SUBSCRIBE NOW WELCOME BACK. Do you want to continue reading where you left off? New Republic subscribers can pick up where they left off no matter which device they were previously using. SUBSCRIBE NOW

Go Home Obama's Sainthood Won't Raise The Debt Limit

INDEBTED JANUARY 14, 2013

Obama's Sainthood Won't Raise The Debt Limit

BY TIMOTHY NOAH

“A prince, so long as he keeps his subjects united and loyal, ought not to mind the reproach of cruelty; because with a few examples he will be more merciful than those who, through too much mercy, allow disorders to arise, from which follow murders or robberies; for these are wont to injure the whole people…”

--N. Machiavelli, The Prince, Chapter XVII, “Concerning Cruelty and Clemency, and Whether It Is Better To Be Loved Than Feared.”

President Obama seems to think that you win by demonstrating that you’re a more reasonable person than your opponents. It didn’t work too badly, I’ll grant, as an electoral strategy in the 2012 election. But when governing it is generally preferable to demonstrate that you’re willing to be an even bigger son-of-a-bitch than your opponents are. This wisdom has been widely disseminated for at least 500 years (see above), but it seems to elude the White House. Maybe we should blame the unwholesome influence of the Norwegian Nobel Committee, but for whatever reason this president often seems more interested in getting into heaven than in getting his way.

Case in point: The Obama White House and the Treasury department couldn’t wait to tell the world that it would never, ever, stoop to minting a $1 trillion platinum coin should Congress refuse to raise the debt ceiling. As TNR’s Jon Cohn notes, the White House thinks it’s smart strategy to remove this option because it keeps pressure on the GOP to do the right thing. But what if the GOP continues to maintain that the “right thing” is to force government shutdown and/or default in order to extract more spending cuts? “I think it is possible that we would shut down the government to make sure President Obama understands that we’re serious,” House Republican Conference Chairwoman Cathy McMorris Rodgers, R.-Washington, told Politico. The way to confront such fanaticism is to demonstrate that you can be pretty fanatical yourself. I’m not saying Obama should affirmatively threaten to short-circuit the process by minting the platinum coin or resorting to some other 14th-Amendment power play. But to promise not to is itself reckless, insofar as it increases the likelihood that GOP hard-liners will plunge the economy back into recession.

What does President Obama do instead? He holds a press conference saying, once again, that he will not let Republicans “collect a ransom in exchange for not crashing the U.S. economy.” The more Obama says this, the less believable it sounds. We know that Obama never means it when he says he’s done negotiating. If he didn’t mean it when all the leverage was on his side during the fiscal-cliff negotiations, then how can he possibly mean it when it isn’t? At this point the only leverage Obama has is to keep Republicans guessing about whether he’ll do something unreasonable to maintain this country’s creditworthiness should he be faced with no other choice. The platinum-coin gimmick is not, I’ll grant you, a great option, but it is far too soon for Obama to decide he doesn’t need it. Indeed, it smacks of narcissism. Obama's choice between maintaining a spotless reputation for integrity and maintaining a functioning economy ought to be a no-brainer. Alas, it is not. Mister President, this is no time to go all Norwegian on us.

SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS

Show all 101 comments

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

101 comments

Yet, if the debt ceiling convention is simply that - and not a real power held by Congress - why shouldn't the President simply bypass them and use the 14th Amendment to save the country and the economy from GOP shenangans? After all if GOP is willing extend 14th Amendment rights to zygotes I think the President is entitled to use them too.

- Sophia

January 14, 2013 at 3:13pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"The way to confront such fanaticism is to demonstrate that you can be pretty fanatical yourself. I’m not saying Obama should affirmatively threaten to short-circuit the process by minting the platinum coin or resorting to some other 14th-Amendment power play. But to promise not to is itself reckless, insofar as it increases the likelihood that GOP hard-liners will plunge the economy back into recession."
For crying out loud. It is not that Obama is a saint, it is that he is responsible for governing the country. For one thing, it is not an option for him to be "fanatical", as much as this may appeal to his Democratic partisans. For another, there is no evidence at all that an Obama "fanaticism" will somehow discipline the hardliners - they are already committed to fucking the country over, so Obama will just be complicit in that. And, more important: there every evidence that any of the "creative" options discussed will land Obama in impeachment. Depend on it. If they impeached a popular president who had just whupped their asses because of a stain and the definition of is, they will impeach Obama for a trillion dollar coin. In any event, somewhere in the Heritage Foundation's bowels, the Articles of Impeachment have been written and await activation by a perceived wrong step. Does not mean a supine approach to the crazies; it means that the ODS, being as deep and pathological as it is, must be managed and not provoked. For all those who have accused me of Panglossian reverence to Obama, read this carefully. I cannot read his mind, but if Obama is afraid that the fanatics - the lunatics - who run Congress will plunge the country into the abyss of another recession, he would have every right to be; I am. Thelma and Louise are spinsterish librarians compared to the Republicans in the House; Dementors run away from the Republicans' soul-sucking rage. Stand firm, by all means; shut the government down, if necessary; pay the bills through the Fed, as roid argues, if you must. But this is not the time, and the House Republicans are not the adversaries, to be "fanatical" or constitutionally creative.

- icarus-r

January 14, 2013 at 3:15pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"if the debt ceiling convention is simply that - and not a real power held by Congress" Wise or not, it is the law of the land. Republicans "bypass" laws and Congress - cf. Iran-Contra, torture - Democrats don't. Not even for a good cause. Else, you become what you behold. Not good, that.

- icarus-r

January 14, 2013 at 3:17pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

If the debt ceiling cannot serve as a potential path for extortion by the GOP (quite an undesirable outcome), one has to wonder what purpose it does serve. If hitting the debt ceiling can never have any consequence other than raising the debt ceiling or instigating anything from a minor downturn to a major financial crisis (and subsequently having to raise the debt ceiling), why not just declare that you consider it unconstitutional and won't feel bound to it going forward?

- SEBASTIANSALING@HOTMAIL.COM

January 14, 2013 at 3:22pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Wow, is this a slipshod analysis of what's going on. If Noah feels the need to whip off something criticizing the White House for its political positioning on the debt ceiling, he should just delegate the job to roid. At least roid is able to put forth coherent views and take into consideration the competing issues. I really don't understand if Noah was watching the same press conference as the rest of us. Obama said that he will not accept any failure by Congress to pass the buck to him politcially by not raising the debt ceiling without conditions. Frankly, I find the White House's arguments against the 14th Amendment and the platinum coin pretty compelling -- the first option would create panic in the bond markets, the second option would automatically switch the narrative to gimmickry instead of GOP obduracy and neither would do a whole hell of a lot to reassure the myriads who have contacts with the US government or receive payment from it that their payments were assured. And Obama may also justifiably think that, this time, Boehner will blink again like he did with the fiscal cliff, by posturing until the 11th hour and then allowing a bipartisan vote to cleanly raise the debt ceiling with mostly Democratic support after a similar measure was rammed through the Senate. At the very least, Noah owes us a better explanation for why the latter is such a preposterous scenario and why holding out cutsey options like platinum coins really helps the White House win this argument with people who are not on the White House's side already.

- wildboy

January 14, 2013 at 3:39pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Obama was right to take the coin gimmick (which is what it is - no one with the brains of a 4 year old thinks the law was intended to be used that way) off the table. Where he is erring, in my opinion, is in not being a bit more threateningly ambiguous about his sense of the constitutionality of the debt limit. Legally, that looks like an open question to me. We settled 40 years ago that the President may not impound or refuse to spend legally allocated and required funds. That Constitutional law conflicts with the merely statutory limit on issuing debt instruments beyond a certain amount. The Fourteenth ammendment chimes in to say that if the Treasury issues debt, it may not be held invalid. Seems to me the executive is not in a bad position to say "look, you authorized the expenditure, so I did as required and spent it. Change the appropriations if you don't like it." Might they impeach him? Of course. And I'd hate to lose the other opportunities of Obama's second term (immigration reform, e.g.), however slim they are, to an impeachment imbroglio. But Obama would survive impeachment. The country's standing as a creditor would survive impeachment. That makes it a risk worth taking to me. And, one can't be sure. There's a slim possibility that even this Republican House is not so suicidal as to go down that road ("We're impeaching the President because he paid your Social Security, Medicare, paycheck, or employer, just as we authorized" is hardly a campaign slogan.)

- IowaBeauty

January 14, 2013 at 3:50pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The Republican's have signaled for days that they're going to do this - they need a shut down like some sort of drug fix. Obama is just getting out on front of the inevitable.

- WandreyCer

January 14, 2013 at 3:50pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I agree with Noah -- Obama has got to stop negotiating with himself, he's got to quit taking things "off the table" by himself, he's got to quit pre-compromising before negotiations have even begun. I know, I know, he wants to be "collegiate", he wants to "start a negotiation", he wants to appear reasonable. And in normal times, these would be nice attributes to have. But these are not normal times, we've got the Fox-News Koch-Brothers Tea-Party Republicans in the House. They are not collegiate, they are not reasonable, they are pit-bulls. And they take his "reasonable" stance as permission to ask for even more. Along with the nonsensical statement "He's not going to negotiate". Of course he's going to negotiate. Unless, for the first time, he stands his ground and demands that the House pass the debt-ceiling. But he already gave away his best opportunity to do that in December. So now it'll take something even more serious to force the Republicans to do so. I hope he demonstrates more courage and determination than he has so far.

- AllanL5

January 14, 2013 at 3:51pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

We can't assume that enough Republicans are going to snap to reality in time. Too many are Tea Party types elected from safe gerrymandered districts. The others are running scared of conservative challengers in their respective districts. It's amusing how some conservative blogs give a different read on Obama. They see him as dictatorial and ruthless.

