Part of the answer surely lies in the widespread desire to see economics as a morality play, to make it a tale of excess and its consequences. We lived beyond our means, the story goes, and now we're paying the inevitable price. Economists can explain ad nauseam that this is wrong, that the reason we have mass unemployment isn't that we spent too much in the past but that we're spending too little now, and that this problem can and should be solved. No matter; many people have a visceral sense that we sinned and must seek redemption through suffering - and neither economic argument nor the observation that the people now suffering aren't at all the same people who sinned during the bubble years makes much of a dent.
But it's not just a matter of emotion versus logic. You can't understand the influence of austerity doctrine without talking about class and inequality.
Thus, the average American is somewhat worried about budget deficits, which is no surprise given the constant barrage of deficit scare stories in the news media, but the wealthy, by a large majority, regard deficits as the most important problem we face.
(This is where the influence of big donors, who can speak to their senators whenever they want, becomes the enemy of common sense and the Middle Class. -z)
And how should the budget deficit be brought down? The wealthy favor cutting federal spending on health care and Social Security - that is, "entitlements" - while the public at large actually wants to see spending on those programs rise.
You get the idea:
The austerity agenda looks a lot like a simple expression of upper-class preferences, wrapped in a facade of academic rigor. What the top 1 percent wants becomes what economic science says we must do.
So, they've crunched some real numbers and determined exactly how much money the average Social Security recipient can expect to lose if the Chained-CPI is implemented. I'm going to assume that if someone told you that the government was going to seize $15,000.00 from your 401k you'd think it was a cut.
...
To rich people, 15 grand amounts to tip money so they cannot see why average Americans shouldn't be willing to give up such a paltry sum especially if it will "save" Social Security for their grandchildren.
Funny thing about that --- it won't. Save Social Security, that is.
So Social Security's status will barely be improved by Udall and Bennet and Obama and Pete Peterson's solution. Though it will absolutely be felt by almost every recipient - young, old, retired, working, disabled.
And that $15,000 is a little over a month's pay for our esteemed senators who will soon make those "tough" decisions to cut Social Security and bless America's wealthy with another generation of low-tax, America the Beautiful living.
Thank God they are not average, for they all do so deserve their bounty...
Trying to think of a core Democratic principle that Barack Obama has stood up for, fought for, implemented, damn the political costs.
I can find none.
He stopped torture, thank goodness. But drone attacks that kill innocent civilians continue. He's wound down 2 wars, that we couldn't fight forever anyway (no matter the desires of John McCain and Lindsey Graham) and that should've ended years before they did.
Oh, wait, Afghanistan hasn't ended yet.
Health care "reform" was/is a disaster achieved with Michael Bennet's great flair, and nothing else. It's still on a slow roll with Republicans poised to repeal it at any minute.
The President certainly has evolved on LGBT issues and gay marriage, but boy, did that take some time and a "gaffe" by Veep Biden.
But now some say his convenient evolution on social issues gives him some further desire to cut social programs as a give back to the political center. This is to make Republicans less hostile and donors more amenable, though Republican hostility to this president is an ever-morphing beast who feeds on any statement, policy, utterance, thought emanating from the White House.
Will the beast ever be soothed? NO.
BP tried to kill the Gulf, they received a relatively mild slap on the wrist. Keystone pipeline seems a given, though its massive potential for polluting the environment will far outweigh its economic benefits of 35 full time jobs.
Coloradans praised Obama's interior secretary Salazar, a local yokel who opened up offshore drilling, had the Horizon and the Kulluk on his watch, yet did very little for the good of the environment to my eye.
And still Obama's supposed allies in the Senate never cease their calls for more and more bipartisanship. This quest has turned into a continuing win for Republicans who are given a mile only to take another mile on almost every issue. Obama has pre-negotiated with Republicans so much they only have to wait and watch for him to give them more.
The Republicans have won so many economic issues or so many years it seems impossible the Obama/Peterson/Third Way plan to cut Social Security and raise Medicare's eligibility age seems inevitable. Thanks, once again, to a compliant and weak-kneed and economically ignorant delegation from Colorado and to a Zombie Bowles/Simpson cyborg that nothing can kill, not even a simple spreadsheet.
