The New Republic

The Republicans will hold the line on tax increases, so eventually the US must cut discretionary spending or entitlements, or both. Cuts, large cuts, are inevitable. Krugman's rosy scenario is based in large part on a continuation of historically low interest rates, rates that make borrowing to pay for government spending less costly than increasing taxes to pay for government spending (hell hath no fury like a rich man taxed), which is one reason why Krugman can pretend that social security benefits for baby boomers have already been funded (those IOUs in the "trust fund" can simply be refinanced). But that's the common human mistake, assuming tomorrow will be just like today. It won't. Eventually the investor class will take their cash elsewhere, from US bonds to corporate bonds and equities, or to sovereign debt of other nations. Yes, that day will come. It always does. Krugman would acknowledge that the day will come but argue that it will coincide with robust economic growth (the result of the investor class finally, finally, moving their cash into more productive uses), and that the economic growth will provide both additional tax receipts without increases in tax rates and a larger economy to mitigate the impact of an increasing national debt. Maybe. But that's not for Obama or the rest of us to worry our little heads about. After all . . . tomorrow is another day.

- rayward

January 19, 2013 at 8:22am

When I wrote the above comment about borrowing being a cheaper way to fund government spending than taxing, I didn't realize that Matthew Yglesias and Damon Linker are having a "conversation" about the subject, Linker saying that MY's position (that borrowing is the cheaper option today) is "outlandish". I agree with MY (and, I assume, Krugman), but only if one assumes that tomorrow will be just (or almost) like today. If it's not, and borrowing costs go up significantly, debt incurred today will have serious ramifications tomorrow. Lanker supports immediate cuts to entitlements, including means testing, and admonishes "liberals" to "face it like grown-ups" and not follow "advice straight out of fairy tales".

- rayward

January 19, 2013 at 9:45am

Sorry, rayward, but you, Yglesias, and Linker are all wrong. The notion of capital flight from the US is almost nonsensical, and in fact impossible. Our capital consists of real things, productive facilities, not financial instruments. Further, American citizens are taxed on their world-wide income so they cannot escape taxation by investing abroad. Let's imagine that the investor class did try to export all its financial capital. That can only be done by selling financial instruments. Then they have either dollars or some other currency and the buyers of the financial capital have the instruments. So what? Nothing has changed but the title to financial instruments. Nothing has left the country because financial instruments, directly or indirectly, represent a share of American capital all of which is right here and is staying here. Suppose instead that they liquidate here and export dollars. One of two things happen, the dollars come back are spent in the US economy, a good thing as it would lift output, or the dollars just stay offshore and are not spent here. That's good too. The government can then replace those dollars by printing new ones without increasing the money suppluy. It would be as if a 100% tax were levied on all that financial wealth and it flowed right into the pocket of the US government. If we actually did that, they would scream confiscation. If they do it themselves, fantastic! Our wealth is our productive capital and our output, rayward, far moreso than any other country in the world. Further, our ability to pay for entitlements has nothing to do with taxes and borrowing. It is a function of the share of output that is consumed by those receiving the entitlements. If we can afford the output share -- we can, if we get health care costs under control, otherwise we cannot afford health care with or without entitlements -- then there are a multitude of financing mechanics with which to pay for it. The problem so far is that we have been relying exclusively on regressive taxes. That is a very bad way to go about it, but not because we cannot afford it. The problem rather is that this has a terribly negative impact on both income distribution and effective demand. If retirement and healthcare are going to consume a share of output, it doesn't matter, except as to income distribution, whether the share is publicly or privately financed. What is consumed by retirees and healthcare cannot be consumed a second time for anything else. As for interest rates going up in the future, so what? That merely alters the distribution of gross income towards those who have unearned income. It can easily be altered back through the tax structure if we choose to do so, or by other means that shift income to those who work for it such as wage increases. The conversation between Yglesias and Linker is completely beside the point. I have no doubt that Krugman well understands this and is not at all betting on low interest rates forever as you say he is. Krugman is also absolutely correct that it makes no sense whatsoever to cut entitlement share of output today to reduce the entitlement burden tomorrow as it would have zero effect, one way or the other, on the burden tomorrow. We can only consume our current output. Current entitlement consumption is a share of current output, not future output. There is no way to alter the share of future output by altering the share of current output as there is no place to "save" output. We cannot pile up wheat or autos or i-pods for the future. They are produced today and consumed today, plus or minus almost trivial inventory changes. What is produced tomorrow will be shared out and consumed tomorrow by people living then.

