JONATHAN CHAIT MARCH 15, 2011
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
Why is President Obama absent from the budget negotiations? Because, reports Alexander Bolton, his administration is still decided what to do:
Obama is being pulled in opposite directions by those whose priorities are fiscal and those whose No. 1 concern is electoral.
Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, National Economic Council Director Gene Sperling and Sperling’s deputy, Jason Furman — leading figures in the president’s economic team — are pressing Obama to cut Social Security benefits if necessary, say sources familiar with their positions.
But Obama’s political team, led by David Axelrod, David Plouffe and Jim Messina, are urging the president to understand that backing benefit cuts could prove disastrous to his 2012 reelection hopes, sources say.
The political team is winning the argument so far, but internal debate rages at the White House as Republicans in Congress insist sweeping efforts to restore government finances must include Social Security reform.
There's a benefit in bashing Republicans for going after Social Security. But that assumes they do go after Social Security, which, despite all their rhetoric, is far from certain. I'd argue that, politically speaking, obtaining a bipartisan deal on the deficit is likely to be popular. While the specifics of cutting entitlements are extremely unpopular, the general meta-message of bipartisan cooperation is highly popular. And people tend to follow the broad heuristics of whether the parties are getting along rather than the specifics, which is why the health care law, whose policies were mostly very popular, was so unpopular.
6 comments
I am very skeptical that a bipartisan agreement on the deficit can be reached. Republican intransigence is increasing as the Tea Party drags the R's even farther to the right.
- liberalref
March 15, 2011 at 1:33pm
Oh, no, here we go again. What IS it with Geithner, anyway? Is he a Fifth-Columnist Republican, recommending disasterous policies to Obama again and again? If the Republicans recommend cuts to Social Security, or delaying retirement age, it's THEIR PROBLEM during the election to explain (in the face of the Social Security surplus) how that helps the deficit. BUT, if Obama PROPOSES such idiocy himself, especially if he does it BEFORE any discussions with the Republicans, it becomes HIS problem. He did it with the Public Option. He did it with the Bush tax-cuts. He did it with "freezing Federal Workers pay". In each case, he either made the concession even before it could be debated, or telegraphed that he'd fold. If he stood pat or even DEFENDED his position, a position of logic and reason and Keynesian prudence, then he'd be a great man. Instead he compromises his position, and adopts the Republican point of view (but more limited), EVEN BEFORE NEGOTIATIONS BEGIN. Whereupon it becomes HIS problem to explain, not the Republicans. It's sad, just sad.
- AllanL5
March 15, 2011 at 1:49pm
This one, from the article in The Hill, is a howler: "Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) has assured Obama that House Republican leaders would support him if he sought to reform entitlements and would not exploit them for political gain in the 2012 election."
- subterran
March 15, 2011 at 2:29pm
nice one, subterran! That is exactly what they intend to do.
I think Obama has done well to stay moot because any real answer, one way or the other, can be spun to make political hay; but if he doesn't say anything there is nothing to spin and the attention remains focused on the guys whose job it is to make that call, House Republicans. I love watching them squirm as their flagrant beliefs are flogged by reality; I wish I could be there to see the looks in their eyes when they realize exactly how ignorant they've been. I know, epistemic closure means never having to admit you're wrong, but a guy can dream, can't he?
- GSpinks
March 15, 2011 at 4:19pm
Maybe I misunderstand but I recall reading in several places that SS is fiscally sound until about mid-century with no changes whatsoever. So why are we debating this as part of "deficit reduction?"
- NR857175
March 15, 2011 at 5:07pm
Because it makes for a convenient and plausible pretext for yanking the rug out from under the liberal parasites that suck the government dry.
- GSpinks
March 15, 2011 at 6:02pm