Obama's Top Economic Adviser Tells Democrats They'll Have to Swallow Entitlement Cuts - Bloomberg

[WillyT]

Obama's Top Economic Adviser Tells Democrats They'll Have to Swallow Entitlement Cuts
By Joshua Green _ Bloomberg
October 25, 2013

<snip>

This morning, Gene Sperling, director of the White House’s National Economic Council, appeared before a Democratic business group for what was billed as a speech about the economy after the shutdown, followed by a Q&A session. The White House didn’t push this as a newsmaking event, so it didn’t get much billing. But I went anyway, and I was struck by what Sperling had to say, especially about the upcoming budget negotiations that are a product of the deal to reopen the government.

In his usual elliptical and prolix way, Sperling seemed to be laying out the contours of a bargain with Republicans that’s quite a bit different that what most Democrats seem prepared to accept. What stood out to me was how he kept winding back around to the importance of entitlement cuts as part of a deal, as if he were laying the groundwork to blunt liberal anger. Right now, the official Democratic position is that they’ll accept entitlement cuts only in exchange for new revenue—something most Republicans reject. If Sperling mentioned revenue at all, I missed it.

But he dwelt at length—and with some passion—on the need for more stimulus, though he avoided using that dreaded word. He seemed to hint at a budget deal that would trade near-term “investment” (the preferred euphemism for “stimulus’) for long-term entitlement reform. That would be an important shift and one that would certainly upset many Democrats.

Here’s some of what Sperling had to say. He led off with the importance of entitlement cuts. (All emphasis is mine):

<snip>

More: http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-10-25/obamas-top-economic-adviser-tells-democrats-theyre-going-to-have-to-swallow-entitlement-cuts

[PoliticAverse]

1. Prior DU GD discussion on the article in the thread here...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3921389

[TDale313]

2. Oh, fuck no!!!

[winter is coming]

3. The stupid, it burns. n/t

[ProSense]

4. Pure BS from the media

From the OP article:

“Sometimes here (in Washington) we start to think that the end goal of our public policy is to hit a particular budget or spending or revenue metric—as if those are the goals in and of itself. But it’s important to remember that each of these metrics … are means to larger goals. … Right now, I think there is among a lot of people a consensus as to what the ingredients of a pro-growth fiscal policy are. It would be a fiscal policy that—yes—did give more confidence in the long run that we have a path on entitlement spending and revenues that gives confidence in our long-term fiscal position and that we’re not pushing off unbearable burdens to the next generation. That is very important.”

That’s a vague, guarded, jargon-y Washington way of saying, “We’re going to have to accept entitlement cuts—get used to it.” Then came the justification, which was the weakness of the economic recovery:

“You have to think about this as part of an overall pro-growth, pro-jobs strategy. Also, there’s no question that right now we still need to give this recovery more momentum. We cannot possibly be satisfied with the levels of projected growth when we are still coming back from the worst recession since the Great Depression.

Sperling's comment before and after the bogus quote (in bold) implied nothing of the sort. I mean, why is it necessary to invent a quote?

Here is the program:

http://www.c-span.org/Events/Presidential-Economic-Policy-Advisor-Speaks-with-Business-Leadership/10737442297-1/

Ryan wants entitlement cuts, Reid says 'NO WAY'
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023915052

[socialist_n_TN]

6. How in the world can you say that the quotes you accept....

"implied nothing of the sort" in regard to the bogus quote? OF course that's what it means. BTW, I agree that it was a bogus quote in that it tried to parse meaning out of the rest of the quotes, but what do you think that part about confidence in the long run on entitlement spending means?

The neo-liberal "confidence" comes from cutting the programs so that the wealthy doesn't have to pay more taxes. It's the same agenda we've seen for decades and world-wide. Low taxes, austerity, privatization and cutting the influence of workers will lead to more growth. That's the neo-liberal ideology and that's what the admin spokesman is saying in this speech. In this country that neo-liberal agenda means cutting entitlements.

[ProSense]

10. This

That’s a vague, guarded, jargon-y Washington way of saying, “We’re going to have to accept entitlement cuts—get used to it.” Then came the justification, which was the weakness of the economic recovery:

Is an invented quote. Period.