- roidubouloi

January 19, 2013 at 11:03am

Also, where exactly is this "investor class" supposed to go? Algeria? These threats, always the threats - from these Patriotic American Job Creators: impoverish workers, seniors, sick kids, disabled people, or else we won't create jobs and plus we'll take our marbles elsewhere. This is getting real old. Since Reagonomics, how exactly has America been doing?

- Sophia

January 19, 2013 at 11:50am

I can't predict what it will be like tomorrow, but I know it won't be like today. And capital, it will seek the highest return, which, some day, maybe tomorrow, maybe the day after tomorrow, will be some place besides US government debt instruments.

- rayward

January 19, 2013 at 12:35pm

Rayward, When the Federal government has a deficit, its share of national consumption, in the form of expenditures on whatever, exceeds its share of national income. This necessarily implies that the private sector has a surplus of income over its share of national consumption (including capital goods). The private surplus is due to insufficient taxation. The private sector has no place to put its surplus. If it used it to buy something, then by definition there is no surplus and there is therefore no government deficit. The private surplus only exists because it is unspent. In the first instance, the surplus is created by government spending, printing money. The government can then soak up the new money by issuing debt, or not. But the holders of the surplus have only two options: cash or Treasuries. If they spend it, there is no private surplus and no government deficit. Cash is a Federal IOU that bears no interest. A Treasury security is a Federal IOU that carries some rate of interest. If you don't need the cash, which would you rather have, debt of the same issuer with or without interest? Unless we start running bigger trade deficits and have to borrow from the world to support them, the real rate of interest on Treasuries is constrained because it is an arbitrage against cash.

- roidubouloi

January 19, 2013 at 2:01pm

Which is not to say that there are not undesirable consequences that flow from the government surplus/private deficit, but not what you think. Because there is a private surplus, there is by definition more private income than expenditure, including therein REAL investment. This becomes like a game of musical chairs with investors indeed looking for yield, trying to rid themselves of the excess cash or near cash. But there is no yield to find because there are more investable funds than real investment opportunities. What you get are asset bubbles. An asset bubble in Treasuries is reflected in LOW interest rates. In stocks, it appears as high prices, including fraudulent prices for scams such as worthless or grossly over-priced CDOs.

- roidubouloi

January 19, 2013 at 3:09pm

Circling back after reading Krugman's blog post this morning about Cohn's "killer rabbit". Cohn is my favorite; he is earnest, like the young priest I knew so many years ago who, not having been afflicted with the the cynicism that comes with a certain age, actually believed in salvation. I may not know what will come tomorrow, but I do know what should come tomorrow for Cohn: a raise.

