Ugh. (4.00 / 6)

That this should even be a plausible scenario after 2 consecutive wave Democratic elections is really irksome.  Chris was talking about ongoing conservative message dominance, and if this is nothing but bizarre chatter that no one in the Administration has subscribed to, it still represents the inexplicable ability for conservative economic alchemy to rise.

It will also be a tremendous shame if progressives have to spend time and effort fighting to protect SS from a Democratic tri-fecta.  

---

by: Daniel De Groot @ Mon Feb 16, 2009 at 16:22:07 PM CST

the point is that it ISN'T plausible. nt. (4.00 / 2)

---

by: seabrook @ Mon Feb 16, 2009 at 16:53:43 PM CST

[ Parent ]

it is just how the blue dogs (4.00 / 12)

and right wingers operate, they start floating shocking rumors and they get around and some time later what do you know, the unthinkable becomes thinkable. So the progressive left should take a page from the playbook and start floating shocking rumors that the radical leftists in the Obama administration are slowly but surely winning the battle for going straight to single payer health care.  

---

by: T Maysle @ Mon Feb 16, 2009 at 16:38:19 PM CST

I like it! (4.00 / 5)

sTiVo's rule: Just because YOU "wouldn't put it past 'em" doesn't prove that THEY did it.

---

by: sTiVo @ Mon Feb 16, 2009 at 17:00:50 PM CST

[ Parent ]

One Assumes That Obama (4.00 / 1)

will insist that tax increases be part of any "reform", in which case the Republicans will block it.  They will be made to look dogmatic and obstructionist once again.  He can say that he tried.

---

by: bob h @ Mon Feb 16, 2009 at 16:47:09 PM CST

Not Likely. (4.00 / 3)

Look at the makeup of the panel/commission/whatever.  There are a lot of arch-conservatives and no progressives.  Heck, Alice Rivlin is the closest thing to progressive and that is really stretching it.  

"We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both." - SCOTUS Justice Louis Brandeis

---

by: frank47 @ Mon Feb 16, 2009 at 17:46:23 PM CST

[ Parent ]

commissions don't make laws (4.00 / 1)

---

by: dr anonymous @ Mon Feb 16, 2009 at 18:21:28 PM CST

[ Parent ]

No, but... (4.00 / 8)

...commissions provide political cover. Commissions are populated by unelected people who can spend all their time coming up with the next Shock Treatment argument, which Obama can then either accept or reject, of course. The real question here is why can't he make policy determinations in a way that he is accountable for?

If the commission is populated with neo-liberals who wish to loot it for their friends on Wall Street (and that is precisely what Larry Summers will push for), then it would be naive to assume Obama doesn't have any intention of trashing it.

Commissions are the perfect way of making the unthinkable more acceptable without Obama or congress taking any responsibility for it. Social Security itself is a relatively simple problem with simple solutions. A commission simply isn't necessary.

So why bother if they're not up to something?

When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men living together in society, they create for themselves in the course of time a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it.

-- Frederic Bastiat, "The Law", 1850

---

by: Emocrat @ Mon Feb 16, 2009 at 18:53:40 PM CST

[ Parent ]

maybe the commission would be (0.00 / 0)

the beginning of larry summmers' falling out with obama.  not saying it won't produce horrible findings or even that he won't end up acting on them, but just putting it into perspective - there's a reason Social  Security's called the third rail of american politics.

Commissions are also the perfect way of pretending to do something (if you're a politician) without actually doing anything - or even if you intended to do something in the first place and were not "pretending" (i.e. "exploring").

---

by: dr anonymous @ Mon Feb 16, 2009 at 19:43:48 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Pretending to be for (4.00 / 2)

something that is unpopular, when you are not, is generally a bad idea.  

Support a Pennsylvania Progressive for Governor - Joe Hoeffel

---

by: David Kaib @ Mon Feb 16, 2009 at 21:29:59 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Where are the names of those on the commission? (0.00 / 0)

"Incrementalism isn't a different path to the same place, it could be a different path to a different place"
Stoller

---

by: debcoop @ Mon Feb 16, 2009 at 19:54:42 PM CST

[ Parent ]

See my post below on neo-cons/blue dogs. (4.00 / 1)

The Brookings Report link will give you the names for the commission.  As Greider wrote over the weekend, this has the makings of a trojan horse to get "entitlements" included in the general budgeting process and forego paying back the Trillions already raided from the SS surplus.

