If the GOP could go on stage and say, "We got Obama to use chained cpi," and "We got Obama to make dramatic cuts in spending while only having to agree to minor tinkering in the tax codes that included no increases in tax rates," then they have a motivation to get engaged in the discussion. They get no return out of agreeing to Obama's proposal. They get a return out of appearing to force Obama into their position.

    But it's not about that. If Obama wanted to reach a deal, he would be following my advice. His only interest is in fashioning his own image as the non-political politician, the only truth-speaker, the man who stands up to his friends, etc. This is a point made regularly by Cenk Uygur, the Young Turk. I became President to DO something--to push a conservative agenda and assert American power across the globe. Obama just wants to BE something. That's why this great compromise has been offered. If he were serious, he would negotiate behind the scenes. If he had principles, he would stand by them. If he wanted to be the leader of his party, he would be faithful to their principles. He is a narcissist who is only interested in fashioning his place in history.

    I actually watched the Rachel Maddow show last night. She interviewed David Axelrod. His explanation for this compromise was that Obama was a serious man who wanted to be serious about fixing the very serious social security problem (it will run out of a positive balance sometime between 2036 and 2041). Then, when pressed on why he wanted to do this on the backs of the elderly by limiting their income, he simply continued to duck the question, over and over. I mean, there are many ways to fix the problem. I wanted to privatize, progressives want to means test, others have suggested slowly raising the eligibility age.

    The only explanation that I can come up with as to why Obama is positioning himself to appear very Republican is that it is all about image. It's not about doing something--it's about being something.

    Comments

    Well to be fair, W, you had a friendly congress for six of your eight years in office. You didn't DO much in those last two years, didja?

    Under the circumstances, DO is not an option for Obama. If I read him right, he's trying to dance the Republicans into position to give up a few more seats in 2014 so he can get one last shot at the DO.

    I don't think it will work, and I think he's paying too steep price by undermining Democrats' negotiating position in the future, but that's not the same as putting image ahead of achievement.


    Both of you guys are right. It is about 2014 , as G says, and Obama is negotiating like the village idiot ( and who knows village idiots better than the Estimable D?). its a setup to fake triangulate so dems can vote AGAINST the screw social security plan and present themselves in 2014 as friends of the elders. Oh that subtle Prez... meanwhile, they sucker the moderate pugs ( all seven) into voting WITH Obama, and thus being vulnerable. Scuze me, I need another hit of acid to follow this game.

    Then we will await 2015 with baited breath. Everything will be good then.  You know, I got a lot done without needing Congress. I didn't even ask their permission to attack Sadaam. Through it all, I managed to take care of my guys. "You dance with the one who brung you."


      Obama is requiring Republicans to give something in return for getting chained CPI--more tax hikes and cuts in military spending. Although this budget has spending cuts, it still spends generously on social welfare/entitlements, and increases spending on early childhood education and mental health programs. As I've said, I believe Obama when he says he'll take steps to prevent cuts in Social Security benefits to octogenarians. I stand by my assertion that Obama is protecting the safety net from the Republicans who want to destroy it. It is probably true that we need some measure of deficit reduction(Reagan used to be blasted by liberals for his huge deficits).


    If republicans want to cut entitlements a lot and democrats want to cut them a little neither side is protecting it.

    The White House has said the chained CPI will save $122 billion in benefits over ten years. Leaving aside the fact that Social Security doesn’t affect the deficit, here’s what isn’t being done:

    Close capital gains loopholes: $174 billion.
    End the Bush tax cuts at Obama’s original $250,000 level, rather than the compromise $400,000 number: $183 billion.
    Cut overseas military bases by 20 percent: $200 billion.
    Negotiate with drug companies: $220 billion.
    Enact “Defense-friendly” Pentagon cuts: $519 billion.
    End corporate tax loopholes (without being “revenue neutral,” as the President’s proposing): $1.24 trillion.
    Enact a financial transaction tax on the folks who ruined our economy: $1.8 trillion.

    2014 campaign poster: Vote Democrat, we'll cut SS less than they will.


    Do you have any links to support these numbers? It sure would be nice if we could shove these numbers down the Republicans and their dupes throats. Get the President to use the bully pulpit and show these statistics to the Nation. 


