David Plouffe and a grand bargain

[nadinbrzezinski]

If the Democratic Party does this, don't expect the voters to come out in 2014.

That is the truth. So why the urge? The neoliberal moment is passing...that is my feeling...last moment to impose a bipartisan screw you middle class.

I am all for compromise, the system requires it...but austerity is not what people gave a mandate for.

[Skidmore]

1. Well then get on the phone and push back.

I'm not worried about 2014 yet. Let's get this ball down to the line at the end of the year. Time to pushback on all fronts, including the WH.

[nadinbrzezinski]

2. I will do one better

Write. And I am just echoing Bernie Sanders. This is a gun to the side of the head.

[x2 vancouverite]

17. PHONE!

And yell.

[forestpath]

3. I saw that on Ed's show too. I am stunned. He was almost GLOATING over it.

If I didn't know better, I would have assumed he was a Republican, the way he was talking about this "grand bargain."

[nadinbrzezinski]

4. Neo liberal is, neo liberal does

[forestpath]

5. Well, I am an OLD-FASHIONED BLEEDING HEART liberal...and nobody who votes to

harm our earned benefits will ever get my vote.

[MrSlayer]

8. Gloating? That's what you call gloating?

Sure sounded like he was very unhappy about it to me. Saying that we did not vote for this crap and agreeing with Bernie Sanders. He then had Rep. DiFazio on to further rip on the idea of cutting benefits.

How can you so badly misrepresent what Ed said? How did you come to the conclusion that he sounded like a Republican?

[forestpath]

13. Excuse me? I was talking about DAVID PLOUFFE gloating - NOT ED!

Ed had the exact same reaction I did!

[MrSlayer]

16. Ah, my apologies.

In my disgust at the coming betrayal, I read it wrong, forgive me.

[forestpath]

20. No problem, that is understandable! Am still reeling myself.

[bluestate10]

6. Implement Obamacare early and eliminate the SS Tax Cap. And increase taxes on people

earning more than $400,000 per year. Cut weapons spending by 10%. That should be the Democratic offer.

[nadinbrzezinski]

7. I will even compromise to $500,000

But yes, that is what people voted for.

[quakerboy]

21. And make stock income taxable as regular earned income

[Cleita]

9. If he likes austerity, he needs to start with his class of millionaires, not

do it on the backs of poor and old people. He specifically called for austerity measures on so-called entitlement programs, which I call prepaid benefit programs. These are the programs poor people rely on and that they have paid for. This man needs to start with himself and others of his net worth and income before reaching to the bottom. This is his statements of assets, income and liabilities.

http://pfds.opensecrets.org/N99999913_2011.pdf

He and his ilk are not hurting at all and yet he wants those who are hurting to hurt more.

[nadinbrzezinski]

11. This is why I said

They do this, people will stay home...and rightfully so.

[Cleita]

22. It wouldn't be very smart to stay home. Next

presidential election is going to be brutal. The Republicans will be bringing out all their rock stars and if we don't do something to fix our corrupt election system, they will win.

[nadinbrzezinski]

38. It s not whether it is smart or not

There is a limit. The next election is 2014

[maui902]

10. Regarding your last sentence, I'm (honestly) curious what you would propose as a compromise.

We use so many buzz words in political debate ("grand bargain", "compromise", "austerity", and "fiscal cliff", among others) that it's easy to miscommunicate what we really believe and stand for. It seems the prevailing opinion at DU has been to rely (either solely or primarily) on increasing taxes on those who can best afford it and cutting defense spending. But you say "I am all for compromise, the system requires it...." So what would you willing to compromise on (especially if you wish to convince enough Republicans to pass any legislation you propose)? Just curious, because I see lots of posts where there does not appear to be any willingness to compromise on spending (at least on non defense related spending) but significant support for raising taxes beyond what was proposed during the 2012 election campaign.

[TheKentuckian]

12. We don't need to pass anything right now. If we can't get fix now, we can fix it later.

Let the tax cuts expire, end the payroll holiday, get some reinforcements in Congress, and see if they want to behave rationally. If not we'll have to wait which is fine because we can pay out Social Security for more than two decades.

[Liberalynn]

15. I like this strategy but I doubt it is the one they will follow

I am afraid the Dems will cave on benefit cutting which is not fair on Medicare and SS because beneficiaries already paid for those. JMHO and I hope I am wrong.

