If you have "no place to go," come here!

"We're Going To Have A 'Grand Bargain' In September"

Alexa's picture

[Video Credit: C-Span, Washington Journal, Gail Russell Chaddock on the Congressional Agenda, July 28, 2013]

This is posted FYI, and (partially) in reply to one of Lets' posts here, entitled "What Would You Have the President Do? Part III, Doing Some Economic and Social Justice."

I hope that Christian Science Monitor Assistant Washington Bureau Chief Gail Russell Chaddock is "wrong" about this. Time will tell.

"Hat Tip" to Mr. Alexa for noticing this interview/video.

[End Of Post]

No votes yet


Alexa's picture
Submitted by Alexa on

I might add, Ms. Russell Chaddock accurately describes the Democrat's hyperventilating about the 100 Billion Dollars (of Sequester Defense and "Domestic" spending cuts).

Notice, however, how coolly she goes on to discuss their desire to raise revenue or taxes (at least she was above board enough NOT to say on the wealthy--most reporters willfully "misreport" this fact) and to cut SOME entitlements.

What she doesn't say is:

Corporatist Dems and Repubs are determined to "replace" the "Sequester" with the Grand Bargain--and raise approximately 1.3 Trillion Dollars by closing tax loopholes and beginning to gut our social safety net by passing cuts to Social Security and Medicare.

Where is the outrage on the part of the American People?

Submitted by jawbone on

to enough Repubs, he'll get his Grand Bargain. Many Dems will cave.

And we will be well and truly screwed.

As of now, I don't think most Dem voters can believe that Obama, who they see as liberal, would ever do such a thing as actually damage SS and Medicare. By the time they realize it, it may well be too late.

It will take massive demos in the streets, huge email, fax, and telephone barrages to the Dem DC critters to get them to understand that eventually the Dem voters will figure out how they've not only been screwed and cheated, but also disrespected, deeply and cavalierly by the Corporatist bastards on the right of the Dem Party.

Will there be enough Dem pols who care more about their votes than they do about promised donations from Big Money or threats from the same to not give?

My prediction was Obama will destroy the Democratic Party. Lambert early on talked about an Obama crew takeover of the party. Maybe it will be a leveraged buyout of the Democrats....

I read somewhere* today that splits in both parties are being predicted For the Dems, it will be a Wall Street suck up group of Corporatists for one party and populists for the second.

Obama, and Booker, will most likely bring some blacks into the Corporatist party, so that core constituency will be probably be split.

*I can't find the article, but the liberal side of the Dem split was labled something derogatory which I can't remember....

Alexa's picture
Submitted by Alexa on

Agree with most of your sentiments, jawbone.

I guess that I would probably worry about "all" corporatist Dems who are looking at a run in 2014 and 2016. IOW, I view them all with extreme consternation, LOL!

After all, the President was a 24 year old "community organizer" when the DLC was organized, and he certainly did not invent corporatism or "The Third Way."

[Or at least, that what it looks like to me, since he graduated Columbia in 1983, but didn't start Harvard Law School until approximately 1988.]

So he is really just a "figurehead" for the pernicious "Third Way" ideology and movement (IMO).

Which is NOT to say that I don't think he should be held accountable for his actions. I do. It's just that it can't just stop there.

Why the Democratic Party base is so passive--I'll NEVER understand.

Sometimes I think Thom Hartmann had it right--the base of the Dem Party is psychologically suffering from the "battered wife" syndrome (which is NOT to make light of the real syndrome, by any means).

But we must admit, to keep electing one conservative and/or corporatist Dem after another--Carter, Clinton, Obama--is pure lunacy.

BTW, my Mother was an "Atlantan," and so was I for a few years as a young adult. Jimmy Carter was my Governor--for those how don't realize it--Carter was most definitely NOT a liberal, LOL!

[I realize that this was an urban legend in some quarters.

And, of course, President Clinton was President of the DLC right before he assumed the Presidency, although I believe that many non-Southern Dems may not have been aware of his very conservative background.

As far as Pres BO goes--I don't think too many folks believe that he's "a liberal" today. So, I figure that they mindlessly defend his policies as a member of the team. Who knows?]

We have got to start "demanding" that our interests are represented. And that won't happen as long as we keep electing corporatist/DLCers/No Labelers, etc.

