http://www.kqed.org/a/forum/R201108020900
This debt bill doesn't have much to celebrate, but it's especially repugnant for progressives. There isn't a single cent of revenue generation, not even closing the corporate jet tax loophole (that Obama mocked in his debt speech) which would have just netted a few million/year and affected a tiny fraction of our population. He couldn't even get that. I know politically Obama is weakened and the debt issue is not all his fault. We're still paying off Reagan and Bush borrowing, and the stimulus was necessary to avoid a depression, yet the conservatives only want to tighten the belt now, when the economy is quite fragile and dependent on a healthy consumer sector (and gov't spending for that matter). While economists predict that these spending cuts (which won't take effect until 2013) won't hurt the economy much, it does lower consumer-investor confidence, and the rest of the world is wondering what the hell is wrong with Washington (and let's not underestimate what this ding to our reputation will cost us in the future, see Iraq). All that will impair an already sluggish recovery, and won't help create jobs.
Like his caving on the Bush Tax Cuts, Obama was in a tough situation though - the GOP knows that the buck stops with him and he doesn't want to preside over a gov't default. The GOP and especially the TP don't care if they wreck DC (and by extension, the US people whom they claim to represent). So it's like a parent bargaining with her child holding a family heirloom watch over the toilet bowl. The watch means a lot to the parent and nothing to the child. He is giggling and thinks it's a fun game to see the parent (an authority figure) panic and plead. The parent is at a major negotiating disadvantage. And yes, Biden was right, technically it's terrorism. When you control something precious to the other side, and threaten to harm it unless you get what you want, what else do you call that? I suppose Wall Street calls it "business as usual." But that worries me - will this become business as usual? We don't negotiate with (Islamic) terrorists because we don't want to send the message that their brutal methods will actually work to accomplish their goals. But now that Obama has caved on several occasions, the ultra-right/TP are only getting bolder with their demands. They see it works, and now every damn budget/spending debate from now on will probably involve this type of ludicrous brinksmanship, posturing, and blackmail (at least until the Dems lose the White House).
Some pissed off liberals think that Obama should have let the nation default, to show the people what the GOP wants and let them take the heat for America's suffering. But like the bank bailouts, he chose the lesser of two evils (moral hazard vs. financial freeze). He is a risk-averse president, and would rather compromise with the GOP than put the nation under unnecessary stress. Maybe that is a prudent decision, but at some point we have to put our foot down. He can't lead the nation being on the defensive all the time. Obama may have avoided a catastrophe this week, but it's not helping his re-election chances and it was a betrayal to his party's philosophy.
Instead, Obama could have raised the debt limit without Congressional involvement (as Bill Clinton recommended) and let the GOP try to take the issue to court. At least the gov't would still run and we'd be paying off our obligations in the meantime. All the panic about debt Armageddon was kind of misleading; sure it would be catastrophic if the US defaults, but that wouldn't happen. We have the funds to pay off our obligations, maybe at the expense of other federal spending, but we won't be deadbeats. As sad as it is, our debt/GDP ratio is still pretty comfortable (lower than France's and the UK's). Italy is one of the biggest economies in the world and their ratio is double ours (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_by_public_debt). US debt is still one of the safest investments in history, so who cares if S&P threatens to downgrade us? Those were the same morons that gave sub-prime mortgage securities AAA ratings. The Euro has bigger problems, Japan's economy is gloomy, China isn't trustworthy, the stock market and commercial paper can be volatile, and some commodities have issues too. Where would you put your millions for safety? During this big debt debate, what happened to the yield on the 10-year T-bond? It actually went down (to ~2% now), meaning that investors are finding it more desirable vs. other similar investments. Demand for US debt is increasing, so the world is still very confident in us. In comparison, Greek 10-year bonds are paying out around 25% if you dare to sink your money there.
This bill creates a Congressional commission to decide how to make the remaining $1.5T cuts over the next few years. But how can we expect that such a group would show more cooperation than what we've seen? What if that group doesn't come to an agreement? An across-the-board gov't spending cut (not sure the %), including entitlements. I guess that is exactly what the GOP is hoping for, so the conservatives on the commission really have no incentive to compromise on any liberal initiatives. They now have the luxury to wait out the Dems because they are not scared of the fallback plan. Either they get everything they want, or they still get a pretty good outcome if the talks fail. No harm can come to them, except from possible voter ire in 2012, but there's plenty of that for the Dems too. I can't believe Obama agreed to all this.