If someone can name a core Democratic issue on which Obama has staked significant political capital (oh, and he had and has it yet) then please chime in.
I'll keep searching for one - and wondering what it would take for a Democrat to act like a true Democrat in this day and age in our nation's capital.
There is nothing here to disabuse me of my long-held notion that most economists reach their conclusions by cutting up a sheep on a rock and reading the entrails.
This error is needed to get the results they published, and it would go a long way to explaining why it has been impossible for others to replicate these results. If this error turns out to be an actual mistake Reinhart-Rogoff made, well, all I can hope is that future historians note that one of the core empirical points providing the intellectual foundation for the global move to austerity in the early 2010s was based on someone accidentally not updating a row formula in Excel.
And are we at all surprised that a certain zombie-eyed granny-starver of our casual acquaintance was one of the delivery mechanisms into our politics for what may be one of the great public-intellectual blunders (or worse) of the century?
Why, no, we are not at all.
This has been one of the most cited stats in the public debate during the Great Recession.Paul Ryan's Path to Prosperity budget states their study "found conclusive empirical evidence that [debt] exceeding 90 percent of the economy has a significant negative effect on economic growth." The Washington Post editorial board takes it as an economic consensus view, stating that "debt-to-GDP could keep rising - and stick dangerously near the 90 percent mark that economists regard as a threat to sustainable economic growth."
The Seattle Post Intelligencer has reported that the US Department of Justice secured a court order demanding that the state agency in Oregon that oversees the provision of medical cannabis to Oregonian patients who are suffering from serious, and in some cases, life threatening diseases to turn over records that personally identify patients, care givers and suppliers of the medicine.
The search warrant was filed in November of 2012 and requires the Oregon Medical Marijuana Project to turn over the names, addresses, telephone numbers, birth dates, and driver's license numbers of "patients, growers and care givers in the Oregon Medical Marijuana Program database files."
The state officials who register patients and suppliers were ordered by the US Department of Justice to not disclose the existence or contents of the search warrant.
President Obama has, against all political common sense and economic history, decided it's time to cut the most effective social insurance program in history.
The Republican bargaining habit is well-established -- take Obama's "final" offer as the new starting point and demand further concessions. With this strategy, our president has let them take him to the cleaners for more than four years now, and is still hoping that sweet reasonableness will produce compromise. It never has and never will.
If Democrats stand for anything, it is defense of Social Security and Medicare -- America's two most broadly beneficial and most beloved government programs -- and the president just gave away this last bit of product differentiation. In the past, Republicans have saved Obama from himself by refusing to consider any tax hikes. Now, I'm beginning to think, it's time for Democrats save him from himself. And the Democratic Party. And us.
Mark Udall, who told Lawrence Kudlow on CNBC that he'd gladly lose his job for a Grand Bargain vote, may rue the day that lie was spoken.
The ultra-liberal AARP, representing all those private-jet-sharing, Vail-mansion living, Cavier-chugging (soon to be cat food) old folks has seen the president's proposal.
Congress and the Administration are considering, as a means of deficit reduction, a legislative change to the consumer price index - the so-called "chained CPI." This change would have a particularly negative impact on Social Security benefits - here's why:
1. Chained CPI compounds over time.
As a result of a chained CPI, there will be a 0.3% annual cut in Social Security cost of living adjustments (COLAs). Social Security loses $112 billion over the next 10 years.
(That $112 Billion is probably how much the Koch Brothers will be worth when this is over. -z)
2. The greatest impact will be on the most vulnerable older Americans.
As retirees age, they have less income, fewer financial assets, and are more dependent on Social Security. Specifically, women tend to live longer than men and tend to have lower incomes, so women and poorer households are more at risk of falling into poverty with any cuts to Social Security.
3. Benefits for disabled and retired veterans would be cut.
3.2 million disabled veterans and another 2 million military retirees would see their benefits cut if chained CPI is adopted.