- amidut

January 14, 2013 at 4:09pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Of course, the very premise of the article is undermined because it assumed that Republicans do NOT already view Obama as fanatical. Well, here is Wehner on Obama:

"There is a twin danger for the GOP, however. One is that they enter negotiations assuming the president is responsible and acting in good faith—and that a “good government” solution will be found and a grand bargain will be struck. That’s not going to happen. Mr. Obama is a dogmatist and a committed progressive. He has no interest in reining in spending or reforming entitlements. He wants to, in his words, “transform” America. And he has a burning desire to destroy the GOP.
And yet, Wehner advises the Republicans to remove the threat of default from the table. It is possible to view your opponent as unrepentant domatists, and yet to remove the threat of annihilation off the table.

- icarus-r

January 14, 2013 at 4:22pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"But when governing it is generally preferable to demonstrate that you’re willing to be an even bigger son-of-a-bitch than your opponents are. This wisdom has been widely disseminated for at least 500 years (see above), but it seems to elude the White House."

- roidubouloi

January 14, 2013 at 5:29pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Indeed, it smacks of narcissism. Obama's choice between maintaining a spotless reputation for integrity and maintaining a functioning economy ought to be a no-brainer."

- roidubouloi

January 14, 2013 at 5:31pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"For crying out loud. It is not that Obama is a saint, it is that he is responsible for governing the country." Which is exactly why we cannot afford Obama's narcissism. You continue to believe, icarus, that governing the country can somehow be achieved independently of fighting and winning political battles with the Republicans. I find this, quite frankly, absurd. But then, throughout this debate you have been admonishing us to a proper regard for what you learned in "fourth grade civics," your words, not mine.

- roidubouloi

January 14, 2013 at 5:33pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Iowa sums it all up just perfectly in my opinion.

- roidubouloi

January 14, 2013 at 5:38pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"But then, throughout this debate you have been admonishing us to a proper regard for what you learned in "fourth grade civics,"" Yes, my words, and they had to with a specific point - the position of the US president as both head of state and head of government - and meant to address what I thought was a basic problem of the US system of government that even a fourth-grader can understand. It was not a reference to the rest of my comments. Give it a rest - you are sounding like someone else who constantly refers to "your words, not mine." "You continue to believe, icarus, that governing the country can somehow be achieved independently of fighting and winning political battles with the Republicans." You miss the point, yet again. It is not that governing may be done indepedently of accepting that Republicans are bent on screwing the civilised world by any means possible just so as to hobble Obama. This has been the very premise of every single post that I have written here. They are batshit crazy. They will drag us (the rest of the world) down because they hate Obama. That is why "fighting" them cannot be done by their means. That is why governance means you cannot be as fanatical as they are - they already think Obama is fanatical and dogmatic and dictatorial, and it is not making them change their behaviour. The question is not whether to fight but how to fight, and not losing sight of what is the real point of governance - the fighting - which is the betterment of the US people, and NOT the annihilation of the Republican Party. As for your repeated narcissism quip, I am not a psychologist and deeply distrust arm-chair psychologising. Be that as it may, a measure of narcissism appears to be necessary to want to be US president - show me one who was not, and I will show you a liar or a failure. So the incessant harping on it, aside from the fact that it makes you sound like Hannity, is pointless. Now, you go into a political war with the President you got (yes, for all his incompetence, Rumsfeld did make sense on occasion). Knowing his weaknesses - and they are plenty - what useful advice, not disappointed carping like a jilted lover, but real advice, have you got to offer Obama?

- icarus-r

January 14, 2013 at 5:47pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"look, you authorized the expenditure, so I did as required and spent it. Change the appropriations if you don't like it." "Iowa sums it all up just perfectly in my opinion." Question: "appropriations" permit, and even require (from what I understand - the President can't refuse to spend appropriated and, thereby, indirectly thwart Congressional will), the expenditure of funds. But it says nothing about where the funds come from. The President has the authority to spend, but the question is how to raise the money that he is required to spend, is it not? If I am correct - and I freely admit that I don't know - I am not sure how Iowa's solution would help.

- icarus-r

January 14, 2013 at 5:52pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

So. We have a crazy neighbor. Not we-call-him-crazy-because-we-don't-like-him, but really crazy. I enjoy the long game. Yet game theory is to real life as is any other mathematical model -- it needs fudging to make it work. Especially with the insane. The outcome of our dispute rests largely on whether we can convince the neighborhood that our neighbor is crazy. If, in making our case, we act crazy too, then we've lost the battle and the war. Brinksmanship makes the math easier (by taking options off the table), but the reality messier (by involving other people). The solution is not Machiavelli's but (Jackie) Robinson's -- take the long view (accept some mistakes), and win the crowd.

- Wonderland

January 14, 2013 at 6:07pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

i hope that public opinion will break so completely against the GOP, as it lurches from crisis to crisis, that the gerrymandering for the House will be matched with what can begin in 2014 and continue in 2016. but that requires more of media sorts than how they failed to explain to some what obdurate legions some find intractable. the GOP should not be underestimated. they can so confuse their base--dismissed by some--that they can sabotage what would otherwise be a far better outcome in coming confrontations. i think some in Obama's camp know full well what rabble-rousing has been effective, and even in corporate boardrooms.

- cdmcl3

January 14, 2013 at 6:07pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Why take anything off the table in advance? It really is negotiating against yourself. And voters ofter choose demonstrating might over being right. I'm with Krugman on this one-- no one knows what a US default would really do. It's a much greater unknown than the fiscal cliff. Especially if the Euro goes south about the same time. And most of you assume that if things go badly economically because the House sticks it to BHO, the Repub House will be blamed. Very few really believed in Bush the Elder once he reneged on "no new taxes" (and the reneging was for the good of the country and the economy). Given BHO's multiple folds over the last four years, the latest in the last 4 weeks), if I were advising the Repubs and wanted the best chance to ruin BHO for the next four years, I'd sure push for forcing BHO to negotiate and then decaring the end result is the best of all possible worlds. Forget impeachment, running against BHO for a generation still stands a good chance of being the equivalent of the Dem's running against Hoover for a generation.

- drofnats1

January 14, 2013 at 6:12pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Why take anything off the table in advance? It really is negotiating against yourself." Drof: Wonderland has it right. There is nothing at all wrong in negotiating against yourself, if the outcome is removing unreal options. Obama could take "shotting Boehner" and "selling Congress" off the table, and he would not look crazy or weak for that. There are lots of creative options, but the point is not to engage in constitutional gimmickry. You do not defeat Republicans by "cleverly" doing an end run on the law of the land. You win by pointing out, again and again, that it is the Republicans who are hostage-taking irresponsible oafs, and if necessary by shutting down the US government and refusing to issue checks to the old biddies in Florida and Georgia and Alabama who want "government hands off my Medicare" and who consistently vote for generational warfare.

- icarus-r

January 14, 2013 at 6:53pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The whole point of the coin is to be a last measure after default is done and the economy starts to melt down, it is the equivalent of anti missile defense. You don't shoot it off before the enemy shoots his missiles. I don't believe Republicans are insane enough to do so, not enough of them anyhow. 85 voted for "raising" taxes under the fiscal cliff. And worst comes to worst Obama gives Republicans what they want on entitlements, makes a national address stating that come 2014 Democrats will try to retake the house and repeal the measures. The 716 billion taken out of medicare didn't hurt any seniors, what Republicans propose to do will and it will annihilate them in 2014 so in the end I think they will blink as they did in 2005 with Bush's Social Security privitization plan. And Noah is wrong, Obama did not hold all the cards, the extension of the unemployment benefits, child tax credits, tuition tax credits and the like took an affirmative act of congress, doing nothing would have wiped all of them out and to get them Obama would have had to give away something. I guess roid and Noah seem to think Obama could have rolled them, but I don't see it. We now know the names of 85 Republicans who crossed over, I know a lot of them won't (like Ryan) but many Northeasterners will. They won't screw Seniors over.

- blackton

January 14, 2013 at 7:00pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Obama has rightly not continued some of the distractions that did offer themselves as a way to explain how "silly" the "confrontation(s)" with the GOP really is. both sides will settle for symbolic elements of "triumph," and each will lurch, somewhat unsatisfied, to another and another huge battle--or, as some have said, results will be far worse all around. with the GOP genuinely on the ropes, all they REALLY have is statehouses (most of which cannot run deficits, etc.), and the gerrymandering that sustains their intransigence today. some concede 2014 to them, in terms of the House. in any event, cooler heads will prevail--not the GOP, or overly irked Dems. and yes, Obama is a politician. but also, he is in charge of the world economy--as well as a recalcitrant imploding GOP underfoot. it's true that for the GOP, the strong temptation is a high-stakes roll of the dice (over and over again). but for others, various results from a better perspective are paramount. Obama's only choice is long-term gains, not only to take out the GOP in shorter order than other priorities demand. (yet to the GOP, many can say, "nit, nit, nit!")

- cdmcl3

January 14, 2013 at 7:01pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I agree with wildboy. Both the 14th Amendment and the $1 Trillion coin aren't good solutions to this crisis. Additionally, Obama doesn't overlook the fact that some "captains of industry" are on his side--That is to say, Obama, the Democrats, enough influential Business leaders (in addition to various other interest groups) can apply enough pressure to get the limit raised. That's the way forward.