"We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both." - SCOTUS Justice Louis Brandeis

---

by: frank47 @ Mon Feb 16, 2009 at 20:11:17 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Thanks (4.00 / 1)

The commission though was the Brookings commission which I agree is staked.  There are of course no names for the potential Fiscal Responsibility Commission as the commission has not been created yet.

And I think our aim is to make sure the commission is never created.

"Incrementalism isn't a different path to the same place, it could be a different path to a different place"
Stoller

---

by: debcoop @ Mon Feb 16, 2009 at 21:45:39 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Still don't like it... (4.00 / 4)

Not if Obama concedes anything on privatization. They'll try to do with Obama on SS what they did to Reid & Pelosi on Iraq Occupation funding in 2007. They'll demand a "clean bill" only containing privatization and/or benefit cuts, and they'll try to force Obama to do it. It's better not to throw any bone to them now, or else they'll try to steal the whole damn carcass.

Yes, Virginia, there are progressives in Nevada.

---

by: Andrew Davey @ Mon Feb 16, 2009 at 17:47:25 PM CST

[ Parent ]

two big differences (4.00 / 1)

a) Obama is immensely popular and therefore has much more power and leeway
b) The Republicans are reeling right now.

And that's setting aside the question of political skill - which I would settle in favor of Obama over Reid and Pelosi at minimum.

---

by: dr anonymous @ Mon Feb 16, 2009 at 18:23:15 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Obama's popularity (4.00 / 9)

Is precisely why many are extremely nervous about this. He can do what others can't. If, that is, he's willing to use up much of his goodwill on something like this.

Take a look at Obama's insipid remarks about how "our culture" won't allow for nationalizing zombie banks. That's about as rigidly ideological a statement as one can make. So spending Trillions on insolvent banks as a vast redistribution of wealth is okay as long as the bennies are privatized and the losses are socialized?

Obama is getting a lot of bad economic advice. He doesn't seem very interested in getting good advice either. His econ team is populated with neo-liberals who have long viewed SS as the "ultimate prize" to take to Wall Street. Larry Summers has marginalized Paul Volcker, of all people. That doesn't inspire confidence in much of anyone who isn't a Wall Street CEO, much less progressives. The financial blogs are raging with discontent and they all vary quite a lot in ideological terms.

There's no reason whatsoever to assume Obama is on the right side of this issue.

He's going to have to prove that to me before I believe it, at this point.

When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men living together in society, they create for themselves in the course of time a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it.

-- Frederic Bastiat, "The Law", 1850

---

by: Emocrat @ Mon Feb 16, 2009 at 19:02:32 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Volcker increased the money supply under Reagan (0.00 / 0)

and left us with a huge deficit. He's no angel.

---

by: abbeysbooks @ Mon Feb 16, 2009 at 19:28:52 PM CST

[ Parent ]

also if you think about it rationally (0.00 / 0)

and obama is nothing if not "rational" (i.e. a stationnary bandit capitalist / pragmatic / etc etc etc) - why would he spend his political capital doing something absolutely horrible?  It's  more likely to be somewhat horrible and taken off the table as a political issue - but I don't see him pulling a Clinton on the social safety net - quite frankly, it's so frayed that any moves to further undermine it would be so politically damaging that I can't imagine he's not conscious of that.

But I do agree with the substance of what you're saying in this moment - just that things may take a shape (whether because of Obama or because of "Obama" i.e. all the various things shaping policymaking right now) that is not to my liking but not nearly as bad, speaking from  my vantage point/social position, as what might be feared.

---

by: dr anonymous @ Mon Feb 16, 2009 at 19:49:11 PM CST

[ Parent ]

he might do it in exchange for "bipartisan support" (4.00 / 1)

on his health care bill. If he really wants it to pass, he might be talked into going along with some cuts in Social Security, like the GOP and the financial industry wants, and explain it away as a necessary compromise that was fiscally sensible anyway because the money to fund his health care program has to come from somewhere.

The GOP would certainly not be above using his health care bill as a hostage to slash Social Security. The hard-core Obama fanatics will go along with whatever he chooses to do, and most of the rest of the people won't be happy, but they might go along with it if they think it's the price of fixing our horrible health care system.

