The Bishop and the Butterfly: Murder, Politics, and the End of the Jazz Age
    Michael Maiello's picture

    Let's Step Up And Do It!

    By Michael Maiello on Mon, 07/11/2011 - 1:05pm | Politics

    Over at TPM, the early response to Obama's presser seems to be that this was a political homerun for President Obama.  I get the logic here.  He used his bully pulpit to very clearly articulate that all of the debt ceiling obstruction is coming from the right.  He tortured House speaker John Boehner by praising his honesty and intentions, thus making the rest of the Republican party look a tad insane.  This could, as David Kurtz argues, cost the Republican some stature with the press, if not with voters at large.  Obama strengthened his hand today.

    But to what end?  Either he's playing some sort of devious game here where he pushes through $4 trillion worth of spending cuts that aren't really cuts, or he's doing all of this to cut government programs, including Social Security benefits and possibly Medicaid as well.  If that's the end result, what's the use of all of this genius politicking?

    I can only conclude that Obama actually believes that the Republicans would allow the August 2nd deadline to pass.  I've never really believed that.  I know many of you have never really believed it, but if Obama doesn't believe it, why is he making any concessions at all?

    Remember, this is a manufactured crisis.  If there were no debt ceiling law on the books, the U.S. would be in zero danger of defaulting on its debts.  If the debt ceiling had been treated this year as it has been treated in the past (always adjusted after much chest thumping and grumbling) there would not be a problem.

    I'm starting to suspect that Obama and Boehner actually do get along and it's possible that Boehner has said in private, "You don't get it, these people are insane," and that Obama believes him.  It's equally possible that without further evidence then their own rhetoric, Obama just thinks these people are crazy and must be appeased.  Or there's the troubling possibility that Obama is thinking, "I've come to the conclusion that Social Security benefits rise too quickly in retirement and this is a great opportunity to implement that, along with some others things I've always thought should be cut, and if they're unpopular, well, I won't share the total blame."

    I keep reading that reaching a deal is really going to help Obama out in 2012.  I get that having the U.S. default and the economy collapse as a result isn't going to do him any favors.  But I don't get how this guy runs for another term as a Social Security cutter.

    I'm not even sure why we're having this conversation or why Obama got involved in anything other than a clean debt ceiling debate.  This should have been very simple. 

    O: "Raise the debt ceiling."

    R: Only if you cut spending and support a balanced budget amendment to the constitution.

    O: No.

    R: Then we won't raise the debt ceiling.

    O: Enjoy your global depression. (Click.)

    R: Hello?  Hello?

    So, really, what's going on here?  He thinks they're crazy, doesn't he?

    Topics: 
    Politics

    Comments

    For those interested, Digby's take is much harsher than mine.


    by Michael Maiello on Mon, 07/11/2011 - 1:09pm

    That's a shock.


    by brewmn on Mon, 07/11/2011 - 2:34pm

    Obama, et son parti républicain alliés peuvent manger achit et meurent.


    by cmaukonen on Mon, 07/11/2011 - 1:11pm

    I've been a bit puzzled too, having argued from the beginning that Obama should simply call the Republicans' bluff. Ross Douthat's take is that Obama's wants to go conservative to ensure his reelection:

    The not-so-secret secret is that the White House has given ground on purpose. Just as Republicans want to use the debt ceiling to make the president live with bigger spending cuts than he would otherwise support, Obama’s political team wants to use the leverage provided by those cra-a-a-zy Tea Partiers to make Democrats live with bigger spending cuts than they normally would support.

    Why? Because the more conservative-seeming the final deal, the better for the president’s re-election effort. In that environment, Republicans have every incentive to push and keep pushing. Since any deal they cut will be used as an election-year prop in 2012, they need to make sure the president actually earns his budget-cutting bona fides.


    by Michael Wolraich on Mon, 07/11/2011 - 1:49pm

    Yep, I think Douthat is right.   Obama isn't trying to lick the Republicans.   He's trying to lick us, and using Republicans for the political cover to do the deed.


    by Dan Kervick on Mon, 07/11/2011 - 2:03pm

    But note this from the same article:

    "For now, tax increases and entitlement cuts are equally unpopular. But with every passing year, the constituency for letting Medicare grow as scheduled gets bigger and bigger, and the clout of working-age taxpayers diminishes. Already, even a relatively radical proposal like Paul Ryan’s budget seems compelled to exempt current retirees from its Medicare reforms. Imagine how the landscape will look in a decade."


    by Peter Schwartz on Mon, 07/11/2011 - 2:12pm

    Of course, increasing taxes on the rich is not unpopular at all, but polls extremely well.


    by Dan Kervick on Mon, 07/11/2011 - 2:21pm

    That's what I found unconvincing about Douthat's column.  The politics of cutting this stuff now isn't good.  That it's going to get worse doesn't make it good now.  You could take this as evidence that Obama believes it must be done and this is the last chance, I suppose.  Or it could be Douthat's wishful thinking.


    by Michael Maiello on Mon, 07/11/2011 - 2:27pm

    I'm inclined to think it's the first option.   Obama thinks he has the burden of being the leader of a reckless, spendthrift, budget-busting party of fools, and that it is his thankless historical task to be the guy to put his foot down, in father-knows-best style, and drag us all back toward frugality and responsibility.