(And here I thought everyone in Washington, DC, loved our veterans and vowed to uphold our nation's promise to them. -z)
4. Chained CPI is a less accurate measure of inflation
(Google it if you don't believe the AARP. -z)
5. Social Security does not drive deficits, and should not be cut as part of a budget deal.
(And has never been part of a budget deal. -z)
So now the questions are:
Can Michael Bennet find enough new and returning senatorial candidates who support these cuts that he can support as chair of the Senate Campaign Committee?
I firmly believe Coloradans didn't vote for this B.S. last November. It's quite obvious who wants to cut Social Security and thinks it's a good idea politically and will somehow fix the budget: The 1%, The Donor Class, The Third Way Co Chairs Jared Polis, Pete Peterson, every elected Republican since FDR, All 3 of the Koch Brothers, Jon Caldara, Mike Rosen, and the list goes on.
Oh, and Barack Obama, Jared Polis, Michael Bennet and Mark Udall.
Those big-time donors and Republican mouthpieces might have the ear of legislators by virtue of their gifts of gab and cash. But, unfortunately for them and fortunately for us, they still only have one vote to cast next time Polis and Udall and Bennet are up for a contract renewal to their cush jobs with killer benefits.
For the first time in history, a Democratic president has officially proposed to cut the Democratic Party's signature New Deal program, Social Security.
How far to the right has Obama gone in Pre-Negotiating for Republicans?
God help us if the Republicans wise up and take this deal. After all, it's a more conservative budget than even their hero Ronald Reagan ever submitted.
Is the Bipartisanship Fetish of Democrats like Obama, Udall, Polis and Bennet a good and smart thing?
This is rotten public policy, and all those political reasons pale in comparison to the damage he is doing here.
With the demise or curtailment of most pensions, the drop in family wealth due to the collapse of the housing sector in 2008, the big unemployment numbers cutting into many families' life savings, the flattening or decrease of wages for most workers, and the inflation in many essentials among those who are working driving down the ability to save for retirement, this is the absolute last time we should be looking at cutting incomes for retirees.
Democrats in the Presidency, the House and the Senate are bailing on their prime constituency, and have once again failed to respond to voters' mandate and are too afraid of their own shadow to lead like true Democrats should:
First, we cannot simply sit back and expect the GOP to do our dirty work for us. After all, the way things are going, the Prsident or could start offering up new tax cuts for all we know. He's either a terrible negotiator or he really, really wants these cuts.
Either way, counting on President Obama holding the line is probably not a good idea.
...
Call your Senators starting today.
The pattern so far has been that Speaker Boehner will only suspend the Hastert Rule (allowing legislation to the floor without a Republican majority) if it is already passed with a bipartisan Senate vote. Best to try to stop it here first.
Meanwhile prepare for a barrage of savvy, world weary commentary from your fellow liberals telling you that this is no big thing and that Democrats will not suffer even a tiny bit if they vote for a common sense proposal like this one. You will be shushed and told to calm down and take a chill pill. In other words, you will be gaslighted by fellow liberals who are embarrassed that you aren't being coolly accepting of something that is completely unacceptable. This is how this works.
Tell them to Shut The Fuck UP and move out of the way.
All this calls into question just how many votes, how much evidence, how much polling must take place for Democrats to act the part.
Republicans never back off their principles.
Democrats never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity - no matter who one the last election.
Like the Koch Brothers, Peterson has funded many "independent" organizations specifically tasked to work against Social Security and put undo attention on our nation's debt -- which is definitely not the problem Peterson, his front groups and his other flacks argue that it is.
Fix the Debt took only $5 Million to get rolling. Here's some of what he got for that miniscule investment:
Fix the Debt is the most hypocritical corporate PR campaign in decades, an ambitious attempt to convince the country that another cataclysmic economic crisis is around the corner and that urgent action is needed. Its strategy is pure astroturf: assemble power players in business and government under an activist banner, then take the message outside the Beltway and give it the appearance of grassroots activism by manufacturing an emergency to infuse a sense of imminent crisis.
