So, as you probably know, the Boston Globe editorial page endorsed Katherine Clark today, which of course is a nice get for her. But I was puzzled by part of their endorsement, which reads as follows:
her willingness to support a “grand bargain” to trim the long-term federal deficit, even if it includes some provisions that are disappointing to liberals, is a sign of maturity. After all the debates and committee hearings and mark-ups of bills, a member of Congress must decide whether, on balance, a piece of legislation moves the nation forward. Clark’s refusal to allow the perfect to be the enemy of the good suggests she would be a productive lawmaker.
Whoa – what, now? For many progressives, the “grand bargain” is a third rail; an indication of willingness to give up cherished Democratic ideals in exchange for crappy concessions from Republicans. For example, changing the way Social Security benefits are calculated by using the so-called “chained CPI” is a prime example of the sort of concession, suggested by President Obama but opposed by many to his left in the party, that is typically thought of as part of a “grand bargain.”
So, is Clark really in favor of that? Everything she’s said publicly suggests that the answer is – rather emphatically – “no.” From a report of a campaign stop in Arlington:
“Congress shouldn’t be trying to balance the budget on the backs of our seniors,” said Clark, who has made protecting Social Security and Medicare a key part of her Pledge to Women and Families. “I’ll stand up for seniors and against attempts to cut Social Security and Medicare.” …
“Social Security and Medicare form the backbone of our Great Society, and I won’t let Washington politicians hurt our seniors by playing politics with their benefits,” Clark said. “Having watched how my grandmother relied on these programs, the issue of ensuring the long term viability of Social Security and Medicare isn’t hypothetical to me. The Fifth Congressional District needs a representative who will stand by our seniors.”
A former insurance counselor for Mystic Valley Elder Services, she believes that cutting Social Security benefits, raising the retirement age, or ending the guaranteed benefits through privatization is unacceptable.
From her own website:
Katherine will protect Social Security and Medicare. We made a promise to our seniors who have spent a lifetime paying into a system in order to have some financial security. We need to keep that promise…. Katherine believes Social Security is a promise we have made to senior citizens who worked a lifetime and paid into the system. Cutting Social Security benefits, raising the retirement age, or ending the guaranteed benefits through privatization is unacceptable…. Katherine strongly opposes the extremist Republican plan to end Medicare as we know it and increase health care costs for seniors by thousands of dollars a year. We need to go after rising costs – not go back on our promises.
And perhaps most strongly, from the online debate that PCCC held in early August:
ADAM GREEN (of PCCC): [After setting out the distinction between opposing the “concept” of something, but nonetheless being willing to vote for a bill that includes it if the bill has other good stuff in it] So I just want to ask the candidates: do you oppose the concept [of reducing Social Security benefits], or are you making a concrete promise to vote against any grand bargain that has these benefit cuts?
…
KATHERINE CLARK (at 28:35 of the video): Yeah, I just want to be crystal clear that I am taking a pledge never to cut benefits to our seniors through Social Security, Medicare, or Medicaid. We have made a promise, and at the same time, we are watching Congress actually shift their financial responsibility, their budgetary responsibilities, onto the backs of those who we have promised we will … they paid into the system, they worked hard, and we said there would be a benefit there for them. And I agree: chained CPI is a cut to benefits. I will not be part of a grand bargain that leaves our seniors behind, and breaks our promises to them.
That’s about as clear as can be, it seems to me. And it sure sounds directly contrary to what is contained in the Globe’s endorsement.
Trying to cover all my bases, tonight I asked the Clark campaign for clarification, and Clark offers the following statement:
I have been clear and consistent throughout this campaign. I will not balance the budget on the backs of our seniors. I will not vote to reduce Social Security benefits, and I do not support chained CPI.
I do think it’s fair to say that Clark has been clear and consistent on this point. I’ve seen no indication in any of her public statements that she would agree to a “grand bargain” that includes chained CPI or other benefit cuts.
So, what to make of all of this? Obviously, I wasn’t in the room when Clark met with the Globe, so I don’t know exactly what was said. But I think it’s rather likely that the Globe’s editors – who of course dearly love the notion of a “grand bargain,” since they are charter members of the Bipartisan Fetishist Club that absurdly sees bipartisanship as an end in itself – badly misinterpreted something that Clark said in the interview. It’s natural for people to hear what they want to hear, and the Globies may have done precisely that.
It sounds to me like she toughened her position just in time for this election. I guess one could argue that she clarified it.
Question: I can accept that the grand bargain is the third rail, because it’s Fantasyland to think the GOP will either make such a deal or honor it. But what, exactly, is the long-term plan to balance our budget and protect Social Security? I know, I know, it’s not the same as household debt, but surely no one’s arguing we can have perpetual deficits. The interest alone could be used for far better things.
For social security, it should be pretty simple: raise the income caps.
The really long-term problem isn’t social security, which can be solved by appropriate actuarial calculations and tax policy. The long-term problems (aside from climate, The long-term problem) is health-care costs. If they continue to grow at a rate in excess of inflation, we are screwed.
