President Obama’s Budget Speech: The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly

[no limit]

The Good

Since the Republicans released their budget last week most progressives were eager for Obama to speak out against the GOP's unrealistic and inhumane bill. Republicans were after all openly advocating making it unaffordable for most of our seniors to live while handing out hundreds of billions of dollars in tax breaks to rich people. So many of us were naturally getting a bit impatient in waiting for President Obama to come out and say that the Republican proposal was not only Draconian but also totally unacceptable.

Today it looks like Obama did just that. He basically called what the GOP was trying to do un-American and said that their proposal was completely unacceptable. This is not only a winning issue that is up for grabs by the Democratic party but it is also the right thing to do. So it is good to see the Democrats finally acknowledge this and hopefully this type of rhetoric will continue so that it can be followed up by action.

It was also great to hear President Obama say in unambiguous terms that he will not allow another extension of Bush tax cuts. Before Obama signed the first Bush tax extension in to law in December the administration was out and about giving itself as much wiggle room as it possibly could in extending these tax cuts. David Axelrod for example was asked in September of last year if President Obama would veto a temporary extension of the Bush tax cuts. Here is the exchange:

CNN: If Congress were to come forward with a plan, leaving the tax cuts in place for a period of time, would the president veto it?

Axelrod: Uh, look, the president has made his position absolutely clear, he believes that we should move forward, he is not gonna support, he is not gonna support, uh uh a plan…

CNN: But would he veto it?

Axelrod: Uh, if it includes, uh, a permanent extension of the, of the high income tax cuts, then absolutely he will...

What Axelrod did there is obvious. He knew they were going to cave on this issue. So even though he was asked about vetoing a temporary extension he answered that the president would veto a permanent extension. And since CNN is CNN they didn’t bother to point that out during the interview.

But today there was no such ambiguity in what Obama said, it was as clear as it could be. This is what he said about the Bush tax cuts:

In December, I agreed to extend the tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans because it was the only way I could prevent a tax hike on middle-class Americans. But we cannot afford $1 trillion worth of tax cuts for every millionaire and billionaire in our society. And I refuse to renew them again.

“And I refuse to renew them again”. This is as clear as you can get and there is no wiggle room here. If these tax cuts were renewed this president would be clearly lying, there would be no argument against that. So this gives me hope (yes, I said hope) that he will keep this promise. This administration is always extremely careful to leave itself as much wiggle room as possible in all their statements that will allow them to back out of any assumptions you might make about their statements. The fact they didn’t do that here I think is very meaningful.

Finally, I have to give props to anything that makes Paul Ryan bitch and moan, so a thumbs up for this:

http://crooksandliars.com/david-neiwert/president-obamas-speech-makes-baby-p

The Bad

President Obama still tried to strike a very conciliatory tone with Republicans, something they do not deserve and something they would never offer him. For example, Obama did a great job starting out the speech pointing out that during the 90s we had a surplus and during the 2000s all that came crashing down. But instead of putting the blame of what happened in the last decade squarely on Republicans and the praise squarely on Democrats for what happened during the 90s he instead did the typical bipartisan shtick where both parties were responsible for what happened in the 2000s and both parties worked together to achieve what happened in the 90s. History is not on the Republican’s side, and it would be nice if a Democrat actually pointed that out one day in unambiguous terms. Obama had a chance to do that today and chose not to.

The Ugly

After today’s speech it looks like Social security and Medicare are heading for the chopping block. As I said above the administration is very careful about what they say in order to leave themselves as much wiggle room as possible. And when it came to Medicare and Social Security this speech was all about wiggle room. Instead of coming out and saying in clear terms there would be no cuts to Social Security and Medicare Obama repeated what his administration has been repeating for a while now. There will be no cuts for “current retirees” and no “slashing” for future retirees. That’s seems good, but the White House is yet to define what defines a “current retiree” and there has been absolutely no attempt to clarify what “slashing” means. I posted a video in February of Bernie Sanders asking these very questions of the budget director in the White House, Jacob Lew. When asked about what “slashing” meant by Sanders, Jacob Lew refused to give an answer to that question:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w4TfLV6mWv8&feature=player_embedded

Interestingly enough Sander’s also asks in this same clip why the Obama administration assumes they will get the Bush tax cuts to expire in 2012 when they couldn’t in 2010. Again, he gets no answer, but that’s a different point entirely.

So this leads me to believe Social Security and Medicare will take a hit, if that wasn’t the case the White House would simply say so. In the case of Social Security the administration keeps repeating it will be “reformed”, except they don’t define what “reform” means while refusing to take cuts off the table. Does “reform” mean raising the retirement age? Because that should be totally unacceptable coming from any Democratic president. There has also been very little detail about what this president plans to do with Medicare. Today's speech by Obama on his budget plans did nothing to clarify any of these questions, and that was probably intentional on their part. Which really worries me.