[nadinbrzezinski]

14. Well, first we need to start negotiations from a point of strength.

With Plouffe we are not.

1.- SS is off the table, period. It does not contribute to current accounts. Anybody who thinks otherwise...has bought the propaganda.

2.- What can be negotiated is raising the ceiling for contribution. I am all for removing it, but hey what about a million dollars.

3.- republicans want to cut some things like Medicaid? We raise all salaries to living wages. That will increase revenues, more people paying state and federal taxes, and reduce the need for Medicaid.

These are the kinds of serious proposals you start from, and do not budge on one.

Instead Plouffe is starting well in their wheelhouse.

[Sadiedog]

19. And why not cut some foreign aid?

I do not understand why this is never talked about. Am I missing something? It just seems to me that if we cannot even help the people here that are paying taxes why are we sending it off shore?

[Cleita]

23. We need to cut military spending. That's the elephant in the room.

We don't need the military we have especially with all the private companies like Xe and Halliburton sucking off our Treasury.

[nadinbrzezinski]

28. Foreign aid is actually a minuscule part of the budget

Now want to talk DOD?

[Sadiedog]

32. Thank you for your reply.

I am really trying to understand all this and am so appalled that some are trying to raise the retirement age. I know for a fact that there is no way I could physically preform my current job in my late 60`s I will be lucky to continue even a few more years and I am almost 57.

[nadinbrzezinski]

35. I know. The people who want to do that

Work desk jobs...not physical jobs. They are a minuscule part of the country, but stand to benefit from this.

Now, if we cut DOD by 20%, we would still outspend the next ten nations combined and the savings would be significant. (Some generals are even in favor of cutting some of these programs, but congress is not, the Osprey is a good example. The Marines already had choppers doing the job, but Boeing needed another contract I s'pose.). So what you have is a group of people trying for disaster capitalism.

I know tomorrow I will be making some calls...this is not what we elected these bozos for.

[Sadiedog]

39. Much appreciation. I want to call but want to be informed first.

So I thank you for helping with my understanding.

[nadinbrzezinski]

41. Oh you welcome.

[wilsonbooks]

31. We don't actually send much

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/five-myths-about-foreign-aid/2011/04/25/AF00z05E_story.html

In poll after poll, Americans overwhelmingly say they believe that foreign aid makes up a larger portion of the federal budget than defense spending, Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare, or spending on roads and other infrastructure. In a November World Public Opinion poll, the average American believed that a whopping 25 percent of the federal budget goes to foreign aid. The average respondent also thought that the appropriate level of foreign aid would be about 10 percent of the budget — 10 times the current level.

Compared with our military and entitlement budgets, this is loose change. Since the 1970s, aid spending has hovered around 1 percent of the federal budget. International assistance programs were close to 5 percent of the budget under Lyndon B. Johnson during the war in Vietnam, but have dropped since.

[Sadiedog]

34. Thanks for the post. I am really trying to make sense of all this! NT

[wilsonbooks]

37. You are very welcome

Here is where the money really goes

Budget breakdown for 2012

Defense-related expenditure 2012 Budget request & Mandatory spending[22][23] Calculation[24][25]
DOD spending $707.5 billion Base budget + "Overseas Contingency Operations"
FBI counter-terrorism $2.9 billion At least one-third FBI budget.
International Affairs $5.6–$63.0 billion At minimum, foreign arms sales. At most, entire State budget
Energy Department, defense-related $21.8 billion
Veterans Affairs $70.0 billion
Homeland Security $46.9 billion
NASA, satellites $3.5–$8.7 billion Between 20% and 50% of NASA's total budget
Veterans pensions $54.6 billion
Other defense-related mandatory spending $8.2 billion
Interest on debt incurred in past wars $109.1–$431.5 billion Between 23% and 91% of total interest
Total Spending $1.030–$1.415 trillion

[Sadiedog]

40. Much appreciation! nt

[maui902]

55. Respectfully, that does not sound like compromise

Compromise entails giving up something that is of some value to you in exchange for the other party to the negotiation giving up something that is of value to him or her. If you are not going to budge on the proposals you cite as examples, it does not appear you are "all for compromise" as you suggested in your original post. And if enough Democrats in Congress share your position, we will end up with sequestration (automatic spending cuts more drastic than what has been proposed by the President) and tax hikes (including higher payroll taxes) for everyone. I have no issue with beginning negotiations from a position of strength, but if Democrats are as unwilling to compromise as you and many others on DU appear to be, there will be no deal, no "grand bargain", in which case lots of regular folks will be impacted negatively.