- mcmahon.an

January 14, 2013 at 7:08pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The GOP is looking for a way to impeach Obama anyway. He should just go ahead and use the 14th amendment and say "bring it on!" And when he's impeached he doesn't have to say, "I did not have sex with that woman" or "it depends on what the meaning of 'is' is." All he has to do is let seniors know that the Republicans wanted to deny them their Social Security retirement checks, because they didn't want to pay for the bills that most of them had voted for. Iowa is right. Once appropriations are authorized by Congress, it is the president's duty to implement them. That pig Rush Limbaugh is whipping up his demented audience now to say that Obama is a tyrant--that he is ruling exclusively by executive order and completely ignoring the Constitution. Limbaugh lies like Hitler. It is the Republican House that is again threatening to ignore the Constitution concerning the implementation of congressional appropriations. They are the tyrants. The Tea Partiers are electing tyrants. And they love it. Right wingnuts don't hate government per se. They hate government that they don't agree with.

- magboy47.

January 14, 2013 at 7:11pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

@Icarus: "Of course, the very premise of the article is undermined because it assumed that Republicans do NOT already view Obama as fanatical. " No, that's not a premise of the article at all. Noah's talking about Obama's attempt to maintain his reasonableness to the public at large. It's been adequately clear for a long time that most of GOP--including the mainline--sees Mr. Obama as a radical on all sorts of issues (spending being one of them). Noah simply doesn't make the assumption you ascribe to him (either implicitly or explicitly)--re-read the article!

- mcmahon.an

January 14, 2013 at 7:26pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

magboy47, i believe that you are correct about a frenzy that is maintained in some circles. to say the least. that's why a certain fatalism has cast a pall over the rest of us. and if in addition matters include one circus act after another, it's tempting to go along, but really, salvaging what can be salvaged (in terms of a second-term agenda for good domestic policies and beyond) is better than that, even if less fun...........

- cdmcl3

January 14, 2013 at 7:27pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

You seem quite convinced of your singular virtue, icarus, that you and only you understand that the point of the battle is effective governance, not annihilating Republicans. Let me try again to disabuse you of the notion that you alone understand the stakes. As you point out, the question is actually how to fight, not whether to fight. You persist in believing that Obama can somehow govern, because he holds the office, without fighting and winning political battles with the Republicans. I don't know where you get this notion if not from fourth grade civics. It has NOTHING to do with the way in which our system actually functions. The president's actual power, except when he is acting as Commander in Chief and even then, flows from the support of public opinion and of other officeholders who must also contend with public opinion. If you read the Constitution, he has very little formal power to do anything. Without succeeding politically, he cannot govern. Period. The only question then is how Obama should conduct the inevitable series of political battles so that he achieves both the best available outcome in the particular battle and sets himself and the party up for future success. My god, man, have you never shot pool? It is not possible to be a successful pool player if you are plotting many moves ahead. It is no different in politics. Win or lose, you have to make the opposition pay for its opposition, both immediately and in the longer term, unless you are in a position to reward them for cooperation, which is surely not the case in the current political environment. They will not cooperate under any circumstances, they can only be forced into submission. Is that not clear to you? In the recent so-called "fiscal cliff" compromise, Obama extracted no political price from the Republicans and he paid one in the form of payroll tax increases affecting vastly more people adversely than were saved taxes by the difference between $250,000 and $400,000, as rayward has properly pointed out many times. The Republicans walked away unscathed politically, loaded for this next round. Had he been willing to go over the cliff, and make them start to pay for their opposition to middle class tax cuts, he might have come to the same mediocre policy outcome in the end, although I very much doubt it, but he would have forced the Republicans to pay in the court of public opinion (unless you think the public would have been applauding the Republicans holding up their tax cuts for the sake of the deficit). Had they been bloodied in that battle, they would have been far less eager to go over this next cliff, one that has potentially much worse consequences than the last one. Every time you argue that the reason that Obama gives way is because he has to govern, you are arguing with no one but yourself. The notion that what is at issue is merely partisan victory over the Republicans is a straw-man that you yourself have created and seem very much to enjoy fighting with. Have at it man, but stop trying to pin that on others here, including me, who are just as aware of the policy stakes as you are, if not moreso. We live here after all and you don't.

- roidubouloi

January 14, 2013 at 7:42pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

roid, never mind typos, i agree with some of what you say, namely, that the bigger loss was in the last battle of 2012, rather than what we face now. Obama caved in 2012, and needn't think that he didn't. what to do now is salvage whatever there might be. and, there is much to consider, but it's too bad he caved in 2012, unless lessons be thoroughly learned. the GOP is implacable, just as magboy47 has suggested; also, how public opinion breaks is more difficult to predict than some think. still too, there's more than "domestic" policy that demands attention, tho policies certainly interact, etc.

- cdmcl3

January 14, 2013 at 7:57pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

roid, never mind typos, i agree with some of what you say, namely, that the bigger loss was in the last battle of 2012, rather than what we face now. Obama caved in 2012, and needn't think that he didn't. what to do now is salvage whatever there might be. and, there is much to consider, but it's too bad he caved in 2012, unless lessons be thoroughly learned. the GOP is implacable, just as magboy47 has suggested; also, how public opinion breaks is more difficult to predict than some think. still too, there's more than "domestic" policy that demands attention, tho policies certainly interact, etc.

- cdmcl3

January 14, 2013 at 7:57pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

cdmc. I agree with you (and roi), except that (like Krugman) I believe that the debt ceiiling crisis has the potential to do economic harm much more quickly than the Dec 2012 fiscal crisis in which the Repubs suffered no big loss. And that BHO has re-affirmed for the nth time that he can be rolled no matter how strongly he argues otherwise. Why should the Repubs believe him on his debt ceiling statements?? Better (or worse?) yet, why should you?? or Roi?? If you were a Repub wanting to make BHO politically impotent from the get go, wouldn't you force him to show he'll stand tough even if it ruins the economy?? Knowing that he's ruled out tactics that might have prevented the debt ceiling crisis? I think that's political malpractice.

- drofnats1

January 14, 2013 at 8:59pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

It seems to me that the stupidest thing, far beyond whimsical coin minting, is that a representative body can vote to deny the executive the authority to spend the money that that representative body has already appropriated for spending. Obama should hammer home that this is the equivalent of your boss officially giving you a raise and then paying your original salary without the extra into your account. And next time the Dems take the House they should try to get legislation that mandates the debt ceiling be raised simultaneously with the passing of a budget.

- ironyroad

January 14, 2013 at 9:07pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Of course the potential now is worse than with the fiscal cliff. Payments backed by trust funds won't be affected, but, if the debt-ceiling forces instant fiscal balance, that is a spending cut two to three times larger than the fiscal cliff, plus the potential for making people nervous enough about what will happen to cut back their private spending. This is exactly why I wanted the showdown over the fiscal cliff, not over the debt-ceiling. Obama should have softened them up. Instead, he stiffened their resolve. I continue to believe, indeed after a long argument with peterpalys I am convinced, that the Treasury has authority to continue to write checks for appropriated expenditures and the Fed has the authority to honor them, without regard to the debt-ceiling because it has no application to checks. However, this depends on the cooperation of the Fed. Do we have any idea what the Fed is thinking in these circumstances? We do not. A cursory investigation suggests to me that the power to acquire Treasury checks in the open market -- which means not directly from the Treasury -- is vested in the individual Federal Reserve Banks, not in the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve system. Thus, the cooperation of even one Federal Reserve Bank would apparently suffice, if a little inconvenient -- and New York would be optimal given the volume of transactions that clears through NY. Is anyone talking to the Fed? Beats me. _________________ No president should ever again accept any budget that does not include sufficient authority to finance it. The debt-ceiling hostage-taking is absurd.

- roidubouloi

January 14, 2013 at 9:20pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Not very optimistic, drof, but one can hope for change, or for hopey change.

- roidubouloi

January 14, 2013 at 9:21pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

One should also bear in mind that Obama has no power to make changes to entitlements. If the Senate Democrats will not go along, he cannot deliver any such changes no matter what he agrees with the Republicans. There will come a point where Obama succeeds in alienating the members of his own party because he refuses to coordinate his strategy with them. Leaving Harry Reid swinging in the wind on the last one was a big mistake.

- roidubouloi

January 14, 2013 at 9:23pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"The President has the authority to spend, but the question is how to raise the money that he is required to spend, is it not? If I am correct - and I freely admit that I don't know - I am not sure how Iowa's solution would help." Yes, he needs money in bank accounts. He has two choices - either he agrees with the Federal Reserve that they will honor warrants written on US accounts, and just goes on spending (which is the old remedy of sovereigns printing money, more or less), or he tells the Treasury to continue selling bonds as necessary to fund expenditures, and makes clear that those bonds will be honored, as honored they must be under the 14th amendment. They'll sell - maybe at a modest premium, but I'd be willing to bet it will be very modest compared to mayhem a default might entail.

- IowaBeauty

January 14, 2013 at 9:27pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Remember, by the way, that if the debt limit is not raised, the administration is in a situation where they MUST break statutory law - both entitlements and ongoing expenses are required by law to be paid, and unless I've missed something subtle, there are no escape clauses allowing non-payment because the Treasury is out of dollars. So either they break the statutory debt limit law by continuing to issue bonds, or they break the spending laws. The constitution doesn't address the matter of conflicting statutes directly, but I don't see how the executive can go wrong asserting that in the case of conflicting, but otherwise proper laws, he must choose to honor that interpretation which does the least damage to the country.

- IowaBeauty

January 14, 2013 at 9:31pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"President Obama seems to think that you win by demonstrating that you’re a more reasonable person than your opponents." Come on, Timothy. Give Obama a little more credit for being a wily politician; after all; he got elected to the Presidency twice. That's two more times than any of us will be elected to anything. I also don't get the Machiavelli quote. The Renascence writer and playwright lived in a time when Tyranny was the rule and all one had to do to be liked by one's subject was pardon a couple of drunken sots who were about to be beheaded. In the West at least this is no longer the case.