Behind this strategy are no fewer than 127 CEOs and even more "statesmen" pushing for a "grand bargain" to draw up an austerity budget by July 4. With many firms kicking in
 $1 Million each on top of Peterson's $5 million in seed money, this latest incarnation of the Peterson message machine must be taken seriously.
Fix the Debt has hired such powerful PR firms and lobby shops as the DCI Group, the Glover Park Group, the Dewey Square Group and Proof Integrated Communications, a unit of the PR firm Burson-Marsteller, which was the go-to firm for Big Tobacco. In the run-up to the "fiscal cliff," these firms launched a flashy $3 million media campaign, blanketing Capitol Hill with TV, Internet, Metro and newspaper ads featuring slogans like "Got Debt?" and "Just Fix It."
Fix the Debt's stable of CEOs are a PR flack's dream. Not only are they able to get meetings with everyone from John Boehner to President Obama; they can flood cable news with laughable messages of "shared sacrifice" and be treated with fawning respect.
Fix the Debt's David Cote, CEO of Honeywell, "brings serious financial muscle to the table" when he pushes "market credible solutions," chirps The Wall Street Journal. There is no mention that Cote is a tax-dodging, pension-skimping hypocrite: Honeywell has a negative average tax rate of 0.7 percent and underfunds its employee pensions by $2.8 billion, making Cote's workers even more reliant on Social Security.
Creating a crisis is key.
"America is more than $16 trillion in debt," Fix the Debt's website warns, calling it "a catastrophic threat to our security and economy." The CEOs echo this warning, writing to Congress of the "serious threat to the economic well-being and security of the United States."
To foster the illusion of a grassroots uprising, Peterson has nursed what the National Journal calls a "loose network of deficit-hawk organizations that seem independent but that all spout the Peterson-sanctioned message of the need for a 'Grand Bargain.'"
Sound Familiar? High power deficit hawks spread the lie that our nation's debt is causing an economic crisis that can only be fixed by implementing the shared sacrifice of cutting Social Security.
Udall and Polis, you can throw Michael Bennet in there too, fit the bill. They are playing the Oligarchs' game that will harm the Middle Class that they tell themselves they are helping.
The Senate voted Friday night to oppose cutting entitlement benefits for veterans using a new method of calculating inflation.
President Obama has put the new method, known as chained consumer price index, on the table in deficit talks with Republicans. Using it reduces entitlement benefits like Social Security over time and also raises revenues by reducing the value of tax breaks.
First, for the millionth time, Social Security is not an "entitlement", it is one of the most successful and popular social insurance programs devised by man.
And using chained CPI is definitely a cut -- the last thing the elderly and retired need. America's seniors are not living the high life with corporate jets and seaside homes paid for by tax-exempt stock-option, million-dollar bonuses. That would be another portion of society that is pushing for chained CPI.
The vote on the amendment was by voice vote, so its usefulness in quantifying Senate opposition to the proposal is minimal. The amendment is non-binding because it is attached to the budget resolution, which does not have the force of law.
Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii) and Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) sponsored the amendment.
....
Sanders pushed for a roll call vote, but was talked out of it by Senate Budget Chairwoman Patty Murray (D-Wash.).
Were it not for Patty Murray, we might know know how our two Towers of Pudding, Senators Michael Bennet and Mark Udall, voted.
They don't want us to know.
They probably voted for this amendment as a P.R. move with the full intent to then vote for a "Grand Bargain" that includes chained CPI cuts to Social Security that will be so harmful to our seniors and retirees.
That's how you roll if you are a United States Senator....
News reporters and editors claim "both sides do it" so they won't have to do the hard work of, and take the heat for, using empirical evidence and logic to pick a reasonable side in our political arguments.
Politicians, especially Democrats like Colorado Senator Michael Bennet, say "both sides do it" to pander to voters who won't take the time to delve into the issues and find trustworthy sources of information and to increase their ability to pass bad laws for special interests with bipartisan support rather than passing good laws with their constituents in mind that require principle and guts.