Curiously, Republicans have been adamantly opposed to any federal dollars going into figuring out what treatments are and are not effective — and that’s an obvious way of controlling healthcare costs: only pay for what works. There are also perverse incentives that reward some participants in the system for dispensing extra, unnecessary “care”. Getting it so we only pay as much as civilized countries do and achieve the results they do for less money would go a long way toward clearing up our long-term fiscal health.
On the other hand, forcing people, say, who do physical work for a living to continue to work until they’re seventy makes French citizenship look rather attractive.
As 2010 showed, there are political points to be scored with demagoguery about taking away any current medical options whatsoever, even if inefficient and unnecessary.
Taking the long view, the last thing Republicans want is an actual solution to this problem. They’d much rather block such solutions, then argue that the resultant budgetary mess requires eliminating what’s left of the safety net and regulatory apparatus.
There are ways out too. We are told constantly these days — at the local level as much as the federal — that we can’t afford nice public things anymore. It’s a lie. Our GDP per capita is far larger than it was 50 years ago. We just made a decision to lower taxes on the top 1 or 2 percent at the exact time that their share of the pre-tax income has been going back to pre-FDR levels.
We don’t have to settle for returning to Calvin Coolidge’s world. We increase revenues by raising some rates and eliminating bad subsidies. Last night Chris Hayes had a segment on a Tennessee Republican Congressman, one of many pocketing $70,000 a year in agricultural subsidies (in a state where average household income is $42,000) but voting to slash food stamp benefits.
Frankly, our only chance as a nation is change the conversation, relegate the Tea Party types to the dustbin of history, and put the Republican Party in a semi-permanent minority unless it becomes far less extreme.
I asked the same question in my diary I posted earlier today. Either Clark is hiding what she said to The Globe, or the editorial board is incompetent, they likely gave credit to Clark for what Browmsberger may have said.
I’m sure the Globe ed board would be delighted to clarify what happened in their meeting to me. 😀
How do we know this is based on what happened in Clark’s meeting with the editors? That’s not clear at all.
Maybe the Globe editors looked at Clark’s record, and discounted some of her campaign pronouncements based on what she actually stood for in the MA Senate.
Just because Clark says she will not bulge an inch on Social Security, it does not mean she will not actually do it. Same holds for the other candidates.
The way I read the Globe’s endorsement is:
1. Among the people who run on sentiment (Clark, Sciortino), Clark is superior.
2. We recommend you vote sentiment (Clark), over knowledge and being principled (Brownsberger).
In my view, the Globe gets first and a half of the second point correct – because it leaves enough detail on point 2 to let readers make their own mind. And compared to Sciortino, Clark has a bit more heft to back up her good sentiments.
I too read that portion of the endorsement this morning and thought WTF? I’ve heard Katherine talk dozens of times about protecting Social Security and Medicare and this just sounded like Globe editorial board wishful thinking to me. There was no direct quote or anything to back up this statement, so it definitely struck me as suspect. Thanks for putting together all these quotes in one place, much appreciated.
says the Globe, ruling him out, for taking essentially the same position that Clark did at the debate.
Ideologues (like the Grand Bargainists) create their own reality to please themselves.
It’s an interesting point. Sciortino isn’t an “absolutist”, as you point out. And Clarke, Koutoujian, and Spilka all agree that cutting Social Security is not something they would agree to. Where Sciortino is different is in
a) putting things in a larger context — talking in terms of economic injustice, as Elizabeth Warren famously and effectively does, and
b) calling out the misrepresentations on this issue. I saw him respond to a person who asserted (as if it were obvious, or even true) that Social Security would have to be cut because it was bankrupting the government. Sciortino replied that (1) Social Security has nothing to do with the Federal budget — it has its own revenue and budget, and its finances are in pretty good shape; (2) any long-term problems (if indeed there are any) could be solved by doing away with the upper limit on income contributions, and (3) this whole misrepresentation is a lie that the Republicans have been repeating for many years now. And they know it’s a lie. And they keep repeating it.
I don’t see very many Democratic political figures speaking in those terms. But those are the words we need to hear. I imagine that kind of talk is what the Globe would like to characterize as “absolutist” or “immature”. It’s not. It’s the reason I’m going to be proud to vote for Carl Sciortino this coming Tuesday.
The Globe continues to spiral into incompetent irrelevance.
It seems clear enough to me that the editorial board simply chose to project their own ideology (which is increasingly NOT progressive) onto whomever they decided to name — regardless of the facts.
Today’s front-page piece describing yesterday’s events in the Washington hostage-taking is more suited for the Washington Times or Fox News than legitimate newspaper.
The lead reads:
Say WHAT? If Noah Bierman and Mattias Gugel had been reporting on the Iraning hostage crisis, they would have written “With a nervous nation swinging on every shred of news from Iran, President Carter declined Thursday to embrace a plan by Iranian students to temporarily avoid the threat of an execution of hostages next week.”
