Oh Crap!!! "Social Security Cuts Still ‘on the Table’ but Not in Obama’s Budget"!!!

[ProSense]

55. Earnest botched the response, but

“It’s a principle of fairness,” Earnest said.

...that comment was about the President's position of asking the rich to pay their fair share.

Q You said, Josh, earlier that chained CPI -- it’s still on the table. Does the White House view chained CPI as worth taking up only in some kind of transaction for something out of the Republicans? Or is the deficit reduction the chained CPI would give you worth doing on its own?

MR. EARNEST: It’s a really good question. I’m glad that you asked, and here’s why: This is a really important principle for the President not just because it’s good policy, but because it’s simple fairness.

The President is not going to be in a position where he is going to ask senior citizens and middle-class families to make sacrifices in pursuit of reducing the deficit and not ask the wealthy and well-connected to make some sacrifices, too; that it’s just not fair and it’s not good policy.

So if Republicans -- and Republicans thus far have refused to even consider closing any loophole that would cost a corporation or a wealthy individual one penny; that the second you bring up the prospect of closing tax loopholes, Republicans want to walk away. And why they think that it’s good policymaking to ask senior citizens and veterans and middle-class families to make sacrifices, but say that corporations and wealthy individuals and well-connected individuals shouldn’t have to bear any of that responsibility or make any of those sacrifices, it doesn’t make sense. It’s not fair and it’s not good policy.

So that’s why the President has insisted that if we’re going to ask seniors and others to make sacrifices by changing entitlement programs, then we’re also going to ask corporations and well-connected individuals to give up some of their tax loopholes.

Q So you’re saying that chained CPI, while it would reduce the deficit, either doesn’t do it enough or doesn’t do it in a significant way that would make it worth doing on its own?

MR. EARNEST: I’m saying that it would not be fair to just ask seniors to make a sacrifice in support of reducing the deficit without also asking the wealthy and well-connected to give up some of their tax loopholes. That is an important principle. It’s a principle of fairness. It’s also a principle of good policy.

So if Republicans hearing this exchange are thinking to themselves, well, you know what, that makes a lot of sense, maybe I should call the White House and say, hey, look, I’m willing to close some tax loopholes if you’re willing to put some entitlement reform changes on the table -- then I would encourage those Republicans to call the White House right now. I’m sure we can set up a meeting and we can have a conversation about that.

But that offer has been on the table for more than a year and we have not seen any constructive engagement from the other side. Now, I’m not really sure why that is. Is that because Republicans are interested in protecting the tax benefits enjoyed by the people who are funding their campaigns? Is it because Republicans have a philosophical objection to entitlement programs? You’d have to ask them why this isn’t a reasonable proposal.

But the President thinks it is a common-sense proposal. People all across the country think that this approach to reducing our deficit makes a lot of sense. We just haven’t seen a willingness from the other side to engage in a constructive conversation about that. But, again, if the fact of this conversation is going to change that and cause more Republicans to reconsider their position, then we’re standing by and ready to have that conversation.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2014/02/20/press-briefing-principal-deputy-press-secretary-josh-earnest-2202014

While he made it clear that this is a Republican request, what he should have done was make it clear that it has nothing to do with deficit reduction.

Still, not only is this a moot issue for this year, but also for the future. Republicans are never going to accept the offer.

How Tea Party Absolutism Cost The GOP A Huge Win On Entitlements

The GOP's long-held dream of slashing the retirement safety net faded this week.

Back in the summer of 2011, Republicans had it within their grasp. A dejected President Barack Obama placed the crown jewels of liberalism on the chopping block, offering Republicans hundreds of billions of dollars in cuts to Social Security and Medicare benefits.

House Speaker John Boehner wanted to seal the so-called grand bargain, and was willing to reciprocate with the $800 billion in new tax revenues that the president sought in return. Democratic leaders were grudgingly willing to support Obama on what they feared was a lopsided deal for conservatives.

But the Ohio Republican, facing a tea party mutiny that threatened his Speakership, and loyalty issues within his own leadership team, was forced to walk away from the table. By many accounts, he was eager to make it happen, but the pressure from the anti-tax tea party movement was too strong to overcome. And so the deal was dead, never to be resurrected.

Nearly three years later, history suggests Boehner was right and the tea party was wrong. Republicans had a once-in-a-generation opportunity to capture their Great White Whale if they just acquiesced to $800 billion in taxes. It turns out they were forced to soak up $650 billion in taxes anyway in the end-of-2012 fiscal cliff deal. Only they got nothing in return on entitlements.

As of this week, Obama has rescinded his proposals to chop Medicare and Social Security benefits. The political landscape has changed, and the dream is over.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/how-tea-party-absolutism-cost-republicans-a-huge-win-on-entitlements

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/02/21/1279265/-Abbreviated-pundit-roundup-Rejecting-austerity

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024540032