      As I've said, Obama is promising to prevent cuts to Social Security benefits, at least cuts more substantial than the -$100 per year predicted for younger seniors. That taxes aren't being raised as much as you'd like(how much can Obama raise them in the face of Republican resistance?) doesn't refute my contention that he is preserving the assistance to the poor and the sick that the GOP wants to shred. Remember the budget has increased spending on several aspects of social welfare.


    This...

    "Obama is requiring Republicans to give something in return for getting chained CPI--more tax hikes and cuts in military spending."

    ...just isn't a good trade to me.  It doesn't do anything to put more money in working people's pockets, so I don't see why we should support it.


    Bad policy, bad politics, and bad economics. A poor governance trifecta.

      I was thinking everyone here supported higher taxes for the rich.


    What good does it do us to get higher taxes for the rich at the expense of the working classes?  The point of higher taxes for the rich is to fund expanded benefits for the masses.  It's not good in itself.  It depends on what you use the money for.


    The point of higher taxes for the rich is to fund expanded benefits for the masses.

    Is this more parody?

     


      Obama is using a lot of the money to fund social welfare and support infrastructure.


    This does very little for those coalesced around the center of the income distribution bell curve and infrastructure spending, while it has its many virtues, is actually most preferred by wealthy Americans.  Why would that be?  Well, wealthier Americans and the businesses they run, benefit more from infrastructure than average people do, especially in the long run.  Example: if you own Wal-Mart, highways, bridges, tunnels, trains and air traffic control help you move goods cost effectively, making you richer.  If you work to Wal-Mart, having nice highways helps you get to work, but not much else.


    Wait..wut????

    This is a super weird argument, because those infrastructure jobs are some of the best jobs, they more often than not require skilled workers who make much more than minimum wage because they are either union jobs or professional positions.  Those jobs are extremely necessary to people who work at places like Walmart, and I think you know why.

     

     


    Traditionally, a lot of these infrastructure projects are full of under-the-table payoffs and other corruption. The Japanese spent a decade pouring concrete on useless roads to nowhere that didn't help their economy or their infrastructure. I think Stephens in his Alaskan bridge-to-nowhere tried to emulate (even though his trial was a shameful farce). I'm always suspicious of work projects where 90% of the expense is in raw materials & energy, especially where shovel to dirt is the start of a 3 year process, vs. high tech projects that can be completed in weeks or months, where profits vs. expenses might be 10:1, yadda yadda.

    I think we've been talking about savings from digital medical records for about 15-20  years, but doesn't seem like patient intake or care has advanced that much. Aside from our switch from PCs to mobile phones, what's greatly changed in living conditions & support systems over the decades? 


      As you said, infrastructure spending has "many virtues", so we should keep it up. The money spent on federal assistance to the poor does benefit people at the center of the income bell curve, which is why Republicans want to do away with it. Whatever else you say about Obama, he is for it.


    Negotiator? Ha. What happened to your SS privatization scheme? Loser!

    You republicans will always lose on SS because the people love it and they know the democrats will always be there to protect it from your cuts.

    Ah.. wait...ummmmm, never mind.


    loser

    not half bad as a painter, though. Prolly back on the bud now that the scrutiny is off.


    I try not to critique an artist on just a few paintings. But given his low output you're probably right, he's back on the bud. I'd expect to see a lot more paintings if he was back to snorting coke.


    Alcohol and drugs have always been important in art. While I am an artist in my soul, I imagine the quality of my work would go up if I were drinking or snorting.


    Of course decider. I have no doubt your cheerleading at Yale was much more exciting and energetic with the coke snorting.

    Or were you not snorting at that time? You've never really been clear when you were a cokehead. Now would be a good time to come clean. Nothing to be ashamed of, you're not the only US president to snort coke as a young man.

    Both you and Obama sure are lucky you didn't get caught back then, kicked out of school, served jail time, police record following you around for life like so many of your peers and classmates. You both really dodged a bullet there and went on to become president.


    This entire screed? has nothing to do with me, really.

    I mean I could lose $23.00 a year?

