I've been making the argument the last few weeks in various comments that if the House Dems, and Pelosi in particular, don't agree to vote for a deal, it won't get done.
And in relation to any Social Security or even small scale Medicare changes, Pelosi says she won't deal.
I believe her, and for a number of reasons detailed below, so does Nate Silver.
Meet me below the scroll.
Let me start by stating that whoever had that crappy idea to reduce Social Security COLA's in the future, they should just forget they even suggested it (much like AARP did). That idea was stupid, even if it was Obama himself (although I sincerely doubt it was). We should let the White House and Congress know it's a non-starter.
For all of Nate's reason's listed below, and my additional ideas, it was unnecessary and inflammatory at the very least. And quite frankly, hardly any Dem House members (and plenty of Repugs) who want to keep their seat would vote for it either. Here's Nate's reasons followed by mine:
1)
...even if Mr. Boehner gets his 121 votes, he’d still need help from 96 Democrats for the bill to pass. Almost certain to be off the table are the votes of the 26 Democrats who I calculate are still in vulnerable districts: having weathered 2010’s perfect storm, why would they rock the boat now? That leaves 166 Democrats to pick from.
But many of those Democrats are liberals. About 80 of them, in fact, are members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, the most liberal caucus in the Congress. At a bare minimum, about a dozen of those Democrats would have to come along. And potentially quite a few more if the deal also lost some votes among moderate Democrats or if Mr. Boehner proceeded despite not having a majority of his own caucus.
2) On top of Nate's analysis above, keep in mind that many of the same Repugs that can get away with voting for ANY debt deal don't want ANOTHER vote against entitlements on their sheet. That's why even proposing a SS COLA trim was bad politics AND policy.
3) For those of you ready to scream (and yes, I've read that you have already screamed!) ...but, but, but...PUBLIC OPTION!!!! I think I need to remind you that many Dem and Independent voters really didn't understand the PO. It was theoretical to the extreme, for all its proposed benefits. And the PO was theoretical in reality, unlike SS and Medicare: as real as it gets.
4) Pelosi likes President Obama, but she liked being Speaker more. No way she is Speaker again if SS/Medicare are in this stinky sandwich.
5) Here's Nate again:
The payroll tax cut could be a winner all-around. It’s something most liberal Democrats would like, particularly if it comes on the employee side rather than the employer side or if it is specifically tied to job creation. It is one of the few vehicles available to Mr. Obama to provide for economic stimulus. And, given that the accounting in any deal is likely to be fuzzy, it might give Republicans some cover to say they had voted for tax reform rather than a net tax increase.
It would also mean less deficit reduction than there otherwise would be. But given the diverse constituencies that need to come together to get a deal done, perhaps a smaller deal is more likely than a bigger one.
Now a payroll tax cut extension (that's what was proposed) may be a stinker for policy, but if you roll this together with a few small loophole closures, and (yes, I know it sucks) program cuts, it makes political sense at this point.
Absent going to the wall and grabbing the "Constitutional (14th) Option", it seems the most likely, albeit weasel option. But that's politics in divided government. And wins the House in 2012.
Or not. I completely understand that part of this analysis is complete conjecture, but it makes as much if not more political sense than much of what I've read today.