Every morning, Politico’s Mike Allen calls the White House to see if the usual White House Coward or one of his lackeys will feed him some nice tidbit from the daily White House Spin. This one looks like it was approved by the Chief of Cowards:
"Good Thursday morning. EXCLUSIVE – DEBT COMMISSION’S BIG RECOMMENDATION MAY COVER SOCIAL SECURITY: President Obama’s 18-member fiscal-responsibility commission, headed by Alan Simpson and Erskine Bowles, is to report recommendations to Congress by Dec. 1. The administration hears that a group of commission members is relatively optimistic about coming together around a package on Social Security. It’s not clear what terms would work politically – what could get through the Congress. But there’s some optimism that commission members can find a way to do that. It’s less clear what they might do on other dimensions of the long-term deficit problem (14 votes are needed to report a recommendation), although they may find smaller coalitions that are bipartisan for approaches to constrain spending growth.
–ADMINISTRATION MINDMELD: The virtue of action on Social Security is that it demonstrates the ability to begin to affect the long-run deficits. Social Security isn’t the biggest contributor to the problem – that’s still health-care costs. But it could help a little bit, buy time, and strengthens the odds of a political consensus behind other spending cuts or tax increases. Most importantly, it would establish more CREDIBILITY with the MARKETS. The mood of the world at the moment (slightly excessive, from the administration’s point of view) is that if you don’t do anything with spending cuts, it doesn’t get you credibility. "
Well, Mike, we’re just shocked, shocked to learn that the Catfood Commission is planning to screw Social Security beneficiaries and that the White House is all excited that the country will finally face up to the non-crisis and create worse problems for insecure seniors by solving a non-problem with a non-solution designed to conceal another agenda, because, you know, there have been virtually no stories about that.
And how helpful of Mike to note that Social Security "isn’t the biggest contributor to the problem," which in normal English to those paying attention translates to: "It isn’t part of the so called deficit problem at all, so this is part of a massive scam!"
No, the "biggest contributor to the problem" is a President and White House team willing to form a secret commission, led by ignorant clowns and stacked with too many people with anti-democratic biases and little understanding, none of whom have to worry about retirement security, and allow them to recommend the degree of retirement insecurity for already insecure seniors, with no political accountability ever, and then have the White House Coward in Chief front for this anti-democratic process and anti-Democratic agenda and feed a useless, tantalizing tidbit to an unquestioning stenographer who doesn’t understand anything about the "deficit" issues, thus faithfully representing the Beltway media.
And why are we celebrating a calculated leak from a secret commission conducting the public’s business that affects tens of millions of our most vulnerable citizens behind closed doors? Open it up, or shut it down.
Update: via David Dayen and The American Prospect’s Tim Fernholz, who says he heard the same briefing Allen did, thinks Mike Allen missed important context:
The most important omission from Allen’s item is that the official concluded the conversation by noting that social security is not a generous benefit compared to other public pensions around the world, and that cutting benefits, even years in advance, would be difficult to justify. More symbolically, Allen doesn’t mention that the official cited Paul Krugman when talking about Social Security’s contributions to the deficit. Finally, the reason the administration official was interested in credibility before the markets is so the government could borrow more money for temporary fiscal stimulus.
So, did Mike Allen just mangle the whole story? We could avoid this if these briefings were public, the source identified, and those present could report what was actually said.
More update: Brad DeLong suggests it was just a mistake to invite Mike Allen to a meeting with grownups. That may be true, but the more important mistake is to hold off-the-record briefings and muzzle competent people with the rules when there’s no real justification for that. If responsible witnesses/reporters can report what actually happened, we wouldn’t have to worry so much about Mike Allens.



64 Comments




It’s all about the marketing and branding of the “terms” of course. The actual effects of their incredibly short-sighted bull sh*t means nothing to these idiots.
“The Administration hears….”
How can it hear with your dick in its ear, Mike?
What a maroon — this is an EXCLUSIVE?
“Must Credit Mike Allen’s Purty Mouth”
Agreed!
The only real effects these asses desire and want, are those where they can preen themselves in front of their narcisstic and giant ego mirrors, smile, and tout how they are preventing the sky from falling. ‘Idiots’ is a nomenclature that is excessively kind…depraved, sick, degenerate, and soulless is more cogent in my opinion.
I have to wonder what The Mood of The World would be if the president listened to tiny-but-perfectly-formed SecDef Gates and cut a buncha brass and weapons. More fat there than in any retirement community.
Every now and then, someone makes a comment that if Reps win in November, the first item on their agenda will be to impeach Obama. If the WH so much as lays a finger on SS, I would be happy to support such an effort.
Everyone with a brain knows what will get through Congress: benefit cuts disguised as higher retirement age, with no new taxes. This isn’t a prediction; it’s fact. Why can’t anyone in DC say this now?
Allen’s is the worst kind of stenography: late, wrong, and untrue all at the same time.
Of course the War is a much more unnecessary expense than Social Security.