- rayward

January 19, 2013 at 3:16pm

hey roid, good posts. And, ahem, are you willing to concede that at least so far Obama has not caved on the debt ceiling and that his being eminently reasonable on the fiscal cliff has helped him attain the political capital of twice the favorability ratings compared to the Republican party? shutdown is fine (comparatively, since it was such a disaster for Republicans last time but the economy didn't blow up), default would be an absolute disaster. I imagine Republicans think they will get somekind of comprehensive package passed with the budget negotiation so that when the debt ceiling comes up again in 3 months they can pass it. To be honest, I have no idea what will happen. Obama offered quite a big series of entitlement cuts with his grand bargain back in 2011, all Republicans have to do is agree with additional revenues via tax reform, something (tax reform) that Romney himself ran on. This kind of tax reform will hit precisely those income levels between 250 and 450 that Obama gave a pass too. (capping deductions being one example) If this happens then Republicans will have achieved a pretty big victory considering how they only have the house due to gerrymandering and Dem. inner city compact districts. For the first time in a generation they would have moved the needle rightward in entitlements. It would also be a big victory for Obama as he will then claim to have broken partisan gridlock. Long run I don't know who the grand bargain will help. Future Democrats will feel free to run on repealing the deal and restoring all cuts to entitlements. Republicans will have to own the cuts effectively since Obama won't be on any ballot anymore but will then argue that how will the restoration of the entitlement cuts be paid for. So I have no idea how it will play out. And it is also in the nature of what the grand bargain is, a chained cola can be tweaked for low income people, negotiating for drug prices is also something all Dems can support and will save a lot. Or Republicans can just blow up their position and get nothing, then fold after a government shutdown. Either option is fine by me. We are only a decade away from real Democratic party dominance (you can't gerrymander dead teabaggers back to life) so the longer Republicans are unyielding the less leverage they will have until it is gone entirely and all entitlement reform will be a Democratic endevour.

- blackton

January 19, 2013 at 3:36pm

I will happily concede that Obama has not yet given anything under debt-ceiling threat if you will concede that, when Obama is unyielding in the face of Republican threats, they fold, just as I have said they would. Now, who here has been advocating that Obama be unyielding in the face of Republican threats? Government shutdown would be just fine. It is a somewhat less extreme version of would happen if we hit the debt ceiling and a slightly more extreme example of what would have happened had we gone over the fake fiscal cliff. There should be no concession of anything regarding entitlements in the context of annual budget hostage-taking. If Republicans want to amend entitlement programs, let them get the votes. As I have said, to modify programs meant to be multi-generational by the seat of the pants is ludicrous. We shall see whether Obama's ego and narcissism continue to press toward a "grand bargain" or whether he properly divorces modification of entitlements from the annual budget. As for the annual budget, the only meaningful place to cut is defense. Everything else has already been cut.

- roidubouloi

January 19, 2013 at 4:37pm

Or, roid, the point is that there are times when being unyielding makes sense, and there are times when it does not. You and I disagree on whether Obama's NOT being unyielding - whatever that might mean in any given circumstance, but let that not detract - over the "cliff" made political/policy sense. Let us at least agree that the charges of fecklessness and narcissism and cowardice and appeasement and being like Chamberlain, Halifax, Daladier. Gamelin and Petain rolled into one were and are a bit exaggerated.

- icarus-r

January 19, 2013 at 7:13pm

roid, I specifically said Republicans don't have the balls to lay out what cuts they want in entitlements and I am still waiting to see what they propose. They folded under this scenerio because everyone in the world demanded that they do, my point again and again is that Obama compromised on the fiscal cliff so that UI, the EITC, child and tuition tax credits would be extended. Now I get that you are not happy with the deal and you contend the unknowable that Republicans would have folded on everything, even though UI, EITC, child and tuition credits had to be put forward by Republicans in the House in exchange for nothing. But this is a rehash. And I understand your genuine concern that the rates are locked in, that it will now take an affirmative act of Congress to raise rates instead of letting them lapse. That part I agree with you long term, but the refundables was just too important for too many poor and middle class people that I am relieved at what happened. You say Obama will go for the grand bargain out of ego and narcissism, but of course he will, you don't become President to be small bore (at least Democrats don't, old line Republicans like Poppy Bush considered good stewardship to be enough, but now not even Republicans want that). My point is, so what? Social Security and medicare is boned long term. I would rather Obama take a whack at it than a President Rubio.The birth rate is at a post war low, Republicans have clamped down on immigration, and even illegal immigration has fallen to the point that there is no longer any net flow migration into America from Mexico. And people are living longer. I don't want most of my kids taxes going to support my generations retirement and medicare. I think there is a lot in Medicare and Social Security that can be reformed, especially getting a social security lock box so that any surplus there is not reflected in the budget. I disagree with you about the seat of the pants formulation, not because that is not what it is but because I don't think Republicans are capable of sitting down and calmly discussing the situation. They are the party of drama queens. If Obama holds firm but does deal, Republicans will tell themselves he caved...but as long as the deal is sound I am fine with it. If Republicans blow it all up with ridiculous demands like medicare vouchers, then nothing will get done and we can face any shortfall later on. Even if Obama caves, he still has to get it by the Senate and it will only take 40 Democrat no votes. And if worse comes to worse and a noxious bill gets passed, Democrats can run against it in future elections. I agree this last is potentially terrible because Republicans might try to filibuster any future repeal and eventually Republicans will get back into the White House. Personally I think Republicans are full of shit. They will never get enough votes to take an axe to entitlements, they might want to but will want other Republicans to do it.

