The real “entitlement” programs

The grand deal forged by our wimpy president and tearful speaker fell through.

The word ‘entitlement’ appears in almost every comment regarding the debt ceiling debate as both Republicans and Democrats use the derogatory term to describe the self-funded Social Security and Medicare programs, which have become their favorite bargaining chips. 

“Entitlement” implies that the safety net for the elderly and disabled is in the same category as food stamps and other welfare benefits.

Never mind all you retirees that you paid hefty payroll taxes to Uncle Sam throughout your working lives to bankroll the so-called Social Security fund.

Yes, we know, our government raided the fund over the last decade or so to pay for our two wars and avoid closing tax loopholes for our most prosperous corporations, which brings me to the most appalling point in this discussion – it’s the wealthiest segment of our population that’s among the “entitled” as they greedily grab low tax rates, Washington bailouts from their own mistakes, exorbitant bonuses for their failed leadership, and other government subsidies.

So what’s behind Speaker Boehner’s reported copout from the grand bargain on the debt limit in which he apparently coerced our wimpy president into selling out Social Security and Medicare in exchange for an insignificant tax increase over the next ten years for the wealthy?

Was it in fact, the speaker's fear of a Tea Party revolt? 

Or was it that the tearful one picked up on his concealed antenna that the time is coming when the millions of Americans who paid into the Social Security fund will realize they’ve been robbed and go on a rampage in 2012 that will make the Tea Party and political leaders of whatever stripe  run for cover? 

Thoughts of Betty Ford offer inspiration in a depressing time in America

Thoughts of the recently deceased Betty Ford are a bright spot in this depressing period in our nation’s history as it becomes increasingly likely in the debt limit discussions that programs that benefit the poor and the elderly will soon be gutted so that the wealthiest Americans – the truly entitled segment of the population – will continue to be subsidized by historically low tax rates.

With all of the wheeling and dealing going on in Washington today we offer a toast to the integrity of the former first lady so well eulogized by Eleanor Clift at the Daily Beast:

Betty Ford was always true to herself, and in politics that’s not easy. Sometimes to the chagrin of her husband, and certainly to his advisers, she had something to say on just about every hot-button issue of her time. The mother of three young adult sons and a spirited teenage daughter, she didn’t flinch when asked about whether they might be experimenting with marijuana, or how she might react if she learned her daughter was having an affair. “Not surprised,” she said.

She was a regular person who just happened to live in the White House, and she didn’t trim her sails to satisfy any political constituency. Conservatives were still a minority in the Republican Party then, and they weren’t fond of Betty Ford. She was pro-choice and pro-gun control, and an eager adoptee of the '70s, donning a mood ring and chatting away as First Mama on a CB radio, which was all the rage then.

Read more:

Obama and Boehner in sync on a debt limit deal – who knew?

So I sat through the NewsHour this evening and listened to the analysis of David Brooks and Ruth Marcus with Jim Lehrer. 

Discussing the ongoing debt limit negotiations between Democratic and Republican leaders, both Brooks and Marcus visibly brightened at the prospect that Obama and Boehner were ready to make a big deal on the debt limit in which Obama would sell out Social Security and Medicare. Brooks even went so far as to happily mention that Obama is “sticking the knife in Pelosi.”

We all knew that, right?

Here’s the transcript of most of the erudite threesome’s remarks on the debt limit:

JIM LEHRER: Why is there -- are the prospects for the biggest deal better than for the medium deal or the little deal? What's happening?

RUTH MARCUS: Well, I'm not sure they're better, but the argument for the bigger deal and the reason that we might see a bigger deal is, bigger isn't just better in this circumstance. It actually might be easier, because you can trade off more different parts and more different constituencies.

And the Republicans -- Boehner, in order to get his Republicans, needs some Social Security cuts. And, so...

JIM LEHRER: And that takes -- the Democrats can get -- they can get some...