---------
Obama's actions here are only surprising if you think he's a liberal. He isn't. He's a moderate conservative. He gives liberal-sounding speeches to establish his credentials, but his actions are moderately conservative. He's largely continued W's wars, and started a few of his own. He kept W's defense secretary and a bunch of the economic advisers (imagine FDR keeping Andrew Mellon). Gitmo. His health care plan rejected single payer and instead followed the template you can trace back through Romneycare to the Heritage Foundation's initial 1989 mandate + subsidies solution. He's gone after whistleblowers even harder than W. His opening offer in the manufactured debt ceiling crisis included big cuts to social security and medicare (which for a long time have been how you identify that someone is a Democrat at all).
And he's on track to raise a billion dollars, mostly from rich businessmen. Do you think they'd be paying huge amounts of money if they thought he was failing? He's doing exactly what he's supposed to do. Even early on he was telling people that the long-term goal was to cut social security - his aides explained this to David Brooks back in March 09: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/06/opinion/06brooks.html ("He is extremely committed to entitlement reform and is plotting politically feasible ways to reduce Social Security as well as health spending."). He's looking to be a sort of reverse "Nixon goes to China": the ostensibly indisputable liberal who because of those liberal credentials can be trusted to negotiate a fair deal to cut the left's core programs, and thus becomes the transformational politician who brings left and right together to do what's needed. In these debt negotiations he's not getting out-maneuvered, he's Br'er Rabbit saying "please don't throw me into the briar patch!"
The only real hope for the left is a solid primary challenge, to force a change in the dialogue, because the Bachmann bogey-man will guarantee no third party candidate affects the outcome. The current hope-and-prayer is Elizabeth Warren, even though no one seems to know where she stands on anything other than the economy.
---------
Obama is one of them. This is what he wanted, too. Get over it.
Try this on:
http://www.yourownhealthandfitness.org/blogs/?p=288
There is no debt crisis. We've been gutted like a flounder.
--------
Thanks, friends. Yes it may be true that Obama is not a liberal, but how the F did he convince the Dem Senate majority and at least a few dozen Dems in the House to approve this bill? What were Reid and Pelosi's roles in this? Apparently Obama's horrible at persuading conservatives, but great at keeping the Dems in line. The liberal wing of the House may have revolted but were powerless to stop it, though you'd think a few committed senators could have filibustered? Or they don't want to take the blame for missing the deadline?
Obama has clearly picked his backers (or vice versa), but what if he doesn't win? Despite lining Obama's coffers, corporate interests would prefer a GOP in the White House (even if there's not much difference with an Obama admin.), and they are ready to sign new checks for whoever emerges out of the GOP primary. By making deals with the devil, doesn't Obama worry he may get screwed? I'm not so confident about his re-election chances after all this, and there are more budget battles to come before next Nov. The US public doesn't seem to be very sympathetic to Obama over these shameful impasses, so what the hell is he getting out of all these concessions, politically?
Look, I understand the TP attitude. They think DC has overstepped its mandate and is spending out of control. They feel the need to block Dem initiatives tooth & nail, and hopefully they can roll back some gov't expansions for our own good. Forget their economic ignorance and political inflexibility, but I can understand why they would be motivated to subvert the gov't to serve their own interests and save the country. If I was a congressman during the W Bush years, I would feel the same way. It would be like de-funding the Iraq War to protest the immorality-irresponsibility of it. Dems would have been skewered for attemtping such a move in 2005, yet this debt blackmail is somehow OK? And stopping Iraq would save lives, but freezing the gov't is costing lives.
Obama was elected by a pretty big margin because America thought he could bring people together. Well he hasn't, and it's probably gotten worse. It's not all his fault, but if he is failing precisely in the area that he was supposed to excel in, what are the voters (especially Dems) to do about it in 2012? You think anyone would dare to challenge him from the left? Maybe the hopey-changey stuff was all BS, and he's not interested in forging relations and working with others. But he's not dumb; after a few months on the job he should have seen that the GOP and others weren't willing to work with him either on most of his "official agenda." Maybe he needed to play nice to get (minimal) health care reform passed, but that's a pretty crappy legacy to hang one's hat on. Why did he invest so much in that area, and totally fold on other critical issues like jobs and revenue?