You know, "No Labels" is simply the "bipartisan" extension of this movement.

If we can't stop this ideology, which is spreading like a cancer in the progressive community, we are truly "cooked," LOL!

Think I'll stop now--I'm beginning to depress myself. ;-)

Submitted by MontanaMaven on

I read that article too on the split in the parties and I can't find it yet. I think electoral politics are pointless. But be that as it may, my dream battle would be Chris Christie (populist on the right) v Brian Schweitzer (populist on the left) with Hilary and Paul trying to get air time. At least it wouldn't be dull.

Alexa's picture
Submitted by Alexa on


Agree that I hope to see some type of actual "race."

Like Brian Schweitzer, and as a major "dog lover" myself, could hardly dislike a dude who was photographed on-the-job with "Jag," in tow. ;-)


But since he's also DLC, I have to hope that someone "to the left of" him will also run in 2016 (and obviously that would not be Hillary).

If you should get any details on his "public option" plan, I hope you'll furnish us a link, sometime. It sounds interesting, from what I've read. I keep up with him a bit on another blog website, so I'll do the same if I get more info.

Julie Mason mentioned on "The Press Pool" that Chuck Todd recently interviewed Ralph Nadar about this same topic. He said that Hillary was pretty much "the Poster Child" for the military-industrial-complex now--so he thought that there should be a challenge from the left. (And this time, he didn't mean himself, LOL! Thank goodness!)

Matthew Rothschild, the editor of "The Progressive" Magazine, out of Madison, WI, said the same thing on Julie's show a couple of weeks ago--that the activist base needs to run a real liberal--or at least a progressive--whatever that means. ;-D

DCblogger's picture
Submitted by DCblogger on

All our Senators and Representatives are in their districts. NOW is the time to meet with them personally at their town meetings or whatever events that have scheduled and tell them to their face No Cuts to Social Security.

Alexa's picture
Submitted by Alexa on

Hear, hear, DCb.

Unfortunately, heard today ("The Hill" Reporter Elise Viebeck on Julie Mason's "The Press Poll") that many politicians (especially Dems) no longer hold public "town halls," for fear of objections to the ACA, and other controversial issues such as immigration.

She said bluntly that they are increasingly avoided because the politicians can't "control the message."

BTW, Howard Dean has stepped up and called for an end to the "Death Panels." I have long objected to that "cost control" measure in the ACA. It's blatant "rationing," without regard to an individual's circumstances.

These panels would have the power to price procedures in such as manner that they would likely be withheld from the elderly.

Which would probably have meant that my Mother would not have had her "hip surgery," which she sailed through at the age of 97. Her recovery was equally remarkable. (She fell the day before she turned 97.) Because her local ER gave her "too much of some medication," doctors had to wait a little more than 48 hours, in order to allow the drug to get out of her system. Otherwise, her treatment was the same as any other patient with the same hip fracture.

Medicare paid for exactly two surgical procedures for her--both surgeries for bone fractures.

She never even filed a RX claim during the almost forty years she was "on" Medicare, since she was never on a maintenance prescription, and had access to $10-$15 generic prescriptions if she ever needed a short-term prescription.

It would be "unconscionable" to consider withholding surgical procedures for elderly individuals whose health was as "robust" as hers was.

Kudos to Governor Howard Dean, on this issue!

Alexa's picture
Submitted by Alexa on

Hipp, sounds like you may get your wish, if grassroots Repubs have anything to do with it.

Take a gander at this piece.

Andy Harris Town Hall Erupts With Calls For Impeachment, End To 'Nice Guys'

A Maryland town hall meeting grew heated Tuesday, when GOP Rep. Andy Harris faced disgruntled constituents angry over partisan politics fraying the country and the perceived lack of Republican action to fix problems.

At a packed gathering in Bel Air, voters voiced their discontent on topics ranging from the Benghazi attack to National Security Agency surveillance to health care reform. Some demanded that Republicans do more to pressure President Barack Obama and Democrats to change the direction of the country.

"I want [House Speaker John] Boehner up there defying this guy and saying, 'We're going to impeachment with you' if you do not start obeying the laws," attendee Ed Hunter declared. "Listen, we're dying out here because you guys are being nice guys!" he later added.

"You're acting like Boy Scouts! You've got to fight!" one woman stressed.