- arnon1

January 14, 2013 at 9:32pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

drofnats1, roi has made the distinction between the "fiscal cliff" and the debt ceiling well enuff. that's why Obama should not have caved so much in 2012. this is because if he seems to be resolute and get "his" way on the debt ceiling, the truth is that the GOP is very unlikely to default in any event--and Obama really can't claim much credit for that. still, there's much to consider--as long as some realities are kept in mind. uppermost is that the GOP puts itself above the national interest because its survival is in jeopardy--yet the GOP is wedded to impossible ideological positions, that is, positions that cannot wave the party. Obama knows this, and will have to take them into account no matter what.

- cdmcl3

January 14, 2013 at 9:45pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

*save

- cdmcl3

January 14, 2013 at 9:47pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

They don't need warrants. All the Treasury needs to do is keep writing checks which are not covered under the debt ceiling. The Federal Reserve Banks can pay the checks because they can acquire any direct obligations of the US, and checks are the direct obligation of the drawer and only the drawer. For good measure, Treasury checks are drawn on the Treasury and so are direct US obligations on two counts. However, the president has no means of forcing the Federal Reserve Banks to honor Treasury checks. One or more would have to be willing to do so. This is indeed printing money, but its contribution to inflation would be trivial at best (I say at best because we could use some inflation). There are three ways to finance government, taxing, borrowing, and printing money. Taxing and borrowing are under the direct control of the Congress. Control over printing money to pay bills, seigniorage, has been vested in independent agencies, the Federal Reserve Banks (haven't looked up the extent to which the Federal Open Market Committee controls the individual banks in this regard). As for resolving conflicts between statutes, courts attempt to reconcile them, somehow. If they cannot be reconciled, the general rule is that the last in time, which would in this case be the budget, I believe, controls. Obama doesn't have to cite the Constitution for authority to borrow, only the fact that he is instructed to spend and that this implies that he has the means to do so.

- roidubouloi

January 14, 2013 at 10:12pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

No, sainthood won't do it, but his approval ratings might. Gallup has him at 52/41 today (recently as high as 57/37). Plus, he has his inauguration and state of the union coming up; rather bully pulpits from which to make his case while the Repubs look small. Of course most House Republicans won't care about his national ratings, as their districts are drawn to be composed of a majority who believe Obama is a Kenyan socialist metrosexual muslim alien who wants to force them to melt down their guns into high-speed rail tracks. But some GOP House members are from districts Obama won. Anyway, if shortly after his inauguration/state of the union boosted approval rating approaches 60%, the Repubs refuse to raise the debt limit, the Repubs will get the blame and it will be like the 1995 government shutdown again. This time, the GOP will cave. That's my prediction; we'll see.

- bjones

January 14, 2013 at 10:12pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

yeah, bj, the GOP will cave to Wall St., and Obama knows that.... ...the problem for me is that NONE OF THIS truly matters to the confused and angry, driven into a constant frenzy, and into their own "alternative reality," such that they are maintained (by irresponsible people) "at the ready" to intimidate the House--to the minimal extent gerrymandering permits. if that "alternative reality" isn't dismantled, then no lasting progress can be made, and muddling will be the best alternative for the rest of us....

- cdmcl3

January 14, 2013 at 10:29pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

1. It is simply insane to believe that "all the leverage was on his side" in the fiscal cliff negotiations. Anyone who believes this has clearly never been in a negotiation because, if all leverage is controlled by one party to a "negotiation" then there is in fact no negotiation but, rather, the ownership of complete authority which, if one is lucky, might be exercised benevolently. 2. What would the leftist nuts (you know who you are) do when, subsequent to invocation of the 14th Amendment or the printing of a platinum coin which the Federal Reserve would likely not accept for deposit, the Republicans mount a successful Impeachment proceeding, thereby ratcheting up to fevered campaign to oust the President from Office? And in turn retrospectively de-legitimizing his previous record, including especially the ACA? I submit that the correct interpretation of Machiavelli's "ought not to mind the reproach of cruelty" is to allow the Republicans to crash the government and the economy, if they insist, with the consequences being a lesson to all at home and abroad of their idiocy, intransigence, and unfitness to govern.

- vst

January 15, 2013 at 5:47am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Impeachment worked so well for the Republicans last time, didn't it vst? You do recall that, although the House impeaches, the Senate tries the matter and most vote affirmatively to remove the president from office. Do you also remember the impeached Bill Clinton speaking at the last Democratic convention and being lionized for it, both at the convention and across the country? We can argue forever about just how much leverage Obama had in the so-called fiscal cliff crisis given that taxes did not have to be raised only lowered. However, why exactly do the right-wing appeasers and sniveling political cowards and incompetents (you know who you are -- or maybe you don't, which is even worse) believe that going over the cliff and seeing who could stand the political heat longer was not a better alternative than what Obama did in fact do, both in the particular instance and to set up the next "negotiation? Could he not have gotten at least as good a deal two weeks in with the Republicans standing in the way of middle-class tax cuts and credits linked to UI relief AND an extension of payroll tax relief? What does it say to the voters that tax relief for working people is not extended while tax relief for those making as much as $400,000 is extended? Is this an outcome that Democrats should want to run on in two years as evidence of the need for the voters to break the stalemate in Washington? If allowing to Republicans to do what they threaten to do, refuse to raise the debt ceiling, is totally unthinkable, that implies that Obama ought to give them whatever they ask to induce them to refrain. Is there no price too high? And if, in principle, there can be a price too high (as well as the disastrous consequence of legitimizing Republican political terrorism and confusing the responsibility for the outcome), when do the right-wing appeasers and sniveling political cowards and incompetents (you know who you are -- or maybe you don't, which is even worse) decide that enough is enough? And if there is a limit, why is yielding more to Republican threats better than yielding less? Allowing the Republicans to pull the trigger on their threat, rather than giving them political victory for it, makes all the good sense in the world. If, after we spend some time with a 50% shutdown of the government and all those Republicans are also getting frantic about the checks that are not arriving, it is indeed the Democrats who decide they must yield and pay ransom "for the good of the country," they can then extract an unbearable political price from the Republicans, loudly claiming that they abhor what they are giving up, but that the country cannot afford the terrorism and it is up to the voters to remove the Republicans if they don't like it. Couple denunciation and excoriation with having all Democrats abstain in the vote on the ransom, so that it is entirely a Republican decision, and we can pretty well guarantee a Democratic Congress in two years, at which time the debt ceiling can be eliminated permanently and one hopes the Democrats will have the balls for real filibuster reform. It is critical, however, that, unless the Republicans are going to yield for a couple of fig leaves and a cup of sand, the country actually feel the consequences of Republican perfidy. Sad but necessary. We call that collateral damage. It is a consequence of war, which can never be contained within perfect boundaries. This is a political war, because there is no possible of conciliating the Republican party in the service of governance.

- roidubouloi

January 15, 2013 at 8:07am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

i welcome nearly every assessment about 2014 and 2016 that doesn't roll over and concede that the gerrymandering after 2010 does NOT mean the GOP has the House in its back pocket. at the same time, however, such a position must acknowledge that the struggle for the House is at best gonna be one hell of a battle, and one that must be fought--against all odds, and with 2016 in mind (itself quite a challenge both for the House and other positions). in fact, about the only assessments i'd challenge are any that contend 2014 and 2016 are gonna be easy for Dems, etc., in terms of controlling the House, etc.

- cdmcl3

January 15, 2013 at 8:27am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

And if the Democrats ever do get control of the Congress and grow a pair, they might consider establishing rules for congressional districting, maximum compactness and equal population, that prevent gerrymandering. It will never be easy, but if the Democrats, and Obama in particular, can learn how to make the Republicans pay for their extremism, it would be a lot easier. Fuck this "only grown-up in the room crap." Pure narcissism that we cannot afford.

- roidubouloi

January 15, 2013 at 8:37am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"You seem quite convinced of your singular virtue" Don't be silly. This debate - about Obama's negotiating skills, in particular, but more generally about how to relate to or react to Republican nihilism - has been going on between two well-defined sides since January 20, 2009. You, drof and Aaron have been fairly strident about your singular ability to negotiate and politick and see through Republican perfidy; more than that, you claim to have a better sense of political fighting than a Black man who beat a war hero and a plutocrat to become and remain President, and who has weathered the most sustained political delegitimisation campaign against a sitting President since Lincoln. My only "virtue", if there be one in this debate, is one of humility: Obama, who appears to be a pretty deft politician (but by no means infallible), and his phallanx of advisers read all that you and I read about the Republicans, and have at least the same source of information about the political world as you and I do. I do not impute weakness or narcissism because I disagree with what he does; I try to see why he does what he does on policy grounds. And where I land is no different from where blackie or wildboy or MacGillis land - I am, in that sense alone, in good company. "who are just as aware of the policy stakes as you are, if not moreso. We live here after all and you don't." Cheap shot. And, sometimes, people who are on the outside have a better view of the whole picture than those who are in the throes of political warfare. "Had he been willing to go over the cliff, and make them start to pay for their opposition to middle class tax cuts," "that going over the cliff and seeing who could stand the political heat longer was not a better alternative than what Obama did in fact do" Speaking of policy stakes, we can go over the whole discussion - lest you accuse me of being a "right-wing appeaser and sniveling political coward and incompetent" (btw way to go - now who is starting the name-calling?) - but the debate, from day one, has been about the difference between political and policy heat, has it not? It's about the unemployed, about certain tax credits that are far more valuable than the payroll tax holiday, and about preserving the world economy - no exaggeration, I assure you - from disaster. "You persist in believing that Obama can somehow govern, because he holds the office, without fighting and winning political battles with the Republicans." Nonsense. And you know it. We talk about fighting and political battles, but this is not warfare. When I say Obama has to "govern", you know full well what I mean, and the condescending quip on reading the Constitution, besides being silly (as you have endlessly lectured others, the "constitution" is to be found not just in the literal text, but in the hundreds of years of legal and jurisprudential development before and after the Wars of Indepedence), is beside the point. When I talk about "governing", I mean that there is a difference between policy and politics, and sometimes the President has to forego winning *political battles* in the short-term, in order to get the right policy implemented. Because, while as a (or, in your telling, the) "leader" of a political party he has political responsibilities, as President it is less open to him to say, to the unemployed, "Sad but necessary"; "We call your plight collateral damage." I once told K2K that I consider it immoral for a person benefitting from Medicare to oppose universal health care. Equally, for someone who has no material wants to turn to the unemployed and say, "sad but necessary, you collateral damage" is unconscionable. "a straw-man that you yourself have created" When Aaron said that the Republicans should be humiliated and destroyed, you agreed with him. Not a straw-man.