In spite of the protestations of the usual GOP suspects, there is no “plan” from the GOP, beyond the temper-tantrums of a four year old who is frustrated by the need to come inside for supper at six in the evening.
The pronounced rightward shift of the Globe is particularly offensive because the publication’s management so studiously — and dishonestly — continues to hide behind its supposedly “liberal” bias. Their endorsement of Ms. Clark, accompanied by their dishonest characterization of her views, is an excellent example, as is their biased reporting of the hostage situation in Washington.
I am reminded of the “Democratic” leadership of the Massachusetts House.
You mean this guy?
I don’t think that committed right-wingers should be disqualified from working as reporters, any more than committed left-wingers should. Still, it does make you wonder about content like the one you mention.
The candidate that the Globe endorsed is not the person by the same name who showed up at the debates and forums.
Are there transcripts of their interview with Katherine Clark which should be made public? This “grand bargain” must include a comromise of some sort. If not social security, my guess would be Keystone XL.
Don’t read the transcripts of the debates, Dan!
Those things said during political debates are meant to be said while speaking musically, slowly, with a big smile and watching the voters hypnotically in the eye.
The effect would be spoiled if translated to paper.
Maybe the Globe got it correct. Clark really wanted that Globe endorsement. She would not be the first candidate to say what she thought people wanted to hear. So, when she answers a question from PCCC, she is strongly opposed to voting for a bill that reduces social security benefits. But, when she speaks with the Globe, during the government shutdown, she says that she is open to compromise and a grand bargain.
Among other things, newspaper endorsements carry virtually no weight these days (see Winslow, Dan). It wouldn’t be worth it to Clark to change her position in that way, contrary to every public statement she’s made on the subject, in order to get an endorsement that won’t help much.
I don’t see Katherine Clark contacting the Globe to tell them that they need to issue a correction.
I don’t see Katherine Clark issuing a press release to straighten out the situation.
Here’s what I do see:
Many people are really fed-up with Congress this week. In particular, there is a lot of interest in a “grand bargain” and compromise. So, I would not be surprised that Katherine Clark indicated that she is open to a grand bargain.
You know, I get that it’s satisfying on some level to assume the worst of politicians, and in your case clearly you dislike Katherine, which is certainly your right.
But in case you (and anyone else) would be interested in reviewing actual facts on this issue rather than the Globe’s laziness and projection, here’s an on the record statement:
http://www.wickedlocal.com/medford/news/x1155168169/FIFTH-DISTRICT-RACE-Katherine-Clark-vows-not-to-cut-Social-Security-Medicare-benefits-for-seniors
Call me crazy, but as a voter I put more stock in on the record statements made in public than the non-direct quotes of editorial writers trying to promote their favorite hobby horse.
That what you are saying? Those on the editorial board are morons? I can buy that given their past track record of endorsements. But most never heard of Katherine Clark, and wouldn’t be surprised if she tailors her message based on the audience she is speaking to.
Too bad we can’t get to the truth of the matter.
That’s why I stopped buying the hard-copy subscription years ago.
I’m now beginning to wonder whether it’s worth the online-only subscription fee — never mind the time I spend reading it.
Just curious….
I don’t know the district (any more), so I don’t know the issues nor the stance of the candidates on those issues.
I want the seat to stay on the D side of the aisle (with a real, not fake, Democrat). Each of the Democratic candidates passes that admittedly low threshold. Beyond that, I don’t care.
but is sure seems like she is running for Queen of the Amazons and not Congress…I mean she knows that there is some rumored gender diversity in the MA 05 electorate right?
Elias N
Don’t get me started about tribalism in this primary.
Who was Peter Koutoujian referring to when he was talking about ‘my people’, and telling Spilka about ‘your people’?
How I wish there were more Romanians around here. We would make the rules of the day. Tzuica, the national booze, would be flowing at the water fountains!
Too bad you can fit us all New England Romanians into a small room.
In the diary it is a question from PCCC that is cited as clarification for Clark’s stance on a grand bargain. Yet today I got an email from them slamming Clark for endorsing such a grand bargain “in yesterday’s Globe”. The email also takes Clark to task for the Elizabeth Warren mailer from Emily’s list and a separate message hits her for voting to cut worker pensions. PCCC has endorsed Sciortino, but apparently they have decided to make Clark their primary target.
concluded, as some commenters on this thread have, that Clark told the Globe something different from what she said at their debate, which was two months ago. Not saying she did, but there is no inconsistency if they take the Globe at face value.
Clark’s web-site, on the front page, proudly announces the Globe endorsement. Her own web-site quotes this section of the Globe announcement that compares her to her opponents: “Of them all, however, the one who has best articulated a strategy for navigating the bitterly divided House.”
And, then her web-site includes a link to the entire Globe story. I don’t imagine that Clark would link to a story that she thought was an inaccurate portrayal of her position. She could have just said that she got the Globe endorsement.