Why the hell does he still try to work with the right after 2+ years? It's a divided gov't now and the Dems may take more of a beating in 2012. Why not try to get as much stuff done while you can? He's still the freaking president. Use executive orders and circumvent the checks and balances like Bush did. But as you said, I guess he's not interested in that. Though you'd think Pelosi and Reid wouldn't just sit idly by while Obama pisses away the rest of his term. Reid almost lost (to a total joke candidate) last election. They have a lot riding on this next year, what the hell? What is the Dems' strategy?
--------
Pelosi is the only reason things weren't worse, and she's clearly not
a big Obama fan at this point. In fact, Obama would have backed off of
that watered-down healthcare bill without her. These are trying times
for the "left," but it would be a good idea to invest in a few more
behind-the-scenes operators (even though she plays the good soldier in
public) like her.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/
--------
Thx, S. The Prodigal Son has returned! That's interesting about Pelosi and Obama's desire to distance himself from her to not be perceived as a liberal. But these days, only FNC is accusing Obama of being one of those. I guess the best thing for Pelosi's career is to be a good soldier, help Obama get re-elected, and reclaim the House so she can become Speaker again. If she led a revolt from the left over the debt and other issues, I don't know what that would do to the country and the Dems, but it probably wouldn't help them in 2012. Though the TP is forcing the mainstream GOP to change, so why can't the progressive wing put pressure on Obama? If the GOP alternatives weren't so damn scary, I would hope for Obama to lose so he learns his lesson about picking the right backers and mistreating allies. And I do appreciate Pelosi putting her foot down on some issues so the debt package wasn't worse. She should bring that stuff to light so Americans can see that some people in DC are still trying to fight for them. A tell-all book 3 years later won't help.
J's link to the Brooks piece is pretty depressing too. I know centrists win the presidency, and a big chunk of Obama's support in 2008 was from middle-of-the-road or slightly-right folks. But if his agenda all along was to cut entitlements, benefits, and worker's rights, then what's the point of running for the goddam Democratic ticket? Some cutting may be necessary, but not right now, and especially with so many sources of untapped, fair revenue. And of course when you cut that spending in a recession, it has a magnifying effect in our consumer economy. Aid recipients have less money to inject back into the system, and we're talking about food and rent here, not Vuitton purses and shares of Apple. How do more broke, desperate people help our country recover? And they were some of the most marginalized, vulnerable Americans to begin with, which is why they were getting help. Sure there is some abuse going on, but it pales in comparison to tax cheating by the rich. Though it's easier to demonize the "welfare mom" than Ford.
Of course a black man has no chance to win the GOP primary, but why the hell did Obama declare himself a Dem? He voted like a Dem when he was in the Senate at least, maybe just to make powerful friends like Reid and Biden? I just don't get what Obama wants out of all this. He was young and a Senate baby when he ran for president, it's not like there was urgency. Unlike the Clintons, he was already rich upon entering the WH. Sure there's always the lust for power, but why go through all the pain of the office when you're just going to be Mr. Status Quo and Don't Rock the Boat? Dozens of politicians can do that already - he was supposed to be the "game changer." His hair went gray like his predecessors, so clearly he's working hard on something. Just wish the non-rich American people had more to show for it.
L's link sends a powerful message, and it's what we were discussing here in the past. We know how big-business libertarians are bankrolling the TP, and the Dems are dumping labor in favor of corporate campaign support. We know about the great wealth divergence since the Carter admin. We know that the rich were barely scathed in the recent recession, while the poor-to-middle have given back much of their gains from the bubble '90s. The labor market is horrible. In the 1930s, we had the New Deal to jump-start the economy, but many critics say the Obama stimulus was actually too small to be effective. The Supreme Court is the most business-friendly in generations. The US worker is now pushed harder than his/her peers in all other developed nations maybe besides South Korea (and their economy is booming compared to ours). Now the US worker is so fearful for his/her economic future and with very little leverage in the market, that he/she will put up with just about anything to keep the paycheck coming. That's looking closer and closer to the Industrial Revolution, minus the black-lung and child labor.
No comments:
Post a Comment