[socialist_n_TN]

12. When I paraphrase something, I'll put the paraphrase in quotes.........

Because it's not an actual quote, but it is a paraphrase. I also make sure that I call it a paraphrase. I read this as what the author was doing in this piece. And he did SAY that this was an interpretation of Washington speak, NOT a direct quote. You can disagree with what his interpretation of what was said, but it's disingenuous to try and take the focus OFF of what Spurling SAID and put it on a bit of prose "theater" or interpretation by the writer.

What the spokesman actually said IMPLIED what the writer interpreted with his "quote". And you still haven't addressed what was actually SAID by the admin spokesman.

[ProSense]

15. It's not a "paraphrase." It's BS.

"...And he did SAY that this was an interpretation of Washington speak, NOT a direct quote. You can disagree with what his interpretation of what was said, but it's disingenuous to try and take the focus OFF of what Spurling SAID and put it on a bit of prose "theater" or interpretation by the writer."

You can't be serious: "interpretation"?

He invented a quote and people are attributing it to Sperling. The claim is what's "disingenuous."

The piece is complete BS.

[socialist_n_TN]

25. He attributed what his interpretation of Washington DC speak was......

AND HE SAID IT WAS HIS INTERPRETATION! He didn't mislead anybody who read MORE of the article than his one quote. Would I have phrased it like that? Probably not, even though I believe his interpretation. But the point is HE DIDN'T LIE! It IS DC speak for the neo-liberal version of entitlement reform. Cut, cut, cut and privatize, privatize, privatize.

And once again you focus on one small piece of the article that might be slightly problematic obviously hoping to distract from the rest of the article's true quotes about the agenda of Barack Obama's top economic advisor.

[ProSense]

27. Stop yelling, and I

"AND HE SAID IT WAS HIS INTERPRETATION! He didn't mislead anybody who read MORE of the article than his one quote."

...said nothing about "mislead." I said the quote and the title is BS. The title alone suggests that Sperling said something he never said.

[Enrique]

7. the media is not supposed to be stenographers

if you want to stay relentlessly on-message, that's your choice. But journalists have to be independent of politicians' press offices.

[ProSense]

11. They're not "supposed to be stenographers," but they can invent quotes?

The piece is BS.

[steve2470]

8. Sperling needs to say flat out, no cuts in benefits and NO chained cpi...no weaseling nt

[villager]

36. No weaseling? From corporate weasels?

[steve2470]

37. I don't hold out hope nt

[BluegrassStateBlues]

13. Thanks for clearing things up. I'm not a fan of out-of-context quotes. nt

[ProSense]

16. It's not an "out-of-context" quote. It isn't real. n/t

[cui bono]

18. It's analysis. AFter hearing Sperling go on about it that's the conclusion this reporter

was left with, that's his/her analysis. They paraphrased and summed up. I don't think that's a rare thing to do.

[ProSense]

21. It's an opinion piece. Any way you slice it the quote is BS.

Sperling did not say: “We’re going to have to accept entitlement cuts—get used to it.”

Frankly, the title goes even beyond that: "Obama's Top Economic Adviser Tells Democrats They'll Have to Swallow Entitlement Cuts "

This is pure BS. It also plays into Republicans hand by creating the impression that there is a negotiation going on that isn't.

The media seems more interested in creating that impression to help Republicans make their case.

[cui bono]

22. I agree with the issue of creating an impression of negotiation.

But it's pretty clear that there is going to be negotiating on it since the Dems are all floating it lately. And Obama put it in his budget last year or whenever that was. So we're up to what, 5-6 saying it now? That's BS for sure.

[MannyGoldstein]

32. What do you think this quote means?

"It would be a fiscal policy that—yes—did give more confidence in the long run that we have a path on entitlement spending and revenues that gives confidence in our long-term fiscal position and that we’re not pushing off unbearable burdens to the next generation. That is very important.”

[ProSense]

33. It's vague boilerplate language, but

it damn sure doesn't say:

“We’re going to have to accept entitlement cuts—get used to it.”

