Negotiating only works if both parties have a brain. Since having a brain means flunking the membership test for a Republican...

? They had SO convinced themselves their guy would win, they have no plan B...

What was it their guy said about not taking responsibility? What responsible person doesn't make contingency plans?

We seriously need to educate the electorate. Who picked these guys?

Even if their guy had won, they didn't even have a Plan A. Remember the "loopholes and deductions" that Romney wanted to close, but would never tell us what they were?

Strangest negotiating strategy - ever. "We want something from you, but we have no idea what we want. So it's up to you to figure out what it is that we want."

Can the President not go first?

The President did go first. "Greg Sargent added some additional context that's worth keeping in mind: "[T]he White House actually has made an opening offer of sorts on entitlements. The Obama budget contained $340 billion in Medicare cuts over 10 years, mostly targeting drugmakers, providers, and high-income beneficiaries. The White House has reiterated that those are on the table."

With regards to Fiscal Cliff Negotiations 2012:

I have spent my entire working life(46 years) working in the "Private Sector". I am now 64 years old and bone tired. I have paid Federal, State, County, City, Local taxes and Medicare and Social Security taxes all this time. This means I have paid into retirement funds and medical insurance funds of Federal, State, Military, Congressional, Local, etc workers all this time. Consequently I only have Social Security and Medicare entitlements to get me through "My Old Age".

Some members of Congress propose reductions and/or reforming Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. What is the private sector worker to do if these cuts are made? After all, we have no cushy retirement or medical insurance benefits provided by our former employers. Yet there is no mention of reductions or reforming Congressional, Military Federal, State, Local, etc employee retirement programs.

The private sector worker has contributed to ALL the aforementioned programs. Why do all the other employee retirement programs, other that Social Security and Medicare, remain untouched or closed for discussion with regards to cuts or reforms in the congressional negotiations?

In fairness, if Social Security and Medicare is cut, all other retiree programs must also be cut!!

Strangest negotiating strategy - ever. "We want something from you, but we have no idea what we want. So it's up to you to figure out what it is that we want."

Alas, it's not that uncommon. Check the literature on dysfunctional marriages, for instance [1]. The classic double bind starts by refusing to state a preference, but once the partner expresses one you attack it (no matter what it is.)

[1] The suspicious might speculate that I speak from first-hand experience. Speculate away.

Mista ED -- Since OPM (Federal employment) retirement benefits are not fixed benefit, but depend on the years spent paying into them, I imagine a few federal retirees might object. The private sector pays far less into that system than does the employee herself.

I know! Let's cut veterans' benefits! Their paperwork spends years getting through the current, underfunded system, so if we just make them wait a little longer, lots of them will ...slip quietly through the safety net. And we can close a few more veterans' hospitals and slash their medical care. It's not as if any of them were actually hurt in warfare -- oh, wait, hundreds of thousands were. We pay them pennies to risk their lives for this country, so it's not like we owe them, or anything.

Think about what you're saying before writing it where everyone can see it. Please.

The White House needs to bluntly tell the Boehner-GOTea that there was a reason that Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid were not in the sequester. Then they need to tell them to forget about it. Doing otherwise is a betrayal of the people who voted for Obama.

helena vargas, re: Mista Ed

from my reading, he did not advocate cutting anybody's benefits. what he appears to want is some fairness if there is cutting to be done. he stated that he has contributed to a lot of other's retirement benefits. you have stated that he has contributed only a little to some program. so, you agree that he has contributed some. you pounce, gleefully it seems, on his supposed willingness to cut veteran's benefits. he stated no such desire. what he said was don't cut me unless you are willing to cut everybody.

i have thought about this before posting it where everybody can see and have no desire, myself, to cut anybody's benefits.

You are so right, Temporary Me. I don't advocate cutting anyone's benefits, including mine which I have earned and contributed to for 46 years. What I object to is cutting my benefits only, thereby effectively solving this problem only at my expense and leaving every one else benefits in tact.. I resent this especially since so many high earnings workers like myself have paid the max in Social Security taxes and Medicare taxes year after year. But no one ever expresses this reality. With income taxes, property taxes, etc. I, like so many others in the private sector, have financed government employees retiree pensions and medical insurance for so many government workers including those who serve in the military and in congress and our policemen, teachers etc all of which have pensions. Most if not all of the individuals did not contribute to social security or even their own retirement plans. But I and others in the private sector have and still do. I think this is so unfair! It is grossly untrue and unfair to assume that I have contributed only a little to some program. I and others have contributed a lot to the entire system. Now the system is seemingly attempting to turn its back on us. Sure Helena Vargus, they would object to cuts to their benefits, just as I have done. Federal, state, etc local government employees do not pay into the retirement funds. Nor do the pay social security taxes.