There's tons of scenarios under which Obama could do it and give both himself and the populace a reasonable-sounding explanation for it.

Remember, the standard for Obama is "better than Bush". As long as he meets that standard--however barely--most of the Democrats will support him.

---

by: limpidglass @ Mon Feb 16, 2009 at 20:04:53 PM CST

[ Parent ]

David Walker of Concord Coalition revealing the trap they want to create (4.00 / 6)

This was in reply to Willian Greider's wonderful article in the Nation. Agreeing to a commission which is in any way constituted like this is dangerous. It can easily careen out of control.  Anything that is extra to the normal legislative process which would mandate a vote only up or down on a stacked commission is a very dangerous thing to agree to.  

As I have said before, to raise the cap you don't need a commission you only need legislation...one bill.  that's all you need.  Not some horrible device that as soon as you trigger it you give Pete Peterson and th eConcord Coalition something that George Bush coouldn't do.

They will wail, how can you be open and bipartisan if you don't go ahead with accursed commission.

David Walker
http://www.thenation.com/doc/2...

What does this mean? The president and the Congress need to work together to establish a "Fiscal Future Commission" (or task force) which, unlike most Washington commissions, would be designed to accelerate action and get the ball across the goal line rather than punt it down the field. Ideally, this bipartisan commission would be created by statute to ensure buy-in from both the Congress and the president. It should include selected and diverse members of Congress and of the administration as well as non-governmental officials. It should engage the public outside Washington's Beltway, including by leveraging digital technology and the web. Everything, including budget controls, entitlement reforms, spending constraints and tax increases, would be on the table. After engaging the public and key stakeholders, it would make a range of recommendations that would be subject to an up-or-down vote in Congress.

"Incrementalism isn't a different path to the same place, it could be a different path to a different place"
Stoller

---

by: debcoop @ Mon Feb 16, 2009 at 20:19:54 PM CST

[ Parent ]

The Neo-con, Blue Dog Coalition. (4.00 / 4)

Just after the holidays, it was leaked and fairly widely reported that Obama had made a deal with the Blue Dogs to get their backing for the stimulus/recovery act.  Then Obama gave an interview to WaPo prior to the inauguration in which he suggested that he would appoint a commission in February to look at entitlements.  The background for this commission is supported in this Brookings Heritage report.

But, even prior to that interview there were signals going out as reported by Digby here and here.  

Additionally, Bill Greider wrote about Obama's "grand bargain" in The Nation last week which prompted an almost immediate reply from David Walker of the Peterson Foundation.  

This is an issue to get out in front of with the administration and the Congress.  The worst part is they plan on conducting this "review" with the intention of issuing recommendations to Congress for an Up or Down Vote!

"We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both." - SCOTUS Justice Louis Brandeis

---

by: frank47 @ Mon Feb 16, 2009 at 17:29:05 PM CST

More Links. (4.00 / 3)

You can read the Greider article here.  The reply from David Walker is here.

"We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both." - SCOTUS Justice Louis Brandeis

---

by: frank47 @ Mon Feb 16, 2009 at 17:34:29 PM CST

[ Parent ]

And "IOUSA"... (4.00 / 4)

Peterson's lying sack of sh*t propaganda, will be the topic of tonight's FDL Book Salon.

http://oxdown.firedoglake.com/...

I hope all of you can stop by at 8:00 PM ET/5:00 PM PT to ask the director some "tough questions" about the untruths they spread on "entitlement crisis".

Yes, Virginia, there are progressives in Nevada.

---

by: Andrew Davey @ Mon Feb 16, 2009 at 17:40:56 PM CST

[ Parent ]

If this is the case... (4.00 / 7)

Then we need to bring back the 2005 campaign ASAP! There was no "crisis" with Social Security then, and there is no "crisis" today. The MSM may have no problem repeating the lies of "Mr. IOUSA" as true, but we need to fight these lies again. There's no "crisis", baby boomers aren't "stealing from younger generations", and younger workers won't fare better under a slimmed down and/or privatized SS.

Yes, Virginia, there are progressives in Nevada.