- blackton

January 19, 2013 at 8:04pm

Are you crazy? It's not a cave, it's a trap. The debt limit increase is still tied to budget cuts, and if Obama refuses to make them the first default in U.S. history will be on him intead of the Republicans. Presumably he sees the trap even if this article doesn't.

- mlottman

January 19, 2013 at 9:29pm

"even though UI, EITC, child and tuition credits had to be put forward by Republicans in the House in exchange for nothing." As part and parcel of middle-class tax cuts. Republicans like tax cuts. That's not nothing.

- roidubouloi

January 19, 2013 at 11:09pm

"Personally I think Republicans are full of shit. They will never get enough votes to take an axe to entitlements," Precisely, unless Obama hands the Democrats to them and they go along.

- roidubouloi

January 19, 2013 at 11:20pm

The notion that social security and Medicare are unsustainable is simply incorrect. With or without public financing, retirees have to eat and we all want access to medical care. That will consume a share of GDP no matter how it is paid for, publicly or privately. And the same amount of GDP is then left over for everything else, no matter how retirement and medical care are paid for. And this is the very reason why the deals, the "grand bargains," that Obama keeps trying to make are serious pieces of shit. They are oblivious to the demographics and to proper structure for financing these programs. Obama threatens to screw both programs up out of hubris and ignorance, the delusion that, if he is willing to do it, it must be the right thing to do. The business about too many retirees and not enough workers is nonsense. First of all, we are and have been in a condition with chronic unemployment and underemployment for several decades. So, the first thing that happens is we reach full employment. Then, as wages rise due to full employment, the normal economic response is capital-labor substitution, increasing labor productivity so that we get more output with the same quantity of labor. The likelihood is that this will allow us to support retirement as a matter of course. But, if we are still short of output, the retirement age can then be extended, or people can be encouraged to work while receiving social security, in order to increase the labor force. That, however, is not something that it makes any sense to do now while we still have unemployment. That is for 20-30 years down the road. Social security is not "boned," as you say, unless you think that Americans cannot earn enough in a lifetime of work to support a lifetime of life. I think that is nonsense, specifically Republican nonsense. Instead of putting forth proposed adjustments tot he financing that make clear that it is nonsense, such as making all income subject to taxation to pay for these programs, Obama keeps legitimizing the false Republican narrative so that people like you, blackton, say things like social security is boned when it isn't, unless we allow the Republicans to screw it up. Medical care is a somewhat different issue. Again, whether publicly or privately financed (and all the evidence is that private financing is worse), medical care is becoming unaffordable. It is 18% of GDP and growing. In France, it is 11% of a small GDP per capita with universal coverage and medical outcomes as good as ours. If we do not solve the problem of our out of control medical costs, which can only be done with some form of single-payer for reasons I don't want to bother explaining right now, then we cannot afford medical care, which means that people will not get the care they need. That is the outcome toward which Obama is sending us because he, like you, believes the Republican garbage about how Medicare, rather than medical care, is unaffordable. That incorrect premise leads directly to the basically dumb idea that if the government stops paying for it, it becomes affordable. No, it doesn't. It gets even more unaffordable and then everyone but the wealthy is denied care. There is plenty of time yet for Obama to fuck it up. He is off to a better start this time by refusing to bargain in the face of Republican threats, but it remains to be seen whether he is going to stick with it. If he does, I assure you they will fold. They are not going to shut down the government for very long and bear the political consequences. And, as with the phony fiscal cliff and the debt-ceiling hostage taking, even if Obama were ultimately to surrender to end the madness, THEN the Democrats would have a clear case to make to the public that the Republicans have screwed seniors and future retirees so we collectively have to get rid of the Republicans.