[nadinbrzezinski]

57. Respectfully that is where you start a negotiation

Respectfully that is where the GOP starts and gets.

People are tired of this shit

Respectfully social security does not contribute to any issues with the budget.

Respectfully the dems do what Plouffe proposes, you just shot yourselves in the head and I expect the voters, rightfully so, to stay home. POTUS ran on protecting social security and medicate.

[maui902]

58. I didn't take your OP as what the Democrats should do as their starting point in negotiations

I'm responding to the part of your post that seemed to indicate that you were willing to compromise. No matter how right you are about your positions (which I'm not arguing with), the fact remains that if the President and Democrats do what you propose, and refuse to negotiate anything other than higher taxes and cuts to defense spending, no Republicans will sign on to that deal. And the only other options are continuation of the fiscal cliff (or slope if you prefer), which I argue is worse than a reasonable compromise to garner a few Republican votes, or waiting until you can convince enough voters in gerrymandered Republican districts to switch their votes to Democratic candidates who share your views (good luck with the latter option). I get that most posters here believe there should be zero cuts to social security or to Medicare or Medicaid, and that any fiscal shortfall should be resolved entirely by increased taxes on incomes above $250,000 and estates above a $1,000,000, by increasing the cap on payroll taxes (which will affect more than the rich), and by cutting defense spending (with no cuts to any other discretionary spending programs). What I don't get is the refusal to recognize that these positions, if Democrats in Congress are as unwilling to bend on them as most posters here seem to be, will lead to significantly higher taxes on everyone who pays taxes, higher payroll taxes, significant cuts to discretionary spending and defense spending, and no further extensions of unemployment compensation. Even if you wait until the new Congress is in session, the Republicans still control the House, and without the votes of at least a few of those Republicans (@ 20 at last count), what you propose simply won't happen. So, I ask again, what would you be willing to compromise on, in the end, to reach a deal? Or, as I suspect from your responses, are you simply unwilling to compromise on anything but taxes and defense spending?

[nadinbrzezinski]

59. Enjoy the coming losses in 2014

[maui902]

60. I gather from your response that your answer to my question was the latter (no compromise)

And that you're willing, as a matter of principle, to allow the consequences of no deal with the Republicans (not even one that involves minor compromise) to occur.

My own view is that if Congress (either this one or the next) does not come to some sort of deal by the end of 2013 that avoids the consequences of sequestration (significant cuts to both defense and non-defense discretionary spending), higher tax rates, restoration of the payroll tax, and no extensions of unemployment compensation), we are far more likely to lose seats in Congress than if a reasonable deal were reached sometime before 2013-a reasonable deal that included much or most of what most Democrats want: higher taxes for those who can best afford them (and lower taxes on incomes of less than $200,000); no major changes to social security/medicare/medicaid and protection of benefits to those who can least afford to lose them (those currently dependent on these programs and those who rely entirely or primarily on these benefits to survive); no increase in the age of eligibility for these benefits, an increase in the capital gains rate (plus some version of the Buffett tax proposal-a minimum tax on incomes in excess of $1,000,000), cuts to defense spending even though not as significant as many Democrats would like, an extension of unemployment benefits, and more dollars to stimulate the economy and create more jobs, in exchange for which Democrats would have to compromise a bit on those items near and dear to the Republicans whose votes are needed to reach a deal that avoids sequestration: meaningful cuts to non-defense discretionary spending (at least as much as the increase in taxes), some adjustments to social security/medicare/medicaid that are phased in over time to reduce the impact of the cuts on current beneficiaries (especially those who are least able to afford it), limiting the increase in the top marginal rates to something less than what would happen if the Bush tax cuts were to simply expire (as an example, 37.5% vs. 39.5%), a decrease in corporate tax rates in exchange for a reduction in deductions and credits, and a higher threshold on estate value before implementation of the estate tax.

If Democrats and Republicans continue to refuse to budge on what they believe are non-negotiable issues, we will get gridlock, sequestration, higher income taxes on everyone, a continuation of the stalemate on lifting the debt ceiling, less economic growth, more unemployment, less unemployment compensation, and more of the same economic malaise we've experienced for the last 6 years.

