JONATHAN CHAIT AUGUST 2, 2011
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
Grover Norquist is always filled with triumphalist theories, and his book elucidates one favorite Norquist claim, that shrinking revenue will turn the Democratic coalition (the "Takings Coalition") against itself in a cannibalistic orgy:
The Takings Coalition can hold together as long as there is more money flowing into the state to finance the demands of each constituent group. Higher taxes can give more money to the government workers; keep the big-city political machines financed; send more government grant money to the universities and the “nonprofit sector; and fund the coercive utopians. The Takings Coalition thrives when the government is growing in resources and power. The coalition holds together when the scene looks like the par of the movie after the bank robbery where the robbers meet around a table and the boss divvies up the loot. But when the Leave Us Alone Coalition succeeds in cutting off the flow of tax dollars, where we put our foot on the air hose, when we say “no new taxes” and mean it, then those sitting around the Takings Coalition table see that there is not enough money for everyone in the gang.
At that point the assembled members of the Takings Coalition begin to look like the scene in the lifeboat movie where everyone must decide whom to eat or throw overboard. This is when we clearly see that the left is not made up of friends and allies. They are competing parasites. If we refuse to send them even more of our tax dollars, they will gnaw on each other.
I thought of that quote when I saw the reaction to the debt ceiling bill. The bill, as you probably know, fulfilled the right-wing demand that absolutely not one penny of extra revenue be raised, and therefore contains significant defense cuts. In other words, the members of the conservative coalition looked around and decided to eat the defense hawks. Ross Douthat writes one of the more delicious observations I've seen in a while:
This clarifies something that’s been increasingly obvious for a while: The interests of right-wing tax cutters and right-wing defense hawks do not necessarily align with one another, and they will continue to diverge as we go deeper into the looming age of austerity. There is simply no scenario in which the United States will close its yawning deficits exclusively with cuts to popular social programs: One can imagine such a world only by imagining the Democratic Party and all its various constituencies out of existence entirely. Conservatives will be free to argue that both tax hikes and defense cuts should be off limits, but in political reality at least one of the two will have to give. ...
At the moment, the hawks are at a clear disadvantage. From Rand Paul to Grover Norquist, there’s a broad constituency within the conservative movement for shrinking the national security state, either as a compromise necessary to keep domestic spending low or as an end unto itself. But there’s no mirror-image constituency among hawks for raising tax revenue for the sake of maintaining the Pax Americana. I’m pretty sure that Bill Kristol or Charles Krauthammer would vastly prefer, say, capping the home mortgage tax deduction or closing the carried-interest loophole for hedge funds to making “massive cuts in the defense budget.” (And I bet that the great neoconservative hope, Marco Rubio, would as well.) Yet the Weekly Standard took the same line on the debt ceiling negotiations that other conservative outlets did: No revenue increases, no grand bargain, etc. The result?
The result, at the risk of spoiling your enjoyment, is that Kristol is not happy. Quite the turn of events. Here was Kristol, loyally serving the party for years on end, including its monomaniacal hatred of taxes, in the belief that this would give him a veto in the one corner of policy he actually cares about, defense and foreign affairs. Kristol was happily chortling along with the party's plan to hold the entire economy hostage to its demands to slash spending and hold revenue low, confident all along that this couldn't impact the $700 billion a year we spend on defense. And then, wham, before he knew what was happening, the hostage was out of the closet he was helping guard, and he was standing in his place with duct tape around his wrists. Funny how that works.
The dynamic is going to get really interesting in the fall. That's when phase two begins. A bipartisan committee is tasked with reducing the deficit by $1.8 trillion, and if the committee's plan fails, huge automatic cuts to Medicare providers and defense will go into effect. Michael Scherer explains the political logic. The idea here is that the normal mechanisms that force parties to compromise have failed. So, instead, the alternative scenario (huge cuts to the medical and defense industries) is designed to mobilize those lobbyists to force the two parties to strike a deal:
So to save their own skin, military contractors, who spent $146 million lobbying Congress in 2010 with more than $16 million in political donations from PACs, will have to get in the game, urging Republicans to find savings in other places. In practice, that will likely mean new revenue, collected by ending corporate tax breaks and eliminating expenditures. If the plan works as Democrats would like, Republicans will be forced to raise taxes with the help of the military industrial complex....
Hospitals have already started running ads on cable television protesting the potential cuts, under the banner of a group called The Coalition To Protect America’s Health Care. But simply advocating against cuts will not be enough. Like defense contractors, they are the hostages now, and they must advocate for Democrats and Republicans to come together on a final deal in the fall, before the trigger gets pulled. In the deficit debate, Congress has proved itself inept at fighting for the common interest. In turning the gun on special interests, they are essentially outsourcing that job to Washington’s most effective actors.
I actually think the design of this plan is fascinating. You take a couple of the most powerful forces preventing major policy change -- partisan gridlock and special interest influence -- and turn them into forces for change by rejiggering the default setting.
It's going to get interesting. Liberals widely assume they'll just get rolled once again, as Republicans will insist on zero revenue, and Democrats will cave. I'm not so sure. For one thing, the trigger really is finally balanced. Last December, inaction on taxes meant an economy-crushing tax hike at a really bad time for Democrats. This summer, inaction on the debt ceiling meant economic cataclysm at an even worse time, the cost of which would mostly be born by President Obama. But the inaction trigger in the fall will be something genuinely painful to both parties.
The anti-tax movement has held absolute sway within the GOP for two decades. But it's worth noting that the GOP has never had to choose among its constituencies in a zero-sum fiscal environment before. The policy of huge tax cuts and big defense spending hikes could coexist as long as Republicans could just run up the budget deficit. The party refused to reconcile its contradictions by refusing to acknowledge fiscal reality. Higher revenue to pay for the wars? Reagan proved deficits don't matter. It's easy to hold all your factions together when you refusing to acknowledge basic accounting properties (deficits equal expenditures minus revenue, not just "too much" expenditures by definition.) George W. Bush made the defense hawks happy, made the medical industry happy with a prescription drug bill designed to maximize their profits, and made rich people in general happy with a series of regressive tax cuts.
But imagine Democrats insist on higher revenue, and they decide, sensibly enough, that failure to cut a bipartisan deal is better than $1.8 trillion in cuts. (Which is probably is.) Then what? Well, then the entire defense lobby plus the entire medical and insurance lobbies turn fiercely against the very people with whom they had marched shoulder-to-shoulder under Bush. If the Democrats hold the line and insist on more revenue, the committee has the potential to split the GOP coalition wide open.
The Wall Street Journal editorial page, sounding slightly nervous about the committee, insists the Republicans stack their nominations with anti-tax absolutists:
GOP leaders Mitch McConnell and John Boehner have to be especially careful in their choice of appointees. No one from the Senate Gang of Six, who proposed tax increases, need apply. The GOP choices should start with Arizona Senator Jon Kyl and House Budget Chairman Paul Ryan, adding four others who will follow their lead.