- roidubouloi

January 19, 2013 at 11:39pm

I would also add the footnote that one of the major problems in this country at the moment is that there is such a weak to non-existent labor movement that there is almost no institutional pressure -- even if we get back to something like full employment -- on employers to distribute productivity gains fairly among employees, shareholders, and customers. As Harold Meyerson said recently on NPR, even in companies that are doing well, nobody sits down around a table to negotiate improved salaries and benefits because there's no table anymore and shareholders are the only party invited into the room. This state of affairs has been worked on by conservatives for a long time, thirty years give or take, and it's not Obama's fault. But one of the best things Obama could use his second term for would be to help in all reasonable ways to re-vitalize the American labor movement (not a recreation of the 1950s but one geared to today's economy).

- ironyroad

January 20, 2013 at 12:54am

The reason why medicare is unaffordable is because we have it ass backwards, young healthy people send premiums to private for profit insurance companies and then the government pays to take care of the oldest and sickest part of our society, it is insane. But single payer is impossible right now, even a public option is so you have no argument from me on this issue. But because single payer is impossible then we have to make medicare as cost efficient as possible. The amount of waste in an average nursing home is unbelievable, my wife is an LPN at a nursing home and a lot of mandatory (by nursing home policy) but unnecessary procedures done because of fear of lawsuits is a big driver of costs. And why can't rich seniors pay more for the medicine? I support universiality of the program for its sustainability and so that even rich elderly are not impoverished but some means testing is only fair. And then there is a question of equity. Today's seniors receive far in excess of what they paid into the program in Social Security and medicare, I know a lot of well off seniors who spend their entire social security check at Sands. Social security should be an insurance program, not a welfare one for elderly rich people. I am not saying don't give them anything as that would kill its universiality, but don't give them multiples of what they paid in. Right now 4 dollars goes to seniors for every 1 dollar that goes to everyone else and this is before most baby boomers have retired. Krugman said if in 20 years there is not enough to finance social security, we can cut then, but as I am retiring in 20 years I don't want to be told then I am sol. Give me a baseline now that I can work with so I can prepare for my own retirement, if Social Security ends up being flush with cash, then up the cola which will be a big vote getter then. What I don't want to see in 20 years is my kids getting hammered with tax increases so well off seniors don't lose a penny ever. And any grand bargain won't hit anyone now. A chained cola adds up over time but for a while it will be neglible. Eliminating early retirement at 62 for people born after 1980 also won't affect anyone now but will molify Republican nuts who will seem to think it will be set in stone forever. If in 2042 a small subset of 62 year old workers can't do their job because of physical inability, then I am sure a future Democrat will call for expanding early retirement for those kind of jobs or just give them disability. A grand bargain will buy us time, if it is unnecessary no future congress will be compelled to follow it, if it proves to be necessary then future generations will thank us.