- icarus-r

January 15, 2013 at 9:06am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Roi, the following solution you propose will not work: "I continue to believe, indeed after a long argument with peterpalys I am convinced, that the Treasury has authority to continue to write checks for appropriated expenditures and the Fed has the authority to honor them, without regard to the debt-ceiling because it has no application to checks." If the Fed honors checks with funds other than funds already in the Treasury's account, it is allowing an overdraft. An overdraft at a bank is a form of loan from the bank. Thus, if the Fed does what you propose, Treasury will be borrowing from the Fed, which is subject to the debt ceiling. If the Fed and the Treasury work together to ignore the debt ceiling they are ignoring the law. Whether ignoring the law that established the debt ceiling is a good thing to do is another subject of discussion.

- PeteBeck

January 15, 2013 at 9:07am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"And if the Democrats ever do get control of the Congress and grow a pair, they might consider establishing rules for congressional districting, maximum compactness and equal population, that prevent gerrymandering." There we agree.

- icarus-r

January 15, 2013 at 9:07am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

PeteBeck: how is what Roid proposes different from QE? The Fed can just print the money to pay the bills.

- icarus-r

January 15, 2013 at 9:10am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

roid: Obama extracted no political price from the Republicans and he paid one in the form of payroll tax increases affecting vastly more people adversely than were saved taxes by the difference between $250,000 and $400,000 You know this is not true, the unemployment insurance was extended, so was child tax credits, the eitc, and tuition tax credits. None of these would have been had we gone over the cliff. Now you continue to pretend if Obama held firm that these would have but you present not a single bit of evidence because there is none, it is pure conjecture. It is called compromise. Republicans agreed to extend Democratic programs, Democrats agreed to raise the limit. Now you can disagree with the extent of the compromise, like the permanent nature of the tax cuts, but stop lying that Obama extracted no political price (by poliltical price I assume you are referring to Republicans giving up things they would sooner abolish if given the chance, I hope you are not referring to abstract notions like Republican popularity) Again Bernie Sanders voted for this package. But somehow you know better. Virtually every Democrat in Congress went along with this package when many didn't have to but you never ask yourself why. In any event, you are just making yourself crazy. You are starting to enter drof territory. Soon you will be advocating for a Santorum Presidency just so America could be destroyed and some great white progressive will bring in some imaginary golden age of leprechauns riding on unicorns and dogs and cats being able to marry. As of now Republicans have still not spelled out where they will get this one trillion in spending cuts. Why don't you let them hang themselves first before you accuse Obama of rolling over.

- blackton

January 15, 2013 at 9:18am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

icarus - When the Fed prints money, which it does, it distributes it by giving the notes to banks against their accounts at the Fed. In other words, they are bank to bank transactions. That process does nothing to put money into the account of the Treasury at the Fed. And payment of Treasury checks by the Fed must either be by drawing against the Treasury's account or by allowing an overdraft which is simply a form of loan, in this case a loan to (and thus borrowing by) the Treasury.

- PeteBeck

January 15, 2013 at 9:31am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Pete: the Fed does not simply transfer cash to the banks out of the blue. QE involves, at the top level, the purchase of government bonds; and at a second level, the purchase of private bonds. That is how cash is transferred to the banks. I don't know the details of what the Fed has done in QE terms, but it seems to me that it has the authority to print money to retire debt, and thus to make room for more debt.

- icarus-r

January 15, 2013 at 9:59am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Why don't you let them hang themselves first before you accuse Obama of rolling over." Because that would not serve the narrative that Obama is uniquely bad at negotiating and politics, and both Krugman and Roid are uniquely good at both. Obama is a narcissist becaus he wants a deal at all costs; Roid is a brilliant political strategist for his advice to the entire Democratic political class in DC on how to do national politics.

- icarus-r

January 15, 2013 at 10:02am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Now you continue to pretend if Obama held firm that these would have but you present not a single bit of evidence because there is none, it is pure conjecture." Everything counter-factual can be characterized as pure conjecture. So what? It is a meaningless, tautological argument. There is exactly no evidence that Obama could not have achieved UI relief, and more, had he been willing to go over the non-existent cliff and let the Republicans start to feel the heat. You may disagree, but your rhetorical invocation of "evidence" is nonsense. The Republicans paid exactly no political price for the fiscal-cliff crisis. They first manufactured the fiscal cliff out of the last debt-ceiling hostage taking. It was resolved with a deal strictly worse than the previous tax-cut extension deal. In no sense were the Republicans held to account for intransigence. They walked away with less than they would have liked, but with no political cost to them whatsoever. You, blackton, ought to stop pretending otherwise because you approve of the outcome. When the Republicans hang themselves, I will applaud Obama's tactics. That is not, however, the history of the last four years. They should have hung themselves by now, but so far have mostly succeeded in frustrating the Democratic majority. Some hanging. You and icarus seem to be reduced to the argument that all the politicians know better than we do. Therefore, we ought to shut up and stop criticizing. That is utterly juvenile. And I have never notice that you refrain from criticizing that which you deem worthy of criticism based on the superior wisdom and authority of politicians. The two of you are very inventive in fundamentally avoiding the argument about what political tactics would be most effective. I gather you have nothing relevant to say to the point.

- roidubouloi

January 15, 2013 at 10:06am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

icarus When the Fed acquires government debt from banks the debt remains on the books. The only change is that the creditor now is the Fed, not the banks. The purpose of QE is to get money to the banks which in turn they can lend to non-governmental borrowers.

- PeteBeck

January 15, 2013 at 10:07am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

You are wrong, PeteBeck. The Federal Reserve Act gives Federal Reserve Banks the power to acquire any direct obligations of the United States. Treasury checks are the direct obligations of the United States. The only prohibition is against acquiring them directly from the Treasury, which would not be the case if they are presented by third parties. The colloquially named "debt ceiling" does not speak to debt. It speaks to instruments issued by the Treasury "under this chapter." Those do not include Treasury checks Checks are in fact borrowing while they are outstanding. The Treasury check float has never been considered to count toward the debt-ceiling. That doesn't change at all because the Fed acquires Treasury checks. You must at least address the language of the relevant statutes, even if you want to interpret them. You cannot just make it up. irony, when the Fed acquires Treasury securities, it does not make room for more debt because the securities are considered outstanding for purposes of the limits on issuance while they are held by the Fed (or by trust funds for that matter). Treasury checks are not counted under the debt ceiling. Hence they can continue to be issued. The Fed can acquire them from third parties and can give full value for them if it chooses to do so because the Federal Reserve Act explicitly empowers Federal Reserve Banks to acquire any direct obligations of the US without limitation.

- roidubouloi

January 15, 2013 at 10:12am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

(i don't think that Obama wants "a deal at any costs"; instead, i merely think he has more on his plate than has been the focus of most of these comments. as Prez, there are many and diverse narratives he must superintend. "underfoot," there is the little game with GOP fanatics who cannot be satisfied by anything but hectoring and/or hamstringing Obama, something that the House majority alone can do for now..........)

- cdmcl3

January 15, 2013 at 10:14am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

after my last post, i read about any according too many expertise when that might be unfortunate. as posts about that might tend to lend the wrong impression: my comments should hardly be interpreted as any carte blanche to politicians, statesmen, et alia. merely, a reminder that there's much that figures into the "big picture" (even if this seems pedestrian or corny).