The Senate on Friday rejected an effort by Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) to repeal Obamacare, an outcome that was expected but is far from the last attempt by Republicans to dismantle President Barack Obama's signature accomplishment.
Cruz's amendment to the Democratic budget resolution failed 45 to 54. Sen. Angus King (I-Maine) voted "no" with the Democrats.
The amendment sought to "establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund to provide for the repeal of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010."
Ahead of the vote, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Konfederacy) put out a statement trashing Obamacare for being too expensive and "not working" in the way that was promised by Democrats.
Let me sum their atrocious, partisan behavior this way:
Republican Tea Partiers are destroying our democracy with each and every vote on this quite mild effort to reign in health care costs and provide quality health care to all Americans.
Republican Tea Partiers continue to deny the will of the people which clearly supported Democratic candidates and progressive policies in the last election.
Republican Tea Partiers continue to obstruct the president with parliamentary tricks, abusive amendments and filibuster threats that have knocked more than one Obama nominee out of the running for an important administration job.
Both sides don't do it. No matter what the milquetoast press and cowardly politicians say, it should be clear that Republicans are the obstructive, destructive force in Washington, DC.
And it'd be nice if someone besides a dumb blogger pointed it out.
U.S Senators are starting to gear up their campaigns. They are starting to ask for cash from voter/activists like you and me. They've set their long-term plans plans and are beginning to execute them.
Michael Bennet is in charge of the official senate reelection committee. Contrary to what happened in the last election, he actually wants more moderate Democratic senators at his side rather than the true progressives, like Tammy Baldwin, Sherrod Brown, Elizabeth Warren whom voters sent to DC last November.
Here's a slice of campaign letters from each Udall. First, Senator Tom Udall of New Mexico:
Dear Zappatero,
Before the President's State of the Union address, I asked you what your priorities were.
We received more than 4,300 responses from our grassroots members. I spent some time reading through them, and there were a few that jumped out.
Like this one, from Roberta in Albuquerque. What was her top priority?
"Preservation of Social Security...I paid into the fund as insurance for my old age and others in my age group."
This one, from Ed:
We need to get our democracy back and the only way to do that is to get money out of politics. We citizens don't need a billion dollar campaign to convince us how to vote. Just tell us what you stand for and get out of our way.
Listening to the people. Standing up for Social Security.
Let's see what Mark Udall's priorities are as Senator from Colorado:
A Better, Bipartisan Way Forward on Sequestration
Although sequestration appears to be here to stay, I'm hopeful that Congress can bridge the partisan divide to mitigate sequestration's more harmful and indiscriminate effects.
This is why I have partnered with Republican Senator Susan Collins to craft a common-sense and bipartisan plan to replace the automatic spending cuts with smarter, more strategic spending reductions. In fact, I offered a version of that plan as an amendment this week to a critical government-funding bill - and I plan to keep fighting to turn this common-sense, bipartisan idea into law.
The entirely irrational quest for bipartisanship is still the topic. Has Mark seen and heard how his Republican colleagues in the Senate are acting?
Has DSCC Chair Bennet decided that any bipartisan bill is better than the progressive policies Americans voted for?
If it's up to me, I'll go with true progressives and unashamed Democrats like Tom Udall.
Mark, and Michael, and their mistaken adherence to conservative policy in the name of bipartisanship, their unseemly quiet about the highly illegal and destructive activities of America's largest Bankers, their continued acceptance of obfuscatory Republican rhetoric as fact tells me they aren't up for the job as Mark's cousin Tom is. Tom wanted to fix the filibuster. I don't think Mark and Mike did.
And those are facts that a true progressive Democrat, me, can support.
U.S Senators are starting to gear up their campaigns. They are starting to ask for cash from voter/activists like you and me. They have probably set their plans and are beginning to execute.
Michael Bennet is in charge of the official senate reelection committee. Contrary to what happened in the last election, he actually wants more moderate Democratic senators at his side rather than the true progressives, like Tammy Baldwin, Sherrod Brown, Elizabeth Warren whom voters sent to DC last November.