- blackton

January 20, 2013 at 4:13pm

A grand bargain buys absolutely nothing. You are buying the delusion that there exists some means to save now for later. There is no such thing. The only issue, now or ever, is the share of current consumption going to retirement and medical care. By all means, means-test benefits. Not going to happen. By all means, impose government protocols on medical care at all levels. Not going to happen. Instead we get nonsense about retirement age, or Medicare eligibility. Likewise, it is meaningless to say the young pay private premiums and then "the government" takes care of the oldest and sickest. The young are the ones who pay the taxes that support the oldest and sickest. It is really very simple: no matter what the structure of taxes and government, it is always and forever people of working age, however the society defines that age, who do the work that provides for themselves, for children, for the elderly, and for the sick and disabled. It does not fundamentally matter whether the financing method is public or private, except that public is more efficient for theses purposes and achieves a superior distribution of wealth. Ergo, we should not be retreating because Republicans are insane and believe the economic equivalent of the earth is flat, we should not be trying to mollify them, we should be pressing forward. There is nothing that can be done today to prevent your children from suffering so that he wealth can have more, but certainly increasing present suffering so that the wealth can have more is not it. It sets the precedent that this is acceptable when it should not be. That is what the fight is about. If you don't want to fight and win this battle blackton, get out of the way so that your children don't have to.

- roidubouloi

January 20, 2013 at 10:26pm

"A grand bargain will buy us time, if it is unnecessary no future congress will be compelled to follow it, if it proves to be necessary then future generations will thank us." You are merely repeating Republican economic nonsense and you don't even know it. A grand bargain does not buy anything at all unless it does the things it will not do, such as means-testing benefits, or extending Medicare age downward, not upward, or eliminating regressive taxation. What it will do is pointlessly cut benefits that will be hard to restore, ever.

- roidubouloi

January 20, 2013 at 10:28pm

And just as Democratic surpluses enabled reckless Republican tax cutting, the pointless cutting of entitlements will enable reckless Republican refusal to fund the government operating budget with adequate taxation. Their game is to keep high-income taxes low by using the government's debt capacity to fund operations rather than entitlements as we should. Obama has drunk the Republican Kool-aid. It seems you have too.

- roidubouloi

January 20, 2013 at 11:05pm

"Obama has drunk the Republican Kool-aid. It seems you have too." Right roid. Anyone who disagrees with you has drunk the Republican Kool-aid, is a coward and an appeaser, and feckless to boot. There is only one way to look at the world of politics; it's your way or Munich. Fascinating that you deploy the same sort of idiotically overblown and fascistic tactics against your opponents on the tax issue that you accuse the Likudniks of deploying against, well, you. At this stage, and with your thesaurus of insults hurled at Obama - you have officially outdone Hannity and Palin - you are not persuading, if that were your objective; you are not even arguing - this is venting and name-calling. Getting tiresome, really.

- icarus-r

January 21, 2013 at 9:44am

You really should try reading your own stuff, icarus. It is replete with insult. I have responded to yours from time to time exactly in kind -- often just repeating your own rhetoric back to you to make the point -- and it seems to incense you. Among other things, you will find that I criticize public figures, who are fair game, and what I can back from you and blackton is attacks, sometimes muted, sometimes not, on me. Are you not able to distinguish between discussion of politics and political figures, even in harsh terms, and discussion of other posters? In my opinion, discussion of other posters, as opposed to their expressed opinions, really has no proper place here. You, however, are an avid if deft practitioner of just that. Do you think that is not tiresome? It actually requires considerable restraint to fend of your incessant personal attacks without veering off into Likudnik territory. If you don't like my comments on Obama, feel free to offer your own, or take issue, if you can, on the merits, something you don't seem much able to do. Let me assist you in addressing the merits: The Republican economic "Kool-aid," as I refer to it, is the completely unfounded notion that this country cannot afford its existing "entitlement" programs and that they are the basis for our economic problems. Neither is even remotely the case. These are repeated endlessly by the Republicans, and the left, rather than challenging the false premise, has taken to repeating it too. Obama is a big offender in this. He fails to deploy any sort of counter-narrative to the Republican claims, merely quibbling about how much. These false claims are thereby legitimized and, because they have set the frame for the debate, the debate is easily lost, as it is being lost. Do you have anything to say to the point? Do you know anything about it? And speaking of overblown rhetoric, do you really think that describing the Republican false economic claims as "Kool-aid" is fascism in our time? Get a grip, icarus. Calm down and practice what you preach.