- cdmcl3

January 15, 2013 at 10:24am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"My only "virtue", if there be one in this debate, is one of humility>" A little irony, irony? "Obama, who appears to be a pretty deft politician (but by no means infallible), and his phallanx of advisers read all that you and I read about the Republicans, and have at least the same source of information about the political world as you and I do." Ergo we have no basis for criticizing his political tactics? Somehow, despite his deftness, he managed completely to botch the ACA debate and then lose the House. Deft? Politics is a team sport. Obama is not a team player. Among other things, he continues to fail to coordinate his tactics and strategy with other Democratic leaders. Leaving Harry Reid to swing in the wind by abruptly allowing Al Gore conduct the negotiations was a terrible failure. "I am, in that sense alone, in good company." I prefer the company of AaronW, Tim Noah, Noam Scheiber, and Paul Krugman. However, although I enjoy their company, I manage to formulate my own opinions. "Cheap shot. And, sometimes, people who are on the outside have a better view of the whole picture than those who are in the throes of political warfare." And sometimes they don't. The cheap shots are yours in insisting that your disagreement about tactics is because you understand the policy stakes and we don't. You can disagree about tactics all you want. You do not in fact have a clearer grasp of the policy stakes. "(btw way to go - now who is starting the name-calling?)" You seem to have missed the fact that I was lampooning the name-calling by vst. Look again. "It's about the unemployed, about certain tax credits that are far more valuable than the payroll tax holiday, and about preserving the world economy - no exaggeration, I assure you - from disaster." You insist that it is a given that the UI relief could not have been achieved had we gone over the so-called cliff and had Obama then tied UI relief to middle-class tax cuts. The deal he made was worse than the tax-cut deal of the year before. The issue is how he could have achieved the best deal. Repeating that he achieved something evades the question. "as you have endlessly lectured others, the "constitution" is to be found not just in the literal text" Yes, but neither the Constitution nor its historical interpretation says nothing relevant about how to win the necessary political battles with the Republicans. "sometimes the President has to forego winning *political battles* in the short-term, in order to get the right policy implemented." More often, he first has to win *political battles" in order to get the right policy implemented because, in most cases, he has no authority himself to implement policy. The president's formal powers are quite limited. "sad but necessary, you collateral damage" is unconscionable." It seems to elude you that there is going to be damage either way, and assuredly has been, because the Republicans are committed to causing damage as their means of undermining governance by the majority. The question is how to minimize the damage. It is not necessarily minimized by the short-term gain. You are again evading the issue of the best tactics by invoking what you think is your singularly virtuous appreciation of the potential for damage and loss. "When Aaron said that the Republicans should be humiliated and destroyed, you agreed with him. Not a straw-man." The straw-man of your creation is that you claim, falsely, that we think political victory is an alternative to policy success. We see political victory as essential to policy success. You evade that argument in every conceivable way. Disagree about what are the most effective political tactics if you like; disagree that political effectiveness is the necessary predicate to policy effectiveness if you like. But you cannot honestly maintain that you are concerned about the policy outcomes and we are not. That is simply false, and evasive.

- roidubouloi

January 15, 2013 at 10:27am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"When the Fed acquires government debt from banks the debt remains on the books. The only change is that the creditor now is the Fed, not the banks. The purpose of QE is to get money to the banks which in turn they can lend to non-governmental borrowers." If the Fed acquires other direct obligations of the US, such as Treasury checks, I know of nothing that obliges the Fed to debit the Treasury's account immediately rather than holding the debt as outstanding, as it does with other Treasury securities. And checks are debt, just not subject to the debt ceiling. Any authority that the Fed cannot print money by acquiring checks or that it is obliged to debit the Treasury's account? Some authority? Somewhere? The Federal Reserve Act explicitly states that the Fed can acquire any direct US obligations without regard to maturity.

- roidubouloi

January 15, 2013 at 10:31am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Roid is a brilliant political strategist for his advice to the entire Democratic political class in DC on how to do national politics." My opinion is either persuasive in the particular case or it is not. I have no authority to invoke. You are again evading the issues by insisting that we are precluded from criticizing those in authority on the grounds that they know more and are more capable than we are. That is a sufficient argument to preclude all criticism of politicians. Hence, it is a meaningless argument. Stick with meaningless evasions, irony. They are working well for you, burnishing your self-proclaimed reputation as an immensely effective, kick-ass, take-no-prisoners litigator.

- roidubouloi

January 15, 2013 at 10:37am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

roi, you are spot on about the very evident need to limit the damage that (for example) the House is now about, etc. what you have said alludes to the fact that we literally have an inventory of people unprepared to cope after they fail in a political struggle. to the (would be?) "triumphant" i have to say: what's next in terms of significant stewardship? (the "vanquished" do not simply disappear!)

- cdmcl3

January 15, 2013 at 10:39am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

cdmc, This is precisely the reason why it is not possible to win an election and then somehow shift from politics to governance. Those "vanquished" in the election do not disappear, they continue the political struggle to wield public opinion so as to prevail on policy, even if in the minority, even if they have just lost an election. In a political system such as ours, policy success must be grounded in political success, not just electoral success. It is never possible to take a political holiday and simply "govern."

- roidubouloi

January 15, 2013 at 10:53am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Stick with meaningless evasions, irony. They are working well for you, burnishing your self-proclaimed reputation as an immensely effective, kick-ass, take-no-prisoners litigator." Me, not irony. As I have said, negotiations and litigation are clear different things. You cannot, and should not, use the tactics of one in the other. And in the public sector, both are different from buying businesses off people who have never sold one. Snark may well satisfy your drive to humiliate and destroy those whom you consider "appeasers" and cowards and whatnot, but it just demonstrates weakness of the initial argument. "You are again evading the issues by insisting that we are precluded from criticizing those in authority on the grounds that they know more and are more capable than we are." There is no evasion. You accuse me of believing in my singular virtue, and I tell you the only "virtue" I could be accused of harbouring is placing myself in Obama's shoes, on purely public policy matters, and asking myself if I had to choose between the two poisoned chalices, which one I would drink. I am not "precluding" you or anyone to criticise those in authority on any ground, but especially on the grounds that they know more or are more capable. Criticise away. You accused me of believing in my own "singular virtue" or whatever - and what I am pointing out (what you call evasion - it is a direct response to your ad hominem) is that *you* are the one who claims to peer into Obama's soul and determine that he is a narcissist ignoramus weak-willed appeaser who wants to be the adult in the room at the cost of the American people, Democracy, the American Republic and Western Civilisation As She is Knowed. In the process, all you do in response to demands for evidence to back up your blithe assertions about Republican attitudes if only Obama had more backbone, is to say, "so what?" In multiple posts and all the attacks and blather, you did not answer the simple question I posed: Obama is the President; let us grant that he is all that you say he is. Now, taking him as he is, what do you propose he do? Or is it that you simply like him to be you?

- icarus-r

January 15, 2013 at 10:55am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

(indeed, too many leave the "vanquished" long to thrash around helplessly. thus, the many hollow or nonexistent "victories" are apparent in many ways.)

- cdmcl3

January 15, 2013 at 11:03am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

(i think Obama could have done better than to seem another narcissist, if he did. i see him as having played the hand he was dealt. while i assume he might have done better recently, *likewise,* i don't necessarily presume, without question, to have a better grasp of many issues he has to manage. i presume he has an open mind; i assume he isn't alone with such an advantage.)

- cdmcl3

January 15, 2013 at 11:12am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Scott Galupo points something out that I had not thought about: http://www.theamericanconservative.com/gop-deserves-credit-for-stabilizing-deficits-but-plight-of-unemployed-ignored/

Jared Bernstein, who has prodded his fellow liberals to put entitlements on the table, notes that Congress already has enacted 70 percent of the nondefense discretionary cuts called for in the Bowles-Simpson plan. Recall that these are the programs (education, basic research, infrastructure investment) that Obama really likes. The reason he has floated his willingness to accept modest entitlement reforms (raising the eligibility age of Medicare, chained CPI for Social Security), to the consternation of the Democratic base, is that he knows that programs that benefit the elderly are going to crowd out spending that he believes will “Win the Future.”
Galupo goes on to point out some of the more challenging aspects of the unemployment issue. You don't have to agree with him; only to note that there are other explanations than appeasement or cowardice for policy choices.

- icarus-r

January 15, 2013 at 11:16am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

...frankly, btw, specifically, i do not favour raising the SSA retirement age beyond 65 (etc.)--but i lack the "stamina" to get into all the reasons here. (formerly, i had no "useful" opinion, and went along with the proposition that raising the retirement age soon was a plausible idea. then i googled the matter. i strongly urge others to do the same.)....

- cdmcl3

January 15, 2013 at 11:33am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Impeachment worked so well for the Republicans last time, didn't it". While roid might underestimate the pent up desire simmering just under the surface among a significant share of the population to remove this Black man from office, I would hazard to guess that President Obama and his advisors bear no such naïveté about the tangible threat that would be unleashed by an Impeachment proceeding.

- vst

January 15, 2013 at 11:49am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"When the Fed acquires government debt from banks the debt remains on the books. The only change is that the creditor now is the Fed, not the banks." "when the Fed acquires Treasury securities, it does not make room for more debt because the securities are considered outstanding for purposes of the limits on issuance while they are held by the Fed (or by trust funds for that matter)." Ah. I guess this is what I did not understand. In some countries, QE involves the purchase *and* retirement of the debt.