Well, they can try. But it's not like the Gang of Six was filled with tax hikers, either. The simple fact is that trying to formulate rationale answers to the fiscal challenge without raising revenue is essentially impossible. The Journal no doubt hopes the Republicans follow the traditional course -- the course that has held the party together since 1990 -- of simply ignoring reality. The difference is that this time, reality will be knocking urgently on the door.
62 comments
When I was a medical resident in the Tarheel State there was one particular hematologist-oncologist who was notorious for never coming through with the bad news. There would be patients on the leukemia/lymphoma ward of whom everyone from the heme-onc fellow on down to the intern knew were in for an eleventh-floor transfer (it was ten-story hospital), and this particular attending would know it too, but in front of his patients everything was just peachy. "We have to wait for your two-week bone marrow results, but I'm VERY hopeful..." Behind his back we referred to this gentleman as Dr. Sunshine and referred to his standard m.o. as "blowing sunshine up patients' asses." You guys are blowing sunshine up all our asses. I suppose it's only natural to look for the silver lining, but this kind of hypothetical crap about how this deal will spell the destruction of the Tea Party and how the Republican Party is going to tear itself apart is beyond ridiculous. Your man (my man too, once upon a time) got politically f---ed. Deal with it.
- AaronW
August 2, 2011 at 1:44am
I'm going to wait and see on this. When you look at how the triggers will play out in reality, not to mention the fact that the big ax doesn't fall until 2013 (after another election!), there's an awful lot that can't be said for certain. You have let it all play out, in real time. But without the Damocles sword that the government's been working under. And it's not just blowing sunshine... getting defense under the knife is a BIG deal. Bigger than is easy to see now. Chait is right about how this pits the Republican factions against each other. And what's all the blowing and carry-on about Obama not "standing up" or "being tough"? Haven't you all grown up to know that theatrics are no substitute for substance? Yes, letting the id off the leash is very refreshing and gives you a buzz -- but with one heck of a comedown afterwards. Instead, Obama kept his head, and made what was probably close to the best deal he could under the circumstances. It's all about the substance. Take a few breaths, everyone. It's been a crazy few weeks. And then consider what will actually happen, and when. Atmospherics are ephemeral, but the trickier outcomes are far more interesting over the long run.
- jcovell
August 2, 2011 at 3:37am
As I said on the Weekly Standard page: Feeling the bite, are we? This is what happens when you ally yourself with anti-government maniacs. It's too late to say, "I didn't mean *that* part of government!" When spending is cut and cut and cut again, our giant defense budget is going to come on the table, and sooner rather than later. If you want it, you'd better be prepared to raise some taxes to pay for it. Is that the hunting howl of Grover Norquist I hear? Good luck, Mr. Kristol.
- Dausuul
August 2, 2011 at 7:11am
"... getting defense under the knife is a BIG deal." Okay, let's unpack this a little. First of all, defense won't be directly under the knife. Defense cuts--more precisely "security" cuts, which I'm suspicious includes agencies such as the ATF and FBI--are only out there as a negative incentive should there be no agreement on other cuts, likely mostly non-defense. Basically what the dealmakers have set up is a Mexican standoff with Republicans threatened by potential security cuts and Democrats threatened by cuts to entitlements. The suggestion I'm about to make is certainly arguable, but I have a feeling Republicans are a lot less attached to security spending than Democrats are to Medicare, and why shouldn't they be? The Cold War is long over; Iraq is winding up; Afghanistan and Libya are Obama's wars with Republicans just along for the ride; and before the WTC attacks kicked off the Global War on Terror George W Bush himself was working to "right size" the military. So what we have is a Mexican standoff where the Republicans are holding a .44 magnum and the Democrats are holding a squirt gun.
- AaronW
August 2, 2011 at 8:17am
AaronW I like that story and it is apt. That said, I think we need something like the Ryan plan where some legislator comes up with a budget plan with draconian increases in taxes and everyone talks about the courage of this legislator and everyone celebrates that legislator as a policy wonk who speaks truth to power.
- Nusholtz
August 2, 2011 at 8:23am
The deficit and the debt is a side show, the underlying issue being fought over is progressive taxation, or, more accurately, the end to progressive taxation. As we know from experience, the Republicans don't really care about deficits, but they do care about the level of taxation, or the rate of taxation, for those at the top. It's their goal to replace the current progressive income tax with a flat tax, so everyone, lower income, middle income, and upper income, pays tax at the same rate, which they believe is both fair and will discourage the adoption and growth of government programs - shifting the overall tax burden down will make those at the lower and middle income levels much less enthusiastic about government spending. This is the great debate currently taking place, though one wouldn't know it. Indeed, Bowles-Simpson, the Gang of Six proposal, and other proposals for tax "reform" take us in the direction of a flat tax. Those fortunate to be at the top don't rely on, don't need, social security and Medicare, and they naturally don't want to bear a disproportionate share of the burden to pay for them as the boomers age. For the boomers, although they have been "pre-paying" much of the cost of those benefits during the past 25 plus years, as payroll tax collections have exceeded benefits during this period by about $2.7 trillion, the excess collections (the "trust fund") have already been spent on other government functions, including wars and tax cuts for the wealthy, so the issue isn't just progressive taxation vs. a flat tax for the future, but also for the $2.7 trillion that must be collected again to pay benefits to the boomers that they have already "paid for" once. If I'm right, then the Republicans will accept a flat tax system as their grand bargain, and, once adopted, the deficit hawks on the right will disappear into the night.
- rayward
August 2, 2011 at 8:25am
Yeah, there are a few lingering neocons like Kristol who would hate for anyone to take away their armies, but the Republicans who have the power these days, the Tea Partiers, Cantor, Norquist, Club for Growth et al don't give a shit about defense cuts. They're nativist, isolationist fools. An interest in the military implies an interest in foreign policy and these assholes know nothing of the kind. Thinking you can use potential defense cuts as leverage against them is a bad joke.
- AaronW
August 2, 2011 at 8:35am
You're leaving out the likelihood of "Denial", which is a huge factor in Republican thought. Basically, they're going to think "There's NO WAY Obama could survive cutting the military budget by 700 billion dollars! So we'll get our Medicare cuts for free! And if the military has to take a trimming in the short-term to show how badly Obama is managing the country, we'll fix that when he gets kicked out of office! Win-win!" Once you conclude "Reality is what we SAY it is", all kinds of stupid America-destroying scenarios become possible -- even likely.
- AllanL5
August 2, 2011 at 9:04am
Leave it up AaronW to find the dark side of everything. Just curious, what kind of deal would you have signed on to?