---

by: Andrew Davey @ Mon Feb 16, 2009 at 17:38:04 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I agree (3.50 / 8)

This is the time to kill this possibly incipient campaign dead.  Don't let it get off the ground.  Any discussion of the "problems of Social Security" is a losing proposition for us since, even if it loses in the end, it still softens the ground for the anti-SocSec crowd.  

---

by: eRobin @ Mon Feb 16, 2009 at 17:52:40 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Yep, yep, yep! (4.00 / 7)

Any discussion of the "problems of Social Security" is a losing proposition for us since, even if it loses in the end, it still softens the ground for the anti-SocSec crowd.

Even if it loses in a Congressional vote, there's still no reason to even allow it to reach a vote! The "Broder-Friedman Pundit Class" and their GOP BFFs are trying hard to force Obama into a "Nixon Goes to China" moment in reverse where Obama's forced into forsaking us and siding with them on a major issue. And with Obama's past talk of "entitlement reform", they think he can be forced into allowing privatization.

So before they can get to him with this sham "fiscal responsibility commission", we need to get to him NOW to remind him who elected him to office and what he promised us he'd do on Social Security & Medicare.

Yes, Virginia, there are progressives in Nevada.

---

by: Andrew Davey @ Mon Feb 16, 2009 at 18:06:59 PM CST

[ Parent ]

So I guess I'm not the only one... (4.00 / 1)

http://www.openleft.com/showDi...

Feeling jittery about Dean Baker's report.

Yes, Virginia, there are progressives in Nevada.

---

by: Andrew Davey @ Mon Feb 16, 2009 at 17:32:49 PM CST

La la la, I cant hear you (3.00 / 4)

However, I simply refuse to believe that Obama is going to get entrapped by those who seek to balance the budget exclusively through cuts to Social Security benefits.

Obama was making these noises during the primaries, no one wanted to hear it.

---

by: AliceDem @ Mon Feb 16, 2009 at 18:08:10 PM CST

Primary noises (3.20 / 5)

He also made them in one of the Presidential debates.  I heard every one and never felt good about it.

---

by: David Kowalski @ Mon Feb 16, 2009 at 19:25:22 PM CST

[ Parent ]

more Clinton smears (0.00 / 0)

Not really.  Clinton and her supporters on the blogs consistently attacked Obama for wanting to raise SS taxes on the rich.  

http://www.ontheissues.org/Eco...

New Jersey politics at Blue Jersey.

---

by: Hopeful in NJ @ Mon Feb 16, 2009 at 19:31:20 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Dean is a great (4.00 / 1)

economist. However, he's an economist, not a journalist.

I'll believe it when I see it.  

John McCain: Beacuse lobbyists should have more power

---

by: Populista @ Mon Feb 16, 2009 at 18:12:05 PM CST

if Obama's "reform" is to raise the FICA tax cap... (4.00 / 5)

... I'd be all for it.  Progressives have fallen for Alan Greenspan's game in the 1980s.  He helped Reagan finance a massive tax cut for the rich by boosting the FICA tax for the working class, claiming that the massive surplus raised would finance everyone's retirement.  But much of that money was spent right away, not saved, and the Social Security trust fund was handed IOUs from the general fund.

So yes, the Social Security Trust Fund is good until 2040 or later, provided that taxes are substantially raised so that the general fund can pay back all the money that was borrowed.  But since that's not going to happen, it's best to arrange things so that it is the upper middle class and the wealthy, not the poor, that makes up the difference.  Obama's suggestion to raise the cap moves things in that direction.

Now if Obama also thinks we need to cut benefits or raise the retirement age more (things I've heard alleged but have seen no evidence for) I'll fight that tooth and nail. But other countries don't finance their equivalent of Social Security with a regressive tax.  Raise the cap.  Only individuals with an income of more than $97K/year would be affected, and we (yes, I'm willing to see my own taxes raised) can afford to pay a bit more.

---

by: Joe Buck @ Mon Feb 16, 2009 at 18:31:05 PM CST

[ Parent ]

The govenment is legally obliged to pay back its debts (4.00 / 7)

and it would be economically suicidal if it defaulted. So the trust fund is going to be paid back, and it's good for at least 40 years, and probably much longer. But that doesn't, of course, change the fact that the government still has to find a way to pay back the trust fund once it needs to be tapped into in 10 or so years.