     

    Second, identify the problem. House Republicans say that it is the deficit. Well, social security has no impact on the deficit--it's on a different ledger. Make your opponent expand the field of play. Then, offer a solution such as means testing (which would be just as effective in fixing the long term problems) and force the Republicans to give up something in order to obtain the CPI approach. This also keeps your own forces in line because you don't appear to be screwing your friends (which is exactly the feeling that most liberals have right now).

     
    Social Security is an independent cache of cash that workers have funded.
     
    We have kind of lied about the independent portion of this Act because general funds borrow from this independent portion?
     
    Anyway, I was going to get into a full attack upon your Administration; especially with Dicky Cheney astounded that we are not at war with Korea and Iran and a hundred other countries.
     
    Let's just say that the first rule of governing is equivalent to Hippocrates' sentiment:
    THE FIRST THING IS TO DO NO HARM!
     
    I mean you destroyed our military, our military prisons, our economy...and my peace of mind.
     
    hahahahaha
     
     
    So just go back to painting dogs and such whilst former presidents like Carter and Clinton provide hope to hundreds of millions of people across the globe.

     


    Oh, but you are wrong, Dick. I mean, I know that I'm not trotting around the globe trying to solve poverty and such, but what I have done to bring hope to the world is priceless. I proved that a good ol' boy of average intelligence who has lost money in business through his hole life can achieve the highest office in the land. That brings hope to millions of Americans!


    "I mean you destroyed our military, our military prisons, our economy...and my peace of mind."

     

    But not your since of humor, Dick. I never could put a dent in that!

    --W


    Rex Nutting at Marketwatch on Obama's Budget "Failure of Will and Imagination':

    .....Here is where Obama failed to engage his imagination. His budget plan isn’t going to pass, so why not use the opportunity to spell out how he would use the government to make this a more prosperous, more just and more equal union?.....Instead of highlighting his beliefs and emphasizing the differences between Democrats and Republicans, Obama’s budget obscures the choices we must make.

    And, by compromising so readily, Obama can’t even make a strong case for the things he like to accomplish. He’s given up before he even gets started.

    For instance, Obama thinks every child in America should have access to high-quality pre-school. But his budget only funds about two-thirds of the $100 billion it would cost for the first 10 years. Why not ask for more?

    Obama is dissatisfied with the pace of job growth and with the poor state of American roads, bridges, ports and other infrastructure. The needs — both in terms of job creation and physical infrastructure — are massive.

    Yet his budget only funds $40 billion for immediate repairs, compared with the $3.6 trillion that engineers say is needed. By contrast, the Congressional Progressive Caucus budget recommends spending $2.9 trillion on job creation and public investment. Their budget isn’t going to pass either, but at least it stands for something.

    Obama says climate change is a grave long-term threat, but his budget doesn’t include such sensible policies as a carbon tax or a market mechanism to discourage the burning of fossil fuels.

    I could go on, but you get the point. The Obama budget fails as a starting point for serious negotiations and as a blueprint for Obama’s vision.


    Senator Warren is reportedly "shocked" by the president's CPI proposal:

    According to the Huffington Post she is, well frankly, astonished:

    Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) made it clear Wednesday in an email to supporters that not only would she oppose President Barack Obama's plan to cut Social Security benefits through a cost-of-living adjustment known as chained CPI, but that she was "shocked to hear" it was included in the White House's budget proposal at all.

    Warren said her brother David lives on the $13,200 per year he receives in Social Security benefits. "I can almost guarantee that you know someone -- a family member, friend, or neighbor -- who counts on Social Security checks to get by," she wrote.

    An excerpt from her e-mail to her followers reads:

    That's why I was shocked to hear that the President's newest budget proposal would cut $100 billion in Social Security benefits. Our Social Security system is critical to protecting middle class families, and we cannot allow it to be dismantled inch by inch.

    The President's policy proposal, known as "chained CPI," would re-calculate the cost of living for Social Security beneficiaries. That new number won't keep up with inflation on things like food and health care -- the basics that we need to live.

    In short, "chained CPI" is just a fancy way to say "cut benefits for seniors, the permanently disabled, and orphans."

     

     

     


    Latest Comments