Have you personally read it, the budget? Let's go over it a bit and see if you still believe what Charles Pierce says, but he has deliberately by what I can tell from what you've written twisted the President's budget proposal.

The Chained CPI proposal itself is a bit confusing, especially to just a regular person like myself, but I think I have a handle on some of it, since I've actually read the document at the whitehouse website. The Chained CPI proposal is contingent on two things; 1. it will be rescinded if the Republicans do not agree to a "package that includes substantial revenue raised through tax reform." And 2. it will have to be "coupled with measures to protect the vulnerable and avoid increasing poverty and hardship."

Protections for the vulnerable are called benefit enhancements. Benefit enhancements are somewhat fuzzy in the document, but  they begin around the age of 76, they max out at 85, and then if you actually make it to 95 another benefit enhancement kicks in. Yes benefits are going to be cut at the lower level, but there are protections in place, the benefit enhancements.

Do I agree that it is bad politics to try to make a deal with Republicans by throwing the chained CPI proposal in there, I don't know I think he is trying to get them to come to the table, to do their  job, and they are still recalcitrant asses who simply refuse to not just compromise but have real proposals on the table, of which privatizing Social Security is not a real proposal, and their endless attempts to repeal PPACA, not real, as waste of time, yet they do that over proposing and attempting to pass a legitimate budget.

Sequestration has hit us  personally, but I still believe that we should be cutting the Dept of Defense budgets, I think we should reassess our reliance on the cost-plus aspects of private defense contractors.  However, I don't see that the Chained CPI proposal is as dire as the professional "Freak Out about Every little thing" community. Because it is a proposal, and nothing in Washington is hard and fast and until something is passed the proposal remains that, just a proposal.

But buried within that Chained CPI proposal is this, the proposal does insist that the wealthy pay more, and partly that we can't get the Republicans to do what they don't want to do. They want this change in the Consumer Price Index.  That isn't a good thing, and the proposal tries to scuttle that particular Republican proposal.

Sure does it make sense to deal with our budget problems by raising the highest marginal tax rate substantially, raising the capital gains tax, clamping down on corporate profits, penalizing those businesses who move their profits offshore, and of course raising the ceiling on the Social Security tax.  But without Republicans even playing the game, because they are not, and none of this in the end is even up to the president. Without Republican cooperation we get nothing, nothing gets done, and you see what we get... nothing, just them in their constant mode of saying NO. They aren't even bothering to appear to be negotiating, they simply say, our way or no way. And then we end up here, right where we are, with nothing being done. 

PS: Let's not go over the single payer meme again, okay, it's a old discussion where most people don't know what they are talking about, (Pierce, You, Everyone at FDL, KOS, all the places where the knownothings purport to know something, and I am just plain tired of it, tired of the "but everyone wanted it" which literally has nothing to do with what we got, if everyone wanted it as you state, then people need to quit electing the Louie Gohmerts of the world, but they don't.   You want to place blame for the reason we couldn't even get a public option light... Max Baucus is responsible for that, he is a Democrat and Montanans will continue to reelect the guy even though he is owned by insurance companies. If Montana's ex-governor wants to, (Schweitzer) he could take Baucus down, but he is the only guy in Montana who can do that, and the question is, will he?

What we can be sure of is that the President's proposal will not be accepted by the R's in the House, we can be sure that nothing will change, sequester will be with us permanently. There seem to be no carrots that bring Republicans to the table.  So here we are... the same place we began, waiting for Republicans to do something, to bring something to the table and all they say is, they either get their entire package or the country gets nothing. And here we are still harping on the President, who at least made a budget proposal, have the R's done this yet? No, no they have not and that is their primary job in the house to deal with taxes, revenues and running the country.

Sorry I went on so long... I'd better go get ready for work. But thanks for letting me vent, right here on your blog.

..the honest belief that not doing this will cause a crisis of such magnitude that it will change public opinion so markedly that it will make it likely that the Republicans will win the White House in 2016.

'They' didn't even need a crisis to garner 61 million votes for Romney, the privatize Social Security and hand it to Wall Street Party, and the voucherize Medicare candidate. During the crisis of 2008, caused by lax regulation of Wall Street and the finance sector, the Party in power, the one that waves the banner of 'free markets' and no regulation, got 60 million votes.

The question is not what Obama 'wants' it's what do the voters want. It's what can the voters be made to want, or to accept as inevitable. What 'reality' can they be made to believe.

The record on that last point for the American electorate, is that far too many can be made to believe almost anything. The crux of the issue is, if Obama can do a deal that can get us through the next decade it forestalls GOP plans to outright end SS and Medicare.

Which is why they haven't made a deal.