The New Republic

Paralysis.

- Nusholtz

July 24, 2011 at 8:09pm

"Cut spending and let elections determine ....the next step..." The Repubs should take that deal in a NY minute because it wiull almost certainly guarantee > 9% unemployment in 2012 on policies advocated by BHO. The implications of many articles and posts is that the choice is between a failure to raise the debt ceiling by failure to pass a BHO-advocated and/or approved compromise bill and economic disaster. That's a false dichotomy. All the compromise plans I've seen to date to avoid a debt-ceiling crisis guarantee an economic crisis in 6-12 months. That is, these "compromise plans" to increase the debt ceiling guarantee a long Great Recession at best, 2nd Great Depression a good possibility. And honestly blamable on BHO as much as the Repubs. A recession/depression in a liquidity trap is a big problem. A debt ceiling crisis is real, but less serious and more easily fixed. It is, at least in its origin, a politically manufactured crisis rather than a long-time--in-producing economic crisis---- eliminate the debt-ceiling law is one such quick-fix solution. If the markets react negatively and the Repubs blamed at least as much as BHO, that may also convince the Repubs to agree to a clean debt increase bill [I agree it may also convince BHO to advocate any horrendous compromise---which will result in very few of you saying BHO is part of the problem and should be challenged.] Even bankruptcy (if you have your own currency) is better than a Great recession/Depression (Google: Argentina). There are no quick-fix solutions to a Great Recession or Depression. And > 9% unemployment this time next year near-guarantees a Dem disaster-- not just for BHO (Google: 538, Ned Silver). Hence, from everything I'm seeing and hearing, y'all better pray the debt crisis negotiations fail to produce a "compromise solution" pushed by BHO. The cure is worse than the disease it purports to fix.

- drofnats1

July 24, 2011 at 8:19pm

Sorry, JC, but this is lousy advice. What Obama should do is accept any increase in the ceiling that gets us clearly into the next budget cycle, at which point the Republicans can shut down whatever they want to just by refusing to appropriate money. One can argue about the president's authority to breach the current ceiling, either by issuing debt invoking the 14th amendment, issuing debt as the necessary consequence of the appropriations Congress has authorized more recently than its last imposition of a debt ceiling, or just writing checks to pay the bills. But there is absolutely no argument that the president can spend money not authorized by Congress. Hence, if the Republicans will not approve particular spending, the money cannot be spent, and they then have to take full political responsibility for that, or go head to head with the president on a government shutdown. When the time comes, and either there is a partial shutdown or temporary spending authorization, THEN Obama should veto any spending authorization, temporary or otherwise, that does not include sufficient debt financing for the authorized spending actually to be paid. And when there is finally a budget, he should veto that unless it includes authorization for sufficient debt for that spending. In that manner, we are never in this position again because there is never any spending authorized without a means of funding it. There may not be spending if none is authorized, but there cannot be a repeat of this fiasco. For the next hostage taking, the Republicans then have to shut down the government, not threaten the economy and our credit, something they are going to find much, much more difficult to do, but is clearly within their right to do. They are not obliged to authorize spending, and the president is not obliged to accept a budget he does not want.

- roidubouloi

July 24, 2011 at 8:24pm

I should have said "accept any clean increase in the debt ceiling." I certainly don't think that Obama should accept what the Republicans demand in order to raise the ceiling. In that respect, I agree with drofnats. If the nuts insist on pulling the trigger, let them. We cannot live forever with a gun at our heads. Better to clean up the mess than to be slaves to Republican and Tea party nuts. If the country has to learn in the most painful way possible that these people are absolutely insane and enemies of the United States and the American people, so be it.

- roidubouloi

July 24, 2011 at 8:28pm

The Democrats were too scared to allow the Bush43 tax cuts to expire AS SCHEDULED when they were in total power. Pelosi lost her House because of the Dem obsession with ACA/Obamacare instead of dealing with the economy (oh, thought that was solved in 2009). Norquistians are un-American, but the Dems reap what they sowed when they finally allowed the anti-war left to take over. Kind of a strange contest as to which extreme is the more un-American. I am writing to my Democratic members of Congress that they should ALL go on Medicare to discover the myth they think they can win with in 2012. Even better if they all go on Medicaid and try to find a doctor.

- K2K

July 24, 2011 at 8:50pm

Wow, K2K it is blindingly obvious now that you have pointed it out to everyone. This is the fault of the anti-war movement. Why has nobody else seen this?

- MikeB.