DC is right. The GOP is so wrapped up as being the polar opposite to Obama that they need him to define their position for them. What could possibly be worse for Boehner than to propose a position, and have Obama agree???

Federal, state, etc local government employees do not pay into the retirement funds. Nor do the pay social security taxes.

I don't know where you heard this but neither of these claims is true. Government employees contribute to their own retirement plans as well as to social security and medicare. They do not, however, usually have to contribute a huge percentage to their retirement. In the private sector you usually contribute anywhere from 25-50% depending on how good your employer is. In the public sector they usually only have to contribute about 15%.

Cartoon, it depends upon the government pension system. In California (I am a retried California State employee), I paid into my pension system, CALPERS, and my contribution was matched by the State. I also paid FICA, with the usual 50-50 arrangement between employee and employer. I also paid a portion for medical insurance. When I signed up for dental insurance, I paid the premium. When I signed up for long-term care insurance, I paid the premium. Now that I am retired, I don't have to pay FICA or CALPERS anymore, but my other benefits are still withheld from my pension check.

Some local governments paid the entire pension contribution; those are the ones in major fiscal trouble (e.g., Stockton, Vallejo). So one cannot make a blanket statement about state or local governments and pensions; there is just too much variety.

You' re right Joan in Sacramento, It does vary. Its very complicated. All I tried to do was to point out in just a few words that nowadays there are hardly any pension plans provided for retirees from their private sector employers. Nor is there much in the way of affordable health care benefits provided to retirees in the private sector, companies like GM being the exception. In my own case, after working for several private employers over 4 decades, I have no pension plan or health plan as I approach retirement. I have paid the maximum into Social Security and Medicare all these years all the time thinking both would be there. Where I live, for example State employees pay zero into their retirement plans(pensions). They pay no Social Security taxes. Bottom line they have pension plan ...PERS) and an affordable health care plan(for retirees) upon retirement. I know this from personal experiences with acquaintances. All I have is Social Security and Medicare. There are many, many others in my same situation. This is why I object to cuts in Social Security and Medicare. Some of us are lucky enough to have 401K, etc which company match (small percentage) which means we contributed MAJORITY to our own retirement funds. Health insurance for private sector retirees is unaffordable. So Medicare is only option.

Bingo!

But are we really sure the Prez is not proposing entitlement cuts to benefits?? He hasnt been very clear about this and im not sure i trust him with it.

If the president proposed cuts to beneficiaries we would have heard about it by now. He would have talked to Dems in Congress about what would be feasible to pass and it would have leaked. Any discussion on Social Security is not going to be included in these talks. SS needs to be adjusted for the tax and actuarial tables which should be easy for Congress to do, but Republicans are intent on getting rid of it so nothing will be done. Medicare is problematic because of the demographics, but Dems are not going to allow structural changes like the vouchers. That is what will be in issue during these talks. Keeping the program solvent is going to require some changes to providers and beneficiaries. There are no specific proposals on changes to beneficiaries at this time.

This is a giant game of political chicken. the left and the right are holding their cards close and saying "it's not us it the other guys" thereby making themselves look good for the people they want to impress, then at the 11th hour they will come together with a Christmas miracle and say "see aren't we clever" or equally if not more likely they are going to let things happen and blame the other side and accomplish the same thing. In Washington the only thing better for Christmas than making yourself look good is making your opponent look bad.

McConnell made a speech complaining that the President is not sitting down to negotiate with the Republicans who have made it a policy not to negotiate. There is a legal maxim "Equity does not require a futile act" which is appropriate for this situation. McConnell can posture while the president marshals public opinion and we will see who win this PR battle.

Some All of this is the result of a noticeable lack of Republicans with real any policy chops.

Why go that far back? Jeff Dunham's Walter would make a better Mitch McConnell than Mitch McConnell...

No medicare is an insurance program, and should really be most present for those that need it - Think of it like this - if your income is high you get larger deductibles on your car insurance (you can afford to cover it the first 10%), the same with medicare - having higher income means you can afford larger co-pays etc without being bankrupted.