- wkwami
August 2, 2011 at 9:15am
Aaron is correct. And the article would be better titled if the last three words were: "Democrat against Democrat". BHO and his Blue-Dog-type Dem allies against Progressives. That being the case, I say "Begin the fight now"... Don't wait until the economy completely tanks with BHO and Blue Dogs leading the way continuously advocating Hooverian solutions evoking the confidence fairy. Someone need advocate Progressive solutrions to a crisis. The sooner a Churchill (at best) or McCarthy (at worst) arises the better. Both changed the course of history.
- drofnats1
August 2, 2011 at 9:15am
- I missed the part in Grover's movie when the bank robbers ended up in a lifeboat. No matter, Norquist was asleep during the decades when federal dollars made the rich very rich. But I doubt it. Even if his absolutist shrinking has accounted for filling lifeboats with the most generous patrons of congress, who will go first? Bankers, healthcare providers, military contractors or farmers? He must know who has the clout on K Street and why. Or maybe he's been running a scam. He's gotten fat (and wealthy) by duping nitwits into thinking he'll allow them to keep more of their money as he took their donations and spent it on the very people who would never return their tax dollars. Those bloodsuckers don't get into lifeboats, they simply demand another ship.
- michaelg
August 2, 2011 at 9:20am
- As my tortured analogy was meant to illustrate: I believe the TP will discover it was only easy to hold federal spending hostage in theory. When they attempt to kidnap specific budgets they'll discover they're dealing with the Mob behind the money. I'm pretty sure PHARMA, big energy and the military industry does not pay ransom. If the dead-enders think they'll get their mitts on those budgets and keep all their fingers, ouch. That wing of the GOP will discover a new meaning for cutting and slashing because they're in for a fight with people who don't lose.
- michaelg
August 2, 2011 at 9:42am
I wouldnt have signed onto any deal, wkwami. Don't negotiate with blackmailers. Clean debt ceiling raise or GFY. And there was no need for Obama to deal. Obama says his lawyers told him he wasn't allowed to go it alone on continued borrowing, but that was a total crock, just one more instance of Obama preemptively surrendering his weapons. Any lawyer knows that if an act such as the president's ignoring the debt ceiling on order to continue meeting the government's obligations has not been anticipated in the law, it is de facto legal until the courts say it isn't. I doubt it was the lawyers calling those plays anyway. More like David Plouffe told Obama going unilateral wouldn't fly with independent voters. As for me looking on the dark side of things, it's hard to look on the bright side when the only thing standing between me and a horde of axe-wielding madman is a handful of student-council bed-wetters armed only with a stack of Xeroxed flyers extoling the power of cooperation.
- AaronW
August 2, 2011 at 9:52am
"not under the knife"???? Say what you will about what happens in the triggered future, but defense is already *getting* the knife in the current arrangement. Like you, I'd strongly prefer that revenues were part of the deal, but lets not pretend it's worse than it is.
- miceelf
August 2, 2011 at 10:03am
"it's hard to look on the bright side when the only thing standing between me and a horde of axe-wielding madman is a handful of student-council bed-wetters armed only with a stack of Xeroxed flyers extoling the power of cooperation." I agree. Let's shoot the student council. That will solve everything.
- miceelf
August 2, 2011 at 10:04am
I appreciate Chait's attempt to keep hope alive, but I'm not forgetting that Iraq is littered with the victims of optimism. Realism, not optimism, is how we need to proceed. The reality is that in a couple of hours, the Senate will probably vote to institutionalize holding the economy hostage to Republicans' legislative demands, and our government will be much worse for it. Aaron is right, by the by; Obama should have simply said "no negotiating." Period. Pass a clean debt ceiling raise or see the debt ceiling eliminated forever. And you know what? The House would have impeached him for such a terrible, terrible abuse of Presidential power, probably the next day. With a Senate that would never convict, the House would have impeached him FOR SAVING THE COUNTRY FROM INSANE REPUBLICANS. Why on earth did any rational Democrat want to avoid that fight?
- janus
August 2, 2011 at 10:43am
Miceelf, no one is suggesting shooting the student council. Some are suggesting that they grow a pair, however. I actually agree with Chait's analysis, and think it's an important point: this deal has the potential to blow up the GOP coalition. However, it DOES require that the Democrats actually hold the line on revenue. If they do, then we win. If they don't hold that line, they don't force the Norquistites and national security types to turn on each other, and a golden opportunity to highlight the contradictions in the opposing coalition will slip by. I hate to say it, but I'm not optimistic. All it requires is a pursuit of enlightened self-interest on the part of the center-left (the right uses wedge issues like this all the time), but it's hard to say whether that will happen.
- Curran1
August 2, 2011 at 10:43am
Aaron, given your glee at forcing a crash of the economy just to get the Republicans to GFY makes me think that you have invested all of your savings in canned food and shotguns.
- wildboy
August 2, 2011 at 10:47am
I would really wish this to be true. I just feel the Grover Norquistas will win hands down, and Kristol will go along because the Democrats are people in his mind who go around apologizing for America... It is just amazing the power Grover has.
- MikeB.
August 2, 2011 at 11:10am
wildboy - That wasn't what Aaron (or I) was saying at all. "Clean debt ceiling raise or GFY." That being: go fuck yourself, I'm doing it alone via the 14th amendment.
- janus
August 2, 2011 at 11:11am
Aaron continues toi be correct. If one substitutes "Czechoslovakia for econonomy", BHO has given away much more than the economic equivalent of the Sudetenland to those whose main goal is his destruction and the Dems--- and he and those who support this charade will come to regret it as much as Neville did. BHO made his mark by opposing the Iraq war on the basis that it's rationale was based on false claims. Sound familar?? Those who oppose this charade and run on a Progressive platform will have the political edge when the economic crisis deepens. Mark my words.
- drofnats1
August 2, 2011 at 11:23am
The 14th amendment approach would have been very dodgy. Better legal minds than I suggest that Obama could have gotten away with it legally, but politically I think it would have been viewed by too many people as a dodge or a power-grab. I think it would have been the end of him, and the controversy would have made everyone forget that the Republicans were to blame for this whole situation. Given that Obama himself didn't think the 14th amendment solution was viable, then you have to be really sure that the blowback will fall entirely on the hostage-takers to consider the GFY approach, because there would have been a lot of damage done to the economy.
- JEFF FREY
August 2, 2011 at 11:51am
Yes, a lot depends on whether Democrats have the balls to hold the line on the Bush tax cuts going forward, but that was going to be true no matter what happened this time. This deal actually does give Obama and the Democrats a stronger base to stand on for that future fight. And Obama successfully fenced off some of the programs the Republicans hate the most with the triggers, and set up Republican priorities for cuts so some of the hostages are now theirs. Given that even some teabagger Reps claimed they could not support Reid's bill because of the military cuts, I think that is a real weapon and should not be underestimated. As for the future political will, either our side will have it or not. Hand-wringing and kvetching now do not seem to me to be a productive way to build up our political will.
