That’s what one diary on a well known progressive liberal message board opined on the President’s proposal of the chained CPI, and the (assumed by the poster) necessity of Democrats to reject/run away from that proposal as fast as possible.
There’s a thread about whether progressives should reject it in GD; I put in this thread to discuss the political implications. Is Obama basically a lame duck now (in a political sense, of course)? Will this issue have legs for the Republicans in 2014, as many liberals assume? What will and should be the Democratic reaction?
There is a reason why SS is labeled the “third rail” of US politics; monkeying with benefits always produces a massive blowback.
But it’s too simplistic to say this is the reason Obama will lose the party, and it is possible for Obama to recover nicely over the next few months. For example:
IMO these efforts will only be partially successful, and won’t address the real political problem with Obama’s agenda: He accepts the “deficits are evil” framework of the discussion (foolishly IMO), and is willing to go to extreme lengths to deal with this imaginary problem. As long as he follows this “white whale” of a Grand Bargain to simultaneously cut spending and raise revenue above all else, he will continue to fall into these kind of traps.
The big issue is that almost none of the complaints I’ve seen about the C-CPI are at all accurate or point out any actual problems, but rather show complete misunderstanding of price indexes in general.
The issue has legs, but they aren’t running in the direction the GOP would like. It’s not something that will ever be voted on. Both sides agree it’s a terrible idea. I’m not sure if Obama introduced it to prove a point or if he’s still trying to somehow negotiate with Boehner. It’s more of the tried and true “attack your opponent for your own flaws” behavior the current GOP is so fond of. I don’t think they’re going to fool anyone this time around. They aren’t even fooling themselves anymore.
Even though chained CPI is a Republican idea insisted upon by Boehner, Walden (the head of the National Republican Congressional Committee) is trying to use it against Obama claiming it’s a “shocking attack on seniors.” Unfortunately while he seems to be getting people to agree it’s bad, he can’t seem to get people to forget it’s a GOP item.
No, he hasn’t. Obama’s budget proposal still increases spending over 10 years. It only reduces spending from an assumed baseline that already factors in increased spending, it’s only a “reduction” in spending versus large spending outlays that haven’t happened yet. If Obama really believes deficits were evil his budget would look at lot different, more like the House budget basically that at least projects in 2023 we’ll have revenue and spending both at 19% of GDP. Obama’s presupposes having revenue less than spending as a percentage of GDP.
My party is stupid in thinking we shouldn’t run deficits, because deficit spending is fine as long as the economy is growing faster than the debt. If the economy isn’t growing faster than the debt then the deficit is not fine for anything more than brief periods where it is necessary. Realistically we have deficit as a percentage of GDP significantly higher than the % growth of GDP which means it is unsustainable. Considering we’re in year five of such “stimulative” deficits with no clear end in sight it’s just good policy to be trying to pare that down to some degree. Worst-case scenario the Obama proposal could see our debt equal to 100% of GDP by 2020, and while the projected deficit around 2023 isn’t bad it’s the high deficits between then and now that are cause for significant concern.
I don’t think the chained CPI debate makes Obama a lame duck, or even hurts him at all. His team knows their politics, and they know that looking like he’s willing to make a deal is the most important thing. The only way Republicans can get the better of him now is to make a deal.
Social Security was reformed on a much more unfavorable basis to seniors and workers in 1982. Chained CPI is very small potatoes relative to that. As long as the change is part of a bipartisan deal, everyone will grin and bear it. LIke it or not, Social Security is on pace to pay out only 75% of benefits sometimes in the 2030s. So something will change, or many small somethings.
Obama knows there is not going to be a grand bargain. He knows Boehner cannot deliver his caucus for any deal of any importance. So by making this offer, he gives the Republicans the choice of agreeing to raise taxes as the price of cutting SS or of refusing the deal and being proven to be incapable of compromise. We’re in for four more years of gridlock, which may not be the worst outcome.
That could be a miscalculation. Some Republicans are willing to trade higher revenue for entitlement reform. And if Boehner is willing to suspend the Hastert rule(a stupid, antidemocratic rule anyway), then such a bargain can pass without majority Republican support.
Let me clarify: Obama has accepted the framework of the deficit debate, but not the solution as laid out by deficit hawks. This is foolish of him IMO. If he accepts the framework, the folks on the right who believe this “fix the debt” nonsense will label his budget at best a half-measure (i.e. why support that when there’s a better solution in the Ryan plan?), and the folks on the left will be aghast that he’s fundamentally compromised the debate (i.e. that social security benefits and other entitlements must be cut by some non-zero amount).
It’s the kind of compromise only a technocrat centrist could love, one which he hopes gets him lionized in the Beltway press as the only “adult” in the room. The problem is it will never pass, and so the same beltway press will find yet another reason to blame both sides: “Sure the Republicans are intransigent, but Obama didn’t really show much ‘Leadership’ in the negotiations”.
I suspect you and I have a fundamental disagreement about the importance of the deficit and the federal debt–I for one think the current budget deficit is a rather unimportant factor economically, and that future projections (even if we pretend they’re accurate) will have to be solved by future Congresses. Regardless, I think we can agree that Obama’s budget is a poor political move, and it wouldn’t surprise me if more than a few Dems think it’s worth it to break with Obama. If enough of them do, then he’s effectively a lame duck.
Peggy Noonan of the Wall Street Journal said 2 weeks ago that Obama
was not a “lame duck.” Just “lame.” Think the Affordable Care Act and
the new Immigration law will be his legacy for the most part.
Yes, it was my understanding that not being eligible to run again was what made him a lame duck. (??) Or do I just have my political buzzword mumbo jumble all mummbled up?
That seems to be the current usage of the term, though to me it’s a bit sloppy. I think in the original meaning of the term he doesn’t become a lame duck president until after the November 2016 election, when his successor is known. The point is that that is the time when he loses all his real power, because everyone starts deferring to the next president.
Apparently. “Lame duck” as a political term usually refers to a politician who is still in office, but is politically powerless. For US presidents, there are two possible times when this usually happens:
One term President (assuming he/she ran*) - the period from the election to the inauguration of the successor President (roughly Nov-Jan).
Two term President - typically starts sometime after the mid-term elections during the final term. Can happen earlier or later, but that’s kind of the rule of thumb. It is pretty atypical to call a recently reelected President a lame duck.
If he/she didn’t run, they would generally be considered lame-duck from the time of that announcement.
Sorry for the double post, but it occurred to me that the only reason one would refer to a recently reelected President as lame duck is if one expected ties to that person to be a hindrance to one’s one election chances rather than the usual benefit.
Obama may not be in great shape right now, but he certainly hasn’t reached the point where all Democrats are going to run away from him come mid-term time. Certainly some will (depending on district make-up - most of those will be Southern Democrats), but not enough to make him powerless.
If the Democrats are dumb enough to touch this, then they will deserve to get destroyed in the mid-terms - which is exactly what will happen.
And even then, I’d only really consider it a lame duck season if the Presidency is changing parties. Reagan wasn’t really a lame duck in the fall of 1988, for instance, because his vice president was taking over, and everyone expected that it would be a continuation of much the same policies. Yeah, Bush didn’t need to pay any attention to Reagan, but in practice, he was going to.