[Tx4obama]

1. FACT SHEET: The President's Framework for Shared Prosperity and Shared Fiscal Responsibility

From the White House

FACT SHEET: The President's Framework for Shared Prosperity and Shared Fiscal Responsibility
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/04/13/fact-sheet-presidents-framework-shared-prosperity-and-shared-fiscal-resp

----
And to the OPer, NO - medicare is NOT heading for the chopping block.
Read all the detailed info on the link above regarding Healthcare/SS/Medicare

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[no limit]

3. You said "medicare is NOT heading for the chopping block"...what about social security?

[Luminous Animal]

4. From your link...

* Strengthen retirement security for the low-income and vulnerable; maintain robust disability and survivors’ benefits.
* No privatization or weakening of the Social Security system; reform must strengthen Social Security and restore long-term solvency.
* No current beneficiary should see the basic benefit reduced; nor will we accept an approach that slashes benefits for future generations.


The last bit, of course, means that there will be cuts but not slashing.

[no limit]

5. I can't believe it's not obvious to everyone that the administration isn't being straight with us

they always do this. Lead you to believe one thing but always leave some wiggle room. Then when they go against what they lead you to believe they come back and say they never promised any different. Same old playbook, should be transparent by now.

[pinto]

8. I think there's a basic problem when discussing these various fiscal proposals -

Often, they get limited to a matter of trust in the political players. An understandable, but essentially an emotional approach.

Often, they get limited by the lack of specifics provided by those players. That's their call, yet always it leaves an opening to "fill in the blanks" from any one point of view.

Often they get limited by a sense of inability to make things work.

Debate and discussion are part and parcel of the process, in my view.

I think we have an obligation and an opportunity to move forward.

[no limit]

9. Yes, alot of this has to do with trust/distrust. But there is a lot more to it

that trust or distrust is based on things that happened in the past. Ususally (scratch that, always) when the president is this ambiguous about something there is a reason. And the reason in this case is that social security and maybe medicare will take a hit. Wether that is in the form of raising the retirement age (most likely) or something else remains to be seen.

And you are right, there are no way to give specifics and as you said that's by design. But we have seen this play out many times before.

[TheKentuckian]

6. Fact sheet is an odd label for marketing. No knock on the plan save the lack of one.

Might be good. It may blow chunks. Who could possibly say?

The only fact is the TeaPubliKlan scheme sucks Donkey Kong taint.

I don't dig the push "the plan" bullshit because I've seen the whole works become a mockery. I ended up working to advance a plan that is a big ass pile of elephant shit with some pay for play "features" which in a sane place would come with some of the stiffer penalties available to a civilized society with being forced to buy a for profit product selected for them by their employers. Buying from the company store mandated by law. A broadly interpreted law that sets one of the more disturbing broad precedents I can think of.

The authority to compel the individual to purchase products served on the market from private, for profit businesses is a big jump but dictating the individual buy the product from their employer at the discretion and selection of the employer is fucking nuts.

Fool me once...

Let me see a plan and see if it should be supported.

[eridani]

7. Yep. It's what he refused to say about Soc Sec and Medicare that is worrisome

But let me be absolutely clear: I will preserve these health care programs as a promise we make to each other in this society. I will not allow Medicare to become a voucher program that leaves seniors at the mercy of the insurance industry, with a shrinking benefit to pay for rising costs.

Love it!! However, creepy thoughts start to appear. Nothing to say about Ryan's proposal to raise eligibility age to 67? How about his proposal for not allowing "first dollar" coveerage for Medigap policies?

So here’s the truth. Around two-thirds of our budget is spent on Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and national security.

:hurts::spank:::banghead: Buuuullllllllssshhhiiiiiiiiittttttttt!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Social Security is not NOT NOT part of the general budget! If it is, could you kindly explain why that and Medicare withholding are listed separately on my W-2? Anyone?

But we must do it without putting at risk current retirees, the most vulnerable, or people with disabilities; without slashing benefits for future generations; and without subjecting Americans’ guaranteed retirement income to the whims of the stock market.

Starting to get scary. No "cuts" for current retirees, and no "slashing" for future beneficiaries. Meaning that you will seek the middle ground between Repuke "slashing" and the ZERO cuts that all people deserve to get because they've been paying in all their lives? To a fucking SPARATE FUND? Why not even a single reference to raising the FICA cap, which would totally eliminate the need for any "cuts" at all, not to mention "slashings"? And no, since not even Bush with both houses of Congress was able to get privatization, you don't get any points for opposing it.