...or:

"Obama's Top Economic Adviser Tells Democrats They'll Have to Swallow Entitlement Cuts "

[MannyGoldstein]

34. What scenarios do you think would meet mr. Sperling's criteria?

I'm thinking the President's standard Grand Bargain is the primary suspect.

You?

[ProSense]

38. How would I know? You

"What scenarios do you think would meet mr. Sperling's criteria?

I'm thinking the President's standard Grand Bargain is the primary suspect.

You?"

...apparently want me to put words in his mouth like the OP piece did. The piece took a vague statement and turned it into not only a definitive one, but also a forceful one.

Here's what I know:

Ryan wants entitlement cuts, Reid says 'NO WAY'
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023915052

I also know the piece has been updated:

(Updates with White House response, in paragraph 12)

<...>

In an e-mail responding to this article, White House spokeswoman Amy Brundage wrote, “Gene was reiterating what our position has been all along: that any big budget deal is going to have to include significant revenues if Republicans insist on entitlement reforms. And any budget deal needs to have first and foremost the goal of creating good jobs for middle class families and growing the economy—that’s our north star in any budget deal, big or small.”

[MannyGoldstein]

39. Seems he's saying that "a path on entitlement spending" is "very important"

Did I read that wrong?

[JDPriestly]

40. Obama reduced payroll taxes a couple of years ago. Those are the taxes that fund Social Security

and Medicare. He had better not agree to cuts or reductions in Social Security and Medicare benefits after having cut the revenues on purpose so recently.

That would really look very bad for him. It would be utterly stupid.

Obama should put a definite end to any discussion about cutting Social Security and Medicare. It would not help the economy. It would not help future social Security and Medicare recipients, and it would hurt the chances of Democrats in future elections -- hurt them for many, many years.

No one should even be flirting with the concept of cutting or adapting chained CPI for figuring Social Security or Medicare increases.

[DJ13]

5. : (

[truebrit71]

9. No cuts. Period.

Any Dem that votes for entitlement cuts needs to be replaced. End of.

[ScreamingMeemie]

14. +1

[Yo_Mama]

17. Kicking for visibility

People need to know about this.

[Matariki]

19. *They* won't be the ones swallowing the cuts

Goddammit this makes me so angry. Fucking assholes.

[WillyT]

20. C'Mon Y'All... I'm Lookin For Reason Here..

[kentuck]

23. Sperling is no Democrat..

He did work for Bill Clinton but he was always a mushy middle, compromising, bi-partisan, GOP-hugger.

[Oilwellian]

24. Sperling has been very vocal about this

It's no secret he supports cuts in Social Security and Medicare. The issue is why Obama continues to put people in key positions that help make that possible.

[jsr]

28. Because great minds think alike

and all that crap

[gopiscrap]

26. Fuck that bullshit

tell your Dem congress critter he'll get primaried...that's what we did to ours in 1990 came at him from the left to change his vote on funding the SOA after he had to spend a shit load to get elected and didn't sail through the primary, he changed his vote.

[Deep13]

29. Austerity doesn't work.

Tax the rich. Tax that 1% who control 1/3 of the nation's wealth. Screw the capitalists and support the people.

[Recursion]

30. Doubtful. There's still nothing the GOP can offer us that we want

Reid outlined it pretty well. There's not going to be a grand bargain because the sequester removed the logic for it.

[Eleanors38]

31. So we have some mythical top Democrats playing with the GOPer zipper?

This is core stuff for Democrats. No backing down. If they want to cut costs, do competitive bulk rate bids on Medicare costs, and increase taxes on the wealthy.

But that latter move will signal the Party us ready to take on corporate power again. Something the Party has desperately resisted for 40 years.

I've said it for years: The Party bureaucracy, its financial backers, the Obama administration and MSM all want NOTHING to do with the left, or even FDR/LBJ liberalism. If the left cannot exert enough power to defend what little remains of bedrock liberalism, then the Democratic Party will have little relevancy remaining, and the "left" will have none at all.

[arthritisR_US]

35. Sorry, I call bullshit on him. Corporatocracy has

to stop!

[WillyT]

41. Morning Kick !!!