Which, as presently structured, comes mainly from income and capital gains taxes, and of course borrowing or printing money. Raising the payroll cap (as well as other measures like ending the hedge fund loophole and raising certain kinds of cap gain taxes and marginal tax rates, etc.) could ease this burden enough to make it no longer regressive or a problem.

Oh, and we should also exempt social security from income taxes.

And if anyone complains that that's "welfare", I'm going to just try to ignore them. A civil society redistributes as much of its wealth as is necessary to ensure that no one does without adequate shelter, food, health care, etc. If that's "welfare", so be it. Anyone who understands what the word means and has a soul wouldn't have such a problem with it.

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton

---

by: kovie @ Mon Feb 16, 2009 at 19:02:21 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Who says (4.00 / 1)

Those are federal government obligations with a lot stronger claim than the banks and brokerage houses had.  Tens of millions of people paid that money and they want it. They deserve it too, unlike those Wall Street leaches.

---

by: David Kowalski @ Mon Feb 16, 2009 at 19:27:48 PM CST

[ Parent ]

You don't need a commission to raise the Cap (4.00 / 3)

you just need legislation...stand alone or budget.  Raise the cap and Social Security will last longer than the polar ice caps.

"Incrementalism isn't a different path to the same place, it could be a different path to a different place"
Stoller

---

by: debcoop @ Mon Feb 16, 2009 at 19:51:27 PM CST

[ Parent ]

yea yea (4.00 / 1)

Unfounded Rumors are more credible the explicit agenda laid out in white web site and over the campaign. Not point the figure at you  on this David  but to the puma's infecting open left right now who are ready to jump at everything to promote their bitterness (Frank0, Amberglow to name a few). Only medicare & medicate needs major reform and cuts while promoting a new health care plan to replace it.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/agen...

President Obama and Vice President Biden are committed to ensuring Social Security is solvent and viable for the American people, now and in the future. Obama and Biden will be honest with the American people about the long-term solvency of Social Security and the ways we can address the shortfall. They will protect Social Security benefits for current and future beneficiaries alike, and they do not believe it is necessary or fair to hardworking seniors to raise the retirement age. Obama and Biden are strongly opposed to privatizing Social Security. As part of a bipartisan plan that would be phased in over many years, they will ask those making over $250,000 to contribute a bit more to Social Security to keep it sound. Obama does not support uncapping the full payroll tax 12.4 percent rate. Instead, he and Joe Biden are considering plans that will ask those making over $250,000 to pay in the range of 2 to 4 percent more in total (combined employer and employee).

---

by: Burry @ Mon Feb 16, 2009 at 18:28:48 PM CST

Excuse (0.00 / 0)

The grammatical mistakes, was typing too fast.

---

by: Burry @ Mon Feb 16, 2009 at 18:37:18 PM CST

[ Parent ]

As I commented on Baker's blog on TPM a few days ago (0.00 / 0)

I'm wondering if this commission might not be the political equivalent of giving a kitten a piece of yarn to play with, to give it something to do and make it feel useful, and keep it from otherwise causing damage or getting in one's way.

Or, perhaps he really does intend to "reform" social security, but in terms of exempting social security from income taxes and then raising the payroll cap to make up for the decreased general revenue that would result from such an exemption that would otherwise be used to partly service the trust fund interest. He mentioned both during the campaign, so perhaps that's what he means.

Any other changes to SS would be unnecessary, foolish and wrong. I assume that he's smart and decent enough to know this.

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton

---

by: kovie @ Mon Feb 16, 2009 at 18:52:13 PM CST

Strange Analogy (4.00 / 2)

I'm wondering if this commission might not be the political equivalent of giving a kitten a piece of yarn to play with, to give it something to do and make it feel useful, and keep it from otherwise causing damage or getting in one's way.

The forces arrayed against Social Security and Medicare, in both parties, are far too powerful to be compared to a kitten. It's far more likely that the public will fall for misdirection than these people.

Support a Pennsylvania Progressive for Governor - Joe Hoeffel

---

by: David Kaib @ Mon Feb 16, 2009 at 21:38:38 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Not that I'm a big fan of the Obama as Jiu-Jitsu 11th dimension chess master meme (0.00 / 0)

But we're not exactly talking about people who've been very astute about politics OR economics these past few years. The "They're too rich and powerful for us to fight" meme has clearly been busted by the past 2 election cycles, and by the GOP's near-impotence these days. It's really a matter of what Obama wants to do, and how much pressure the left can apply on him to do the right thing.