During his Presidential campaign, War-Crimes Obama revealed his scheme to bankrupt Social Security: NOT having the rich pay into it: Obama said then that he wants the rich to start paying the same percentage as the poor in 2019!
Until then, he wants Social Security withholding to remain the same as they are now:
$0 to $100,000 pays 8%;
$100,000 to $1,000,000 pays 0.8%;
$1,000,000 to $10,000,000 pays 0.08%;
$10,000,000 to $100,000,000 pays 0.008%;
And those making over One Hundred Million Dollars per year pay only eight ten-thousandths of one per cent (0.0008%).
The next step: Obama’s scheme, now in place, requires the poorest tax payers to pay one hundred thousand times as high a percentage as those making over One Billion Dollars per year. (0.00008%)
That’s what you call “Regressive!”
It is, as always, all about the looting, and the spinning to the rubes of why it is so important that they be robbed blind.
People making over One Billion per year pay only 0.00008%. (In my comment above, I mistakenly placed that numeral after One Hundred Million.)
First rule about Politico: Don’t trust Politico
http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/tapped_archive?month=08&year=2010&base_name=mike_allens_mindmismeld
I literally guffawed the first time I went over there and saw the “subscribe to Mike Allen” icon
Nope. Until the Actor in Chief reassures me that he’s not advocating raising the retirement age and cutting benefits, this ‘leak’ is as legitimate as your buddy’s note.
although I am glad to see MoveOn and DFA join this fight – would it kill ‘em to be a little more honest about WH role in all of this ?
and why aren’t they using the sheer power of their numbers to pound on that ??
If we don’t cut SS benefits we will be walking off a cliff.
Still, we need to tread carefully. I say we only cut benefits for those under 50 years old. A modest cut of 20% along with an equally modest extension of the retirement age to 69 would make a world of difference.
This is a no-brainer. They’ve emptied (stolen from) the SS cookie jar and don’t want to refill it.
Since there is a cap on what any individual can draw out of SS there should be a cap on what is paid into SS. That’s just common sense.
(self moderating so as not to p*ss off the mods and make more work for them)
That is the gist of public opinion once this nonsense gets publicly known.
I think that it really is time for Gibbs to go. Even if he is not talking to Mike Allen directly he is letting Mike Allen drive the agenda of the United States government. And that is dangerous.
Links? Backup? Support of any kind?
That’s what I thought.
Come again. Explain to me why that is common sense.
Your Modest Proposals are abhorrent.
Are you a Parody Troll?
Of course, you conveniently ignore that those folks under fifty have been paying more into Social Security than necessary just as those of us over fifty have done (since 1983)
So basically, you’re calling for the government to default on the treasury bonds their funds have purchased.
One of these centuries it might penetrate your [Edited] that Social Security is not the problem here.
The recent kabuki/blackmail (of vote Dems if you want to prevent privatization) is falling on deaf ears. In this age of instant communication, we can pose questions to the President and his ‘men’ and their silence is an answer too, when they refuse to answer our specific questions. All I am hearing is silence.
I think he likes to pull things from out beside his head.
Do any of these idiots ever propose lifting the cap on SS withholding? Of course they don’t. It’s always about raising the age before a person can collect their catfood dollars.
Why don’t we cut your benefits?
I and my family (over)paid in for 25 years and anyone wanting to deprive us of what we paid in is trying to steal from my family.
Brilliant, scarecrow
*stands on chair applauding*
How about we undo the Reagan tax cuts on the rich that caused the deficits? Oh, right, Dick Cheney said “Reagan proved deficits don’t matter.” For Republicans, anyway.
A-freakin’-men.
Teddy…
The t-man ‘if I only had a heart’ is a master of ‘hit and run’…he’s been hittin and runnin all over today…apparently not out of breath yet…
Yeah, and he likes to accuse us of all being unemployed.
Of course, most businesses I’ve dealt with would not be real happy if their employees spent all their day at a blog dropping comments. Seems he would be joining us on the unemployment lines (if not already there)
Scarecrow…thank you so much for your post!
and agreed…shout it out loud and clear:
Thanks for the heads up, David. I included an update and link to Fernholz.
Unemployment is beneath his stature!!!How convenient….
if moveon points out what 0-bummer is really doing … then they’ll lose their place in the veal pen!
ummmmm…
veal pen OR … discomfort? pretty obvious choice, isn’t it?
rmm.
Catfood cooked in a VAT of tax increases: From Naked Capitalism,
To borrow from a sweet and powerful song:
Wow, if Oilbummer goes after Soc Security…
There has to be a massive movement to stop this…every week at the Mall, man.
This is some seriously evil capitalist bullshit!
[[(The rules for this conversation were no direct quotes and no identifying the senior administration official in question.)]]
EQUALS
Silence.
From his lack of basic understanding on how SS works, I doubt he has ever held a job.
Another great post, Scarecrow. So glad we have people like you on FDL.