    Wrecking the economy is a tough job.  But some hero has to be man enough to step up and do it!


    by Dan Kervick on Mon, 07/11/2011 - 2:37pm

    It's not good, but...

    Firmly embedded in the public's mind is the idea that "the debt problem" is real, is dangerous, and must be faced up to, sooner rather than later. They also "know" that not raising the debt ceiling would be disastrous.

    So above all, Obama can't play chicken with these things. Even if the Republicans blinked, he'd come out as looking a bit crazy and dangerous himself.

    He also can't say that these problems aren't so serious right now, even if that's true. Too much cognitive dissonance for people--a jittery electorate--to assimilate. If he was going to make this case, he'd have to do it much earlier, and I'm not sure how easy it would have been even then.

    (The seductive commonsense imperative to "live within one's means" is very hard to fight--even if it's dead wrong as applied to the government now. People look at their own experience and "know" it's correct.**)

    So he stepped to the mound--as everyone has been demanding he do--and sent one over the plate laced with a poisonous bit of spin: allowing the tax cuts on the rich to expire. This polls very well, but the Norquist-controlled House, and the Teabaggers' pledge to their home crowd, make this pitch very hard, maybe impossible, for the Republicans to hit.

    So Boehner steps back from the plate and says, "Throw me an easier one." This involves no cuts to entitlements and no tax raises, but leaves the sunseting of tax cuts there, as a matter of law, like slow train approaching in the distance. Obama could "acquiesce" and press his advantage by also demanding that this can of worms not get reopened, oh, until after 2012 at the earliest. Obama looks courageous; Boehner looks weak for stepping away.

    No cuts to entitlements...tax cuts sunset just in time for the elections.

    This is why Douthat is telling his dummies to TAKE THE DEAL NOW.

    **This argument about the government living within its means is a big problem. A lot of conceptual work and persuasion needs to be done here. Even Democrats who want the government to spend have a hard time understanding the fallacy of this argument as it's applied to the government at this moment in time. It's possible Obama could have gone against the tide but, as my mentor used to say, it might have amounted to shoveling shit uphill. Not what you want to be doing.


    by Peter Schwartz on Mon, 07/11/2011 - 3:34pm

    Peter, that's and interesting take, and I think there's something to it, but there would have been no way to be sure that Boehner would refuse the deal. So at the least, I think Obama would have had to see it as a win-win. Boehner bites, and Obama takes credit for reducing the deficit; Boehner balks, and Obama takes credit for trying to work with the Republicans.


    by Michael Wolraich on Mon, 07/11/2011 - 6:23pm

    True. But my reading suggests there are ways to cut the COST of the entitlements without cutting benefits.

    Also, Boehner would have had to bite on revenue increases, too. HE would, but his caucus would not. So I think he probably felt pretty safe in that regard.

    But as kgb would say, that's the kind of risk-taking with the economy that Americans regard as leadership!


    by Peter Schwartz on Mon, 07/11/2011 - 8:51pm

    This is basically how I see it:

    • Obama is basically a liberal but has felt that the country needs to overcome the Red v Blue dichotomy that keeps us from doing things.

    • So his policy impulses are liberal, e.g., HCR, C&T, FinReg, DADT, but he feels it's important to imbue the process with bi-partisanship because policy is sturdier when more people of different views back it. This also fits with his consensus-building leadership style.

    • On top of all the genuine crises, he's confronted a Republican Party that has been almost 100% arrayed against his policies from the beginning. Their steadfastness has surprised him.

    • The 2010 election was a big jolt and he felt the need to move more toward the center or face two years of complete gridlock. In investing terms, you don't want to oppose the market because you will lose.

    • He's only been successful getting Republicans to say "yes" when he's held some cards they wanted or wanted to avoid. That's what's happening here, as it did in December 2010. Cutting of costs in exchange for revenue increases. The devil will be in the details about whether he's cutting costs or cutting benefits. The former, I assume, isn't objectionable to anyone.


    by Peter Schwartz on Tue, 07/12/2011 - 1:23pm

    Calling their bluff would strike ordinary Americans as wreckless. It would give them the jitters and make Obama seem like he's playing chicken with the country's and THEIR future.


    by Peter Schwartz on Mon, 07/11/2011 - 2:15pm

    With all due respect, you aren't *that* extraordinary. What makes you think the mundane and ordinary plebes don't feel much the same way about it as the rest of us?

