The Positive Benefit To The Scandals In Albany And Washington

They can't do any more damage to public education in Albany.

They can't do any more damage to Social Security, Medicare or public education in Washington.

See - these scandals have a plus side to them!

Obama To Cut Social Security And Medicare Benefits In Budget Proposal

I was waiting for this kind of "Grand Bargain" sell-out to re-emerge from the Obama White House - and here it is:

President Obama will release a budget next week that proposes significant cuts to Medicare and Social Security and fewer tax hikes than in the past, a conciliatory approach that he hopes will convince Republicans to sign onto a grand bargain that would curb government borrowing and replace deep spending that took effect March 1.

When he unveils the budget on Wednesday, Obama will break with the tradition of providing a sweeping vision of how he would govern if he were untethered from political realities. Instead, the document will incorporate the compromise offer Obama made to House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) last December in the discussions over the so-called “fiscal cliff” – which included $1.8 in deficit reduction through spending cuts and tax increases.

“The president has made clear that he is willing to compromise and do tough things to reduce the deficit,” a senior administration official said, “but only in the context of a package like this one that has balance and includes revenues from the wealthiest Americans and that is designed to promote economic growth.”

While Republicans are certain to be skeptical of Obama’s call for more taxes, the president also is likely to face immediate heat over his budget proposal from some Democrats and liberal supporters. Obama proposes, for instance, to change the cost-of-living calculation for Social Security in a way that will reduce benefits for most beneficiaries, a key Republican request that he had earlier embraced only as part of a compromise. Many Democrats say they are opposed to any Social Security cuts and are likely to be furious that such cuts are now being proposed as official administration policy.

“While this is not the president’s ideal deficit reduction plan, and there are particular proposals in this plan like the [cost-of-living] change that were key Republican requests and not the president’s preferred approach,” the senior administration official said, “this is a compromise proposal built on common ground, and the president felt it was important to make it clear that the offer still stands.”

Some people on the left start with the premise that Obama doesn't want to do these things, that he simply is a bad negotiator and cannot help himself by caving to intransigent Republicans.

I don't think that's right.

I start with the premise that Barack Obama is a corporatist neo-liberal happy to cut Social Security and Medicare for working people, take some of that money "saved" by those cuts and make sure rich people continue to suck up most of the wealth of this country through tax breaks, corporate welfare and other advantages.

BTW, some of the money from the Social Security cuts will go to a Race to the Top universal pre-K program for four and five year olds across the country.

That also is part of the corporatist neo-liberal agenda.

They want to socialize the kids very early on to expect very little out of life, to expect nine hour school days, diminished vacation time, the drudgery of the test prep they'll be engaged in for the rest of their school careers as mandated by Obama's Race to the Top program for elementary and secondary school children.

That way the kids won't grow up to be disgruntled adults who realize how badly they've been screwed by a system that, in the words of George Carlin, "threw them overboard forty years ago."

Why Is Obama Such A Bad Dealmaker?

In case you haven't heard, President Obama is about to sell out Social Security in another "Grand Bargain" with John Boehner that will chain cost of living increases for seniors in what amounts to a stealth attack on the program and a regressive tax on seniors.

Senator Jeff Merkely blasted Obama's plan this way:

We had an election, and the voters sent a message to Congress to focus on jobs and fairness — not cutting benefits for people who have worked all their lives and are now making ends meet on fixed incomes. The formula we use to adjust cost-of-living changes for seniors needs to reflects the real costs they face, not the budgetary fantasies of Washington.

 The NY Times explains how chained CPI works:

Democrats and Republicans are considering switching Social Security payment adjustments to a “chained” Consumer Price Index. The Consumer Price Index tracks the price of a basket of commonly purchased household goods. A chained index accounts for consumers’ tendency to substitute similar items for one another as prices fluctuate. A consumer might buy more apples when the price of oranges increases, for instance.

Though it sounds like nothing more than a technical fix, adopting a chained index would squeeze benefits over time. The chained index ends up, in a given year, about 0.3 percentage points lower than the unchained index. That difference accumulates, so after five years, it might be 1.5 percentage points lower. Using a chained index would cut Social Security spending by about $112 billion over a decade, according to an estimate by the Congressional Budget Office.

AARP, the lobbying and research group for older Americans, immediately criticized the proposal. “We would rather see a broader discussion addressing retirement security,” said Debra Whitman, an executive vice president at AARP. “We object to the context in which it’s being discussed, which is a few weeks before Christmas, without people understanding what the change really means.”