- JEFF FREY
August 2, 2011 at 12:00pm
Jeff. You're wrong on all counts. Voters consistently support leaders who take strong positions-- especially if the position avoids an immediate crisis. Better political minds than yours (e.g., Bill Clinton) not only suggest he'd "Get away with it", but be strongly supported.. And much more than any politician since Chamberlain or Carter, BHO needed to break the characterization as being easily rolled. He's now firmly type cast. Anyone less vulnerable than Bin Laden knows the way to deal with BHO is to be obstinate.
- drofnats1
August 2, 2011 at 12:05pm
Dro is truly a nutter of the first order and no one besides myself is willing to take him down.
- liberalref
August 2, 2011 at 12:19pm
It's naive to think Obama could have forced a clean debt ceiling raise. The Republicans are crazy. They would have happily put the economy into default--Obama recognized this. Refusing to accede to cuts would have made him look like a big-spending obstructionist. What's more, the 14th-amendment "solution" was political poison and would have just heightened the public's sense of Obama as a prodigal ideologue. As for the actual deal, I think it's definitely planted a bomb beneath the Republican caucus. Keep in mind that "Democrats" don't collectively need to insist on revenue--only the appointees to the committee need to insist on revenue.
- polcereal
August 2, 2011 at 12:24pm
Well, the one good thing about legislation, no matter how bad, is that is can always be unlegislated. Right? It's possible the whole super-committee idea is unconstitutional to begin with. Meanwhile the idea of Paul Ryan and John Kyl on such a committee is appalling. I wonder if the Canadians want a poor left wing artist? I could make aliyah with my 3 cats? They are Jewish cats? Help.
- Sophia
August 2, 2011 at 1:30pm
Libref, you spelled my handle wrong- it's "miceelf", not "myself"
- miceelf
August 2, 2011 at 2:12pm
Clinton did a lot of "triangulation", drofnats, which at the time pissed off a lot of liberals. but it worked for him, and he was better than the Republican alternative so we came out better for it even if we didn't like it at the time (and I didn't). I think you are using rose-colored glasses for the past and blue-colored glasses for the present.
- JEFF FREY
August 2, 2011 at 2:23pm
Dofnats: "Better political minds than yours (e.g., Bill Clinton) not only suggest he'd "Get away with it", but be strongly supported." Let's stop perpetuating this nonsense! As I posted on the other thread... Clinton couldn't and wouldn't have bypassed congress to unilaterally raise the debt ceiling, and we know this because when he was faced with a debt ceiling stand off 1995, he chose to veto the bill Congress sent him. Clinton then worked out a compromise with the Republican congress to raise the debt ceiling. Not once did he threaten to use the 14th Amendment option or take any other kind of unilateral action. He went repeatedly back to Congress anytime he wanted the ceiling raised. Had Clinton exercised the 14th Amendment back then, there'd be no second guessing how that option would play out today, would there? The better political mind that he is, Clinton signed the "Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act" into law (essentially repealing "Glass-Steagall"), which contributed to our current financial crisis. In contrast, Obama passed financial regulation. Clinton passed DADT; Obama oversaw its repeal. Clinton had several opportunities to capture or kill bin-Laden and didn't; Obama killed bin-Laden. Clinton failed at universal healthcare, Obama passed ACA. But hey, what do I know?
- wkwami
August 2, 2011 at 2:27pm
Well said, JEFF and wkwami.
- GSpinks
August 2, 2011 at 3:05pm
AaronW: "I wouldnt have signed onto any deal, wkwami. Don't negotiate with blackmailers. Clean debt ceiling raise or GFY." How is your position any different from the so called blackmailers? I think referring to the TP and Republicans as blackmailers might make you feel good, but the political reality is that they were elected by voters and are doing what they believe, or think they are supposed to be doing. Regardless, if you were President you still have to deal with the Congress you have than the Congress you'd rather have. "As for me looking on the dark side of things, it's hard to look on the bright side when the only thing standing between me and a horde of axe-wielding madman is a handful of student-council bed-wetters armed only with a stack of Xeroxed flyers extoling the power of cooperation." The only students-council bed-wetters I see are the ones drawn from your artful imagination you find so terribly wrong? Please explain it to me like I'm a six year old.
- wkwami
August 2, 2011 at 4:04pm
I meant to say... The only students-council bed-wetters I see are the ones drawn from your artful imagination. So what don't you like about this deal, or that you find so terribly wrong? Please be specific, and explain it to me like I'm a six year old.
- wkwami
August 2, 2011 at 4:08pm
wildboy, learn to read. I did not advocate crashing the economy; I advocated that Obama announce his intention to raise funds without Conressional approval. Had he taken such action the markets would be in better shape than they are right now.
- AaronW
August 2, 2011 at 4:34pm
wkwami: Any remaining hint of belief in the sincerity of the Republicans in this fight that remained in my skull evaporated when I heard Paul Ryan on the House floor viciously denouncing Reid's plan for relying on accounting gimmicks like counting the "savings" from not continuing to fight in Afghanistan and Iraq forever-when Ryan himself wrote a budget based on exactly those same gimmicks less than five months ago. These are not principled, deep human beings whose sincere beliefs are worthy of respect. What passes for principle for them is the same as what drives terrorists: they hate the America that we love, and will say anything, and perhaps even do anything, to destroy it.
- janus
August 2, 2011 at 4:45pm
"How is your position different from the so-called blackmailers" You're kidding, right? The difference would be that the blackmailers are threatening to destroy the economy whereas I would be "threatening" merely to remove the economy from the blackmailers' grasp.
- AaronW
August 2, 2011 at 4:58pm
AaronW" "I advocated that Obama announce his intention to raise funds without Conressional approval. Had he taken such action the markets would be in better shape than they are right now." Well, why don't you spell out how you'd do this unilaterally? And how do you know that the markets would be in better shape had that been done? "The difference would be that the blackmailers are threatening to destroy the economy whereas I would be "threatening" merely to remove the economy from the blackmailers' grasp." There is absolutely no difference between you and the so called blackmailers. You're both just different sides of the same coin. You believe the markets would be in better shape than they are right now had the President raised the debt ceiling unilaterally. They also believe that not raising the debt ceiling at all would be best for the markets and the country. Why do you think they are wrong and you're right?
