[Peace-discuss] GOP Betrays Social Security-Cutting Dems
David Johnson via Peace-discuss
peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
Thu Oct 30 09:08:15 EDT 2014
Published on
Tuesday, October 28, 2014
by
Campaign for America's Future Blog
<http://ourfuture.org/20141028/gop-betrays-social-security-cutting-dems-who-couldve-seen-it-coming>
"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."
GOP Betrays Social Security-Cutting Dems: Who Could've Seen It Coming?
by
Richard Eskow <http://www.commondreams.org/author/richard-eskow>
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)
Who could've seen it coming?
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:
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.
Amid what the Post's Lori Montgomery
<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>
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."
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 polls <http://www.populistmajority.org>.
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.
Who, oh who, could have predicted it?
*Told You So*
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):
? Four years ago, on November 10, 2010
<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rj-eskow/simpsonbowles-a-predawn-r_2_b_781976.html>,
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.
? On November 4, 2010
<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rj-eskow/a-collegial-question-for_b_779233.html>
this author pointed out that insiders were marginalizing Social Security
defenders as "the left," while dishonestly conveying the range of
options available.
? In a piece that ran on November 16, 2010
<http://ourfuture.org/20101116/The_Six_Percenters>, I pointed out that
only six percent of the electorate agreed that "deficits" should be a
congressional or presidential priority. On December 1, 2010
<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rj-eskow/time-to-save-the-democrat_b_790217.html>
I wondered who will protect the Democrats from their own austerity rhetoric.
? In January of 2011
<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rj-eskow/shocker-obamas-less-trust_b_811964.html>
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.
? In March of 2011
<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rj-eskow/for-adults-only_b_836155.html> 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.
? On May 16, 2011
<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rj-eskow/bill-clinton-boehner-and_b_1520025.html>
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.
? On June 22, 2011
<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rj-eskow/deficit-hysteria-washingt_b_882068.html>
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).
? In a piece that ran three years ago, on December 9, 2011
<http://www.apple.com>, 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.
? A piece published on April 25, 2011
<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rj-eskow/wanted-an-opposition-part_b_853612.html>
once again lamented the fact that mainstream political opinion on Social
Security was being "marginalized" and excluded from Beltway debate.
Another, on November 7, 2011
<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rj-eskow/a-super-committee-failure_b_1081095.html>,
pointed out that Simpson-Bowles was based on economic mythology.
? On July 17, 2012
<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rj-eskow/the-slick-no-labels-effor_b_1678389.html>
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.
(Democrats cried foul this week when "No Labels" backed Tea Party
candidate Cory Gardner
<http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2014/10/27/no_labels_backs_gardner_ground_effort_in_colorado_124453.html>
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.)
? On September 7, 2012
<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rj-eskow/six-degrees-of-social-sec_b_1863503.html>
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
October 4, 2012
<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rj-eskow/the-winning-card-why-aren_b_1940952.html>
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.
? We warned Democrats on November 30, 2012
<http://www.occupy.com/article/fiscal-cliff-deal-wall-street%E2%80%99s-latest-scam>
-- two years ago -- that "fiscal cliff" deals and similar proposals were
a Wall Street scam.
? On February 4, 2013
<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rj-eskow/as-public-makes-hard-choi_b_2619776.html>
we reminded readers of the dishonesty, as well as the personal vulgarity
and excess, at the heart of the Simpson Bowles agenda.
*/I know we said you could jump ahead, but don't skip this part!/*
On April 9, 2013
<http://ourfuture.org/20130409/could-democrats-be-rebranded-as-the-anti-social-security-party>
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.
On April 10, 2013
<http://ourfuture.org/20130410/gops-not-so-shocking-shocking-attack-on-obamas-chained-cpi-cuts>
we reported the results: /It only took fifteen minutes/ for a GOP
official to call Obama's move a "shocking betrayal of seniors."
/And that was for adopting their own preferred policy./ Now let's continue.
? On April 11, 2013
<http://ourfuture.org/20130411/9-embarrassing-chained-cpi-facts-they-dont-want-you-to-know>
we pointed out that the GOP budget did /not/ include this benefit cut,
placing Dems in a perilous position, and provided ten other facts about
the "chained CPI" -- another Simpson-Bowles proposal.
? In September of 2013
<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rj-eskow/will-the-democrats-speak_b_1853255.html>,
we warned Democrats away from the misguided austerity language political
theorist Corey Robin has described as "eat your peas" rhetoric.
? On October 20, 2013
<http://ourfuture.org/20131020/the-road-from-here-what-about-medicare-and-social-security>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."
? On March 27, 2014
<http://ourfuture.org/20140327/bill-clinton-steny-hoyer-push-wall-street-democrats-party-line>
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.
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."
And all the faux centrists are saying, How could we have known?
*The Latest Betrayals*
The Huffington Post's Ryan Grim and Sabrina Siddiqui
<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/23/bipartisan-in-washington_n_6035804.html>
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.
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
Brian Faler
<http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=3DDFFAD8-F4AA-4907-9391-6ED3CA23186A>
reports that Rep. Joe Garcia is accused of "failing seniors."
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?)
The Post describes the Simpson Bowles plan, accurately, as a proposal
that was"once venerated in both parties."
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.
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.
*The Calvary Isn't Coming.*
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).
Voters weren't buying it.
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 /Post,/ "you do whatever you think will work."
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."
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."
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.
"*Mini-Bargains"*
In an interview for The Zero Hour
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IJSl-royRLM>, the /Huffington Post/'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 /Post,/ the first such bargain may be
looming on the horizon.
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
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.
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.
And when things get ugly for Democrats in the next election, they'll
undoubtedly be asking themselves once again:
Who could have seen it coming?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace-discuss/attachments/20141030/552dbd06/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: grand_bargain_obama.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 237485 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace-discuss/attachments/20141030/552dbd06/attachment-0001.jpg>
More information about the Peace-discuss
mailing list