Social Security, Medicare Still on Chopping Block

On this, the 100th anniversary of the birth of one of the most despised presidents in U.S. history, it is appropriate to remember that "Nixon going to China" may be a metaphor for defying your party's principles in the name of progress, but it didn't help him or his party in the end.

Just so, destroying Social Security and Medicare may earn Barack Obama kudos from the Beltway Villagers, but he'll be villified forever for destroying the Democratic Party.  Not to mention the middle class.
Digby:

I won't reiterate my belief that the president truly and genuinely seeks a Grand Bargain. You know what I think about that (and if you don't, you can google my name and Grand Bargain and read all about it.) Making a fetish of raising taxes on the rich as part of a "balanced approach" to deficit reduction in the recent campaign baked it into everything going forward. And the president has now twice shown that he's willing to raise the Medicare age and cut Social Security benefits. So, that's where we begin round two, basically for no good reason.

Greg Sargent talks about the "balanced approach":

Presuming the Senate deal passes the House, what happened yesterday is that Democrats scored a victory on part two of that question — albeit only a partial one — while successfully deferring the epic, looming battle over the first part of it. Meanwhile, Republicans retained their leverage heading into round two, and thanks to the way things unfolded, they will likely walk into it more confident of winning major future concessions...

Obama has pledged to win more in new revenues from the rich via tax reform, has vowed not to agree to any deficit reduction that relies only on spending cuts, and continues to insist on a “balanced” approach. Only Obama, however, can ultimately define what he means by “balanced.” Liberals must continue to insist that this mean that the sacrifice necessary to reducing the deficit will not borne by the poor or seniors who can’t afford it.

All of which is to say that the major fight at the heart of this whole mess — over the proper scope and role of the safety net of the 21st century, and who will pay for it — remains unresolved. Only the outcome of that battle can settle the question of whether today’s compromise was a good one for liberals. Obama’s legacy on the future of the welfare state — which will help define his presidency and settle fundamental questions about our approach to governing that will define American life for years to come — remains yet to be determined.

That's not comforting. I suspect that were he to define his preferred legacy on the question of the welfare state it would be that he enacted Obamacare and "fixed" the alleged funding crisis with a Grand Bargain on taxes and entitlements. That's what he's been saying for four years anyway. And what that has always meant was raising some taxes and cutting programs (also known as "everyone having skin in the game.") He got the tax hikes because they were inevitable. He has yet to fulfill the second promise. But it's not for lack of trying. Ironically, it's been those all-powerful Republican lunatics refusing to take him up on the offer that saved us so far.

There's an alternative.
Down with Tyranny:

If Miss McConnell, Boehner-- who now says he's finished negotiating with President Obama-- and even nut cases and crackpots who are given TV time like Gingrich, keep up the crazy talk, 2014 to actually turn into an electoral rout. And that, of course, is why McConnell is insisting that the GOP not just be given the cuts to popular programs they want but that Obama and the Democrats embrace those cuts as well. Obama probably will. Progressive Democrats won't, under any circumstances, countenance benefits cuts to working families and seniors. Here's a statement from the 80-member strong Congressional Progressive Caucus, issued last week:

With yesterday's vote behind us, Americans face an even bigger fight in the coming months: funding our government, avoiding devastating cuts known as sequestration, and avoiding default on our country's bills. The most recent negotiations saw a massive grassroots effort that successfully protected Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid benefits and investments in the middle class. In the coming negotiations, we must continue the fight. Here's what we should do.   First, no more hostage taking. Last August, Republicans held the full faith and credit of the United States hostage in exchange for over $1 trillion in cuts that hit middle class families hardest. Everything from student loans for college students to fixing our crumbling roads and bridges was threatened by these cuts. President Obama is right to refuse to negotiate over paying the nation's credit card bills. The debt ceiling has been raised dozens of times in the past, including 18 times by Ronald Reagan. We must join him in calling for a clean increase of the debt ceiling.   Second, protect Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security benefits. Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security are the backbone of every family's income when they most need it. Medicare alone provides health care to 40 million American seniors and more than 8 million Americans with disabilities-- and does so at a fraction of the cost of private insurance. Inevitably, we are going to be asked about the rising cost of health care. We should welcome this conversation. Allowing Medicare Part D to negotiate lower drug prices for seniors-- just like the Veterans Administration already does-- will save more than $150 billion over 10 years. But cutting benefits has nothing to do with cutting health care costs, and actually increases costs for seniors. Raising the retirement age for Medicare would cost our own family members over $2,000 and increase health care costs by over $11 trillion. We won a significant victory in protecting benefits for our family members in these negotiations, and we must firmly oppose efforts to throw American families under the bus disguised as deficit reduction.   Third, additional savings should come from new revenue and the Pentagon, and any deal must include investments in American's number one priority-- new jobs. The middle class should not continue to foot the bill for tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires. With over $1.7 trillion already cut from programs for American families and less than half of that amount raised in revenue, we have a long way to go before we have a balanced approach. We could save over $110 billion just by eliminating wasteful subsidies to oil and gas companies. My Inclusive Prosperity Act would raise hundreds of billions dollars just by taxing Wall Street trades by a fraction of 1 percent. Six members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus have already proposed principles of tax reform, and a bipartisan group of lawmakers have called for Pentagon savings to be included in any negotiation. The American people have our back. By large margins, people want us reduce the deficit by asking those who have benefited most over the past few decades to pay their fair share, and they recognize that cutting Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security benefits will only make our problems worse. In the end, our success will depend upon a grassroots movement to protect these priorities.   As Abraham Lincoln said, "With public sentiment, nothing can fail. Without it, nothing can succeed." Now it's up to us to make sure Congress listens.