- wkwami
August 2, 2011 at 5:48pm
"Obama should have simply said "no negotiating." Period. Pass a clean debt ceiling raise or see the debt ceiling eliminated forever. And you know what? The House would have impeached him for such a terrible, terrible abuse of Presidential power, probably the next day. With a Senate that would never convict, the House would have impeached him FOR SAVING THE COUNTRY FROM INSANE REPUBLICANS." Janus, what makes you think the Republicans best move would be impeachment? Think different for a change. If I were the Republicans I'd use the President's "abuse of power" as the focal point of the narrative that the President is anti-American, seeking to destroy this country, and needs to be removed from power in the 2012 elections. Why impeach or challenge him in court where he would have a chance to make his case, when you can just bash him silly in the press, talk radio and political ads in the upcoming elections year?
- wkwami
August 2, 2011 at 5:58pm
wkwami, they will do that anyway. They have already started. The ink isn't dry on the deal that Boehner brags about, claiming he got 98% of what he wanted, and they are already attacking Obama and accusing him of declaring war on the poor rich folks. That is just about a verbatim quote too from some Republican talking head on CNN. The fact that polls reveal an overwhelming desire among the people for higher tax rates on corporations and the rich has nothing to do with anything, apparently.
- Sophia
August 2, 2011 at 6:01pm
i'll admit--libref,wkwami, gpinks may yet be right. I have advocated that job 1 for BHO and the Dems in Jan 2008 should be eliminate the filibuster. An adequate stimulus bill that insured economic recovery according to Keynesian calculations. True health care reform understandable by the general public-- not coimplicated insurance reform. An adequate BP response. Declare victory and exit quickly from Iraq, Afghanistan. Don't extend Bush tax cuts Cite the 14th Amendment, if need be for the debt extension. I'll stand by each-- all were quite attainable, particularly given eliminating the filibuster in the Senate BHO and the Gang of Three disagree. As I said, they may yet be right on something--- and one can do nothing about the nonsense spouted by the Gang of Three. One can, however, support Progressive challengers should they arise to Repubs, Blue-dog-type Dems, and BHO.
- drofnats1
August 2, 2011 at 6:11pm
Sophia, let them brag, that is whole point of this President's tactics - he gets the better end of the deal and the other side gets to brag, until they realized they've been fleeced. It happened in the December negotiations too. Here's a look at the debt ceiling deal from another point of view: http://www.thepeoplesview.net/2011/08/paul-krugman-is-political-rookie-or-how.html
- wkwami
August 2, 2011 at 6:18pm
Droftnats: "I'll stand by each-- all were quite attainable, particularly given eliminating the filibuster in the Senate." You're consistently guilty of assuming that an alternate strategy would have had desirable results, and Obama is just too naive to apply these self-evidently better alternatives. As Nate Silver astutely explains... "the other is the argument that an alternate strategy would necessarily have produced a better outcome. These arguments take the form of: if Mr. Obama had done X rather than Y, he could have accomplished P rather than Q, or maybe even both P and Q! (The possibility that the strategy might have failed and that neither P nor Q would have been achieved is usually not considered.) Both types of arguments are hard to prove — or to disprove. That doesn’t mean I begrudge people for making them. But they ought to be stated as speculative, rather than as self-evident truths."
- wkwami
August 2, 2011 at 6:35pm
Spelled out: Treasury, which is under the direct authority of the president, issues securities which are purchased by investors--this is the "debt" in "debt ceiling." The debt ceiling imposes a limit on the total face value of such securities that can be outstanding at any given moment, however there exists no mechanism of enforcement of this limit other than the assumed compliance of the executive branch. The president could quite reasonably claim that Congress had issued conflicting directives--pay the bills but don't tax or borrow to do it--and that therefore he would be forced to resolve the conflict on his own and that he would do so by directing Treasury to continue issuing securities. I guarantee there would have been buyers. Could the courts have blocked him? Possibly, but not immediately. And it'a a good the courts would have backed the president up. A contract is contract and the alternative would be breaking a ton of contracts. It would have bought time, and it would have highlighted the extremity of the Republicans' aggression.
- AaronW
August 2, 2011 at 6:52pm
Janus: "These are not principled, deep human beings whose sincere beliefs are worthy of respect. What passes for principle for them is the same as what drives terrorists: they hate the America that we love, and will say anything, and perhaps even do anything, to destroy it." Let's keep in mind that is simply your opinion of them. Regardless, you and I share the same country with them. Rather than figure out a way to coexist you blithely dismiss them as terrorists. Yours is a single (or an incomplete) story of the other side, which is clearly not helpful to understanding what drives them.
- wkwami
August 2, 2011 at 6:52pm
"I guarantee there would have been buyers. Could the courts have blocked him?" I don't doubt there would have been buyers, and he'd probably have a better than average chance the courts would have backed him. But this is neither a legal nor economic problem. It is a political one. You think Obama's for predecessors did not consider any of those alternatives, or somehow lacked an understanding of the issue? Even Clinton who recently suggested he'd have done something similar chose not to do so when he was faced with a debt ceiling stand off in 1995. That ought to tell you something. Obama would surely have ended his political career had he gone that route. The timing was all wrong, and his skin color didn't help either. I shudder to think of the political repercussions.
- wkwami
August 2, 2011 at 7:03pm
Ended Obama's political career? Nonsense. He'd have been a hero. People vote for leaders who lead, not ones who grovel. But even if it would have torpedoed his reelection chances, that was a sacrifice he needed to make. You and everybody around here who is so busily parsing the details of the debt ceiling deal persistently ignore the harm done to democratic governance by the enabling of extortion by the minority. The gun remains loaded and it remains in the Republicans' hands, and its a near certainty that they will use it again, most likely to move us still closer to the regressive tax scheme that rayward has been talking about. By ratifying Republican blackmail with a deal, Obama has placed his own personal political calculus--a faulty calculus I would argue, but that's beside the point--ahead of the long-term health of the nation.
- AaronW
August 2, 2011 at 7:19pm
One man's groveler is another man's strategic genius. If there is a loaded political gun, that gun was loaded by the founders of this country and placed in the hands of the citizenry by way of the ballot box. Policy disagreements do not make your opponents terrorists or blackmailers. Please explain to me how Obama enabled extortion; what in this deal amounts to extortion? I challenge you to name one real cut since Obama took office, that has impacted you or anyone you know. In fact most cuts, if ever implemented, would not even take effect within Obama's first four years in office. Now, if you really want to ensure that the loaded gun is pointing where you want it, then go out and close that political enthusiasm gap and increase progressive representation in Congress.
- wkwami
August 2, 2011 at 8:06pm
"If there is a loaded political gun, that gun was loaded by the founders of this country and placed in the hands of the citizenry by way of the ballot box." Bullshit. The debt-ceiling law was written in 1917 and until this year it was treated as purely conventional. The Republicans chose to violate convention and use the letter of the law, but not its spirit, to leverage huge policy concessions from the party in power that they, the party in power, would NEVER have given up under normal political conditions. If the framers of the debt-ceing law had forseen this use of it, they never would have enacted it. With the Republicans having taken such an extraordinary, antidemocratic step, Obama should have acted to neutralize their unearned, unelected, unwarranted power. He did not. You can call that genius if you like, but it seems a strange definition for the word.