And our Dem Pols mostly avoid town hall meetings because they "can't control the message." (And want to avoid honest and/or angry feedback from their constituents.)

Wish the Dem Base would take a lesson or two from their Republican counterparts, and actually DEMAND SOMETHING of their Party Leaders and lawmakers!

letsgetitdone's picture
Submitted by letsgetitdone on

Hi Alexa, Thanks for the Post. I entirely agree with the analysis; except I'm not sure I agree That "The Grand Bargain" is such a sure thing, and I also couldn't see in what way it replies to my post.

Anyway, there's going to be a lot of pressure from the Village left not to get this done. And while I think the SS works people and their allies have chosen the wrong strategy to fight this, the fact remains that with the collaboration of the extreme right they have fought off the corporate and presidential efforts to get the GB for more than 3 years now.

I think most of the incumbent Dems do want to get re-elected, and I'm not sure that if they cave this time, the rightists won't run to the left of them on SS. That wouldn't surprise me, and if that happens the Dems will lose the Senate too, if the base decides to stay home over anger about SS and Medicare cuts. The talk about party splits is interesting. But I doubt that the Ds will split unless the Rs split first, because they'd fear giving the Rs a big advantage in 2014.

Anyway, if you want to work against entitlement cuts then, maybe it's time that everyone get behind circulating news of my book around. The more news of its message spreads, the more Democrats will be reluctant to cave, since they'll be especially vulnerable if they cannot credibly use the message of TINA as an excuse for the entitlement cuts.

I've recently written some stuff attacking the INFORM bill which I think will be part of the campaign to cut entitlements. But I'm collaborating on the pieces with some of the MMT professors as part of an effort to initiate a petition to focus opposition, and I'm awaiting their contributions to the effort.

Alexa's picture
Submitted by Alexa on

I must say. Thank you for sharing it.

Yeah, and good corporatists all--sponsoring The INFORM Act.

My blogging (in terms of time) is far more limited now, but I will most definitely try to "spread the word," as you've asked. Thanks for all you do here at Corrente, DKos, FDL, and wherever else you blog. ;-D

Guess I'm not totally shocked that corporatist Dems would resort to this, in order to achieve their various goals (including greatly reducing marginal tax rates for corporations and "the wealthy.")

And, of course, commencing to dismantle the social safety net--reducing it to a small welfare program for the very "neediest" Americans.

Please continue to post and "expose" this Act.

I'll have to "Tweet" more than blog in the near future, but with practice, I've found that a fair amount of information can be spread with Tweets (in far less time, obviously, than blogging requires). Anyway, it's better than nothing, and I'll do what I can.

I'm including "the link" to the Act in this comment, hoping that all Correntians will take a moment to read this proposed bill.

The Intergenerational Financial Obligations Reform Act

You are SO right--what a perfect vehicle with which to "bamboozle the American People into believing that "tax and entitlement reform" (the Grand Bargain) is the "right path" forward.

I will read all the info on the website, as soon as I post this comment.

And you can bet, I'll try not to miss an opportunity to "blast" these Senators for their part in this.

Also, I'll keep my eyes and ears open for any appearances on C-Span pushing this bill. I've seen Senator Coons on Washington Journal--couldn't ask for a better "Rockefeller Republican, LOL!"

How do these Dems (Coons and Kaine) get elected, is my question?

letsgetitdone's picture
Submitted by letsgetitdone on

I also blog at New Economic Perspectives, the UMKC economics department site. Stephanie Kelton, the head of their Department has some bloggers, including myself, who aren't affiliated with UMKC helping the site along. Still it's a lot tamer than our group here, except perhaps for Bill Black, who's always breathing fire on the FIRE sector.

Also, there's a Peterson Party on the Hill. Some pretend they're Democrats; some pretend they're Republicans. But really, they're all Wall Street neoliberals; led by Peterson and the ideological clique in Washington he's created over the past 40 years.

Rainbow Girl's picture
Submitted by Rainbow Girl on

Using "Grand Bargain" as the sobriquet for the American government project that will condemn millions of Americans who have worked their entire lives and paid taxes and voted (Democratic or not) to indigence, indignity, starvation and squalor.

As they say in France, il faut le faire. And as they say here, it takes talent.

I can't read anything about Grand Bargain anymore because it puts me in mind of the Cornell cliffs.