[nadinbrzezinski]

61. No, whoosh!

I want democrats, for once, to start negotiations from strength. Not saying, you know what? Let's talk social security and Medicare as the opening salvo. That is not strength. And social security should not even be hinted to be on the table, period. It does not add to the deficit, clear enough?

They do this, enjoy your loses. People will stay home.

[alcibiades_mystery]

18. There will be lots of hyperventilating

1) I trust Obama to do the right thing. The Left should certainly be loud advocates for our position throughout, but the kind of wailing and gnashing of teeth that we saw pre-Super Committee will, luckily, not be taken seriously.

2) I know that David Plouffe knows much more about politics and policy than 1,000 DU pseudo-progressives

3) When the DU pseudo-progressives can get even one state rep elected, they will be taken seriously, but not until then.

4) Luckily, the DU pseudo-progressives have proved themselves largely ineffectual, and they no longer pose even a minor threat of affecting Obama's reelection, so their huffing and puffing is mostly amusing now.

[marmar]

24. 'DU pseudo-progressives'

That's so unnecessary. Why not make a point without strident labels?

[nadinbrzezinski]

27. I love the attack line

Next you will red bait too.

[One of the 99]

29. Well said! nt

[coalition_unwilling]

33. What, pray tell, is a 'DU pseudo progressive'???? I was right about Iraq and

Afghanistan long before most of the mainstream caught on. The Communist Party opposed apartheid in South Africa long before it became fashionable for Democrats to oppose it.

So, again, what is a 'DU pseudo progressive'?

Your post is outrageous.

[alcibiades_mystery]

36. Well

1) I was also right about Iraq long before the mainstream, likely having shared your position.
2) I'm a proud Marxist. I'm also anti-apartheid.

A pseudo-progressive is one who prefers a purist rhetoric to legislative results. They are "pseudo" because - for all their bluster - they don't really care that much for progress, so long as their fixed ideological schema gets its proper angry airing. It should be noted that even Marx had little time for such nonsense, frequently taking all manner of leftist idiots to task for their inability to analyze the actual historical situation over and above their ideological biases. Indeed, some of Marx's most eloquent writings (The Poverty of Philosophy, Critique of the Gotha Program, etc.) are aimed at the historical doubles of our pseudo-progressives.

[coalition_unwilling]

42. The construct of 'pseudo progressive' presumes there is such a thing

as a 'real progressive'. When Rahm Emmanuel derided attempts to primary Blue Dogs in 2010 as 'retarded,' was Emmanuel deriding 'real progressives' or 'pseudo progressives'? See, I think Emmanuel was insulting 'real progressives' as being 'retarded'. And, of course, he was never held accountable for that remark nor for the fact that many of his precious Blue Dogs bit the dust in 2010.

[alcibiades_mystery]

43. I wouldn't pretend to speak for the Mayor

I'll leave that up to you.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

45. I think that you misunderstood him.

When he referred to liberals, he didn't say "retarded" without an adjective.

He said "fucking retarded."

Since he wasn't held accountable by anyone in a position of power, there must have been at least one person in a position of power that agreed with him.

[John2]

51. If you

think so about Leftists sir, then don't ask for their votes if you think many people are like you. That is where I disagree with you. You need to examine the electorate again.

[alcibiades_mystery]

52. It's not clear what you think I think

In any case, how many times did you predict that Obama would be a "one-term" President. I truly don't know, since your history on this board is so brief, and I've never even heard of you before.

[John2]

47. Just who

do you think elected President Obama or saved his ass, you and Plouffe? I beg to differ. The people that elected this man and defeated the Republicans were the people that President Obama made promises to. If he did not intend to fight for those promises then he shouldn't have asked for those votes. People stood in long lines to vote and you diminish them?

Did President Obama make claims that he will cut Social Security or Medicare? I'm sorry, but I missed that speech Mr Plouffe is giving. Because if many voters like me heard it, them Mr Obama would not be President today if he was just going to be another Romney. And you give Mr Plouffe too much credit if you think people voted because of him.

The people that voted for him were African Americans,Hispanics, Asians and Liberal Whites. What do these groups have in common. They still voted for Mr Obama, even though everyone of those groups thought he broke promises to them listening to people like Mr Plouffe. They have given him another chance to fight for their interests. And it wasn't to compromise with extremist Republicans to cut entitlements.

