Obama's more intellectually virtuous progressivism?

From Ron Brownstein, an interesting take that most definitely won't sit well with the traditional left: 

For Democrats, the reflexive resistance to entitlement reform is questionable not only economically but also politically. By prioritizing entitlements over discretionary spending, they are favoring the predominantly white senior population, which cast about three-fifths of its votes for Republicans in last year’s presidential and congressional elections, over the diverse millennial generation, which voted about three-fifths Democratic on both fronts. “Obama is ahead of his party on the future of the coalition,” [says one analyst]. The president’s budget could threaten congressional Democrats in the 2014 election.... But Obama’s positioning could help Democrats deepen their grip on millennials, who will approach one-third of eligible voters by 2016.

I can't see Obama cynically plotting the gentle screwing of (GOP) seniors as a benevolent gesture toward (Democratic) youth. This president seems temperamentally repulsed by the kind of ruthless coalition politics that would have delighted a Kennedy or FDR. But I can see Obama factoring the smallish benefits of the ungodly-named "chained CPI" into the consideration of a much broader, long-term grand strategy: not a Grand Bargain, but a grand political strategy, one that will carry the Dems along with the next generation of voters.

As Brownstein notes, Obama's budget gingerly pushes for more public investment in, for example, "expanded preschool, an infrastructure bank, and more college aid." In short, tomorrow. If fiscal hawks and deficit scolds could ever be bribed into sanity by a slight deacceleration in inflation-accounting measures ... well, that's classic Barack Obama for you.

I can't say it's how I would have approached things. But then again the president's budget has as much chance of going forward as I do of becoming president, so it's all just a lovely debate about nothing.

Comments

[japa21]

Although not a big fan of the deplorably named Chained CPI, I am sick of people saying Obama is the first Dem President to break faith over SS. Carter proposed an annual 1% reduction in payments, which would have resulted in a greater specific loss of benefits and under Clinton, taxes were increased on SS income and age limits increased, another cut in benefits.
I am trying to figure out what the difference is this time aound that the screaming from the left is so much louder.

[Robert Lipscomb]

Sometimes a big deal is easier to negotiate because there are so many more working parts to negotiate. I politics, a big deal has the extra benefit of being, well a big deal. Therefore, it feeds everyone's ego and creates political capital.

Suppose Obama negotiates a big deal. Each of uswill piss and moan about sundry aspects. I will piss and moan about aspects that you do not and vice versa. We will all find lots of things we like, not least of which is something got done.

We will all stand back and aplaud our guy for "having done as well as could be expected under the circumstances. Obama will look presidentiaal. His approval rating will go up. We will declare victory and be happy.

Republicans will do the same. They will be happy they "stopped the worst aspects of Obama's plan". Congress' approval rating will go up. Republicans will declare victory and be happy.

Contrast that with negotiating just a tax hike.

[mdblanche]

You go to political war with the coalition you have, not the coalition you might want. The New Deal coalition has now been busted for longer than it was dominant. It's never coming back. The Reagan coalition is dying a slow, ugly death. Lately I've been wondering how much longer SS and Medicare can remain sacred cows when the majority of the people benefiting from them are voting for a party that can do nothing but obstruct and the rising Democratic coalition is increasingly made up of people who have other priorities when it comes to government spending. All the screaming is by and for people aged 50 plus, who to be fair are often dependent on entitlement spending or will be soon. But all their sound and fury has nothing to say to those who have more reason to care about discretionary spending.

[ruben]

President Obama is basing the proposed preschool programs upon Prop 10 - the California First 5 program.

Maybe preschool could be a decent idea, but for pete's sake, do not base any such federal law on the completely dysfunctional First 5's - 20 forced resignations and over $300 million recently admittedly directed to be spent illegally is tax dollar malfeasance. There's a lot wrong with the structure of that law - let's not make the same mistake twice.

Check out the First 5 watchdog site at www.flopped5.org

[Denis Drew]

Chained CPI ought to be called cascading CPI because when we give people less money because they have substituted cheaper goods in their purchases (altering the basket of measured goods) -- then -- they substitute EVEN cheaper goods -- then -- we give them EVEN less money -- then -- they substitute EVEN cheaper goods, etc., etc.

Reminds me of the Republican plan -- "hedonics"; should have been called "headonics" -- to give Social Security retirees less money to eat because they were getting a better deal every year on computers and such -- same overall value in their stipend (also same hidden value in the taxpayers' left over money, so no real unfairness).

[CDW]

Your last two paragraphs describe the effects of c-cpi perfectly.

[CDW]

My comment above was in response to Denis Drew. Good job, Denis.

[CDW]

@japa21

The internet happened. And I doubt Obama wants to be compared to Jimmy Carter who has done a great deal of good since retiring, but failed miserably as a president.

[Peter G]

I'm afraid Denis is wrong. Chained CPI does not assume that there is always a cheaper alternative. It requires one to be demonstrated. In fact if you do not find cheaper alternatives within Medicare that single program will ultimately eliminate virtually all other discretionary spending.