Alexa's picture
Submitted by Alexa on

I know this is "OT," but this "warning" just flashed in my face, when I went to DKos to copy a transcript:


Stop Darrell Issa's plan to cripple the Postal Service.

Darrell Issa wants to cut 100,000 postal worker jobs and cripple their collective bargaining rights.

Sign the petition: Oppose the Postal Reform Act.

Must have forgotten to mention that "cuts" to the Postal Service were in the President's negotiations with John Boehner (posted the link to a Matt Bai 2011 piece here, months ago) and in the President's Budgets.

This is not only a "bipartisan effort,"-- the US Postmaster General is "dying" to make the cuts--I've heard him testify in congressional hearings, for cyin' out loud!

Enough already with the Dem Party propaganda!!!!

We need to take on "real" issues like the very real austerity measures that will likely be passed before the year is out.

Please read:

Updates regarding the INFORM ACT


Also, please read IL Rep Jan Schakowsky's "warning" about the huge tax increases and the cuts to Social Security and Medicare, which comprise the Grand Bargain.

Here's her "Reuters" Op-Ed:

The Sham of Simpson-Bowles

By Rep. Jan Schakowsky
October 24, 2012

Erskine Bowles and former Senator Alan Simpson deserve some kind of medal for creating the widely held perception that their plan for reducing the deficit and debt is anything other than a bad proposal.

It has been nearly two years since the commission they chaired, which I served on, finished its work. The duo’s proposal has attained almost mythical status in Washington as the epitome of what a “grand bargain” should look like.

But everyone look again. They will discover that it is far less than meets the eye.

Have Simpson-Bowles’ champions read it? Given any real scrutiny, this plan falls far short of being a serious, workable or reasonable proposal – from either an economic or political analysis.

In one of its few specific points, for example, Simpson-Bowles mandates a top individual tax rate of 29 percent “or less.”

Much like the vague Romney proposals, the Simpson-Bowles plan would make up the shortfall by eliminating tax loopholes, suggesting options such as having employees pay taxes on their health benefits.

Not only is this likely to increase costs to middle-income families, it could threaten coverage altogether.

The proposal for corporate tax reform would eliminate taxes on profits earned overseas, rewarding companies that move jobs offshore.

Somehow, being willing to cut “entitlement” benefits has been called a “badge of courage” for those who purport to be serious about deficit reduction– despite the fact that Social Security has not contributed one thin dime to the deficit.

Under Simpson-Bowles, long-term solvency for Social Security is achieved mostly by cutting benefits. Seventy-five years out, the ratio of spending cuts to revenue increases is 4 to 1.

They propose raising the age of full Social Security benefits to 69 – claiming that everyone is living longer. But a sizable percentage of Americans, mostly lower-income workers, especially women, are actually living shorter lives, and a large chunk of other Americans just can’t work that long – even if they can find a job.

Their plan cuts benefits for current and future retirees by reducing the cost-of-living adjustment. (IOW--the Chained CPI)

For future retirees, all these changes taken together would reduce the average annual benefit for middle-income workers – those with annual earnings of $43,000 to $69,000 – by up to 35 percent.

Simpson-Bowles also targets Medicare and Medicaid – though the real problem is rising healthcare costs across the board.

Yet it would cap them at arbitrary rates and simply shift the growing costs to patients, providers and employers. To start, they would ask Medicare beneficiaries – seniors and disabled people – to pay $110 billion more out of pocket. . . .

So, PLEASE, spread the word about the newly proposed "INFORM Act."

And the link to Schakowsky's Reuters Op-Ed.


letsgetitdone's picture
Submitted by letsgetitdone on

I don't think she ever votes against Obama in the end. She's in his pocket. More than Conyers. More than Grayson. More than Grijalva. More than Ellison.

Alexa's picture
Submitted by Alexa on

her since she signed a letter to the Presidential Debate Commission shortly before the Presidential Debates, requesting that they "bar" questions about the Bowles-Simpson Fiscal Commission's proposal, "The Moment Of Truth."

Here's a link to the "Politico" piece:

Democrats want debate question barred

However, I see no reason not to "use" her Op-Ed, when it supports my own supposition.