- icarus-r

January 15, 2013 at 12:09pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

For sheer snark, icarus, no one here is your equal. Yes, you do evade the issue, constantly. One cannot prove a counter-factual. Necessarily, one cannot even marshal direct evidence for a counter-factual. Thus, if I say that Obama could have done better and you say that there is no evidence, you are evading the argument, because the sort of evidence that you demand cannot exist. If that doesn't work, you tell us what a statesman Obama is, or that he, unlike we, has the responsibility to govern. Or that you, unlike me, understand the need for UI relief. Yes indeed, so what? Completely unresponsive to the issue of what tactics are the best POLITICAL tactics to achieve the best available policy outcome. That can ever and only be argued based on what one believes would happen had tactics been different. But, if you want some precedent, consider the 1995 government shut down when Clinton refused to concede to the Gingrich Republicans what they demanded as a condition to funding the government. Who won? Surely, icarus, you are not seriously going to claim that I do not state clearly exactly what tactics I think would have achieved a superior outcome. I have stated ad nauseum that he should have gone over the so-called fiscal cliff and let the stand-off continue until one party or another found the political pressure unbearable. I think it would have been the Republicans because I think their political position of holding up middle class tax cuts tied to middle-class and working-class tax credits and UI relief AND and extension of the payroll tax holiday -- all popular -- in a demand for continued high-end tax cuts -- unpopular -- was untenable. Is there evidence of this? There is certainly the evidence of what is and is not popular in the form of public opinion polls. Is it possible to know that the Republicans would have folded or to marshal evidence that the would have? Of course not. What could possibly constitute evidence of what someone would have done had circumstances been different short of them telling you so? (And as to that Lindsay Graham was saying that the Republicans were destined to fold.) In addition, by making the Republicans bear a political price for their intransigence, I think he would better have set up his now claimed refusal to bargain over the debt ceiling. There is no reason for the Republicans to believe in Obama's resolve now given that he has shown very little up to now. I certainly don't believe it. Beyond that, I have in fact discussed the downside. You say the downside was no UI relief. I personally find it difficult to imagine that the deal would have been worse after a couple of weeks of a standoff without tax relief and, possible, with the fiscal cliff beginning to bite and reduce government expenditures. And, as with the upcoming debit-ceiling showdown, even had Obama then yielded, he could have made a lot of noise about how the damage being caused by Republican intransigence was such that the short-term surrender was the necessary course for the American people. As it is, I think that remains muddled in the minds of the public. They think there was a made up crisis and that both sides are nearly equally culpable. At the very least, the willingness of Republicans to endure the responsibility for what they advocate would have been tested. That has been my consistent, endlessly repeated answer to the question you pose, "Now, taking him as he is, what do you propose he do?" So, don't pretend that I offer my criticism without explaining clearly what I believe to be the better alternative. You, on the other hand, never explain what would have been the downside of at least testing Republican resolve. You blather, and I do mean blather, about the absence of evidence, your own deep feeling for the unemployed, the necessity of governing (somehow magically freed from the need to succeed politically in order to govern), and more snark than I could manage in a month. Spare me.

- roidubouloi

January 15, 2013 at 12:09pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Ah. I guess this is what I did not understand. In some countries, QE involves the purchase *and* retirement of the debt. Most countries don't have a debt ceiling because it is pointless to have one. Apart from them, there is no reason not to retire the debt when it is acquired, and economists do not consider debt held by the Fed to be outstanding. That it is held in one pocket rather than transferred to the other pocket and retired is purely nominal. The only reason not to do so would be those occasions when the Fed, for example, sells debt in order to reduce the money supply. But one doesn't need an inventory of trillions for that purpose.

- roidubouloi

January 15, 2013 at 12:11pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"I would hazard to guess that President Obama and his advisors bear no such naïveté about the tangible threat that would be unleashed by an Impeachment proceeding. And yet we read that Obama is the first Democrat since FDR to be elected twice with an absolute majority.

- roidubouloi

January 15, 2013 at 12:15pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Scott Galupo points something out that I had not thought about." Well, I have, having discussed on multiple occasions the fact that non-defense, non-entitlement spending has declined by 5%, as a percentage of GDP, since 2000, while defense has doubled. That leaves entitlements as the clear Republican target since they will not agree to meaningful cuts in defense and the discretionary budget for "winning the future" cannot take much more. Yet, entitlements are first of all not the cause of the current deficit problems, although being made the scape-goat as a matter of Republican political strategy that the Democrats do nothing to rebut. They are solvent for at least another decade. Second, the notion that we cannot afford entitlements is a myth. We cannot afford them if we insist on financing them solely with regressive taxes. But there is no economic justification for that choice. The Republican game is to blame entitlements for deficits and cut them so that they can continue to run operating deficits by collecting too little in income taxes for from the wealthiest who now have 50% of GDP. Can we afford Medicare? No. Because we cannot afford medical care. The solution is to deal effectively with the medical cost crisis that threatens our entire economy. Cutting Medicare merely results in people who cannot afford care not getting it. Is that the solution that a country as wealthy as this one wants? Is that what Obama is doing to give up in order to get a deal on the debt-ceiling? That more people in this country will be denied medical care or, at the least, go bankrupt to get it? Obama plays right into the Republicans hands. Narcissim? Ignorance? Who cares? It is feckless. And the very notion that long-term programs like social security, designed for multiple generations, should be modified without serious study under threat of government shut-down is utterly ridiculous. As policy and as politics. If the Democrats insist on shouldering the political responsibility for horrific Republican policies, how can we ever hope to get out of the mess we are in? Glad you have seen at least a glimmer of what is actually going on, icarus. Now perhaps you can think about political tactics and strategy with a time horizon longer than a week.

- roidubouloi

January 15, 2013 at 12:26pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

vst, it's true that the failing GOP would like Obama to stumble into a circus that could derail his agenda--even if not quite the complete farce of impeachment. and i chafe--as he might--against the "only adult in the room" idea to explain his circumspection. meanwhile, i wonder who really is underestimating the public. for me, tho, there remains a prior question: do i overestimate what the Fourth Estate (et al.) fails to accomplish? so far, i think not.

- cdmcl3

January 15, 2013 at 12:38pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

roi, i must say: *quite several* good posts/comments, with accurate assertions! thanks! (yet i do not share much contempt for the hapless Obama...at the same time, i do think he could have been doing better...and at the same time, i do not underestimate his opposition............)

- cdmcl3

January 15, 2013 at 12:46pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Since Obama has already accepted 70% of the cuts to discretionary spending called for by the deeply flawed Simpson-Bowles report, we can ask, what has he gotten for that that puts government financing on a sounder footing and allows us to pay for the government we both need, and if public opinion is a guide, want? The only thing I can think of is a return to Clinton-era income tax rates for incomes above $400,000 and a reduction in tax-expenditures for income above $250,000. That's it. Are we to understand that this is deft negotiating? Having largely exhausted that well in exchange for not much, Obama leaves social security and Medicare up front in the Republican cross-hairs, and what stands in the way is only his purported new found resolve not to pay ransom for a debt-ceiling increase.

- roidubouloi

January 15, 2013 at 12:50pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

agreed, roi, respecting those cuts. but the right wanted, and still wants, is much, much more. and Obama is relying on having the GOP cave to Wall Street on the ceiling, rather than his own resolve. all of that is true. yet the "game" is far from over.

- cdmcl3

January 15, 2013 at 1:01pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

(ps--unlike so many, i'm especially peeved by the S-B Report.)

- cdmcl3

January 15, 2013 at 1:04pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

(remember too that much is also going on in terms of foreign policy--including non-military-related issues.)

- cdmcl3

January 15, 2013 at 1:10pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I'd like to know, why can't ANYONE who would be harmed by the government not paying its obligations sue to vacate the debt ceiling under the 14th Amendment? If a law puts a barrier in someone exercising a right that the Constitution guarantees, does that not make the law unconstitutional? Does that 14th Amendment not create a right to collect on debts owed by the federal government?

- sighthnd

January 15, 2013 at 1:21pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

That depends, CDMA, on Obama actually holding the line. Wall Street is not going to deny itself the gift of cuts to entitlements if it expects Obama to fold or if he blinks first. Simpson-Bowles was complete economic garbage. The wrong solutions to the wrong problem. Our fundamental problem is the lack of progressivity in taxation in the face of rising income inequality. Simpson-Bowles would only have made that worse o solve other non-existent problems. Pure political bullshit of the Republican variety.

- roidubouloi

January 15, 2013 at 1:23pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Where the parties should compromise is not on economic theory, but on the law of gravity. Would make as much sense.

- roidubouloi

January 15, 2013 at 1:24pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

There are sovereign immunity issues, sighthnd, and a difference between debts and unliquidated claims. The standoff will be resolved somehow long before lawsuits could be relevant, although the government may well increase its ultimate costs due to delay in payment.

- roidubouloi

January 15, 2013 at 1:34pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

once again, we agree, roi, except that i find myself, seemingly, an "unwilling/failing apologist" for Obama when simply saying that he has to have broad public support for much of anything. the nation is so divided that to say our own perceptions matter to others is to underestimate what rabble-rousers can do. i'm NOT asking "what would you have HIM do." i'd prefer that what you and i understand could make the difference: and for such as that, many more would have to agree with us than presently do--most notably, in the House. tho i'd elaborate, surely not here tho, i do appreciate very much several of your astute assertions and statements of fact.

- cdmcl3

January 15, 2013 at 1:49pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

". . . burnishing your self-proclaimed reputation as an immensely effective, kick-ass, take-no-prisoners litigator." Sorry roid, not me. My tenure-confirmed reputation is that of a kick-ass scholar, writer, and teacher of American literature :)

- ironyroad

January 15, 2013 at 2:11pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"There are sovereign immunity issues" Would a state pension fund, being part of a sovereign entity, be able to bring such a lawsuit forward and have the case expedited (a la Bush v. Gore) so that it could be resolved before the debt ceiling would otherwise become binding?

- sighthnd

January 15, 2013 at 2:45pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Pardon, irony. My half-Heimer's brain mixed up the two guys whose screen names begin with I. cdmc, the point I am always, always trying to make is that the president's REAL job is politician-in-chief, that his fundamental responsibility is both understanding the public temperament and doing what can be done to move it toward the party's agenda. That requires a coordinated effort that includes public rhetoric, public symbolism, and legislation, including at times legislation that won't succeed but can be made the basis for political campaigning. The effort needs to draw in party leaders and party activists at all levels in a common effort, speaking as far as possible with one voice. That is what makes the biggest impression on public consciousness. And it is not the work of a few days or weeks, but an ongoing project that can never stop. The notion that after an election political campaigning can stop in favor of governance ignores completely the manner in which the system actually functions, or fails to function, particularly in an age of mass, instant communications. For example, when the ACA fight was over, I wrote here that the Democrats should immediately make jobs their first, second, and third priority through the 2010 election, advancing one measure after another, even if stymied by the Republicans, to make clear the Democratic agenda. Didn't happen. Using the Republican threats -- and even allowing them to make good on those threats -- is an important opportunity to clarify for the public what the stakes are and which party is on which side. That is not a matter of seeking to govern for partisan advantage, which would be objectionable, but of seeking to create partisan advantage to allow space to govern. Yes, many more people, inside and outside of government, need to agree with you and me. But that is something that is amenable to effort. Effective political leaders don't just wait around, for years if necessary, until the moment is right. They cultivate the public. See, e.g., FDR, the example par excellence. Sure, Obama is not FDR and isn't going to be (to my disappointment). But we can still learn from the example how to do it and push Obama to do it better. _____________ sighthnd, there is no abstract answer to your question, because sovereign immunity means that the state can decide when and how it can be sued and what the consequences will be. State governments don't generally have any formal priority in court, but, in the nature of things, courts necessarily give greater urgency to government suits where large numbers of people can be affected and the suitors are representatives of the public.