- roidubouloi

January 21, 2013 at 11:19am

"and what I get back from you and blackton is attacks, sometimes muted, sometimes not, on me" Have I ever called you a coward or appeaser, icarus, or any other name? If I say something about Obama that you think is an insult to him, is that the same as insulting you? Have I ever taken issue with the fact that you disagree with me or questioned the propriety of your doing so or the intelligence with which you do so? Do you find me attempting to ridicule your views by hyperbolically over-stating them? Look in the mirror, why don't you?

- roidubouloi

January 21, 2013 at 11:24am

Please point me to MY "incessant" personal attacks on you. In other news: http://www.salon.com/2013/01/21/obama_ii_older_wiser_stronger/

As an Obama supporter who’s nonetheless been a persistent critic of his cautious centrism, I’m thrilled by his new boldness. I have to ask myself if maybe he was right all along: whether he has only been able to rally the American people behind him on these issues because of his tireless efforts to compromise. We may never know. I will be thinking about that question in the months to come. I’d be happy to say I was wrong.

- icarus-r

January 21, 2013 at 11:35am

01/15/2013 - 8:07am EDT | roidubouloi 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?

- icarus-r

January 21, 2013 at 11:40am

Just go read your own stuff, icarus, starting with your post right above in which you falsely attribute to me insults directed at other posters that I have never uttered -- unless you really do believe that saying something about Obama is the same as saying it about you. When people disagree with me, I disagree with them. Sort of follows, doesn't it? Is there some reason why they are entitled to disagree with me, but if I disagree with them that becomes, "There is only one way to look at the world of politics?" If you express an opinion and will not accede to counter-arguments offered, may we then say of you that it is your way or the highway? Or is it sufficient to note that you do not agree to that with which you disagree? I don't take the fact that people disagree with me as the equivalent of personal insult. You appear to. "As an Obama supporter who’s nonetheless been a persistent critic of his cautious centrism, I’m thrilled by his new boldness." I would have been thrilled if his new boldness had been his old boldness. Personally, I don't believe that his prior appeasement rallied the American people behind his willingness to stand up to the Republicans. I think standing up to opposition is what Americans expect the president to do. "We may never know." Indeed we will never know, but one surely cannot argue from the latest events that those, like me, who have called for standing up to Republican threats as the better course were wrong. The evidence that we have from the last four years is that appeasing them has only stoked their appetite for confrontation and standing up to them has at last slaked it. For the moment. The battle is hardly over.

- roidubouloi

January 21, 2013 at 11:47am

icarus, in the case of the post of mine that you quote, I was lampooning the guy just above, whose name I forget, who had directed a comment in much those words at "the left." Read up from mine a couple of posts and you will see. In particular, the words, "you know who you are," were his. I thought it was pretty clear that mine was a lampoon, intentionally ridiculous in the extreme as a means of pointing out the absurdity of the comment just above. Apparently not, as I was not correctly understood. But if you do go back and read, I think you will see that I am not making this up. I was not attempting to comment on people who disagree with me, only on the excessive rhetoric of the guy above me.

- roidubouloi

January 21, 2013 at 11:53am

roid, I have no idea what you are talking about, Republicans control the House. This is a fact. They have a significant say in the budget. The kool aid you are referring to is called reality. You are acting like Obama need only say no to everything Republicans say and they will crumble, and they feel the same way. This is not governing, it is hopeless gridlock. As I said, a few things can happen, there can be some entitlement reform with revenue increases via tax reform. This will address both our short term and long term deficit. Now I know you say full employment and productivity can address those, but we have to get there and Republicans and the business sector want this done and without them we are never getting to a prosperous economy.

