Because what he is reporting is what I predicted after reading David Corn's book and from tidbits I have seen here and there about the negotiations. And logically, it just makes sense in terms of being somewhere between what the president wants and what Boehner wants.
In Corn's book, he says that during the 2011 negotiations, McConnell and Boehner were willing to give the president $800 billion in revenue through closing loopholes and deductions (theoretically), in exchange for "fundamental changes" in Medicare. The Republicans wanted an increase in the Medicare eligibility age, rejiggering the cost of living adjustment for Social Security, direct cuts in Medicare and Social Security benefits, higher copays for Medicare, and more. Of those options the president chose the Social Security COLA formula change (after being assured by Lew that it could be done in such a way to avoid cuts for the poorest recipients and possibly even increase their payments) and raising the Medicare age as the least bad options. They believed that the ACA would help ameliorate the negative consequences of raising the Medicare age, and that this change was better than changing the fundamental structure of the program. The rise in the Medicare age was to be phased in gradually.
At the time, it made sense, to a degree. They didn't know who was going to win the election, and it was better to pocket the revenue increase then than wait and take the risk that a Republican president would just cut taxes for the rich and gut Medicare and Social Security. The president was also worried that enough Senate Dems would make a deal to cut taxes for all but the very rich (over $500,000 or $1 million, which would not bring in much revenue). And he said that progressives who care about Social Security and Medicare have an obligation to make them sustainable over the long run, and that it was better for Democrats to do it now than wait until Republicans have control of the government and can do it on their terms. He also said that failure to tackle deficits would threaten spending for programs like Head Start, student loans, infrastructure, etc.
The good news is, now that President Obama has been re-elected he has a stronger hand to play, and now we are likely to get real rate hikes for the top 2% instead of just eliminating deductions that are likely to hurt the middle class. And I hope the president will not agree to raising the Medicare age, but I think he has always been open to it...I don't remember him ever promising not to.
I don't like it, but I think this report is probably accurate. The bottom line is, the Republicans do have leverage, contrary to what some of you think. They control the House, and they can:
- Refuse to raise the debt ceiling unless the president agrees to much more draconian cuts (or cutting the top tax rate)
- Refuse to continue funding emergency unemployment benefits
- Refuse to fund hurricane relief
- Refuse to fund the subsidies that are essential to making the ACA work. The law is premised on subsidies to enable working-class people (who make too much for Medicaid) to buy insurance on the exchanges. If the House Republicans refuse to fund that, the law will be effectively dead before it really goes into effect.
Given all of this, I think we are delusional if we think the president can just do nothing and get everything he wants just because the tax cuts are set to expire. We might win the battle but lose the war, unless they can make a deal now to prevent the debt ceiling from being used for extortion again.
Yes, I think Medicare for all would be a better solution. But I also know from the time I spent in Washington that there is a 0% chance of that happening, and there was a close to 0% chance even when Democrats controlled the House and Senate. What makes the best policy is very rarely what ends up getting passed, due to how entrenched corporate special interests are and the inherent nature of the representational system.
= new reply since forum marked as read