July 24, 2011 at 8:58pm

I don't understand in what way the anti-war left have "taken over" and how they are relevant here. Also, the democrats did as much as they could to help the economy with the stimulus package. Any additional major initiatives were guaranteed to be blocked by republicans. Finally, a deal to cut spending in the way suggested by Mr. Chait does not guarantee >9% unemployment in 2012 or a long great recession at best. Most of these cuts are from ending the wars, or are concentrated a few years down the road. Such a deal certainly won't help the economy, but I haven't seen any rigorous analysis that suggests it would seriously harm the economy in the near term.

- kluhman

July 24, 2011 at 9:07pm

K2K you are not making any sense. You're right about the Bush tax cuts but the anti-war left is totally out of power or hadn't you noticed? We got wars all over the damn place and the far right is running the show. Care to explain? I do understand your frustration with Medicare/Medicaid, because poor people are basically not doing too well lately and there are doctors who refuse to take payments or treat people who are poor, some have even become "concierge doctors" which truly sucks. But this has absolutely nothing to do with us anti-war folks, to whom nobody is listening.

- Sophia

July 24, 2011 at 9:13pm

Anyway, what's Boehner up to? He's winging it because he doesn't have a single clue what to do with the House radicals, and he isn't the only one, although "Mogodishu" has a nice ring to it, and it only would take one 747, nicely packed, to send them on an expenses paid vacation.

- Sophia

July 24, 2011 at 9:16pm

"Norquistians are un-American, but the Dems reap what they sowed when they finally allowed the anti-war left to take over." What on earth are you talking about!

- Curran1

July 24, 2011 at 9:17pm

Mike and Curran, I am with you. K2K is out of his mind (again).

- liberalref

July 24, 2011 at 10:01pm

- I wrote this earlier...I'm stickin' to it: I don't question that the dead-enders are past blinking. But the constitution allows POTUS to ask for and get more than all the nuts I can count to stare him down. There is plenty of time for him to reject what he doesn't want. Over and again. However, as his claim that this will turn to shit becomes reality it becomes easier to get a simple majority (made up of both sides) to cave on his demand. No, I do not think 2/3ds can override the veto of any crazy ass threat that is beginning to cause pain, starting to smoke and nearing a flash point. With fire liking their heels, a clean bill as long as he wants can pass in five minutes.

- michaelg

July 24, 2011 at 10:18pm

The implications of many articles and posts is that the choice is between a failure to raise the debt ceiling by failure to pass a BHO-advocated and/or approved compromise bill and economic disaster. That's a false dichotomy. All the compromise plans I've seen to date to avoid a debt-ceiling crisis guarantee an economic crisis in 6-12 months. What are you talking about? These are cuts over a ten-year window. In the reporting I've seen on the various deals that have been discussed, the cuts are backloaded. We don't know what their timing is in the deal that Reid/Chait are proposing, but there's not particular reason to believe that they will take a huge chunk of money out of the economy over the next 6-12 months.

- RerunStubs

July 24, 2011 at 10:36pm

If the "anti-war left" had any power we'd not be involved in 2 or should I say 3 "adventures" with no end, spending a lot less money, not have gov't finances in such miserable shape and spilling a lot less blood. And may never have had a teabagger contingent either. We didn't get the benefits of the 'anti-war left'. Instead we got the benefits of the batshit crazy brain-dead right of endless wars they wouldn't pay for nor plan on how to execute, irresponsible tax cuts during wars of choice and entitlements without funding mechanisms. So K2K, what the f**k are you talking about? You must be as insane as the baggers.

- tmmats

July 24, 2011 at 10:44pm

Roi is right on. @ReRun: I don't know what Chait proposes (and Reid, Boehner and Cantor don't care), but what the Repubs propose has a fair number of front-loaded cuts. And have you noted the numbers for new jobs and unemployment % and unemployment benefit figures. Can you say "backsliding"?? And if you do the Keynesian calculations, already there is little hope for economic improvement in 2012. You better hope the debt ceiling raise fails-- and BHO discovers he does have a strong inner Progressive self not yet visible. If that inner self is missing, better hope a Progressive gives a challenge pdq because BHO stands a good chance of being a loser in 2012. [See Nate Silver's analyses @538.]

- drofnats1

July 25, 2011 at 12:12am

Well, swell. The Asian markets are opening and guess what. They are not rising. If these Tea Baggers cause a crash the cost will be incalculable. They don't seem to realize what they are risking, or that "the stock market" means "everybody," up and down the line, all over the world.

- Sophia

July 25, 2011 at 12:17am

Pauline is tied to the tracks, she's struggling in vain to free herself and the train is clearly in sight, bearing down on poor Pauline at full speed. O who will save her?