RUTH MARCUS: And then Democrats -- and the Democrats need a trillion dollars in tax revenue. And so maybe you can play around and make it look like less than a trillion. And then you whisper to your friends that it is actually a trillion.

It is going to be -- what's going on behind the scenes is absolutely fascinating. The oddest couple around is the president and the speaker. They are completely in synch in wanting to get this done.

DAVID BROOKS: Everyone else...

RUTH MARCUS: Whether they will -- everybody else, not so much.

DAVID BROOKS: Yes. Everyone else is miserable here.

JIM LEHRER: How do you explain that? What -- what has happened to make Obama and Boehner -- beyond just being golf partners?

(LAUGHTER)

DAVID BROOKS: Two things. One, I think they both seriously think the country has a problem, a deficit problem.

JIM LEHRER: OK. They agree that the debt limit, too, is a problem.

DAVID BROOKS: They agree, right.

And, third, incumbents have mutual incentives. The party of the incumbents wants to get reelected. If Obama cuts a deal, he's very likely to get reelected. If Boehner changes the trajectory of spending, he can say, we came to Washington. We did it.

And so, secretly, what's going on here is that Obama is really sticking the knife in Nancy Pelosi, making it unlikely that she's going to get -- get the speakership. And Boehner, if he cuts a deal, is hurting Mitt Romney or whoever the Republican nominee is.

And so the party of the incumbents are sticking together and hurting the party of the outs.

JIM LEHRER: Wow.

RUTH MARCUS: Do we have time?

JIM LEHRER: ... do you agree?

RUTH MARCUS: I mostly agree.

JIM LEHRER: You mostly agree?

That is as far as we can go. Sorry, Ruth. Good to see you.

(LAUGHTER)

RUTH MARCUS: Nice to see you

To read the transcript in its entirety, go here.

Nancy Pelosi defends traditional Democratic values, or not?

There’s a lot of ambiguity in this story from Politico on Nancy Pelosi’s attempts to hold the line against the Obama Administration’s gradual caving to Repubs on sacrificing Social Security and Medicare in order to continue subsidizing the wealthiest Americans who are apparently entitled to huge tax breaks.

As “torn” as she may be, though, Pelosi does at last seem to grasp that Barack Obama, her idol of  2008, the inheritor of Camelot and all, is best described as a chameleon who changes colors to fit whatever context in which he finds himself.

Politico’s Jonathan Allen has the scoop:

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi is back at the bargaining table — but it’s not yet clear whether she’s willing to make a deal.

Burned by President Barack Obama’s decision to keep her out of negotiations on last year’s tax deal and this spring’s budget bill, sources close to the California Democrat say she is torn between playing deal-maker on a debt limit increase and fully protecting the priorities of Democrats’ liberal base.

On Thursday, in advance of a Friday meeting with the president at the White House, Pelosi lit into Obama’s budget director, Jack Lew, in what is becoming a habit of sending sharp messages through his top aides. Pelosi sought to impress on Lew — and no doubt his bosses at the White House — that House Democrats expect to be consulted more now than on past deals and that the president can’t expect to win passage of a debt limit package without support from House Democrats.

Read more:

Obama sidesteps Hill Dems to put Medicare and Social Security on the table in deficit debate

This week Katalusis has suffered from a fickle Internet connection that has prevented me from posting since my Fourth of July message suggesting that in light of the stalled deficit debate at the federal level and the shutdown of our state government here in Minn., it’s time for our leaders to grow up.

That’s evidently too much to ask. And today we learned that yes, Obama has caved again and now both Medicare and Social Security are on the table, while our glassy-eyed pundits continue to rave about “entitlements.”

A few media reps like Dan Friedman continue to get the word out. Writing for the National Journal, Friedman reports that Hill Democrats aren’t happy about Obama’s latest sellout of his base:

Before Thursday's White House meeting on the budget, congressional Democrats said they planned to remind President Obama not to leave his party and base behind. The Democrats' testiness followed reports that the White House was proposing to alter Social Security and Medicare as part of a potential debt-ceiling deal with Republicans.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., in the meeting “expressed concern that we hadn’t been as much in the loop as we would have liked to have been," said a senior Democratic aide who asked not to be identified so he could speak candidly about the friction between the president and Democratic congressional leaders.

