" ... The president believes that now is the moment to ... show the American people that we can still do big things. ...

In this down is up and up is down spectacle of a presidency, we're now left with a "Democratic" president begging the Republicans to go bigger and cut more. And if you read the White House statement carefully...

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

July 9, 2011

Statement from White House Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer on Budget Negotiations

"The President believes that solving our fiscal problems is an economic imperative. But in order to do that, we cannot ask the middle-class and seniors to bear all the burden of higher costs and budget cuts. We need a balanced approach that asks the very wealthiest and special interests to pay their fair share as well, and we believe the American people agree.

"Both parties have made real progress thus far, and to back off now will not only fail to solve our fiscal challenge, it will confirm the cynicism people have about politics in Washington. The President believes that now is the moment to rise above that cynicism and show the American people that we can still do big things. And so tomorrow, he will make the case to congressional leaders that we must reject the politics of least resistance and take on this critical challenge."

...it should be apparent that for the president, Social Security remains a target.

Back in December I posted this in comments over at SPK's The Agonist:

Did you catch Robert Kuttner's article the other day?

Obama to blink first on Social Security

The tax deal negotiated by President Barack Obama and Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky is just the first part of a multistage drama that is likely to further divide and weaken Democrats.

The second part, now being teed up by the White House and key Senate Democrats, is a scheme for the president to embrace much of the Bowles-Simpson plan -- including cuts in Social Security. This is to be unveiled, according to well-placed sources, in the president's State of the Union address.

The idea is to pre-empt an even more draconian set of budget cuts likely to be proposed by the incoming House Budget Committee chairman, Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), as a condition of extending the debt ceiling. This is expected to hit in April.

White House strategists believe this can also give Obama "credit" for getting serious about deficit reduction -- now more urgent with the nearly $900 billion increase in the deficit via the tax cut deal.

Obama has been telegraphing his intent on going after Social Security back even to the primaries and the presidential campaign. And his establishment of his deficit commission after congress refused to establish it for him was a huge tell, especially when you look at the cast of characters he appointed and the man who underwrote the cost. This cast of characters is not new. If you followed the FDL book salon back in May with Dr. Steve Gillon, author of "The Pact", you'd have come across this:

How Monica Lewinsky Saved Social Security: Clinton, Gingrich, Bowles and "The Pact"


I thought it would be instructive to have Dr. Gillon on to talk about Bowles's history of shuttle diplomacy in 1997 to negotiate a deal between Newt Gingrich and Bill Clinton to cut Social Security. He based his book The Pact: Bill Clinton, Newt Gingrich, and the Rivalry that Defined a Generation on interviews he conducted with Clinton, Gingrich, Bowles and others involved in the negotiations. And according to Bowles, the deal would have gone through save for one factor: the Monica Lewinsky episode.

Bowles was uniquely suited to the task of negotiating a deal on Social Security. He had the trust of Newt Gingrich and the Republicans that Clinton would need to carry out his vision of Social Security reform:

Bowles became the liaison between Clinton and Gingrich, shuttling back and forth brokering deals between Capitol Hill and the White House. Neither man trusted the other, but both trusted Bowles, and he became the key figure in their evolving relationship. "You cannot underestimate the role that Erskine played," recalled Joe Gaylord. "He and Gingrich liked each other. They trusted each other." Bill Archer, the powerful head of the House Ways and Means Committee, also felt comfortable with Bowles. "He was not ideological. He was not pushing the big left agenda. He was there to make things happen between the White House and a Republican Congress." Later, Gingrich would call his appointment "decisive," and a turning point in his relationship with the White House. "It is the one brief period when you have a significant adult whose experience transcends Washington, who understands making deals and getting business done, and who has a center-right bias in fiscal policy," he said. "He had the ability to bridge the White House and my party in Congress."

Clinton had been trying to deal with Social Security for some time. In 1994, HHS Secretary Donna Shalala had appointed the 13-member Danforth Commission to advise on Social Security. She appointed three members from labor (including Richard Trumka), Republican Alan Simpson (appointed by Obama to co-chair his Deficit Commission with Bowles) and Pete Peterson (the hedge-fund billionaire funding much of the current economic work being used to justify dismantling Social Security).

Erskine Bowles. Alan Simpson. Pete Peterson. Funny how these names keep coming up. Funny how Obama appointed Simpson and Bowles to co-chair his catfood commission. Funny how Pete Peterson underwrote the cost of the commission and provided staff. And funny how Obama's "deal" with Republicans just happens to include the precedent setting payroll tax holiday that diverts Social Security contributions away from the trust fund for the first time ever, exactly as the Republican American Enterprise Institute had proposed to Republicans more than two years ago as the first step towards undermining the program. All just coincidence, I'm sure. Or maybe not.