Do we need more moderates who are dying to compromise with Crazy, Whackjob, Tea Party Republicans like Ted Cruz or Tom Coburn or Lindsey Graham or Rand Paul or any number of loons?
No.
Here's a slice of campaign letters from each Udall. First, Senator Tom Udall of New Mexico:
Dear Zappatero,
Before the President's State of the Union address, I asked you what your priorities were.
We received more than 4,300 responses from our grassroots members. I spent some time reading through them, and there were a few that jumped out.
Like this one, from Roberta in Albuquerque. What was her top priority?
"Preservation of Social Security...I paid into the fund as insurance for my old age and others in my age group."
This one, from Ed:
We need to get our democracy back and the only way to do that is to get money out of politics. We citizens don't need a billion dollar campaign to convince us how to vote. Just tell us what you stand for and get out of our way.
Listening to the people. Standing up for Social Security.
Let's see what Mark Udall's priorities are as Senator from Colorado:
A Better, Bipartisan Way Forward on Sequestration
Although sequestration appears to be here to stay, I'm hopeful that Congress can bridge the partisan divide to mitigate sequestration's more harmful and indiscriminate effects.
This is why I have partnered with Republican Senator Susan Collins to craft a common-sense and bipartisan plan to replace the automatic spending cuts with smarter, more strategic spending reductions. In fact, I offered a version of that plan as an amendment this week to a critical government-funding bill - and I plan to keep fighting to turn this common-sense, bipartisan idea into law.
The entirely irrational quest for bipartisanship is still the topic. Has Mark seen and heard how his Republican colleagues in the Senate are acting?
Has DSCC Chair Bennet decided that any bipartisan bill is better than the progressive policies Americans voted for?
If it's up to me, I'll go with true progressives and unashamed Democrats like Tom Udall.
Mark, and Michael, and their mistaken adherence to conservative policy in the name of bipartisanship, their unseemly quiet about the highly illegal and destructive activities of America's largest Bankers, their continued acceptance of Obfuscatory Republican rhetoric as fact tells me they aren't up for the job as Mark's cousin Tom is. Tom wanted to fix the filibuster. I don't think Mark and Mike did.
And those are facts that a true progressive Democrat, me, can support.
President Barack Obama's approval numbers have dropped down to 50% over all with a serious loss of support among independents according to a new Washington Post/ABC News poll. The Washington Post also claims the poll details the disillusionment voters feel toward both sides.
The afterglow of President Obama's reelection and inauguration appears to have vanished as increasingly negative views among Americans about his stewardship of the economy have forced his public approval rating back down to the 50 percent mark, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.
In December, just after he won a second term, Obama held an 18-percentage-point advantage over congressional Republicans on the question of whom the public trusted more to deal with the economy. Now, it's a far more even split - 44 percent to 40 percent, with a slight edge for the president - but the share of those saying they have confidence in "neither" has ticked up into double digits.
I understand the fact that Democrats prove the Stockholm Syndrome's validity every time they concede the Republican lies that government is bad and taxes are worse. They've had it beaten into them for 30+ years.
Of course, a little bit of pushback from spineless Democrats would've been nice every once in a while.
If our Democratic leaders don't figure this out before they pull the trigger on a Grand Betrayal they will most certainly figure it out after they pull the trigger as voters send them back home. And Mark Udall's wish to lose his job over it shall come true.
And just in case any of our brilliant representatives can't figure it out, I'll be clear:
Mike Ruffer, a Five Guys franchise owner who operates eight of the chain restaurants in the Durham, North Carolina area, has decided to join the restaurant industry's war on health care reform, claiming that the additional costs of providing his workers with health care coverage will raise the prices of hot dogs and burgers for customers who patronize his establishments.
"Any added costs are going to have to be passed on," Ruffer told the Examiner:
Ruffer was the star witness at a Monday Heritage Foundation seminar on the impact Obamacare will have on small businesses. He is typical of many: Because he has enough full time employees to activate the law, he faces either coughing up the money to provide health insurance or paying a fine of up to $3,000 per worker.
