<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
Published on
<div class="field field--name-field-article-date
field--type-datestamp field--label-hidden">
<div class="field__items">
<div class="field__item even"><span class="date-display-single">Tuesday,
October 28, 2014</span></div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="grouping-spacer"> by </div>
<div class="profile-titles clearfix"><a
href="http://ourfuture.org/20141028/gop-betrays-social-security-cutting-dems-who-couldve-seen-it-coming"
target="_blank" rel="nofollow">Campaign for America's Future
Blog</a><br>
<br>
<big><big>"Meanwhile, Democrats who backed this bill – and who
were promised bipartisan “cover” for adopting this
fundamentally conservative plan – are waiting for
reinforcements that will never arrive.</big></big>"<br>
</div>
<h1 class="node__title managed-node-title">GOP Betrays Social
Security-Cutting Dems: Who Could’ve Seen It Coming?</h1>
<div class="field-wrapper content-container clearfix inline-fields"
id="field-wrapper-authors">
<div class="grouping-prefix">by</div>
<div class="profile-titles clearfix"><a
href="http://www.commondreams.org/author/richard-eskow"
target="_blank" rel="nofollow">Richard Eskow</a></div>
</div>
<div class="field field--name-field-article-img field--type-image
field--label-hidden">
<div class="field__items">
<div class="field__item even"><img class="caption-processed"
src="cid:part3.05030300.08080507@comcast.net" alt=""
height="500" width="955"></div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="field field--name-field-main-caption
field--type-text-long field--label-hidden">
<div class="field__items">
<div class="field__item even">
<p><big><big>For the bulk of Obama's presidency, conventional
Beltway wisdom has insisted that Democrats who endorse
cuts to their party’s signature programs will be
handsomely rewarded, with both the gratitude of voters
and the fraternal support of their Republican
colleagues. Instead they’re being pilloried for taking
unpopular and economically unsound positions.
Whodathunkit? (Photo: Wikipedia)</big></big></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="field field--name-body field--type-text-with-summary
field--label-hidden">
<div class="field__items">
<div class="field__item even">
<p><big><big>Who could’ve seen it coming?</big></big></p>
<big><big>
</big></big>
<p><big><big>Progressives could be forgiven for developing
something of a Cassandra complex when it comes to the
Democratic Party’s economic stances. Here’s the latest
case in point:</big></big></p>
<big><big>
</big></big>
<p><big><big>The Washington Post and Politico have warned us
that Republicans, led by Karl Rove’s dark-money outfit,
are attacking Democratic candidates for supporting the
“bipartisan” cuts to Social Security that were all the
rage in Washington for a few years.</big></big></p>
<big><big>
</big></big>
<p><big><big>Amid what <a
href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/gop-changes-tune-on-cutting-social-security-with-elections-on-the-line/2014/10/23/d8e57db2-5ad0-11e4-b812-38518ae74c67_story.html">the
Post’s Lori Montgomery</a> calls “charges of
hypocrisy,” Democrats like Sen. Kay Hagan of North
Carolina are being slammed for supporting increases in
the retirement age and cuts to future benefits. Adding
insult to injury, Republican ads are mocking the
once-revered, supposedly “bipartisan” Simpson-Bowles
deficit proposal as a “controversial plan” that “raises
the retirement age.”</big></big></p>
<big><big>
</big></big>
<p><big><big>It is both those things, of course. It does raise
the retirement age, and it is controversial –
controversial enough to be opposed by most Republicans,
as well as overwhelming majorities of Democrats and
independents, according to <a
href="http://www.populistmajority.org">polls</a>.</big></big></p>
<big><big>
</big></big>