And, I believe that the info she cites is accurate.

letsgetitdone's picture
Submitted by letsgetitdone on

Well, the reason is that you reinforce her authority, and then when she caves you've got statements like "Well, even your own Jan Schakowsky agreed that TINA including cuts in entitlements." So, quoting Schakowsky is fine, but people also need to be reminded that she really doesn't fundamentally disagree with Obama's framing on fiscal responsibility. That's why she was the left wing on the B-S commission. Don't know if you've ever seen this one? And a more recent one using the same idea. In this last one, note the CPC plan, which plans for austerity after 2014, but at least no entitlement cuts.

Alexa's picture
Submitted by Alexa on

hope that my reply didn't sound "flip," because I didn't mean it that way (it was getting late, and I was pretty tired).

You raise an excellent point. The same would apply to SEIU's Andy Stern (replaced by Mary Kaye Henry--another corporatist Dem, IMO).

Here's my dilemma, though. I need a reference with some credibility and name recognition among the Democratic Party base. And that narrows the lawmakers/experts whom I can quote.

I've only found several individuals "on record" talking explicitly about the Bowles-Simpson Fiscal Commission's proposed cuts--with detail as to "how deep" the cuts will be, percentage-wise.

Would you by any chance (or anyone other readers/bloggers) have any references to these figures made by someone not so "compromised" as Rep Schakowsky?

I found (and them misplaced) a Pelosi quote regarding the 35% cut, made immediately following the release of their report in 2010, but of course she's now "openly" an enabler of the President.

And I had an audio of Economist James Galbraith saying the same thing, until the website was pay walled.

What I guess I'll do is what you've suggested--continue to cite her--BUT point out that she is on board with the Democratic Party Establishment (and PBO) regarding the framing of our so-called "deficit problems."

And if anyone finds a link to a piece with similar information, please let me know.

It is very easy to "yawn at" the topic of cutting "entitlements" (and I'm not implying that you would)--especially for younger bloggers.

However, I've found that when presented with the magnitude of the cuts for some seniors, bloggers of all ages are generally less dismissive of this issue. ;-)

Alexa's picture
Submitted by Alexa on

I ran into a couple of very interesting "factoids" this week.

Apparently, the last "age increases" (for Social Security eligibility) were pushed through the Ways and Means Committee by conservative (fiscal hawks) Democrats. (This was part of the Social Security Act of 1983, signed by President Reagan.)

And the most recent "cut" to Social Security, etc., via the Consumer Price Index (CPI), as well as the most recent cuts to "the formula" for determining one's PIA (Primary Insurance Amount)--IOW, your monthly Social Security benefit check--have both been passed and implemented under Democratic Party Presidents.

And all this time, I had been under the impression that all the worst and most recent cuts were imposed upon us by President Reagan.

Apparently, this President is simply "following suit."

Of course, these cuts were all before access to "the internets" was commonplace.

Here's an excerpt from the transcript of an interview with President Clinton and a "Mr. Kochavi" (CEO of AGT International, a major internet security firm) talking about how there were only about "50 websites" on the internet during Clinton's presidency.

One on One with Former President Clinton — Terrorism in the Information Age --this is the transcript from the CNBC show, "One on One" with Maria Bartiromo.

Mr. KOCHAVI: Yes. The ability to predict on level of companies and countries is becoming more complicated in the world that we are living in because it's much more complex. Why this is more complex? Because events are not any more local. I think, Mr. President, when you were president, I think that were--you used to say there were about 50 Web sites.

Pres. CLINTON: When I became president, 50 sites on the Internet in the world.

Mr. KOCHAVI: And I have internal information about you which I was told that you only sent two e-mails during the--your time at the White House.

Pres. CLINTON: And that's because I didn't think they were secure.

BARTIROMO: And they weren't.

So it would appear that before the age of the internet, Dem Presidents cut our "entitlements," but were able to do so without us finding out about it.

Guess the joke was on us, LOL!

I'll try to get a post on this together by this Fall, in time for the next "fiscal crisis" and talk of the Grand Bargain (and cuts to "entitlements.")

Alexa's picture
Submitted by Alexa on

by House Republicans, in exchange for votes to pass Syria resolution--if Dems pull back their support for Syrian invasion. [POTUS Channel--Sirius/XM]

Convenient, eh?

MSM absorption over "Syria policy," will also give excellent "cover" to any GB negotiations or deals that may be struck.