Entitlement reform's part of package says Obama's economic advisor

[hooverville29]

http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-10-25/obamas-top-economic-adviser-tells-democrats-theyre-going-to-have-to-swallow-entitlement-cuts

Note that the White House 'explanation' just shrugs it off -- doesn't disavow or repudiate it.

[Shivering Jemmy]

1. Without knowing the nature of reform proposes

Impossible to evaluate. People will yell about chained CPI, but there are about 100 different ways to calculate the chain. Unclear that all of them are bad.

[pangaia]

4. ANY entitlement reform we can expect is NOT good news.

[Shivering Jemmy]

13. Maybe. Need details

Won't get them anytime soon.

[hooverville29]

7. There's no WH position on specifics of any of that. Their hands are totally untied.

[fredamae]

2. Because Sperling Says So?

One of the Worst Picks by any POTUS Ever, imo--Clinton Admin: Goldman-Sachs? Helped Summers? Behind/helped orchestrate the Repeal of Glass-Steagall?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene_Sperling

If Dems "go there"? Dems will pay in 2014/2016...they will Not realize their "American Dream" of holding the Senate and, imo - Lose All hope for retaking the House.
I mean-WTF? What do we have to lose if they won't work for "we, the peoples" government Either?
There Are other Reasonable Options/Alternatives--but those "other remedies" (If a remedy is even needed) are NEVER mentioned by the Wall Street Democrats with any greater frequency than the GOP.

[hooverville29]

8. OK then, fine, get the WH to disavow it, not dance about 'revenue enhancements, too.'

[seabeckind]

3. Goldman guy.

Like so many others...

the revolving door keeps hitting the public in the ass.

Did this clown have to take an oath? Did he skip the ethics class? BTW, I think his cv is impressive. Particularly the education side...polysci and law (Yale).

Excellent economist material.

I dream of a day when the economic policy of the people is not determined by the 1% and their well-trained team of ivy leaguers.

[hfojvt]

5. what is the White House benchmark for "significant"?

Again, I ask, WHAT is the Democratic starting point in this negotiation?

The White House says

"that any big budget deal is going to have to include significant revenues if Republicans insist on entitlement reforms."

Okay, if the White House got 100% of the revenues it was asking for - WHAT would that be?

Are they asking to roll back the $2.1 trillion in permanent tax cuts they just gave to the top 5%?

How much are they asking for? And then what would be "significant"?

"Entitlement reform" is sort of an empty term. After all, the following changes could be considered entitlement reform

1. increase the tax cap for social security
2. change the bend point for benefits (which many are probably confused by, and in fact, I cannot even explain it myself)

I would not be against either of those "reforms."

Both of those reforms also happen to be part of the dreaded Bowles-Simpson, but I favor both of them anyway.

[hooverville29]

6. There's no WH position on specifically what new revenues or entitlement cuts should be

[hfojvt]

11. seems like a lousy way to negotiate

How do you expect to get the public behind your plan - if you have no plan?

Let me fill this vacuum with MY plan.

What I want for revenue increases is -

roll back the $4.1 trillion in tax cuts that were just given to the richest 20%.

Right there, I am proposing $4.1 trillion in deficit reduction over the next decade.

And by asking for $4 trillion, that allows me to compromise on the $2 trillion that went to the richest 5%.

[bhikkhu]

16. I think it was last summer Obama explained his objectives on that

...inasmuch as entitlement reform was "on the table", it was only on the table in a way that it could be worked to reduce income inequality, strengthen the programs financially, and protect those most in need. The one old work-up I saw of the closest thing to an actual proposal included provisions that would have increased benefits to retirees who relied on Social Security for their sole income.

I can't say I trust this congress to get anything right, but I don't believe the president would sign a bill that included reducing benefits for those most in need.

[alc]

9. someone needs to find a better (and bipartisan) plan or ACA is hurt

The ACA was budgeted long-term in the original legislation but the ACA is NOT a 'non-exempt' program so it is hurt by sequestration. In particular, insurance company subsidies to offset co-pays and deductibles will be reduced. It's doubtful the government can get insurers to eat those loses, especially if they don't get enough signup in the next two months to make the exchanges look profitable in the first place.

The next year is critical for the ACA. Both for exchange customers who need to be happy or will pay the tax next year instead of premiums, and for insurers who could decide it's not worth it to participate in the exchange unless they can REALLY jack up premiums.

Rs know this and have the house for another year. That's not changing and sequestration is "the current law" until congress changes it. [Not sure about this site but it's was high on google results and covers it http://www.massresources.org/sequestration.html and covers it pretty well.]

The Rs are likely to wisen up PR-wise by the next fight (jan/feb 2014). Just like Ds have been saying "The ACA is the law, suck it Rs", the Rs are likely to come out saying "Sequestration is the law, suck it Ds". They don't like the military cuts but can loudly say "we'll fund EVERYTHING - including ACA and all entitlements - according to the current law which had bipartisan agreement." It's hard to say who will win that PR battle but there is potential big trouble for the Ds & ACA - especially if there is dissatisfaction with the ACA early next year (when people are first trying to use their exchange policies).

Obama's in a tough position. Give the Rs something they want so both sides can move forward with some of their agenda. Or have a huge PR fight potentially risking the ACA, and plan to fix all the problems after wining the PR battle and the 2014 house. The big problem is that the ACA may not be fixable after 2014 unless it gets some fixes before then (at the very least, it needs elimination of sequestration).

[99Forever]

10. Go ahead Obama Administration.

Sell out to the 1%, AGAIN.

Prove that you haven't forgotten how to snatch defeat out of the jaws of victory.

(Just when you think they had finally figured out that dealing with domestic terrorists was a bad idea....)



Fuck, fuck, fuck.

[on point]

12. He should resign so we can get someone who is not a 1% mouthpiece

[woo me with science]

14. So Reid's recent big proclamation rejecting cuts was a lie?

They are lying in speeches while planning a betrayal?

Say it isn't so.

[hooverville29]

18. Maybe just a left-hand, right-hand problem. WH & Senate might not be totally in sync on

everything at this stage. Or maybe it's just throwing everything against the wall to see what of best advantage can stick.

[woo me with science]

19. We've heard this song before

on every issue important to the One Percent.

The public speeches all give the impression of intending to stand for the 99 percent.

The deal-making going on in the back room does exactly the opposite.

[winter is coming]

15. I can't think of an easier way to hand the midterms to the Republicans. n/t

[woo me with science]

17. kick