Ruffer initially thought he would escape the law because he created each restaurant as its own company. But the law doesn't recognize that distinction, so now he's trying to determine if he can fire enough workers, or cut enough hours, to slide out of the grasp of Obamacare.
How do these anti-tax, anti-government, anti-worker, anti-Middle-Class Activists think they got their wealth and power - from their unique and superior business genius or from the workers, the infrastructure, and the markets and customers that a stable society supports?
Within one week Republicans are going to grab the national spotlight on two huge issues that should be the realm of the party who stands up for the little guy. That party used to be the Democratic party. How can they let this happen?
They are letting this happen because campaign cash is still more important than any policy decision. Most campaign cash comes from those who can afford it (duh), who then get more face time to ply their representatives. And if a policy threatens those with face time, you know who wins that battle: the Big Donors.
On Friday, at the CPAC convention, Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas President Richard Fisher is going to call for breaking up the big banks in the wake of a failed Dodd-Frank bill.
This is mind blowing. First a Republican, Rand Paul, filibusters to get answers about the targeted killing program and now at CPAC, a speech calling for breaking up the TBTF banks. Where are the Democrats?? The last thing we heard from the party was that the executives can't be held criminally liable, via Eric Holder and Lanny Breuer.
Can you imagine Jared Polis or Michael Bennet or Mark Udall saying this?
End "Too Big to Fail" Once and for All
[...]"Third, we recommend that the largest financial holding companies be restructured so that every one of their corporate entities is subject to a speedy bankruptcy process, and in the case of banking entities themselves, that they be of a size that is 'too small to save.'"
Here's a fun secret: Tax reform (in this case referring to eliminating or scaling back "tax expenditures") is technically a conservative policy priority, even if elected Republicans refuse to ever support it for real.
This is a compromise in which conservative policy is being offered in exchange for conservative support for a conservative policy.
The sequester and Obama's Bargain quest mean that Republicans can choose between allowing a Democrat to "take credit" for cutting the two most popular programs in the country or they can just live with the already-passed government spending cut that they are also able to blame on the president.
They will say it is inevitable, as Digby summarizes:
Obama said that he has made clear to his advisers that some of the difficult choices -- particularly in regards to entitlement programs like Social Security and Medicare - should be made on his watch. "We've kicked this can down the road and now we are at the end of the road," he said.
To now say that they have no choice but to cut entitlements because of the sequester (which they agreed to) is just too clever by half.
Mark Udall has said he's willing to lose his job over it. I wish he would.
And if Senator Mark Udall had even one gut, let alone the "guts" to push what he thinks is the only solution to Social Security's incredibly small budgeting issue, he'd write that law and submit it to the Senate...and put his fate as a legislator in the hands of Colorado's voters next year.
The Grand Bargain is the tool by which our leaders in Washington, DC, will inflict austerity on the poor and elderly. Its "purpose" is to fix the budget deficit - a deficit that is shrinking by the day as our economy continues its mostly-Republican-imposed, austerity-delayed recovery.
The Grand Bargain's implementers are most Republicans and enough Democrats to make it a bipartisan love fest that will be praised by editorial writers everywhere. Some locals who just can't wait to implement this Grand Bargain are Democrats Mark Udall, Jared Polis, and Michael Bennet.
Among the implementers, the "facts" that they "know" that are forcing this "inevitable" decision to take down Social Security are not facts at all.
They are the rhetorical weapons of the wealthy that have been whispered in the ears of legislators for years now. Their constant refudiation (h/t Palin) is the seemingly thankless, though necessary job, of economists and bloggers everywhere.
Two U.S. Senators who "know" these counter-factual facts are our very own Mark Udall and Tea Party Radical Ron Johnson of Wisconsin.
But the problem here is the lies have already been told so many times, and internalized by otherwise "smart" senators like Udall, Johnson, and Michael Bennet, that by now they might be impossible to stop -- no matter how contrary to facts and how harmful to America's seniors. As the bipartisans among us prepare to cut one of the most successful and popular social welfare programs in the history of man, the lies used against the programs, by those who will benefit from their elimination, are an almost immutable political force.
