Ugly Actions May Follow Comforting Words in SOTU

Don't count on what President Obama says in his State of the Union address tonight. Pay attention to what he does after the applause dies down and people relax, thinking that because Obama didn't say he would kill social security that means he won't do it anyway.

Digby explains:

The rumors keep on rolling:

The White House and a bipartisan group of senators are focusing on restructuring the tax code and entitlement programs such as Social Security, which could have more dramatic impacts on the deficit in the long run but would do little in the short term. White House officials say Republican calls for $100 billion in spending cuts this year would choke off the economic recovery while doing little in the long run to tame the deficit. "The American people say, don't touch Social Security, don't touch Medicare, don't cut defense. That's 84% of the federal budget," Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad (D., N.D.). who is retiring when his term ends in 2012, said Sunday on ABC's "This Week." "If you can't touch 84% of the federal budget...you're down to 16% of the budget at a time we're borrowing 40 cents of every dollar we spend."

If this is true --- which is unknown at this point --- in order to appease teabagging nihilists who want to end all programs (that help people)and petulant Masters of the Universe who want to abolish taxes (for rich people), the White house and small bipartisan group of millionaire politicians are seeking ways to destroy the Democratic Party and dismantle vital pieces of the safety net. Sounds awesome.

Then there's this, about the SOTU:

The president will try to keep the deficit conversation in broad terms, fearing that detailed proposals would put Republicans, Democrats and Washington interest groups into a defensive crouch before real negotiations can take place, according to those officials. White House officials, for instance, have assured Democratic lawmakers that the president will not explicitly call for cuts in Social Security benefits, though he will say changes are needed to put the program on a solid fiscal footing.

At the same time, Mr. Obama will call on both parties to be prepared to put everything on the table. That means Democrats have to be ready to look at changes to Social Security, and Republicans to consider tax-code changes to increase revenue.

Good to know. Why they leaked their real intentions is unknown, but whatever.

If you're still not sure who's side Wall Street's BFF is on, Digby again:

Obama's version of this is to take the ideas of the opposition but couch it in the language of pragmatism. But it really doesn't matter because whether he's just sounding like he's adopting the right's ideas or actually doing it, the truth is as Kuttner says; the political playing field is all on the right at this point. It's just a matter of degree. And by playing to the "center" of that right field it moves the play that much further.

However, it's not some shocking betrayal on Obama's part. It's the thoroughly predictable move for any president who's been accused of being a socialist for two years and suffered a bad mid-term. They always "run to the center" in the second half in order to get re-elected. And if the economy cooperates, it might just work. But it is at the expense of liberalism and the Party whether or not it's a conscious strategic decision to distance themselves from the left or not. At the end of the cycle, Obama will have run on a set of issues and solutions marginally to the right of those which he ran on in 2008. And those were marginally to the right of those which Kerry ran on in 2004 or Gore ran on in 2000. This is how we find ourselves looking back at Richard Nixon's agenda and thinking that even Dennis Kucinich wouldn't be so bold as to propose much of it.

Much of this is about money and power, of course. The vast sums required to run for office require politicians, particularly presidential candidates who have to run billion dollar campaigns now, to be subservient to those who have it. And as policies become more and more tilted to the wealthy, the more power they have to shape them and bend politicians to their will.

SNIP

In these circumstances, the political incentives in a democratic society becomes how to package the policies in a way that appeals to the people but benefits the wealthy. The Republicans know how to do that. The Democrats not so much, although on the presidential level, they may have found a formula. But again, it's at the expense of liberalism in general which, if the president decides to engage on "entitlements", may also end any serious rationale for the Democratic party at all.

Kuttner is right that there is a huge debate to be had. But I'm not sure it's between the two political parties. I guess the question is, if an American political argument happens outside the two party system, does it happen at all?

Have you talked to your Democratic neighbors today?