- paskunac

July 25, 2011 at 6:37am

"At the time of writing, President Obama’s hoped-for “Grand Bargain” with Republicans is apparently dead. And I say good riddance. I’m no more eager than other rational people (a category that fails to include many Congressional Republicans) to see what happens if the debt limit isn’t raised. But what the president was offering to the G.O.P., especially on Medicare, was a very bad deal for America. " I note that Krugman (also DeLong) and other respected economists are now saying what this crazy fool has been saying for months. Now when will they (and J Chait) and others start thinking about the logic that BHO has been following for over two years and say "if that logic doesn't change NOW, BHO is as much of the problem as the Repubs-- and must also go. Nate Silver has already explored that logic [Google 538]. It's true that the Progressive bench is not deep -- maybe Sen Sanders or Gov Schweitzer. But somebody may need step up if BHO doesn't make a near-miraculous conversion in his policies and "politikking" [Who can convince BHO that much of his job as Prez is politikking to sell policies rather than to simply improve his re-election chances b/c voters think he's a nicer guy than his near-looney Repub possible opponents???]

- drofnats1

July 25, 2011 at 7:57am

Obama as Mighty Mouse! Anyway, I think roi has nailed it again. Best approach I've seen.

- Robert Powell

July 25, 2011 at 8:16am

I've been arguing the same as Chait. There is no policy reason for a two-step process since the fiscal situation will not change between now and the second step. The only justification is internal Republican politics: mollifying the House Tea Party faction. That's Boehner's problem, not Obama's. And I think that's what Boehner is "up to." If he fails to take things to the deadline, he'll look like a sellout (or more of a sellout) than if he drags things out to mitigate the damage. I don't see what Boehner's leverage is in the end. If he blows up the economy over this, Obama will say going into the election that the catastrophe was brought on by House Republicans who refused to even look at a budget that would raise revenue by a measly 10 cents, and even if that 10 cents is paid entirely by Warren Buffet. Polls show that this is a wildly unpopular position; less than 30% think our fiscal problems should be solved only with spending cuts (and not even a majority of Republicans think so). An economic disaster would make those numbers even worse. Do Republicans really want to run on that? Could they hold the House if they get tagged with economic devastation for such a lousy reason? I think the votes are there for something like Reid-McConnell; they're just not all Republican votes. I don't know whether the ideologues constitute a majority of the House Republican caucus; I don't think so, but I also don't know how many of the others fear a Tea Party primary challenge that would make them reluctant to commit to Reid-McConnell. But it would still allow them to say they voted to cut spending significantly while holding the line on taxes. That's as much cover as Boehner should expect from Obama (in fact, I consider it generous). I don't see why that, some Democratic votes, and intense pressure from the business community (we have no idea what's going on behind the scenes here) wouldn't be enough to get the measure through. Yes, Boehner might lose his position as Speaker if he pisses off the Tea Party ideologues. But he also might lose his position as Speaker if he loses the House by precipitating a national disaster over a position that is tremendously unpopular with the public. I think his chances are clearly better with the former. At least I hope he thinks so, because the consequences of being wrong are disastrous. And I agree with roi that the appropriate hostage for Republicans over budget issues is, well, the next budget, not the debt ceiling. Tying future spending to money already spent was solely an act of political opportunism which created leverage that was more apparent than real. McConnell realizes it, which is why he's not willing to trash the economy over it. I think Boehner realizes it too, but he can't say it because has more crazies to deal with.

- dsimon

July 25, 2011 at 8:43am

The anti-war left was Obama's base that launched him in Iowa in 2008, and past Hillary for the Dem nomination in 2008. By 2010, the Blue Dog fiscal conservative Democrats in Congress either retired or lost in the anti-Obama/Pelosi wave election. Maybe Obama no longer has ANY base for re-election, but today's Democratic Party in Congress is farther left-liberal than it was in 2007. I am not the only person who has noticed the increasing polarization due to extremes holding both parties hostage. Two examples: Jackie Calmes of the NYT on PBS' Washington Week last Friday, and Fareed Zakaria yesterday on CNN's GPS. Maybe I should have written the "socialist left", but I never saw economic issues at play during the Obama-Hillary slugfest. Interesting that it was Hillary calming down the Asian markets in Hong Kong yesterday while Obama/Geithner continue to threaten to stop paying Social Security in August. No one is leading today's Democratic Party. What is worse is that Grover Norquist has enslaved most of the GOP. 40% of the voters are now Independents who think both parties are insane and incompetent, hostage to their extremes, incapable of governing at the Federal level.