The continued ignorance of our leaders makes the continuing fight against that ignorance an almost impossible task. And if that's the case, it'll be a win for the 1%-ers once again, and a gigantic loss for the stability and welfare of America's Middle Class and its hard-working, and thoroughly entitled, retirees.
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) today introduced legislation cosponsored by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) to strengthen Social Security by making the wealthiest Americans pay the same payroll tax that nearly everyone else already pays.
Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.) introduced the companion bill in the House. He joined Sanders at a news conference in the Capitol to discuss their bill to bolster Social Security without raising the retirement age or lowering benefits.
"Social Security is the most successful government program in our nation's history. Through good times and bad, Social Security has paid out every benefit owed to every eligible American," Sanders said.
"The most effective way to strengthen Social Security for the future is to eliminate the cap on the payroll tax on income above $250,000 so millionaires and billionaires pay the same share as everyone else."
Reid said, "I want to thank Sen. Sanders for his outstanding leadership in support of Social Security and the millions of Americans who rely on the program. His legislation should make people think twice before assuming that the only way to strengthen Social Security is to take away benefits that seniors have earned, or raise taxes on the middle class."
DeFazio added, "Despite the hype, Social Security is not now, and never was, the cause of our deficit. Those spreading these false claims are the same people who have for years been working with Wall Street to privatize the program. We shouldn't cut benefits or try to balance the budget on the backs of seniors who have earned these benefits. We can just close a tax loophole that allows millionaires and billionaires to pay a lower percentage of their income into Social Security than everyone else."
That Radical Sanders. DeFazio. Reid.
No Bennet. No Udall. No Polis.
History won't remember the vote count on the Grand Bargain that betrays the values of the Democratic Party. It will record the names of Democrats who enacted the wrong policy at the wrong time for the wrong reasons - all for political expediency.
The United States ranks 19th worldwide in the retirement security of its citizens, according to a new annual index compiled by Natixis Global Asset Management (NGAM). The findings suggest that Americans will need to pick up a bigger share of their retirement costs - especially as the number of retirees grows and the government's ability to support them fades.
Let me rewrite that second sentence in accordnace with reality and in dispute with Washington, DC's, conventional wisdom:
The findings suggest that Americans will need to pick up a bigger share of their retirement costs - especially as the number of retirees grows and the government's ability to support them fades.
That being said, it's quite clear momentum is now with cuts to social Security and Medicare, driven by Republican's willingness to hold our entire economy hostage in service to the wealthiest Americans and Democrats' complete inability to drive the tax debate or hold to longstanding Democratic and Progressive principles.
O'REILLY: There is nothing put forth, nothing. [...]
COLMES: I disagree with what is being said here. He has offered $2.50 in tax cuts for every dollar.
O'REILLY: That's not-
COLMES: Yes, he has. Cuts in Medicare. Offered cuts to entitlements.
O'REILLY: That's not specific. He has to say here are the programs that are going to go down; here is how we are going to reform Medicare and Social Security.
Who said Dems got a mandate last November? Oh, it was me, trying to egg on our perpetually timid representatives.
Dear Dems: Caveat emptor when dealing with Republicans.
This is the gold standard for Members of Congress willing to put their own careers on the line to protect working families.
With the Norquist pledge, the Republicans have lined up on the side of millionaires, billionaires and multinational corporations.
With our No Cuts pledge, we are lined up on the side of seniors, sick people, and poor people.
We are comforting the afflicted, and they are comforting the comfortable."
That "we" Grayson refers to includes many fine Democrats.
That "we" does not include Colorado's Democratic Represenatives Jared Polis, nor Ed Perlmutter, nor Diana DeGette.
Here's the "No Cuts" pledge our three haven't bothered signing on to:
"We will vote against any and every cut to Medicare, Medicaid, or Social Security benefits-- including raising the retirement age or cutting the cost of living adjustments that our constituents earned and need."
I sure hope they aren't holding out for a Grand Bargain that will harm so many who voted for them and who put them in office to protect the programs that are today condemned by their silence.