(RELATED: Obama Says Dems, GOP to Work All Weekend on Debt Deal)

That feeling is shared by many Democrats, irked not just by the potential cuts, but by the White House’s failure to float it to Democratic lawmakers before they learned of the proposal through media.

Read more:

On this 4th of July weekend: Grow up, America!

June 22 — Governor Dayton makes clear what's at stake for Minnesota in the budget debate: higher education, healthcare, seniors and public safety. Photo from Gov. Dayton’s website.

Let me say at the outset that I continue to have faith in the personal integrity, compassion, and wisdom of Gov. Mark Dayton, someone I’ve had the privilege of meeting personally a couple of times over the years.

At the same time, as a resident of St. Paul, Minn. who will inevitably be affected by the shut down of our state government, I’m not so much angry as I am saddened by watching congressional leaders from both parties behave like opposing teenage gangs.

 

We Minnesotans are getting hit twice, both at the state and the federal level in these unnecessary, so-called budget crises. On this 4^th of July weekend, instead of shooting off fireworks to celebrate our nation’s independence, perhaps we should each stay home, light a candle, and pray that the United States will soon grow up and learn to resolve its problems with intelligence, maturity, and dignity.

But first, take a look at what's going on in Minn.:

Angry Minnesota residents were fuming Friday over the state government shutdown — delaying the issuance of marriage licenses, evicting campers from state parks and furloughing about 23,000 nonessential government employees.

Despite an appointment, Bridget Spaniol of Minneapolis waited 3½ hours at a courthouse for a marriage license Thursday, as the goverment slowed to a crawl. “The whole experience … was terrible,” she told the Minnesota Star Tribune. “I feel sorry for anyone trying to get anything processed through the Minnesota government.”

State parks were also closed, which meant the sudden eviction of the 130 campsites at William O’Brien State Park. Water and electricity was shut off at the camp sites, meaning the campgrounds would be vacated on the eve of the July 4th weekend, typically one of the busiest weekends for state parks.

“This is so unfair,” said 8-year-old camper Ashley Jensen. “We were going to be here for four days and do lots of fun stuff. It’s now all ruined.”

“This is pretty sad, that they’ve ruined so many people’s summer vacations with their families,” said Allen Bjerke, who serves as campground host. “The Legislature is behaving like a bunch of kids.”

One visible sign of the shutdown is that no flags — Minnesota, American, or POW-MIA — were raised over the Capitol on Friday morning as they usually are, reports the AP.

Read more:

 

Clinton urges equality for all, including women, in Arab nations emerging from dictatorships

Hillary in Lithuania, photo courtesy of secretaryclinton.wordpress.com

Leave it to Hillary Clinton to take a stand on behalf of those who might be excluded from the full blossoming of the Arab Spring:

VILNIUS, Lithuania -- U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said Friday that the rule of law, political parties and democratic institutions must emerge in the Arab world if it is to emulate Eastern Europe's remarkable transition two decades ago from authoritarianism to truly free societies.

In Lithuania for an international democracy conference, Clinton cited the real risk of Middle East and North African nations slipping back into autocratic old ways. And she lamented the latest accounts of violence in Syria, with security forces and knife-wielding, government-organized thugs reportedly attacking protesters in the city of Aleppo.

"Today there are new democracies fighting for life, there are vicious autocrats clinging to power," Clinton said in a speech at the "Community of Democracies" meeting. "This is an hour or need. And every democracy should stand up and be counted."

Drawing on the experience of Lithuania and other countries that opened up when the Iron Curtain came down 22 years ago, Clinton outlined a series of fundamentals she said were necessary for nations to make the transition to democracy: institutions rooted in law; equality for all, including women; a free press; economic opportunity; legitimate leaders.

Read more: