Debt Commission Leaders: Everything -- Even New Health Care Law -- On Table For Cuts

Since David Farrar took up all that space at TPM yesterday saying nothing, I thought I'd post the Time, Inc. article on Obama which actually says something.

Barack Obama's right-wing opponents cast him as a socialist failure. His left-wing hecklers see him as an overcautious hedger. But, critics notwithstanding, the President is on a path to be a huge success by the time of November's midterm elections.

Before the jabberers on the right (What about the huge debt, the broken tax pledge, the paucity of overseas accomplishments?), the yammerers on the left (Guantánamo hasn't been closed, gays aren't serving openly in the military, and too many policies cater to business interests) and the chides in the media (POTUS and party poll numbers are down, and Washington is more partisan than ever), look at the two key metrics that underscore Obama's accomplishments. It is too early to assess the ultimate measure of victory: whether the President's actions have been prudent and beneficial, domestically and internationally. But by Election Day 2010, Obama will have soundly achieved many of his chief campaign promises while running a highly competent, scandal-free government. Not bad for a guy whose opponents (in both parties) for the White House suggested that he was too green in national life to know how to do the job — and whose presidency began in the midst of a worldwide economic crisis that demanded urgent attention and commanded much of his focus. (See "Obama's Troubled First Year: Grading Him on the Key Issues.")

Let's start with the competence Obama has shown. As he proved in the campaign, he is a master of personnel decisions, choosing people who are excellent at what they do, but also requiring that they play nicely with others. In the two most vital areas, national security and economic policy, all the President's women and men generally get along well with one another, and have had critical roles in advancing the agenda. It is true that the economics team has some rivalries, and the Administration still hasn't figured out how to overcome its collectively weak public-communications skills on the economy. But overall, the White House is populated by hard workers who are rowing in unison to advance the cause and rarely take their disagreements public through damaging leaks.

Obama's two best personnel decisions are probably the two men serving right below him: Vice President Joe Biden and White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel. Yes, Biden still falls victim to caricature as an irrepressible big mouth and is the butt of late-night jokes. And Emanuel can be overly brash and flutter nerves on Capitol Hill and among Administration allies. But Obama knew what he was getting in both men, and they have performed up to or above his expectations. With their West Wing offices across the hall from each other, Biden and Emanuel often work in tandem, each doing more heavy lifting than is publicly seen or commonly known. Obama — who proved during the campaign that he knows how to maintain control of his operation without micromanaging — sets the tone and overall goals, and then allows his Veep and chief, along with other senior advisers, to execute his plans. (See who's who in Barack Obama's White House.)

Biden has traveled extensively overseas and across the country and has helped coordinate both national security policy and congressional strategy, all while dealing with governors and mayors on the economy. Politically, he is expected to be an asset in the midterms, as he was in 2008, with white working-class voters who appreciate his homely truths and affable manner, and who still haven't warmed to Obama. (Comment on this story.)

As for Emanuel, Obama was intent on selecting a tough, competitive, savvy chief of staff, one who would be able to use the levers of power to advance an agenda through both legislation and executive action. Emanuel unexpectedly found himself in the spotlight last week when he appeared on Charlie Rose and repeated his oft-expressed interest in one day serving as mayor of Chicago. The press flew into a frenzy, and some pundits deemed the remark an unseemly display of ambition. It was, in fact, a reminder of Emanuel's deep ties to his hometown, his reluctance to leave his job as a member of Congress to join the Administration — part of the House leadership, Emanuel was on a direct path to be the Speaker within a decade — and his willingness to bow to Obama's wishes and jettison his long-term plans in order to manage the White House. (See "Obama's One-Year Anniversary: A Mixed Scorecard.")

Emanuel's hand (and his six years of experience in the Clinton Administration) can be seen in many facets of the Administration's operational success. The White House controls the Washington and media agenda on most days, carefully coordinating with Capitol Hill and interest-group partners. Bad news is not allowed to fester. And the greatest asset, the President himself, is deployed with strategic planning and tactical nimbleness.

It's easy to forget what circumstances could be like, what problems Obama might have encountered. Think back just a few years ago, to the last time a young Democrat was swept into the White House on a message of change. Unlike Bill Clinton, especially early in his presidency, Obama has largely maintained control of his public image, preserved the majesty of the office (a job that has become harder than ever because of the toxic freak-show nature of our politico-media culture) and maintained good relations, in public and private, with the armed services brass, the intelligence community and law enforcement.

The passage of the health care bill and the pledge to help Democrats wherever possible with fundraising and political assistance has (for now at least) quieted the Capitol Hill voices that until recently were questioning the White House's competence and commitment. Control of Congress makes things easier, for sure, but so does an absence of indicted, disgraced or bungling appointees. (See what to watch at Obama's health care summit.)

Over the past 16 months, both Biden and Emanuel have expressed concern internally that Obama has been too bold, risking his presidency on big bets. But those disagreements with the President have been fleeting and mostly futile — and, as it happens, unwarranted. So far, most of Obama's big bets have paid off.

The health care bill's passage is, of course, the White House's signal achievement, and was accomplished without revealing the Administration's cognizance (thanks to internal polling and focus groups) of the legislation's stark unpopularity among the public. But beyond health care, Obama acted decisively to stop the world from going into economic depression, after inheriting a mess from his predecessor. Quibble all you wish about the dimensions of the stimulus law or the administration of TARP or the Detroit bailout, but the actions taken were professionally handled, apparently necessary and, so far, constructive. Strikingly underrated by the Washington press corps are Obama's gains on education policy, including a willingness to confront the education establishment on standards for both teachers and students. Overseas, Obama has snagged an arms-reduction deal with Russia, managed the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq exactly as promised, eliminated numerous terrorist leaders through an aggressive targeting operation and laid the groundwork for dealing with Iran and, perhaps, North Korea. (See the five immediate benefits of health reform.)

In the months ahead, the President will likely pass a financial-regulation overhaul (despite this past weekend's snags), manage the confirmation of a second Supreme Court nominee with relatively little commotion, announce the reduction of the U.S. troop level in Iraq to about 50,000, showcase the undercovered gains on education reform, take advantage of the improving economy to tout his stimulus efforts and sharpen his "Obama-Biden future vs. Bush-Cheney past" argument to help stave off massive Democratic losses in November. He also has a decent chance to pass a small-to-medium-size energy bill. True, some promises, like comprehensive immigration reform, will remain on the sidelines, but most of his major goals will be completed or well under way.

Assuming the President will need a game-changing move in the wake of any significant midterm losses, Emanuel has already played a clever bit of inside-baseball, installing his old friend and Clinton Administration ally Bruce Reed as staff director of the bipartisan deficit-reduction commission that is due to make recommendations in December. If there are big Republican electoral gains, expect the analysis from conservatives and the media to be that the country wanted a check on big spending from Washington. That overriding concern could shape the outcome of the elections more than any of Obama's accomplishments or appreciation for the job he has done thus far. The commission's proposals could then be coordinated with an "I get it" message from Obama, providing a bold opening to the second half of his term, as he sets about tackling another campaign promise: long-term deficit reduction. A difficult pledge to achieve, perhaps, but given the President's track record, it is one that shouldn't be dismissed out of hand.

Read more: http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1984460,00.html?xid=huffpo-direct#ixzz0mFN98xw5

"The CBO has scored the Public Option as a deficit reducer."

You do realize, I hope, that CBO scores bills based on the ASSUMPTION that whatever is in the bill WILL happen. If they wrote in the bill that it would be paid for by selling one million 1 acre lots on the moon for $1,000 apiece, CBO would score that as raising $1 Trillion. What is in the bill and what will ACTUALLY happen over the next 10 - 20 years are two entirely different things. Check out the projection for Medicare or Medicaid (or ANY government program for that matter). They are ALWAYS many more times costly than projected. And those Medicare "savings"? Have you heard of the "doctor fix"? The $500 billion in Medicare savings will be "fixed" by future Congress to prevent or respond to howls of protest from senior who would be affected by those "savings" (they used to be called "draconian cuts" when any reduction in the RATE OF INCREASE was proposed by Republicans---but why bring up ancient history?)

"Medicare pays doctors a lot less than private insurance and (depending on the price of the buy in) would also reduce the deficit."

By shifting the underpayment by Medicare to private insurance and those who pay cash. Who will Medicare shift underpayments to when private insurance is put out of business?

"More people paying money into the Medicare trust fund would defray the costs of health care over more people. It would create a large enough pool to lower the costs per individual and make Medicare close to deficit neutral (again depending on the price of the buy-in)."

The price of the buy-in would have to be the cost of medical care paid by Medicare divided by the number of people in the pool (at least that is how it would have to work in the REAL world)---which would be a very large dollar amount.

No. We don't totally agree on anything, you whack job!

I believe we need to control entitlements AND defense spending. You only want to let poor people starve.

"the $2.5 trillion in Special Treasuries held in Trust for Social Security are any less real obligations backed by Full Faith and Credit of the United States than the regular Treasuries held by the Chinese Central Bank."

Of course they are REAL OBLIGATIONS (obligations being the key word) of the federal government back by the Full Faith and Credit of the U.S.! Did I ever say that they were not? THAT is not a statement to be comforted by. It is a statement to be alarmed by. The bonds in the SS and Medicare trust funds, as I said before, are NOT cash. We would have been better off if the federal government had built a big mattress in West Virginia and put all the FICA money it collected under that mattress. As you so accurately put it, the bonds are DEBT obligations of the U.S. which the federal government will have to convert to cash by either RAISING TAXES or INCREASED BORROWING. How easy will it be for the feds to raise taxes on everybody by an additional 20% or 30%? And who will lend money to the U.S. on its "full faith and credit" when the national debt is more than 100% of GDP and is in excess of $20 TRILLION by the end of THIS decade. There is already talk of the U.S.'s credit rating being downgraded and of the Chinese standing on the sidelines instead of buying our debt.

The bonds are backed by the "full faith and credit" of the U.S.---but there is a practical and political limit to how much the U.S. and tax and borrow to make good on its entitlement commitments. The only other option will be to sell the Grand Canyon and selling naming rights to federal buildings. How about the Jimmy Dean Pork Sausage Capitol Building? That could raise a few million dollars a year. What happens when the U.S. becomes Greece? Who will bail out the U.S. when that happens? No one.

The irony here is that all your attacks on Entitlements stem from the same wingnut talking points.

Google 'butler germanis Leninist strategy' and understand why I am 'laughing in your general direction'. Then maybe you can Google 'useful tool'.

"Somewhat convenient of you to leave out the fact that SS, Medicare and Medicaid all have specific tax revenue streams that cover their costs"

See my comment above -- SS is ALREADY paying out more than it is taking in and it will only get WORSE. The SS "trust fund" (which consists of special treasury bonds)is only an "asset" to the beneficiaries of SS. To the government those bonds, like all other bonds it issues are DEBT which are LIABILITIES of the government that have to be paid from tax revenues or borrowing.

Medicare is ALSO running an operating deficit (i.e. costs exceed Medicare tax revenue) and it will also get WORSE. This is widely available on the net. Also see the 2009 report of the trustees of SS and Medicare at
http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/TRSUM/index.html

The Medicare "trust fund" has the same problem as the SS "trust fund". It does NOT contain any cash, only debt obligations of the U.S. that must be CONVERTED to cash by RAISING MORE taxes or MORE BORROWING. The golden goose is just about choked to death.

Whatever you are smoking, you need to stop.

"Removing a FICA cap would only affect people who aren't going to depend on welfare alone in their retirement anyway."

Well, what you are saying is at least honest. FDR sold SS as a universal insurance program---everyone pays in and everyone receives in their old age or disability. That was the bait, what you are proposing is the "switch" (there is always a switch with every good con)---SS as a means tested welfare program. Pay in through the nose if you are middle class or above, and receive nothing if you make too much or save too much so that you don't "need" the SS money in your old age.
I guess that is the new "fairness" standard we can expect. And no, I am not saying this because I am one of the "rich"--I will definitely need my SS benefits when (if) I retire at age 70 or higher. I just don't think it is right for me to expect the rich to fund my SS and for them to get nothing back. That would sound "greedy" of me to think that way. What do you think?