The Kuttner article on Obama going after Social Security came out only a few days ago. A day later it didn't seem to have drawn much notice (as in none at all) on some Democratic leaning news sites, so I emailed an excerpt to a few to be sure they were aware. The replies I received from (rhymes with Bosh Farcial) at the memo joint and from a few writers at Salon basically boiled down to "I trust Obama and he would never do this. Robert Kuttner is obviously lying."  The replies were polite, but they made it clear they were not interested. It felt a lot like I was talking to the cute brown bear. (Maybe I should have tried to catch them off guard by mentioning Air America and Lionel?)

If the 112th goes after Social Security, it will be with the direct assistance and acquiescence of the 44th president. The congress can't get anything past a (putatively) Democratic president unless he wants it to get past. And in this case, it's pretty clear that he does. Just don't try to get the cute little brown bear to understand.

On edit...

An addendum with a portion of Obama's interview with Steve Inskeep of NPR. Just for good measure. About Social Security, Obama said:

INSKEEP: Won't Republicans argue -- and, in fact, won't reality argue that any cuts will have to be even deeper because this package that you're pushing for now will mean there's even less government revenue?

OBAMA: Actually, I think that if you talk to economists, both conservative and liberal, what they'll say is the problem is not next year. The problem is, how are we dealing with our medium-term debt and deficit, and how are we dealing with our long-term debt and deficit? And most of that has to do with entitlements, particularly Social Security and Medicaid.

Got that? The President is saying that Social Security, with it's 2+ trillion dollar surplus that is on track to grow to 4+ trillion dollars by 2020 with money that working people have paid in advance to fund the retirement of the baby-boom demographic is an entitlement and is particularly important to dealing with the debt and deficit...even though Social Security has nothing at all to do with the debt and deficit.

The Social Security trust fund has been raided to finance tax cuts for the rich. That money was loaned to the federal government to help fund those tax cuts. Paying those loans back means that the rich will need to pay higher taxes (which of course Obama just agreed to cut.) They don't want to pay those taxes. Obama doesn't want them to pay those taxes. They don't want to repay the money that was contributed by working people. They want to effing steal it.

Obama has Social Security in his sights. He's had it in his sights since before he was a candidate for the Democratic nomination. He has said so repeatedly. He isn't about to let go of it now when it is so clearly within his grasp. This is the opportunity he has been working on manufacturing in word and and deed since before he became president. Read that quoted portion of his interview with Steve Inskeep of NPR again:

INSKEEP: Won't Republicans argue -- and, in fact, won't reality argue that any cuts will have to be even deeper because this package that you're pushing for now will mean there's even less government revenue?

OBAMA: Actually, I think that if you talk to economists, both conservative and liberal, what they'll say is the problem is not next year. The problem is, how are we dealing with our medium-term debt and deficit, and how are we dealing with our long-term debt and deficit? And most of that has to do with entitlements, particularly Social Security and Medicaid.

In order to reduce the national debt, would you support or oppose cutting spending on Social Security, which is the retirement program for the elderly?

Ohio: 16% support, 80% oppose
Missouri: 17% support, 76% oppose
Montana: 20% support, 76% oppose
Minnesota: 23% support, 72% oppose

And this?

Obama is on record as having proposed entitlement cuts that now will not occur.

Well, first, I wouldn't be too sure it's dead in the water, and second, even if it is, giving the GOP the opportunity to run as the party that saved entitlements from being cut seems like pretty bad strategy on Obama's part.  A winning strategy for Obama would have been (1) refusing to put entitlements on the table at all, and (2) steering the economy - from Day One, with the impetus of the stimulus - even if it did need to be bigger - in a direction that puts people back to work and contributing to those entitlement programs.

I don't disagree that Dems want to fix things; the problem I have - that a lot of people have, including one of your faves, Paul Krugman - is that what the president is proposing is not the way to do it.  

The GOP hasn't flip-flopped; they weren't the ones who wanted the $4 trillion deal - they were the ones who have, since Day One, refused to accept tax increases, and on that, they have held fast.  

Here's why - spending cuts now is terrible policy. Nobody cares about a headline, which by the way, is not going to be what you want it to be at the celebratory press conference announcing the debt ceiling deal, in July 2011 when they vote in November 2012.

And even the headline you want is "Obama wanted to cut Social Security and Medicare and GOP Did Not Agree." That's a winner?

Obama offers up 4 trillion with a trillion in tax increases.   He basically gives them everything they want.

They say no.

Do you deny that his precious approval rating would soar if he did the things that would make people's lives better, instead of worse?

Can he get by with terrific framing by you and others while making people's lives materially worse instead of better?  Perhaps he can, but I very sincerely hope not because it will mean we as a nation, as a people will be royally f***.

Jobs.

If you want Obama to have his job after 2012, worry about whether he starts doing his job now.