If the ceiling on income subject to Social Security and Medicare premiums were raised, there would be no further long-term funding problems with those programs, and the dollars spent by the Treasury to cover shortfalls could then be directed deficit reduction. No need to raise ages of eligibility or cut benefits or COLA increases.

TA-DA!!!!

Medicare shouldn't be means tested? Why not?

Social Security, Medicare, were absolutely established as programs to aid the poor. They were established because of people not having these things during the Great Depression. They were not established for the Joseph Kennedys of the world.

Which is why the GOP will never go for it because if these programs aren't in melt down mode that means the GOP won't be able to kill the programs they fought so hard to get rid of. They created the SS/medicare problems for the purpose of having a reason to shut them down, notice for all their talk no where has the GOP stated or mentioned what happens to the payroll deductions if they get rid of the programs.

Folks appear to disagree. That's okay. Fortunately, I'm in good company.

Paul Krugman lays out his case against means-testing Medicare here: http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/07/24/means-testing-medicare/

and here: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/25/opinion/25krugman.html?_r=0

My view is, that if we start down the road of reducing benefits to save money, then it opens the door to doing so again in the future, with fewer people being vested and more and more people thinking that changes in Medicare don't affect them (similar to how a lot of folks think about Medicaid...a program for somebody else).

Bottom line. We need to take the long view and leave benefits alone. Period.

CJ, I call to your attention Brad DeLong's observation:

If the past decade has taught me anything, it has taught me that mistakes are avoided if you follow two rules:

1. Remember that Paul Krugman is right.
2. If your analysis leads you to conclude that Paul Krugman is wrong, refer to rule #1.

Thanks D.C. I disagree with Krugman sometimes (e.g., I supported Obama over Clinton in '08), but I'm a hell of lot more comfortable when I don't.

I questioned all along if the Pubs knew the meaning of leadership every time they said the Pres wasn't doing it. Now that I see they are not at all prepared (not at all capable?) of leading their own side of these discussions, it is confirmed for me. Pubs have no clue what it means to lead (or be a leader.)

Boehner and McConnell don't want vaginas -- not with Bob McDonnell lurking with his transvaginal probe. Plus, as women, they wouldn't be nearly attractive enough to be taken seriously by their party.

they look like THEY JUST DON'T GET IT.

On the contrary, they look like they very much get it. They also look as though they know that they won't like what they're getting.

Rachel asked what Obama is expecting from going on the road with this. I'm starting to suspect that he's playing for the future -- and setting the (R) team up to get full credit when karma does her "comes around" thing.

Altho, since the average wage in the country has seen a decrease over the last several years, I propose Congress take a 10% cut in pay effective immediately.

I think Congress should be paid the federal minimum wage on an hourly basis. And if they don't work at least 30 hours a week, they don't get health care (or any other benefits).

very good suggestion!!

Peg Congressional pay to a multiple of the national median wage. And set the multiple where it was in those so-glorious 1950s.

You so Right On Tigersharktoo.

Remember, those polls are "skewed." In Republican land an unskewed poll would show the opposite and Americans really do back their policy proposals.

yes!

but watch the contract officers like hawks!

Have you considered the possibility that DeLong and Summers (and the IMF) are correct and that austerity in a depressed economy makes the deficit worse rather than better?

We heard when Clinton took office the first time that the deficits were going to be with us for decades, that it would imperil our children's children. Less than 8 years later, we were running surpluses. We didn't have to eliminate or voucherize any program that helped seniors, the poor or middle class. The same can happen now -- very easily. Marginal tax rate for income over $250k of 39%. Close offshore loopholes (the kind that Romney uses to avoid taxes). [BTW, this is estimated to bring $1 trillion into the treasury every year. What else is $1 trillion? Oh yeah, the deficit.] Tax dividends as income. Allow Medicare to negotiate drug prices. Penalize corporations that ship jobs overseas (instead of rewarding them with tax credits and loans from the Ex-Im bank). Even if we did just a few of these, the deficit would be gone in short order.

But, you see, the GOP doesn't want the deficit to be gone. As long as there is a deficit they can claim we need to cut these programs. That we can't afford them. (Never mind the fact that they proposed increasing military spending to far beyond even the military didn't want.) They are practicing "shock and awe" economics. If they continue to starve revenues, they can cut programs with which they disagree. The problem with their logic is that Medicare, Medicaid and SS aren't the cause of the deficit. Unpaid for wars, the Bush Tax Cuts and other economic policies of the GOP are.

As a reminder, he could put a horse's head in their bed.