( – promoted by buhdydharma )
More post election incompetence.
They forgot. In the good cop, bad cop routine, one of them is supposed to be the “good cop.”
White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs starts off the Lame Duck post election session:
“He would be open to having that discussion and open to listening to what the debate is on both sides of that,” said Gibbs, during an off-camera gaggle with reporters. “Obviously… making those tax cuts for the upper end permanent is something the president does not believe is a good idea.”
The issue, Gibbs said, will be a topic of discussion when the president convenes a bipartisan meeting of lawmakers at the White House in two weeks. Included in that meeting (and working dinner) will be Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Cali.), incoming Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio), Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD), incoming Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.), Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky), and Minority Whip Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.).
At his press conference on Wednesday, the president expressed his first openness to date with the process of negotiating on the Bush tax cuts, which are set to expire at the end of the year.
Meanwhile, Peter Orszag, right wing neocon, concern troll “deficit spending hawk,” Wall Street mouthpiece, and former Obama Administration head of Office of Budget and Management (OMB) writes in the New York Times the day after the election, November 3, that the harvest of the last of the middle and working class entitlement programs can’t begin fast enough for his new right wing think tank benefactors at the Council on Foreign Relations.
“Saving Social Security” by Peter Orszag 11/3/10
The silver lining is that the election could make Social Security reform more likely – if the administration chooses to jump at the opportunity.
Isn’t it amazing this guy was in the early Administration and now he’s happy the Republicans won ?
He also says that if the President did some Social Security reform, maybe he could get some more stimulus money through. Everything is just cutting deals with these people.
I hate it when neocon concern trolls like Orszag, and their fellow pandercrats try to paint the actual fiscal conservatives who see through their routine phony bullsh*t as “strident leftists.” Orszag and Peter Diamond have written a book which when studied, everyone reading it will think to themselves, “I don’t like this.” That was intentional on his part. You have to kill the program to “save it,” by proposing very distasteful solutions, just like Grover Norquist wanted to make government small enough to drown it in the bathtub…. If he was intellectually honest about supposedly restoring “actuarial balance” to Social Security he knows there are different ways to do it other than the regressive, punitive crap he and the Republicans want, like raising the age of eligibility so there will be fewer people able to collect on it at all, making more payees contribute then excluding more payees in from being able to collect on it, or those private savings accounts he’s lying about the politicians not wanting to do for now. Republicans are pushing the play the stock market savings accounts as a way to “fix” social security. Orszag’s book: “the bottom line is that individual accounts that are above and beyond Social Security can be substantially improved. But such accounts are inappropriate within Social Security itself.”
If one is saying that future payees into the system are going to see reduced benefits as part of your “plan,” then they have to be getting part of their retirement needs from somewhere else, yes ? Wouldn’t that function be taken over by private, for profit investor advisors, pushing private savings retirement accounts ?
(a pdf summary of Orszag and Diamond’s Plan is here www.brookings.edu/views/papers/orszag/200504security.pdf )
also on google documents http://bit.ly/c53NRF
Commenter under article sums it up:
Why can’t 100% of everybody’s income be taxable for Social Security including those making over $103,000? Why is this so hard to pass this by congress?
Because they don’t want to actually restore solvency. They are merely interested in putting some “financial advisor broker middlemen” between you and your Social Security payments, and diverting them into playing the stock market and into the hands of more Wall Street Bankers who are going to offshore them on risky investments while paying the millionaire/ billionaire insiders and the crooked politicians investing in hedge funds most generously.