<p><big><big>But the conventional wisdom has insisted for
years that Democrats who endorse cuts to their party’s
signature programs will be handsomely rewarded, with
both the gratitude of voters and the fraternal support
of their Republican colleagues. Instead they’re being
pilloried for taking unpopular and economically unsound
positions.</big></big></p>
<big><big>
</big></big>
<p><big><big>Who, oh who, could have predicted it?</big></big></p>
<big><big>
</big></big>
<p><big><big><strong>Told You So</strong></big></big></p>
<big><big>
</big></big>
<p><big><big>There’s no polite way to say this: some of us
have been trying to warn the Dems for years. Here are
some examples, from the written history I know best: my
own. (If you don’t want the “told you so’s,” feel free
to skip ahead. We won’t blame you – even though this is
only a partial list):</big></big></p>
<big><big>
</big></big>
<p><big><big>● Four years ago, on <a
href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rj-eskow/simpsonbowles-a-predawn-r_2_b_781976.html"><span
class="s2">November 10, 2010</span></a>, Roger
Hickey and I wrote an analysis of a poll sponsored by
the Campaign for America’s Future that quantified the
unpopularity of the Simpson-Bowles plan.</big></big></p>
<big><big>
</big></big>
<p><big><big>● On <a
href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rj-eskow/a-collegial-question-for_b_779233.html"><span
class="s2">November 4, 2010</span></a> this author
pointed out that insiders were marginalizing Social
Security defenders as “the left,” while dishonestly
conveying the range of options available.</big></big></p>
<big><big>
</big></big>
<p><big><big>● In a piece that ran on <a
href="http://ourfuture.org/20101116/The_Six_Percenters"><span
class="s2">November 16, 2010</span></a>, I pointed
out that only six percent of the electorate agreed that
“deficits” should be a congressional or presidential
priority. On <a
href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rj-eskow/time-to-save-the-democrat_b_790217.html"><span
class="s2">December 1, 2010</span></a> I wondered
who will protect the Democrats from their own austerity
rhetoric.</big></big></p>
<big><big>
</big></big>
<p><big><big>● In <a
href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rj-eskow/shocker-obamas-less-trust_b_811964.html"><span
class="s2">January of 2011</span></a> we used data
from Social Security Works to note that Democrats had
blown a 38-point lead over Republicans as the party
voters trusted with their Social Security benefits,
largely as a result of this “bipartisan” benefit-cut
talk. That piece noted that Republicans had campaigned
on an equally hypocritical “Seniors’ Bill of Rights” —
and took the House that year.</big></big></p>
<big><big>
</big></big>
<p><big><big>● In <a
href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rj-eskow/for-adults-only_b_836155.html"><span
class="s2">March of 2011</span></a> I warned Dems
away from the false rhetoric from the right-leaning
crowd, especially the rhetoric that asserts that it is
somehow more “adult” to talk about unnecessary and
punitive cuts for the American people than it is to
discuss tax increases for millionaires.</big></big></p>
<big><big>
</big></big>
<p><big><big>● On <a
href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rj-eskow/bill-clinton-boehner-and_b_1520025.html"><span
class="s2">May 16, 2011</span></a> we pointed out
that the Democratic Party’s reputation was endangered by
the spectacle of leading Democrat Bill Clinton and
leading Republican John Boehner hanging out at a “fiscal
summit” and agreeing that Social Security must be cut.</big></big></p>
<big><big>
</big></big>
<p><big><big>● On <a
href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rj-eskow/deficit-hysteria-washingt_b_882068.html"><span
class="s2">June 22, 2011</span></a> we warned that
Washington’s anti-Social Security deficit hysteria
