These past couple of weeks I've seen numerous diaries in the rec list that clearly demonstrate the ebb and flow of this current debt debate. The speculation on where Obama and the Democratic leaders stand and what they really want to do or will do has gone back and forth between those on the "professional left" or the "purists" like myself believing quite strongly that what Obama wants is to actually cut entitlements versus the other group who believe it's either a bluff, a game of 11th dimensional chess, or that he just doesn't have any choice at all but to give in to those darn pesky Republicans. I believe his language on the matter in press conferences could not be any more clear. I also believe his history in both refusing to push his stance hard on the Bush tax cuts last year as well as lack of push on the public option speak rather loudly.
But a recent op-ed in the Guardian further demonstrates his desire to cut entitlements.
As Glennzilla points out, President-elect Obama hinted at it even before he was in the WH:
But in 2009, clear signs emerged that President Obama was eager to achieve what his right-predecessor could not: cut social security. Before he was even inaugurated, Obama echoed the right's manipulative rhetorical tactic: that (along with Medicare) the programme was in crisis and producing "red ink as far as the eye can see." President-elect Obama thus vowed that these crown jewels of his party since the New Deal would be, as Politico reported, a "central part" of his efforts to reduce the deficit.
Emphasis mine.
Glenn then points out how our favorite economic advisor, Larry Summers, vowed to have benefit cuts. And of course the Catfood Commission was created by those who were eager as hell to take a whack at entitlements. Glenn further examines Obama's more recent statements desires a deal of any sort that cuts entitlements. And then he gets to the crux of the matter with this paragraph:
Therein lies one of the most enduring attributes of Obama's legacy: in many crucial areas, he has done more to subvert and weaken the left's political agenda than a GOP president could have dreamed of achieving. So potent, so overarching, are tribal loyalties in American politics that partisans will support, or at least tolerate, any and all policies their party's leader endorses – even if those policies are ones they long claimed to loathe
I know this is a common theme that Glenn hits upon a lot on his own blog, tribal loyalties, but it does merit discussion. I personally do not understand how we can have such a tremendous voice of reason and outcry against President Bush and the GOP's attempts to gut SS via their privatization scheme, yet barely hold a whisper in comparison to what our President and leader of our Democratic party is seemingly eager to cut the same program. How can this bullshit maneuver by a Democratic president really be justified in any reasonable way?
His last few sentences are also poignant:
Obama is now on the verge of injecting what until recently was the politically toxic and unattainable dream of Wall Street and the American right – attacks on the nation's social safety net – into the heart and soul of the Democratic party's platform. Those progressives who are guided more by party loyalty than actual belief will seamlessly transform from virulent opponents of such cuts into their primary defenders.
And thus will Obama succeed – yet again – in gutting not only core Democratic policies, but also the identity and power of the American Left.
Obama is going to cut entitlements not because he's striking a deal with the GOP. He's cutting entitlements because he wants to cut entitlements, period. He's said it as much in the past, and he continually states it in the present. I'm sure Lawrence O'Donnell will continue to lead the charge of excuses as he has been on this, just like he did with Obama extending the Bush tax cuts. But aside of Lawrence, we need to cut the bullshit and come to the realization that this is going to happen.
I guess my question is, when is it ever going to be enough?