Oh, and what do you think the BHC/ISG was several years ago if not Bush throwing yarn at the anti-war kittens? And Obama is a lot more politically powerful than Bush was back then. The only question is what he's going to do with that power.

Bush tried to destroy SS in '05 and not only did he fail miserably, but it marked the beginning of his long decline in approval and the rise of Democratic power and cohesion. SS can only be destroyed if Obama wants it to be destroyed, and I don't think that he does. If not because it would be evil, then because it would be stupid, politically. So I think that he's up to something here that is not what the anti-SS forces think it might or want it to be.

I think that what he really means is rolling SS, Medicare and Medicaid reform in with universal health and maybe tax reform into one Mother of All Fiscal Reform Initiatives that he plans to roll out in the spring, and has directed his people to spend the next few months coming up with a plan. It would be brilliant, and it's really the only way to do it.

But first he's got to deal with TARP II and the upcoming budget, which are going to be huge battles, and the commission just buys time to get it right.

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton

---

by: kovie @ Mon Feb 16, 2009 at 22:48:21 PM CST

[ Parent ]

"They're too rich and powerful for us to fight" meme? (4.00 / 2)

That didn't come from me. I don't want to cede anything to them - I want Obama, the rest of the party, and activists to take this fight to those folks now.  It's about how to beat them, not whether they can be beat. Also, it was the Republican Party that lost - but the other side here exists in both parties and throughout the Washington Establishment, that always survives the transition relatively unscathed.

Oh, and what do you think the BHC/ISG was several years ago if not Bush throwing yarn at the anti-war kittens?

In that case, conservative forces in both parties, and the bulk of the media, were on Bush's side.  In this case, the conservative forces in both parties and the bulk of the media are on the side of weakening or scrapping Social Security and Medicare.  And the anti-war crowd did not have much in the way of high powered lobbyists.  So these are not the same things.

I don't know what Obama believes and neither do you. But even if you're right, the question is, why continue to proclaim that we need entitlement reform and accept the idea that fiscal conservatism has meant anything other than spend like crazy on wars and tax cuts while cutting things for regular people?  These are wildly popular programs.

Obama is smart, but that doesn't mean all his choices get explained through gaming / martial arts metaphors - (you may not be a fan, but you are a practitioner.)  

And beyond that, if supporters of social insurance don't mobilize, and opponents do, and you're right that Obama is a supporter - how does that help him?  Announcing that we can trust Obama to stop it, and that the other side is weak - it's a call to stand down.  

Support a Pennsylvania Progressive for Governor - Joe Hoeffel

---

by: David Kaib @ Mon Feb 16, 2009 at 23:12:18 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Not a fan but a practitioner? (0.00 / 0)

Please. If I had a dollar for every time someone accused me of being something that I'm not, and then responding or implying that I'm just in denial, as if people who don't know me know me better than I know myself. This whole pinning a label on someone to make it easier to refute them thing is boring.

Fact is, while I reject the silly meme being advanced by some of Obama's more credulous supporters that he's this super-brilliant chess master who's 10 moves of everyone else, and everything that he does can be explained by this brilliance even if we can't understand it, it's just as silly to deny that he is an extremely smart and skillful politician who's consistently outsmarted his opponents (but not always).

He did it to Clinton, then McCain, and I'm increasingly convinced that he did it to congressional Repubs, even though the stim bill could have been lots better. But politically, they look stupid, and he looks smart. That's a win. But that's still a far cry from saying that he's some sort of mystical wizard who's playing us all for fools.

It's on policy that he's not nearly as smart, in my opinion, as he is on politics. Nothing especially brilliant let alone radical coming from him on the policy front, although there have been some very admirable things, like Ledbetter, SCHIP and closing Gitmo. But his stances on state secrets, rendition, prosecuting Bushies and even torture have been very disappointing, and hadly jiu-jitsuey. So perhaps you're right, and he'll disappoint on SS too. We'll see.