- AaronW
August 2, 2011 at 8:32pm
"Bullshit. The debt-ceiling law was written in 1917 and until this year it was treated as purely conventional." I don't want to believe that you have a limited understanding of the American political system so I'm gonna give you the benefit of doubt, but what's the point you're trying to make by saying the debt-ceiling law was written in 1917? How does that undercut my point that, if there is a loaded political gun, that gun was loaded by the founders of this country and placed in the hands of the citizenry by way of the ballot box? "If the framers of the debt-ceiling law had forseen this use of it, they never would have enacted it." Your argument lacks substance and completely ignores both political history and reality, so much so that you're reduced to questioning the intent of the framers of the debt ceiling law? Very well then, now that Americans know how the debt ceiling can be "misused" why aren't they clamoring to repeal it? My guess is that most Americans are just fine with the debt ceiling law regardless of its original intent. As far this immigrant is concerned, American democracy is The Perfect Democracy - our political system is working exactly as it should, and the people always retain the power to point that loaded political gun given to them, by the founders, in whichever direction they so chose. In other words we always get the government we voted for and deserve!
- wkwami
August 2, 2011 at 9:26pm
"But they ought to be stated as speculative, rather than as self-evident truths." This is as predictable from wkwami as libref's insistence that no one who would not be evidently a better president than Obama can make a valid criticism. (Given lib's gloss on the 1st Amendment, one wonders just who in the country is entitled to comment.) According to wkwami, all discussion of alternatives that would have been better are "speculative," but all of wkwami's insistence that all alternatives would have been worse are not. To be polite, this is complete crap. Then our own Dr. Pangloss seals the deal by telling us we always get the government we voted for and deserve. By these lights, whatever any government or faction does is beyond criticism because whatever the government or faction does, it was always elected (notwithstanding all sorts of electoral chicanery and financial corruption of officials by lobbyists). Worse bullshit than the previous bullshit. By wkwami's lights, the threat to wreck the economy if not allowed to dictate policy is just business as usual because it is a possible outcome of our political system. This is pretty much like saying that parents are responsible for kidnapping because they had children in the first place. Now we are past bullshit and into serious nonsense, wkwami. Aren't you even a little embarrassed to say these things out loud wkwami? You should be. ___________________________ They are terrorists and if we do not have the spine to stand up to them, and Obama clearly does not, then we will live with their boot on our necks. That is what wkwami considers coexistence. I don't. Obama is a failure, and it will get worse. Every round of his hostage negotiations has been worse than the last -- first his inadequate stimulus plan, pointlessly loaded with tax cuts, then the loss of the House due to his inept management of his healthcare initiative, then the extension of the Bush tax cuts in exchange for vastly too little to change the downward course of the economy, now more cuts that will likely precipitate another economic decline, and then we have the precedent that this president can be forced to kneel in the face of threats. As Winston Churchill said when Chamberlain returned from Munich proclaiming "peace in our time" (which wkwami would have applauded as the best of all possible deals made by the best of all possible governments that the people absolutely deserve without reservation of any kind), "You were given the choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor and you will have war."
- roidubouloi
August 2, 2011 at 10:33pm
thanks, roidubouli, for your cogent response to wkwami's latest post. I was writing my own response, but I'm at work and, you know, I really ought to actually do some work. You said it better than I could have anyway.
- AaronW
August 2, 2011 at 10:45pm
The language used - calling your opponents "terrorists" and using military/Churchillian metaphors - is deeply troubling. The tea party representatives are not terrorists. They are elected members of Congress. Don't let language blur important distinctions. Working with one's foes - even those who employ vicious tactics - does not make one a Chamberlain-like appeaser. And it does not justify responding using the same level of viciousness. You can't vote out terrorists. You can vote out (or engineer the defeat of) members of Congress. That's not a trivial difference.
- jcovell
August 2, 2011 at 11:01pm
The pleasure was mine. Hope you can get something done despite the crazy house that we are now forced to live in.
- roidubouloi
August 2, 2011 at 11:01pm
Sorry, jcovell, but I don't buy your distinctions at all. Guess who else was voted into office? And with our Supreme Court declaring that corporations are people too (do you know any people worth hundreds of billions of dollars? I don't) with infinite potential for corruption of elections, we are fast on the road to becoming a banana republic. This is a hollowed out democracy. There have been sharp disputes about policy in this country before. I can think of no prior instance in our history in which one political faction threatened simply to damage the country, with no conceivable or even claimed benefit, if it did not get its way. This is terrorism, threatening economic damage that would be at least as harmful, no much more harmful, to the country than, say, blowing up a power plant. Obama did not "work with his foes." He succumbed to blackmail. That the blackmailers are members of Congress is neither here nor there. It troubles you? Then be troubled. Good. It is long past time for the sane part of the country to start heaping verbal abuse and scorn on the nuts, as they do towards the rest of us. They know no limits whatsoever and there should be no limits in dealing with them. They are terrorists, enemies of the United States and of the American people who threaten unambiguously to do us harm if they do not get their way. They should be called out for what they are, and Winston Churchill was prescient then and prescient now in informing us of the consequences of succumbing to this sort of blackmail.
- roidubouloi
August 2, 2011 at 11:10pm
Roi.. you are right on. .. and I had forgotten that Churchill quote. BHO had a choice between economic crisis and dishonor. He chose dishonor-- and will have a crisis worse than that of a debt limit. Your quote and analysis fits well with my post of about two months ago-- repeated below. I stand by that analysis. From a negotiating strategy standpoint, this is worse than Neville C negotiating with Adolph H over Czechoslovakia to prevent open warfare. At least Neville started out intending to negotiate away no part of the Czech Republic. We have a Compromiser-in-Chief negotiating with intractable opposition whose primary goal is his destruction and eventual capitulation. We all better pray the negotiations fail and BHO doesn't make a deal proclaimed as "Economic peace in our time" that guarantees an economic collapse in 6-12 months for which BHO and the Dems will be blamed and in a weakened condition. Better a manufactured debt crisis that has some quick-fix solutions rather than a second Great Depression with no easy fixes [Advocating WW III as a fix won’t work.] Better a chance for voters to see the calamitous policies of BHO and the Repubs for what they have mutually wrought-- with some (small) hope of a Progressive challenge to BHO before primaries begin. I agree this is unchartered territory and that this post- and others of a similar analysis over the last two years are often called crazy.. I will note that Churchill was called MUCH worse by most from 1933-1939. I also note that my crazy, loopy assessments of how bad Obama's decisions were on the filibuster, stimulus bill, health care bill, BP response, Iran war, Afghan war, tax extension, negotiations with Repubs, etc for two years to date have been right on-- and BHO’s, most pundits, and most Dem Leaders (Krugman and Pelosi are exceptions) and all BHO acolytes have been way off as to results and voter approval of the policies --as opposed to personal approval of BHO. James Buchanan, Karensky, Hoover, Chamberlain and Carter were also nice, bright guys with personalities and policies that could not cope effectively with the crises they faced. What most Dems have not faced is the reality that BHO is now as much of the problem as is Cantor, Ryan, and the Repubs. All must go. The sooner the better.