Having the proceedings of this commission closed to the public seems to me to be every bit as bad as Cheney refusing to disclose the scope of discussions that went on with oil/energy industry representatives.
The matters now under discussion could have a devastating effect on many segments of the public. People have a right to know; especially with elections in November and this commission making key recommendations in December.
Looking back to when this commission was being formed:
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/national-debt-budget-deficit-scary-forecast-taxpayers-obama/story?id=9854459
This quotation does not bode well:
“It keeps me awake at night, looking at all that red ink,” said President Obama in Nashua, N.H., on Feb. 2. “Most of it is structural and we inherited it. The only way that we are going to fix it is if both parties come together and start making some tough decisions about our long-term priorities.”
How about other issues? How about perpetual war? Does that keep anyone up at night? How about the end of the line on exponential growth due to geological limits on key resources? How about a humane restructuring of wealth and sources of jobs when we cannot glibly say that a “rising tide will lift all boats”, especially when the tide seems headed out. How about a genuine democracy?
Why does debt go to the head of the line ahead of all those other problems? As citizens, don’t we have a right to have a say on that?
Taking anonymous leaks to the next level, I suppose.
What I read at Brad DeLong’s and Felix Salmon’s didn’t make much sense to me, either. It’s like the people they were writing about live in a different economy.
You get to chose the lesser of two evils, what more of a choice could you want?
He’s just parroting “conventional wisdom”, which as usual, is arguably conventional and not terribly wise.
DeLong.
Gridlock, the lesser of two evils.
with the unemployment rate sky-high, there are alot
of people with the time to do just that.
I wonder if these depraved, short-sighted tools in power have given
a moment of thought to what could happen if they
give more and more masses of people ‘nothing to lose’?
When I turn 65 I’ll get my full retirement benefits…or I’ll start the first senior citizen mafia robbing looting and pillaging wall street.
An army of poor pissed off homeless 65+ year olds won’t have anything to loose so we’ll go ****ing nuts all over that place :D
If we have to work to 70, we should demand full social security payments at 65 and if we don’t get it resort to crime on the ultra rich.
Gangs of marauding Seniors. Right on!
No social security? No Medicare? You’re taking my home from me because I won’t work at 69?
Let’s see how republicans like the 2nd ammendment now :D
[Mod Note: Let's not go any further down this path]
K sorry
Well, that seems true; that seems fair. An opportunity to pick a lesser evil – what more can we ask for?
Could I get a side of Freedom Fries with those evils?
Nobody elected the 18 dickheads on this commission to anything. By what power and authority do they get to decide issues that profoundly affect us all? How can anyone fail to be outraged that the eighteen dickheads are meeting in secret? How can we fail to notice that only one side of a multi-sided national issue is represented? And who gives a crap about credibility with ‘the markets’?
Don’t those who passionately love our constitution realize that it contains nothing about no stinkin markets?
not just Fernholz, Felix Salmon said the same thing, as did basically everyone else in the room. Allen’s a dick.
Time for a refrain of “Cows with Guns”
Open it up or shut it down!
Talk about a “death panel”!!!
We should make as much noise as the Tea Partiers did over the phony death panels.
I think it reads better as ‘White House Chief of Cowards’.
What a load of bullshit. The biggest contributors to the deficit problem are:
- The insanely irresponsible Bush tax cuts
- Two decade-long wars (now replaced by one escalated war and an occupation) and an unsustainably high military budget
- High unemployment caused by parasitic corporations with their insatiable appetite for offshoring and downsizing
- Corporate tax evasion through offshoring profits while on-shoring costs
Other advanced countries are openly discussing LOWERING retirement ages, so as to improve people’s quality of life while they’re still young enough to enjoy it, and to open up more space in the job market. They’re also EXPANDING benefits, rather than cutting them back (except in the U.K., where they just elected the equivalent of the current U.S. hypercapitalist regime).
Now you have it. Using the 2nd amendment!
True – and the same logic says if there is no cap on the tax then there can be no cap on the benefits – and this latter position preserves the “we are all in this social insurance process together – with higher taxes meaning higher benefit – so don’t you dare cut my entitlement”.
The difference between no cap on tax but with a cap on benefits (a 1.9% of payroll increase in net income to the SS system) and a no cap on tax with no cap on benefits (a 1.7% of payroll increase in income to the SS system) is only 0.2% of payroll – and for the last 75 years we have said that a gap that was under 1 percent of payroll was rough balance – with under 0.5 % ideal (and for many years we were under 0.2% as the gap). The age increase from Reagan’s 67 to 68 or 69 is inevitable but should not be allowed to happen until it is agreed to remove the cap on wages taxed.
Social Security should be off the table for this Cat Food Fiscal Commission.
If we what to address solvency and adequacy then let’s create a Social Security Commission with members who actually care about the program and the PEOPLE on the program.
Now all we have are bean counters wacko ideologues.
Well, that certainly would have been a big improvement over this Commission. But there is no solvency issue for the United States Government, or any of its programs. See here, here, and here.