amounted to a “war on the young” that could depress
turnout among younger voters (a key concern in this
year’s races).</big></big></p>
<big><big>
</big></big>
<p><big><big>● In a piece that ran three years ago, on <a
href="http://www.apple.com"><span class="s2">December
9, 2011</span></a>, I pointed out that Republicans
gave Dems a sucker punch and ran to their left in
“entitlements” (Medicare and Social Security). We
mentioned again that the “Seniors Bill of Rights” help
them win in 2010.</big></big></p>
<big><big>
</big></big>
<p><big><big>● A piece published on <a
href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rj-eskow/wanted-an-opposition-part_b_853612.html"><span
class="s2">April 25, 2011</span></a> once again
lamented the fact that mainstream political opinion on
Social Security was being “marginalized” and excluded
from Beltway debate. Another, on <a
href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rj-eskow/a-super-committee-failure_b_1081095.html"><span
class="s2">November 7, 2011</span></a>, pointed out
that Simpson-Bowles was based on economic mythology.</big></big></p>
<big><big>
</big></big>
<p><big><big>● On <a
href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rj-eskow/the-slick-no-labels-effor_b_1678389.html"><span
class="s2">July 17, 2012</span></a> we warned
Democrats and progressives that the slick “No Labels”
package, supposedly a “nonpartisan” initiative, was a
corporatist right-wing project in disguise – one that
had Social Security in its sights.</big></big></p>
<big><big>
</big></big>
<p><big><big>(Democrats cried foul this week when “No Labels”
backed <a
href="http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2014/10/27/no_labels_backs_gardner_ground_effort_in_colorado_124453.html"><span
class="s2">Tea Party candidate Cory Gardner</span></a>
against incumbent Democrat Mark Udall in the Colorado
Senate race. To preserves the illusion of impartiality,
the cynical outfit backed a Democratic House member at
the same time. But the Udall/Gardner race is much more
important, and almost certainly much closer.)</big></big></p>
<big><big>
</big></big>
<p><big><big>● On <a
href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rj-eskow/six-degrees-of-social-sec_b_1863503.html"><span
class="s2">September 7, 2012</span></a> we reminded
Democrats that the President’s offer of a Social
Security compromise didn’t lessen the right’s fervor for
bringing him down. On <a
href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rj-eskow/the-winning-card-why-aren_b_1940952.html"><span
class="s2">October 4, 2012</span></a> we reminded
Democrats about the GOP’s “Seniors Bill of Rights”
gambit again and cautioned them that a deal would lead
to a double-cross.</big></big></p>
<big><big>
</big></big>
<p><big><big>● We warned Democrats on <a
href="http://www.occupy.com/article/fiscal-cliff-deal-wall-street%E2%80%99s-latest-scam"><span
class="s2">November 30, 2012</span></a> – two years
ago – that “fiscal cliff” deals and similar proposals
were a Wall Street scam.</big></big></p>
<big><big>
</big></big>
<p><big><big>● On <a
href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rj-eskow/as-public-makes-hard-choi_b_2619776.html"><span
class="s2">February 4, 2013</span></a> we reminded
readers of the dishonesty, as well as the personal
vulgarity and excess, at the heart of the Simpson Bowles
agenda.</big></big></p>
<big><big>
</big></big>
<p><big><big><strong><em>I know we said you could jump ahead,
but don’t skip this part!</em></strong></big></big></p>
<big><big>
</big></big>
<p><big><big>On <a
href="http://ourfuture.org/20130409/could-democrats-be-rebranded-as-the-anti-social-security-party"><span
class="s2">April 9, 2013</span></a> we warned
Democrats about Obama’s decision to incorporate the
chained-CPI benefit cut into his budget. That meant