- drofnats1
August 3, 2011 at 12:25am
Roi is correct. And I had forgotton that Churchill quote. It is most appropriate. BHO has indeed chosen dishonor to avoid an economic crisis. And he will have a crisis--- greater than a manufactured debt-ceiling crisis. I stand by a post made two months ago: From a negotiating strategy standpoint, this is worse than Neville C negotiating with Adolph H over Czechoslovakia to prevent open warfare. At least Neville started out intending to negotiate away no part of the Czech Republic. We have a Compromiser-in-Chief negotiating with intractable opposition whose primary goal is his destruction and eventual capitulation. We all better pray the negotiations fail and BHO doesn't make a deal proclaimed as "Economic peace in our time" that guarantees an economic collapse in 6-12 months for which BHO and the Dems will be blamed and in a weakened condition. Better a manufactured debt crisis that has some quick-fix solutions rather than a second Great Depression with no easy fixes [Advocating WW III as a stimulus fix won’t work for BHO--or any future Prez.] Better a chance for voters to see the calamitous policies of BHO and the Repubs for what they have mutually wrought-- with some (small) hope of a Progressive challenge to BHO before primaries begin. I agree this is unchartered territory and that this post- and others of a similar analysis over the last two years are often called crazy.. I will note that Churchill was called MUCH worse by most from 1933-1939. I also note that my crazy, loopy assessments of how bad Obama's decisions were on the filibuster, stimulus bill, health care bill, BP response, Iran war, Afghan war, tax extension, negotiations with Repubs, etc for two years to date have been right on-- and BHO’s, most pundits, and most Dem Leaders (Krugman and Pelosi are exceptions) and BHO acolytes have been way off as to results and voter approval of the policies --as opposed to personal approval of BHO. James Buchanan, Karensky, Hoover, Chamberlain and Carter were also nice, bright guys with personalities and policies that could not cope effectively with the crises they faced. What other Dems have not faced is the reality that BHO is now as much of the problem as is Cantor, Ryan, and the Repubs. This will become more and more obvious with each disasterous "compromise". All those a party to this charade must go. The sooner the better.
- drofnats1
August 3, 2011 at 12:54am
Roid et al, there are no terrorists in the US Congress. Voters sent them there and voters can recall them. Your inability to make a cogent argument against BHO's stewardship is reflected, as one commenter pointed out, in your use of military/Churchillian metaphors, invoking Hitler, and calling your opponents terrorists and blackmailers. When did I ever suggest that you cannot criticize BHO? You can criticize him, but you don't get to fudge the facts unchallenged. The President is not perfect by any means, but he is not alone. Voters, specifically some Democrats, thought they could teach the president a lesson by sitting out the 2010 elections because he didn't push through a more robust progressive policy agenda (they let the perfect become the enemy of the good). We now are seeing the consequences of their choices. Rather than address these and other points I raised, you chose to gloss over them by absolving voters with statements like this... "And with our Supreme Court declaring that corporations are people too (do you know any people worth hundreds of billions of dollars? I don't) with infinite potential for corruption of elections, we are fast on the road to becoming a banana republic. This is a hollowed out democracy." Never mind that voters set in motion events that resulted in having such composition on the Supreme Court in the first place, not to mention the fact that both sides have been winning and losing elections under those same rules. Quit whining Roid, play the game according to the rules, and if you don't like the rules, you have the power to change them. This is NOT, nor will it ever be, a Banana Republic. We indeed get the government we elect. If you care not to repeat the mistakes of the past (bipartisan mistakes that were made long before BHO assumed office), then now is the time to organize: We Must Organize Not Capitulate http://www.thepeoplesview.net/2011/08/we-must-organize-not-capitulate_02.html "Let me get this straight. The President kept revenues on the table, did not touch the sunset provisions in the Bush tax cuts, ensured that military cuts keep the GOP honest, protected Medicare by adding in only provider cuts in the trigger, made the reduction apparently enough to stave off a debt downgrade, got the debt ceiling raised, wounded Boehner by demonstrating to the world that he is controlled by the Tea Party caucus, took out the requirement that a BBA[Balanced Budget Amendment] be passed and sent to the states and got the extension through 2012? What exactly is wrong with this deal?" But again, the same people capitulating do know that we live in an era of bigotry and unprecedented partisanship that is dedicated to make President Obama a one term Black President throwing every kind of curve ball there is to throw at him whatever the cost may be, even if it destroy the country so that Republicans can own the White House and blame the first Black President for the sins of all the President before him. The GOP's game plan from day one has been to demonizing and shaming this President by doing everything possible to make him a failure. It has always has been about racial and class politics. End goal is sending a message to the large block of religious right and low information white voters that they should never elect a Black President or any potential Hispanic President or a Gay President or a Jew President or a minority class President ever again. It is rather shameful, racist and cowardly act of terror the GOP is willing to inflect holding the American people hostage for which everyone of them should be prosecuted and jailed for not fulfilling the oath of office they hold that states - "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support the Constitution of the United States." The tides will turn as things settle down but as Democrats what we must focus on is indeed electing more and better Democrats and getting involved to make sure that the GOP never sees the light of day in power.