- blackton

January 21, 2013 at 11:55am

blackton, Entitlements are not part of annual appropriations. These are mandatory programs already written into law. The Republicans in the House have no ability to modify these programs, no power to enact changes to these laws, without the concurrence of a Democratic Senate and a Democratic president. They are backed with trust funds that are solvent for quite a while yet even without changes. As a result of the reality that they do not have the constitutional ability to enact changes to entitlement programs, their tactic is to threaten to wreck the government and/or the economy unless the Democrats agree to the changes they want and for which they do not have the votes. This is political terrorism, hostage-taking. I think the only acceptable response to the hostage-taking is a refusal to deal. If they shut-down the government in response, or default on the debt in response, let them. Let them do it and suffer the political consequences of intentionally inflicting misery on the country in order to obtain that which they do not have the votes to obtain legitimately. I think they would be brought to heel, but, as I have said repeatedly, even if, on the far-side of their threats, it is the Democrats who feel compelled to blink for the good of the nation, to relieve the economic havoc the Republicans have caused, the Democrats can then take to the nation the case that the Republicans have forced unacceptable changes to entitlements and the only response possible is for the people to vote them out. I would have all the Democrats both present and abstaining from the vote to alter entitlements in order to dramatize that it is entirely the work of the Republicans and the result of the need to prevent them from doing further damage to the country. If the Republicans were then voted out, fine. The Republicans would be discredited and the damage could be repaired. If not, fine too. The latter would indicate that the Republicans were in fact expressing the public will. In a democracy, that is what is supposed to happen, whether I agree with the policy or not. A democratic nation is entitled to the policies it wants, for good or ill. What is not supposed to happen in a democracy is that a minority is permitted to govern via threats. Unless the Republicans are going to agree to stimulus spending, I don't see what the problem is with hopeless gridlock either. The Republican-authored alternatives to gridlock are worse.

- roidubouloi

January 21, 2013 at 12:43pm

I haven't heard Obama's Second Inaugural Address, but I am encouraged by Jonathan Cohn's take on it, particularly the contrast with the first one. Perhaps Obama has finally learned just what he is dealing with in the Republican party. I certainly hope so. I would be much more ready to forgive tactical errors -- mistakes of both too much and too little are always inevitable -- if I believed that he at least understood what is going on politically. Perhaps he is encouraged and educated by what appears to be their complete capitulation on the debt ceiling. Give me this, I have been saying the exact same things here for the past four years, right since the gitgo of Obama's first term. So, if he has come around on how to deal with the Republicans, he has come to realize something that at least some of us (certainly including AaronW but others too whose names I cannot this moment recall) understood four years ago. Much better late than never.

- roidubouloi

January 21, 2013 at 3:10pm

I just read the address at one of the links here. A great speech. Clear and very moving. I hope for the political will and craft to make it reality. The most important element of the will and craft is for Obama to be the leader of the Democratic party and to work closely with other party leaders. What can be accomplished together, even with many missteps, is vastly more than a president can accomplish alone even if perfect. Politics is a team sport, today and always.

- roidubouloi

January 21, 2013 at 3:24pm

Two points, and I think I can close the discussion. The guy before you said "leftist nuts". It was not immediately evident that you were directing your attack to him. In fact, given the rather tiresome blather of drof comparing Obama to "Neville C", and your own invocation of Churchill, and the fact that I had raised this issue a couple of times, it was not unreasonable to view your use of WWII terminology as intentional. In any event, the disagreements have to do with matters over which I have no control and perceptions of issues and personalities agreement on which is not evident. Time will bear things out.

- icarus-r

January 21, 2013 at 4:10pm

For what it is worth, I was mimicking his line, "You know who you are" and attempting to mock his hyperbolic claim about the responsibility of "leftist nuts (you know who you are)" for the failures of government. I can properly be accused of the misperception that my own intention to lampoon him was clear and of failing to understand that, if not, it would offend.

- roidubouloi

January 21, 2013 at 10:32pm