- K2K

July 25, 2011 at 9:49am

K2K, Obama/Geithner are not "anti-war" left at all. I do agree about the polarization, but that doesn't make our leaders the anti-war left. Durbin voted again the Iraq war (good for him) but he's unfortunately in favor of cuts to Social Security as far as I can tell, which is deeply upsetting to me at least. He cannot be considered a leftist, period, can he? Nor is Obama's base "left wing;" rather, he was pushed forth by the limousine liberals. And, once he was nominated, he was supported by a vast number of Americans from all over the political map. He did have heavy support among the young, which might evaporate in the next election - but I wouldn't call 18 year olds the "anti-war left" since they are by definition kids, too young to know what they are. And Hillary, I think, had a more "left wing" approach to health care than Obama, didn't she support a universal plan? Obama has protected insurance company interests from the get-go. Many of his advisors are pro-business, not anti-war, some are Republicans in fact. Urban voters in blue states did support Obama in the general election but quite a few initially preferred Clinton or Biden because of their experience. Also, you can't stereotype the "anti-war left." There are people who are against war and then there's Code Pink, there are old-time leftists like Bernie Sanders and there is the ISM - huge differences between all these groups - Finally, what does "anti-war" have to do with any of this? Nothing is what; also, what's so terrible about being anti-war? Or pro-environment for that matter. Being anti-war has nothing to do with attacking social security - it's really the other way around. Finally, I think these games are shameful. Real people will be the victims, and people can make fun all they want, about Poor Pauline on The Tracks; but it isn't funny.

- Sophia

July 25, 2011 at 1:03pm

I meant Durbin voted "against" - sorry.

- Sophia

July 25, 2011 at 1:03pm

Sophia: I was referring to Obama's early base in 2007 that won him the Iowa caucus. When I entered his official campaign website in March 2008, there were 10,000 Groups, of which more than 2,000 were about Iraq. When I tried to start The Economy Forum Group, I was denied, because Economy was not an official Issues topic. As far as I can tell, Obama no longer has any solid base except maybe some limousine liberals. All Obama cares about is politics, not America. Geithner is the only senior economic person to still be on the job, and I still hold him responsible for being too passive during his NY Fed tenure when he had oversight for Lehman Bros. What I object to is the Pelosi-led shift to a more liberal Dem Party that obsessed over health insurance "reform" at the expense of fiscal sanity, and no spine to allow the Bush43 tax cuts to expire as intended. Even the Clinton surpluses were fake - solely due to including the Social Security surpluses into general federal revenue. Throwing the trust fund under the bus. I never thought Tom Coburn would be the last member of Congress with courage, and a spine. Thanks to Medicare (already broken), I will not be alive to vote in 2012 although I still hope to watch the London Summer Olympics.

- K2K

July 25, 2011 at 7:10pm

Every time someone claims how left-wing Obama and the Democrats have been, I ask for specific examples. I have yet to get a decent response. K2K: "What I object to is the Pelosi-led shift to a more liberal Dem Party that obsessed over health insurance 'reform' at the expense of fiscal sanity, and no spine to allow the Bush43 tax cuts to expire as intended." This reform never had single payer on the table, rejected the public option, was more conservative than Nixon's proposal, was close to what Republicans proposed in response to Clinton's proposal, and endorsed by former Republican Senate leaders Bob Dole and Bill Frist. And it was more than paid for, according to the CBO. Now, perhaps one disagrees with the CBO (some people think it was conservative as to savings), but that hardly makes the program fiscally insane, much less liberal. And the lack of spine to allow the Bush tax cuts to expire shows that the party is more liberal? I don't get that at all. Really, if Obama and the House Democrats were so liberal, the left wing wouldn't be so upset with them.

- dsimon

July 25, 2011 at 8:40pm

Pelosi had her Democratic majority 2006-2010 because of Blue Dog fiscal conservatives. in 2010, 28 Blue Dog Democrats lost their seats to the new GOP, who consider Nixon and Dole as liberals, not real Republicans. ACA/Obamacare is not about what Nixon offered, but about BAD TIMING - WRONG PRIORITY and the real impetus for the TEA partiers, and a reincarnation for Norquist. "...[former House NYDem] Arcuri said he probably won't run again in 2012, partly because his old district might vanish once lines are redrawn and because he enjoys practicing law, but also because being a moderate in the House is exhausting. "The Blue Dog concept is good. We should be attracting large numbers of people to our group," he said. "But with polarization the way it is, I would talk with people in my district and they would be angry with me because I was a Blue Dog. The moderates get beat up not only by Republicans but also by liberal Democrats." Arcuri thinks Blue Dogs can make a comeback, but probably not in this election cycle. It will happen eventually -- and organically, he said. "Republicans will push too far, too conservative, and set the stage for resurgence for people like the Blue Dogs." ..." http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2011/07/26/imperiled_blue_dogs_moderates_face_tough_odds_in_polarized_times_110712-2.html

- K2K

July 26, 2011 at 11:19am