- roidubouloi

January 15, 2013 at 3:07pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

roid, again we agree. and not only that, i can cite for you my mantra about so many unwilling to challenge the "received wisdom" that gerrymandering has locked up the House for 2014. using your own template (above, 3:07) about "what to do and how to do it," i'm sure it's plain what i might belabor here but for the fact that such is unnecessary for us. already today, tho, a few polls on cable are j u s t beginning to rumble a bit about the "unimaginable," namely, that it must be said that 2014 should not be conceded already! on another point: entropy is still a problem when good ideas are smothered--as the hard right can do with monies, etc. in large measure, transparency about money sources is a remedy, and as are, for example, your (outstanding) "free" comments, hosted by TNR....

- cdmcl3

January 15, 2013 at 3:29pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

cdmcl3, the retirement age has already been raised, for me it is partial benefits at 67 and full benefits at 70. roid, you are passionate but you do not persuade. Again you insist that Obama could have tied, somehow, the UI extension, the EITC, and the child and tuition tax credits to the full package you wanted. How he could have done it you do not say except by "public pressure". You keep claiming the you know how to get the individual Senators to follow your own advice for some reason. And no one is claiming you have no right to criticize. Agitation is perfectly respectable but honest to God you are starting to sound like a teabagger in your assurance. I read posts at Freeper or other such sites and they are all convinced had Republicans held firm Obama would have folded completely. Look at what you wrote: Yes, many more people, inside and outside of government, need to agree with you and me. Yes, WE NEED TO AGREE WITH YOU AND HIM otherwise we are all doomed, doomed I tells ya. That is pure teabaggery. I never say anyone needs to agree with me. I mean, Jesus Christ, do you even read why you write with a critical eye? Then why don't you just run for President yourself so we can all bask in your infinite wisdom, after all all of America needs to agree with you. I have no great arguments with your policy viewpoints, but your notions of politics is simply unreal. FDR had huge majorities in the House and Senate. LBJ did too. This is not then. And I am not saying Obama hasn't made big mistakes, he underestimated Republican insanity, but then so do you if you think that they would have folded under the fiscal cliff.

- blackton

January 15, 2013 at 8:50pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Stick it, blackton. You are not persuaded, you are not persuaded. But you express your opinions with no less assurance than I do. Actually, rather moreso as you don't even bother to engage contra arguments. So, don't bother me with your teabagger crap. If you have something to say to the point, say it. Otherwise take your ad hominem nonsense and shove it. You don't persuade me either, to the least. Is that sufficient to prove you are wrong? Indeed, you are not even paying attention. You seldom do, so absolutely persuaded are you of your own political genius. Given what Harry Reid was prepared to do until Gore was sent to cut him out, there is every good reason to believe that the Senate would gladly have passed a bill at Obama's request with just the tax cuts that Obama wanted, including the UI extension and an extension of the payroll tax holiday if indeed Obama had wanted that. That would have left the House Republicans standing in the way of tax cuts for everyone other than the wealthiest. Would the House Republicans have caved in, or very nearly so, rather than hold out for an extension of the upper income tax cuts? I happen to think so. You can think not, or you insist it is unknowable and therefore cannot be discussed. But I have made the point that we would be better off even if Obama had been the one to blink on the far side of the fiscal cliff, because it would have been absolutely clear that the Republicans were insistent on unpopular tax cuts for the rich in exchange for agreeing to tax relief for everyone else. Try at least to follow the ball, blackton. All you are doing is putting your hands over your ears, singing to yourself, and insisting that you can't hear anything.

- roidubouloi

January 15, 2013 at 10:17pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Do you have any actual political experience whatsoever, blackton? Or do you just read magazines and develop your certainty about what is and is not possible on that basis?

- roidubouloi

January 15, 2013 at 10:20pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Here, blackton, watch this and be reminded of what even a vanquished minority can do if it is consistent, relentless, and ferocious in cultivating and bringing to bear public pressure against the majority. When you are done, you can tell me again about everything the Democrats cannot accomplish because they do not have FDR's majorities. http://politicalwire.com/archives/2013/01/15/the_republicans_plan_for_the_new_president.html Majorities are created by good politicians who work hard at creating and sustaining them. They don't just spring into being.

- roidubouloi

January 15, 2013 at 10:31pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"For better or worse (I’ve argued for worse), the White House decided to set up this game of chicken over the debt ceiling rather than the fiscal cliff, which would have been much safer." Joshua Green, On Politics http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-01-14/why-the-white-house-killed-the-platinum-coin Waddya know, blackton? Someone else managed to figure out the same thing that I did and that is still eluding you. This doesn't require political genius, blackton. It is perfectly obvious if you just take your hands off our ears and try to listen.

- roidubouloi

January 15, 2013 at 10:38pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"just take your hands off your ears and try to listen"

- roidubouloi

January 15, 2013 at 10:41pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

on the matter of the SSA retirement age (etc.): despite scheduled raising of such, as some have said (elsewhere), re-opening that matter is already underway. (google for details.)

- cdmcl3

January 16, 2013 at 11:39am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

roid, I never said you are the only one who thinks like you do. But just because someone else agrees with you doesn't make you right. You yourself admitted the outcome was unknowable. You have claimed to be independently wealthy so for you you can afford to play with other peoples lives but that eitc extension, the UI extension, and child and tuition tax credits are just too important for millions of people, myself included, that the solution worked out is one I find acceptable. And what the hell has my sense of politics have to do with it? I didn't negotiate, I have zero input. And Republican success in 2010 had everything to do with a very high unemployment rate, an offyear election, a underestimating by Dems and Obama of the severity of the recession and the effects of their own stimulus, and a return to the norm for many Republican leaning districts. Being that Republicans had very little actual power their obstructionism was symbolic, even when they got the Senate to 59 they couldn't stop the PPACA. The obstructionism of the last 2 years has failed. They lost seats in the House, Senate, and they lost the White House and if not for ruthless gerrymandering the House might have also flipped (albeit narrowly) to the Democrats. Anyway, the truth of this won't be known until next month. If Obama refuses to negotiate on the debt ceiling flat out and sticks to it, then I will be right. If he caves and ties a package with the debt ceiling vote then you will be right. I am not saying he won't negotiate, but he will do it for the budget process and if Republicans shut down the government like they did under Clinton, so be it, but that is nothing compared to a default.

- blackton

January 16, 2013 at 12:58pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

by the way, Green is wrong. Again, he could afford to play chicken with millions of people getting UI and the like. You keep claiming that Obama could have forced Republicans to extend these provisions but you never counter what would have happened if Republicans put up a bill to cut taxes down to 250K without these provisions. The compromise was extending Democratic priorities for raising the baseline. As to chicken, so far Boehner has violated the Hastert rule twice, once for this bill and once for the bill to fund Sandy relief. All Democrats will do is write up a discharge petition and get 20 some Republicans from the NE and the debt limit will be increased on a late friday night. If you think that Republicans would have caved over this small bore tax bill but won't over the debt ceiling...well, that makes no sense. It is far easier to play chicken on the backs of the poor and working class but Obama chose not to, and neither in fact did enough northeast Republicans. And don't forget, if the Hastert rule had been in effect the bill itself would never have passed and you think it is wonderful for Republicans. It makes no sense to say Republicans would have caved to a bill to help the poor and middle class, but won't cave on the debt ceiling.

- blackton

January 16, 2013 at 1:16pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I didn't say they won't cave. To the contrary, I insist they will and would have. But it may require letting them pull the trigger and experience the backlash. And it is certainly riskier now than over the fiscal cliff, as to which Green is quite correct. You have still yet to address the question why Obama could not have achieved at least as good a deal on the far side of the fiscal cliff, which is why there was little risk in going over it and letting the country experience a taste of the consequences. You just ignore it on the grounds that you are content and the answer is necessarily unknowable. Neither is articulately relevant to what tactics should be employed. I would have preferred to test Republican resolve and public sentiment at the much lower level of risk entailed by the fiscal cliff. We shall see. I also am not at all persuaded by your analysis of the 2010 election. I consider Obama's loss off public sentiment in two years as a huge political failure. You seem to find everything that occurs to be either inevitable or a political success. Meanwhile, the country remains mired in huge economic problems not one of which is beyond our ability to fix if there were the political will. Our problems, unlike those elsewhere, are almost entirely self-inflicted. If that is not political failure, indeed political malpractice, I cannot imagine what would be.

- roidubouloi

January 16, 2013 at 3:24pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Neither is particularly relevant . . . This thing has a mind of its own.

- roidubouloi

January 16, 2013 at 3:25pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

SHARE HIGHLIGHT

0 CHARACTERS SELECTED

TWEET THIS

POST TO TUMBLR

SHARE ON FACEBOOK

Close