Tell me one campaign speech Mr Obama promised to cut entitlements? The Democratic heads and Mr Obama want get away with it this time, or they got hell to pay in the next elections. Plouffe don't have any power. The power is with the voters, and Mr Obama better not take it lightly. Those groups that you call Lefties, represent people, just as much as your righties. And don't give me that moderate or swing white voters put this man in office. Whatever this man does, he does not need to break his promises to the people that elected him and it sure weren't the people that you think! And I had to beg some people to vote!

[alcibiades_mystery]

50. Welcome to DU

[spanone]

25. my teevee only has republicans pushing 'entitlement reform' 24/7

that's their idea of compromise. chip away at social programs with token concessions to tax reform....

[sheshe2]

26. Please everyone just Chill Out a bit.

Deep breaths one and all. Please stop the "He is selling out"!!!
For the love of our country WE must stand with him.

Go to White House site,write your Senators and Congress.

President Barack Obama is preparing to expand the fiscal cliff fight beyond the confines of Washington, traveling the country and leaning on Democratic activist groups to help apply political pressure.

The goal, organizers said, is to keep engaged the activists and followers who have stood with Obama through two campaigns, and to begin applying external pressure to the president's negotiations with congressional Republicans.

And so, top Obama operatives are gaming out ways to squeeze political capital out of the 2012 elections, aiming to affect the lame-duck session in Congress. Obama previewed the strategy in a conference call with activists after the election, saying that a second term that will include some barnstorming across the country.

"One of my pledges for a second term is to get out of Washington more often," Obama said.

On that same call, one of president's top campaign aides, Mitch Stewart, alerted listeners that they would be asked to help support the White House as it deals with the expiring Bush tax cuts and looming $1 trillion in sequestration-related cuts. Stewart added that some campaign operatives would remain in Chicago "going through what worked in 2012 and what didn't work in 2012 and trying to figure out how we as an organization can get better." He concluded by pointing the 30,000 call participants to a newly developed initiative called TheAction.org.
http://immasmartypants.blogspot.com/2012/11/changing-washington-from-outside.html

[BeyondGeography]

30. Groveristic

[AnotherMcIntosh]

44. We can be as angry as we want to be, but the Grand Bargain and the TPP "free-trade"

agreement to ship even more American jobs to foreign countries is coming.

If anybody doesn't like it, "they are purists."

[BlueStreak]

46. There could be plenty of bargains that are commensurate with the electoral victory

That's the issue. We won the damn election -- TWICE. We expect the compromise to move policies in the progressive direction, period.

That doesn't mean they have to be completely one-sided. But it does men that, on balance, they need to move in the direction that was indicated by the election.

And so far, I am not hearing anything from the Obama side that makes me think this will happen. All they are saying is that they are digging their heels in on the top tax bracket. But that is complete bullshit. None of the rich people pay any significant taxes at the top rate. This issues are the cap gains rate, loopholes like carried interest, and all the tricks they can use to hide their income from taxation altogether. Obama isn't talking about that, and it won't be part of any deal.

If the final deal says that we get the bogus top tax rate and have to give up a couple years of Medicare and Social Security, that could be enough to make 2014 a disaster. As usual, I think Pflouffe is exactly right.

[decayincl]

48. A page from the GOP playbook

If the grand bargain includes cuts to earned benefits, we need to get those 15+ Senators who support the safety net to filibuster the bill until 12:01 a.m. on January 1, 2013. I am writing my Democratic Senator (Tom Harkin) right now. We step off the fiscal curb and get to work on some common sense solutions. A jobs bill would be a good start to the new year.

[hrmjustin]

49. Welcome to DU!

[TheKentuckian]

56. Fuckin' A!

TeaPubliKlans don't get away with any of this shit, they trick us into doing it for them. Now with improved zero to the bare minimum votes so they can then turn around and blame Democrats.

The best "reform" that is "on the table" is doing jack apple shit.

A rock can handle that and I expect it as a minimum from our representation.

[Poll_Blind]

53. Clip from Big Ed's show tonight here: (VIDEO)

HERE

Feel free to steal the vid! People need to see it!

PB

[hrmjustin]

54. T agree with you!