Because the payment reductions would accumulate over time, AARP and other groups argue that they would hit the oldest Americans disproportionately hard. They might also unduly burden women, who tend to live longer than men, and the lowest-income older people, who are most dependent on Social Security checks, the groups warned.

David Dayen of Firedoglake puts the chained CPI scheme in perspective:

You will hear virtually nobody claim that chained CPI represents a more accurate way of determining the cost of living for senior citizens on Social Security, because if they were honest about it, they would tailor an inflation index to the real costs of seniors. The only benefit to chained CPI is that it saves the government money at the expense of senior citizens. That’s it. It’s a back-door way of lowering the benefit. Even if you agree with the methodology of the substitution effect, that people will manage the cost of living by purchasing less expensive products, you have to ask yourself if seniors have been getting away with murder all these years under the old rules. And considering they get an average annual benefit of just $13,000, and that almost half of them use that as their only form of income, without savings or anything else to fall back on, the very idea is preposterous.

It sure is - but Obama, who for some inexplicable reason has always hated the Social Security and Medicare programs, it's a great way to attack the viability of the program and save the government some money, which can then be used to grant rich people tax cuts.

And don't tell me Obama doesn't want to destroy the program because this isn't the first time he's attacked it.

When they decided a few years ago to do a tax cut for people, they took it from the Social Security fund in what amounted to a stealth attempt to underfund the program.

Here we are, a few years later, and Obama is proposing to cut real benefits for senior citizens so that he can raise the bar for tax cuts to millionaires, as Boehner wants.

I am sure President Obama's defenders will say the usual drivel: "Oh, it's all he can do because those mean, mean Republcians won't work with him, blah blah blah."

Horsehockey.

Ezra Klein says Republicans see weakness from the White House because Obama said he wouldn't negotiate or cave on certain things and, lo and behold, he negotiated and caved on them in a couple of weeks:

A few weeks ago, the Obama administration was firm that they wouldn’t budge on tax rates for income above $250,000 and that they wouldn’t budge on the debt ceiling. They’ve since budged on both. Republicans increasingly think the White House will concede more now, and that if they don’t concede more now they’ll definitely give Republicans a better deal if threatened with debt default. Whether or not that’s true, it pulls Republicans — and Boehner — to the right, as it makes it harder for Boehner to argue for a compromise now.

And so, expect as worse a deal on the "fiscal cliff" fake crisis as you can possibly get, with Obama selling out old people and working people so that rich people can keep their tax cuts.

The Republicans aren't going to compromise, but Obama surely will - as he has time and time again.

Just a few weeks ago, liberals and progressives who still defend this president were bumping chests and saying things were going to be different this second time around, that Obama had momentum and the country had clearly spoken about the importance of protecting Social Security and Medicare, about raising taxes on rich people.

Now we see Obama caving as usual on many of those things and in the end, we will probably see him cave on all of those things.

It seems the only people he can remain tough on is teachers.

You have to wonder, is he really such a bad dealmaker and he keeps getting taken to the cleaners by the GOP or are these the deals he really wants to make.

I am of the opinion it is the latter.

He is no progressive or liberal.

The fact is, he is a moderate Republican who likes to surround himself with rich white guys and his priorities tend to be, what do rich white guys need?

Time after time, from the refusal to push for a public option in Obamacare to the Grand Bargain of a few years ago to the current cave-in of the fiscal cliff nonsense, we see again and again Obama giving the rich white guys what they want.

The Next Four Years

Arne Duncan's next four years as the Secretary of Education Privatization look like they'll be as bad as the first four as he ratchets up the pressure for Common Core, national standardized tests, more cities with mayoral control of schools, more charter schools, more school "turnarounds" and the like.

Looking at this agenda  makes me wonder why very intelligent, very progressive people who care about education and public schools would support Barack Obama knowing what's coming the next four years.

I no longer buy the "lesser evil" argument.

Had Mitt Romney won and tried to push vouchers and other privatization schemes, people would have fought him on his plans.

Just as when George Bush tried to privatize Social Security, people fought him on that plan in 20005 and beat him.

But Barack Obama will not get the same kind of fight on Social Security privatization and public school privatization that Mitt Romeny would have gotten.

Just as it took a red-baiting Richard Nixon to go to China and "liberal" Bill Clinton to sell Dems on welfare reform and NAFTA, it will take the "progressive" Barack Obama to sell us out on Social Security, Medicare and public education.

And make no mistake, the sell out is coming.

Glenn Greenwald has already mapped out how it will work.

Get ready for an ugly four years.

At least this time I can keep my head up knowing I didn't vote for it.