Democrats could be labeled the “anti-Social Security
party.” We wondered how it would take Republicans to
attack the president for adopting cuts they’ve wanted
all along.</big></big></p>
<big><big>
</big></big>
<p><big><big>On <a
href="http://ourfuture.org/20130410/gops-not-so-shocking-shocking-attack-on-obamas-chained-cpi-cuts"><span
class="s2">April 10, 2013</span></a> we reported the
results: <em>It only took fifteen minutes</em> for a
GOP official to call Obama’s move a “shocking betrayal
of seniors.”</big></big></p>
<big><big>
</big></big>
<p><big><big><em>And that was for adopting their own preferred
policy.</em> Now let’s continue.</big></big></p>
<big><big>
</big></big>
<p><big><big>● On <a
href="http://ourfuture.org/20130411/9-embarrassing-chained-cpi-facts-they-dont-want-you-to-know"><span
class="s2">April 11, 2013</span></a> we pointed out
that the GOP budget did <em>not</em> include this
benefit cut, placing Dems in a perilous position, and
provided ten other facts about the “chained CPI” –
another Simpson-Bowles proposal.</big></big></p>
<big><big>
</big></big>
<p><big><big>● In <a
href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rj-eskow/will-the-democrats-speak_b_1853255.html"><span
class="s2">September of 2013</span></a>, we warned
Democrats away from the misguided austerity language
political theorist Corey Robin has described as “eat
your peas” rhetoric.</big></big></p>
<big><big>
</big></big>
<p><big><big>● On <a
href="http://ourfuture.org/20131020/the-road-from-here-what-about-medicare-and-social-security"><span
class="s2">October 20, 2013 </span></a>we cautioned
Dems that “any scenario that leads to Social Security or
Medicare cuts would be bad for seniors. It would also be
bad for any politician who supported it.”</big></big></p>
<big><big>
</big></big>
<p><big><big>● On <a
href="http://ourfuture.org/20140327/bill-clinton-steny-hoyer-push-wall-street-democrats-party-line"><span
class="s2">March 27, 2014</span></a> we reported on
the central role Bill Clinton has played in steering his
party in this disastrous direction, as leader of the
Wall Street Democrats.</big></big></p>
<big><big>
</big></big>
<p><big><big>I’m not claiming any special prescience on this
issue. I’m just one of a number of people who have been
making these observations for years. But now, with the
election a few days away, we learn that “with
Republicans in striking distance of winning the Senate,
they are suddenly blasting the idea of trimming Social
Security benefits.”</big></big></p>
<big><big>
</big></big>
<p><big><big>And all the faux centrists are saying, How could
we have known?</big></big></p>
<big><big>
</big></big>
<p><big><big><strong>The Latest Betrayals</strong></big></big></p>
<big><big>
</big></big>
<p><big><big>The Huffington Post’s <a
href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/23/bipartisan-in-washington_n_6035804.html"><span
class="s2">Ryan Grim and Sabrina Siddiqui</span></a>
pithily note that “for decades, corporate strategy in
Washington depended on bipartisan compromise to push
through policies unpopular with the public.” Any crack
in that facade leads to infighting – and, perhaps, to
democratic representation in the halls of Congress.</big></big></p>
<big><big>
</big></big>
<p><big><big>Now the cracks are showing. The Post reports that
Democratic Rep. John Barrow has been accused of “leaving
Georgia seniors behind” by supporting “a plan that would
raise the retirement age to 69 while cutting Social
Security benefits.” (That’s Simpson Bowles.) Politico’s
<a
href="http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=3DDFFAD8-F4AA-4907-9391-6ED3CA23186A"><span
class="s2">Brian Faler</span></a> reports that Rep.
Joe Garcia is accused of “failing seniors.”</big></big></p>
<big><big>
</big></big>
<p><big><big>Karl Rove’s organization, Crossroads GPS, accused
Hagan of supporting the same “controversial plan.”