One thing to note, which I discussed here the other day, is that he has this weird MO of initially taking a centrist and even center-right stance on a given issue, only to draw back and move left after either being criticized by the left, or simply realizing that he erred. His natural policy tendency seems to be to play it say and take the establishment approach, but then move left. It's quite weird and I don't get it. It's like there are two Obamas, and they keep fighting it out for attention. Kind of like Clinton.

In the end I think that he'll do the right thing with SS. He just can't undermine it. It's bad policy and bad politics and he's not going to make a double mistake. So I think that he's punting for now by indicating that he'll form a commission (which is DC shorthand for tabling something without saying so). And the forces arrayed to destroy SS that you speak of are weaker now than they were in '05, and we both know how that went.

It's not going to happen unless the economy actually collapses AND Obama decides that he needs to do it. And I doubt that both will happen.

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton

---

by: kovie @ Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 04:42:47 AM CST

[ Parent ]

You're right (0.00 / 0)

Let me retract that line (Fan vs. Practitioner.) Not fair in this instance and and in any event you're right that these labels aren't helpful. My bad.

Here's specifically what I meant to object to:

I think that what he really means is rolling SS, Medicare and Medicaid reform in with universal health and maybe tax reform into one Mother of All Fiscal Reform Initiatives that he plans to roll out in the spring, and has directed his people to spend the next few months coming up with a plan. It would be brilliant, and it's really the only way to do it.

There's nothing in the way of evidence (that I know of) to suggest that this is the case.  Of course, I have no evidence that it's not true.  But that's why I think that arguments over whether such possibilities are true or false aren't productive.  Or arguments that depend on Obama's political brilliance being applied on behalf of progressive goals in any particular case.  Regardless, I don't think it's worth forgoing pressure on Obama on these issues in the hopes that this is what he's up to - in fact, I think that pressure would help, if that was the case.  

So perhaps you're right, and he'll disappoint on SS too. We'll see.

I didn't mean to say that - only that we should do what we are going to do without regard to what we think Obama will do. He's disappointing me now, with what he says -  'Social Security is in crisis'.  And I oppose the commission idea on policy and politics grounds regardless.

And the forces arrayed to destroy SS that you speak of are weaker now than they were in '05, and we both know how that went.

Maybe. But those forces worry about the war not the battle. I hope you're right.  But I fear giving in to them - and do not see any upside to doing so.  

Finally:

One thing to note, which I discussed here the other day, is that he has this weird MO of initially taking a centrist and even center-right stance on a given issue, only to draw back and move left after either being criticized by the left, or simply realizing that he erred. His natural policy tendency seems to be to play it say and take the establishment approach, but then move left. It's quite weird and I don't get it. It's like there are two Obamas, and they keep fighting it out for attention. Kind of like Clinton.

I could not agree more.  Imagine those political skills being used without starting out in a self-imposed hole.  If the pressure comes sooner, perhaps the hole will not be as deep.

Support a Pennsylvania Progressive for Governor - Joe Hoeffel

---

by: David Kaib @ Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 18:13:25 PM CST

[ Parent ]

the right undermined a bedrock industry like the banking system (4.00 / 1)

thier insanity knows no bounds

---

by: gaspare @ Mon Feb 16, 2009 at 19:18:02 PM CST

I just wish Obama weren't so centrist now (4.00 / 1)

But he is a very well educated middle class fella.

---

by: abbeysbooks @ Mon Feb 16, 2009 at 19:24:55 PM CST

Actually, I think it's being a bit more Machiavellian than that, even. (0.00 / 0)

If the price to get the stimulus bill through Congress without significant Blue Dog defections was naming a bunch of wankers to a blue-ribbon commission, I'd do it in a heartbeat- and I think that's exactly what Obama did.

The fact is that commissions can be ignored, and I don't see that the environment for eviscerating Social Security is going to be better in 2009-2012 than it was in 2005- and progressives were perfectly able to stop it dead cold with very little leverage outside of a narrow margin for filibusters. The idea that President Obama is going to shove anything down progressive throats that President Bush couldn't, when  we have a LOT more ability to put a chokehold on legislation, and just as much ability to rally the troops as we did before... well, it's just silly.

---

by: pseudopol @ Mon Feb 16, 2009 at 20:57:14 PM CST

maybe obama (0.00 / 0)

only wants to serve one term but needs an out other then not running again, this would do it no doubt.

ps - - i will believe it when i see it.

---

by: pc @ Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 06:40:59 AM CST