- wkwami
August 3, 2011 at 10:10am
More bullshit from you, wkwami. When you have some basis for challenging my facts, go ahead. So far, I have yet to see it. What you do is essentially rule out criticism of Obama on one or another farcical ground. I strongly suspect, as others have suggested, that you are in fact a paid organizer for Obama with the very specific task of de-legitimizing any criticism of him from the left. It is no answer whatsoever that Obama is doing a crappy job of defending the interests of the people who got him elected that we elected him and therefore we, and not he, are ultimately responsible for his failures. In the next breath, you tell us that we essentially have no choice but to support him. Thus, although we are responsible for electing him, by your reasoning we have no choice but to continue to do so. If we have no choice, then we are not responsible. The whole notion is absurd. I don't blame rank-and-file Democrats for sitting out the last election. They thought they had elected a champion and they have gotten a political bungler instead, who does not know how to negotiate and utterly neglects his political responsibility to cultivate public opinion. It is the very fact that Obama takes his supporters support so utterly for granted, a state of affairs you urge us to accept without complaint, that leads him to be so utterly indifferent to our interests and priorities. Yet, you still urge upon us that we have no choice. Well, the nature of the near perfect democracy that you tell us we enjoy is that we do have a choice, and a leader needs to be worthy of support. You tell us that it is up to us to elect the representatives we need. We did. Due to Obama's bungling, they are now mostly gone. Your response is to urge us just to turn ourselves back to the Sisyphean task of rolling that boulder up the hill again. I need a reason, I need Obama to demonstrate in some manner that he deserves my support and effort beyond the fact that the terrorists whom you urge me to regard not as terrorists but as normal members of political society are terrorists. As someone who is a local Democratic party committee member and former chair and has busted his ass and spent lots of his own coin in the last decade to get Democrats elected, I can tell you that I am really sick to death of elected Democrats who are unwilling to do their political work and fight on our behalf. They owe us that much. I don't expect them to win all of the time, or even most of the time. I understand that they must compromise. I expect them prudently to do so. But I expect them to fight as vigorously for our principles as I see Republican officeholders fighting for their benighted principals. I don't see it. I am holding up my end of the bargain. Obama and elected officials who are unwilling to enter the rhetorical lists in our cause are not.
- roidubouloi
August 3, 2011 at 10:31pm
"I strongly suspect, as others have suggested, that you are in fact a paid organizer for Obama with the very specific task of de-legitimizing any criticism of him from the left." Roi, why do you feel the need to de-legitimize those who disagree with you, not with facts, but with false accusations? Why is it so hard for you to accept that my support for BHO is as genuine as your criticism of him? Given you intellect, which I greatly admire, I am quite surprised at your tactics. One person started this OfA rumor and you seem to have latched on to it, you're now claiming "as others have suggested". You keep making the claim that I do not want any criticism of Obama. When did I ever say that? What I have said is that folks ought not lay claim to speculative assertions as self evident truths. For example, one commenter said BHO caved on the debt ceiling when he could have gotten a clean raise by invoking the 14th Amendment. They backed up their argument by saying, "better political minds than yours (e.g., Bill Clinton) not only suggest he'd "Get away with it", but be strongly supported." Do you expect me to simply nod my head in agreement with such weak reasoning and not challenge them? As for the rest of your comments, the least said the better. And I stand by my point that voters must take responsibility for the people they elect, with one small clarification... If you think Obama is not doing the job you elected him to do, go ahead and vote him out. Primary him, pick a new Democratic candidate, or vote for the Republican alternative. If on the other hand you believe as I do that, too many progressives sitting out the 2010 elections contributed to the power of the Tea Party, then now is the time to organize and vote for a more progressive Congress and re-elect Obama in 2012. Either way, you're going to get the government you deserve. I appreciate your efforts as a local Democratic leader and getting progressives elected. I think though that we're just going to have to agree to disagree on our competing narratives of BHO for now as the facts keep getting in your way. To me your entire case against BHO is as weak as your strong suspicion of me as an Obama plant, a narrative you seem to have constructed from what "others" have suggested.
- wkwami
August 4, 2011 at 12:00am
Given that you spend most of your time here attempting to de-legitimize Democratic criticism of Obama, I find it amusing in the extreme that you should now complain of what you think is de-legitimization of your criticism. I think you are a political operative because you write like one, not because the mere suggestion of same is persuasive. And I have read and listened to and been the target of more than my share. I see the same glib lack of substance and ritual accusation that is commonplace in political rhetoric. I don't expect you to be persuaded or not by anyone's argument or claim, but if you disagree with it and are not merely here to do a job for someone, then state your case. We have no need for carpers whose sole contribution is to proclaim that anything they don't like is "speculation." The same can be said of anything you or anyone else has to say on any subject. It is meaningless cant with no purpose other than to de-legitimize. While you seem to imagine yourself challenging other narratives on their facts, it is only in your head that you do so. One moment you complain that there are no facts, no cogent arguments, although there are plenty. When confronted with them, you are struck dumb and can say nothing at all that either invokes a fact or attempts to be persuasive. The facts get in my way? You have no facts. Not this day, not any day. No matter what the criticism, you merely recite, with benefit of no fact, no argument, that the criticism is not legitimate. The reasons vary, although "speculation" is your favorite, but the gist is all the same If we are going to get the government we deserve either way, then it really doesn't matter what government we get, does it? We always deserve it. We cannot lose. I am going to get the government I deserve and you are going to get the government you deserve, no matter what you do or fail to do. If we have Obama as a bungler, we deserve it. If we have Tea party thugs, we deserve it. If the people we elect, believing them to be champions of the things we believe in, betray us in favor of self-indulgent fantasies of being above partisanship and outside of party, we deserve that too. Of course Democrats and left-leaning independents sitting out cost the elections of 2010. They were justly demoralized by the spectacle of Democrats in the majority soiling themselves to appeal to Republicans and too timid to take up the rhetorical cudgels and fight for us. They are demoralized by a Democratic president who imagines himself too pure to be the leader of his party as well as the leader of the country, more concerned that he personally appear to be a grown-up than that he achieve Democratic outcomes. And they are going to sit out in droves in 2012 if there is no evidence that elected Democrats, most particularly Obama, have some spine, some commitment to the values that are supposed to be the values of our party. The obligations between leaders and rank-and-file run in both directions. If our support is so taken for granted that the electeds cannot even stir themselves to fight for us and can do nothing but be faux Republicans trying to appeal to their voters rather than our voters, because the assume we have no choice, then screw them. We are screwed anyway. I would rather be screwed by the Republicans outright and wait until the country has finally had enough than be screwed by people who call themselves Democrats while doing the work of Republicans. That sullies me, the party, and our future. I would like to say that I regard your narrative of BHO as weak, but as you never actually offer any, either as argument or rebuttal, I can't really say that, now can I?
- roidubouloi
August 4, 2011 at 1:37am
Last night I was watching the Aussie ABC network news roundup. They had a little piece on the debt ceiling deal. They showed a clip of Obama speaking about the deal. Not sure what the specific occasion was. He was outside. I can't quote him verbatim, but l can give the gist of it. He was saying that debt ceiling crisis was manufactured and that it was the last thing our teetering economy needed. Fair enough. But then who did he blame for this unnecessary, manmade challenge to our prosperity? The Republicans? Fuck no! He blamed all of us! "We did this to ourselves," he said. I was dumbfounded. "We..." Who's "we", sucker? Incompetence compounded by abject weakness...
- AaronW
August 4, 2011 at 2:59am
wkwami, you yourself acknowledged yesterday that Obama could have unilaterally continued to issue Treasury securities and that he likely would have been backed by the courts. You claimed that he was barred from proceeding thusly because to do so would have been political suicide. I'd say in reply that your assertions about the political fallout of a unilateral debt increase is purely speculative.
- AaronW
August 4, 2011 at 3:17am