Gardner appears in a new ad with his grandmother while
promising to “honor every penny we promised today’s
seniors.” (Did you catch the word “today”? See what he
did there?)</big></big></p>
<big><big>
</big></big>
<p><big><big>The Post describes the Simpson Bowles plan,
accurately, as a proposal that was“once venerated in
both parties.”</big></big></p>
<big><big>
</big></big>
<p><big><big>The theory, we were told, was that “Republicans
would raise taxes” – although Simpson Bowles leaned
heavily on the middle class, rather than the wealthy –
in return for Democratic cuts to Medicare and Social
Security. In truth, most of Simpson Bowles’ measures
would have hit the middle class and lower-income
Americans the hardest.</big></big></p>
<big><big>
</big></big>
<p><big><big>Even its supposedly more “evenhanded” measures,
like means-testing Social Security benefits, were
designed in a way that would have hit the “99 percent”
much harder than the wealthy.</big></big></p>
<big><big>
</big></big>
<p><big><big><strong>The Calvary Isn’t Coming.</strong></big></big></p>
<big><big>
</big></big>
<p><big><big>The plan’s two authors – a hedge-fund Democrat
and the Republican scion of political influence and
personal prosperity – spared no effort in pitching their
plan as “courageous” (as if coddling billionaires takes
courage) and “tough-minded” (as if pursuing corporate
and billionaire funding requires toughness).</big></big></p>
<big><big>
</big></big>
<p><big><big>Voters weren’t buying it.</big></big></p>
<big><big>
</big></big>
<p><big><big>Predictably, Simpson and Bowles have now taken to
describing the hapless Democratic victims of their
political scheme as “brave.” The deal’s other Republican
advocates, like Senator turned Wall Street-funded
pitchman Judd Gregg, simply shrug their shoulders at the
betrayal. “In elections,” Gregg told the <em>Post,</em>
“you do whatever you think will work.”</big></big></p>
<big><big>
</big></big>
<p><big><big>Sometimes the “bipartisan” dealmakers let their
conservative biases slip in subtle ways. Maya MacGuineas
of “the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget” is a
leading member of this lobbying effort, which is funded
in large part by billionaire Pete Peterson as well as an
array of defense contractors and bailed-out Wall Street
banks. Said MacGuineas, “Attacking Democrats who have
been willing to break with their party’s orthodoxy sets
back the traditionally Republican agenda of entitlement
reform tremendously.”</big></big></p>
<big><big>
</big></big>
<p><big><big>To this well-heeled and well-funded crowd, Social
Security and Medicare represent liberal “orthodoxy,”
rather than highly successful and popular programs that
should be expanded. Cuts to these programs are “reform.”
And the desire to cut them represents Republican
“tradition.”</big></big></p>
<big><big>
</big></big>
<p><big><big>George Orwell would be proud. Meanwhile,
Democrats who backed this bill – and who were promised
bipartisan “cover” for adopting this fundamentally
conservative plan – are waiting for reinforcements that
will never arrive.</big></big></p>
<big><big>
</big></big>
<p><big><big>“<strong>Mini-Bargains”</strong></big></big></p>
<big><big>
</big></big>
<p><big><big>In an interview for <a
href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IJSl-royRLM"><span
class="s2">The Zero Hour</span></a>, the <em>Huffington
Post</em>’s Ryan Grim warned of what MacGuineas
describes as “mini-bargains” – small deals that chip
away at the nation’s social contract one piece at a
time, rather than in the more wholesale manner proposed
by Simpson Bowles. And now, according to the <em>Post,</em>
the first such bargain may be looming on the horizon.</big></big></p>
<big><big>
</big></big>
<p><big><big>Republicans are now considering another budget
showdown, along the lines of previous years’ “hostage
crises” against the American people and their
government. And Lori Montgomery reports that</big></big></p>
<big><big>
</big></big>
<blockquote>
<p><big><big>With a deadline on the debt limit looming again
sometime next year, some Republicans have been quietly
discussing the possibility of boosting Treasury
borrowing power in exchange for adopting the new
inflation measure, among other cuts to entitlement
programs.</big></big></p>
</blockquote>
<big><big>
</big></big>
<p><big><big>Democrats from the President on down will
undoubtedly to publicly sign on to a deal like that.
They’ll be told that voters will embrace them for it,
praising them for their “bravery” and wisdom. And
they’ll undoubtedly be reassured that their Republican
voters are willing to surrender some of their long-held
principles, too, just as long as Democratic programs are
cut more deeply – and Democrats sign on to the deal
first.</big></big></p>
<big><big>
</big></big>
<p><big><big>And when things get ugly for Democrats in the
next election, they’ll undoubtedly be asking themselves
once again:</big></big></p>
<big><big>
</big></big>
<p><big><big>Who could have seen it coming?</big></big></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>