    Truth is most folks don't give two poops about the debt ceiling - that's a rich banker concern at this point. But by and large everyone is pissed as hell the rich aren't paying taxes and yet Social Security/Medicare has now unquestionably been offered up by Obama for slashing. The stated bat-shit insane reason for this boils down to: we have to convince a bunch of rich schmucks to agree to raise the debt ceiling ... which first and foremost serves to ensure the financial stability of rich people. One would have to be a moron to really worry about them ultimately acting to raise it.

    Do you truly propose that most Americans would be more upset by "playing chicken" (what most people who aren't Democrats refer to as leadership, BTW) than ending up with an assured outcome where resolving a rich-ass-banker-inspired debt ceiling mumbo jumbo crisis ends up hooking up those self same rich non-taxpaying assholes *yet again* while screwing everyone else over?

    I don't think Americans are really that dumb. IMO Obama and the Democrats are playing with fire. The idea clearly was to try and make it look like the GOP was forcing Obama to slash "entitlements" to get a deal done. With the way it's playing out in front of ordinary Americans, it doesn't much look like the GOP trying to cut Medicare anymore. Now it's Obama offering up popular social programs rather than really fight over taxes and the deficit.

    With a play of Obama-confirming (multiple leaks) Medicare cuts were offered, it has pretty much neutralized a wider Democratic advantage coming in to 2012 once provided by the Ryan budget. The Ryan deal created black/white lines with the GOP firmly cast as attacking popular social programs and Democrats defending them. Now, once again, the Democrats don't really stand apart from the GOP at all .... both are perfectly willing to raid Social Security and Medicare.


    by kgb999 on Mon, 07/11/2011 - 7:05pm

    With all due respect, you aren't *that* extraordinary. What makes you think the mundane and ordinary plebes don't feel much the same way about it as the rest of us?

    Too many unclear person pronoun references here to make this coherent.

    Who are the plebes?

    Who are the rest of us?

    Who do you think I am?

    I assume most people pay attention mostly to the headlines and yakkers' interpretation of the headlines.

    I do think most people buy the argument that the country is broke and can't keep spending money it doesn't have. They analogize the government's situation to their own personal situation--incorrectly.

    Your point about leadership is correct, IMO. Most Americans think of "leaders" in the way the Arab view used to be caricatured: the strong horse. The Republicans have that bit down--Obama, not really.

     


    by Peter Schwartz on Mon, 07/11/2011 - 8:46pm

    Who are the plebes?

    Who are the rest of us?

    Who do you think I am?

    My point exactly.

    I do think most people buy the argument that the country is broke and can't keep spending money it doesn't have.

    I think that is actually an accurate assessment on the part of most people. Acute economic disaster aside, the general approach to national finance really had gotten well beyond sustainable. Realizing this fact isn't incompatible with wanting Obama to call the GOP's bluff.

    What I'm seeing is that a majority of Americans from all persuasions are on the same page with having the top-earners start paying taxes again and protecting the social safety net across the board as a preferred starting approach (not the top-earners, of course). Beyond that, there seems to be a general consensus that investing in job creation should be the policy approach by which to get the economy moving again (and thus close remaining revenue shortfalls over the medium term as tax bases return).

    If the public wants to protect the social net and invest in jobs - why wouldn't they back Obama up kicking the party that invented the "Ryan Budget" in the teeth a bit?

    IMO. Most Americans think of "leaders" in the way the Arab view used to be caricatured: the strong horse. The Republicans have that bit down--Obama, not really.

    I think this may be somewhat cultural within the Democratic party. For example, even though you appear to agree most Americans view leaders and leadership with "the strong horse" as typified ideal, your first reaction to the idea of Obama going with the strong move and calling the GOP bluff is to assert it would cause a negative (and whimpering) public reaction. Embracing the paradox that a public oft excoriated by Democrats as having little depth beyond crass love of simple-minded aggression would react negatively to a Democratic leader were they to be even mildly aggressive seems to be reasonably common.


    by kgb999 on Tue, 07/12/2011 - 1:31am

    What the plebes thought in May about the debt limit and what they think now:

    http://people-press.org/2011/07/11/public-now-divided-on-debt-limit-debate/


    by anonymous (not verified) on Mon, 07/11/2011 - 9:46pm

    and, adding to the above, what they currently think about Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid:

    http://people-press.org/2011/07/07/public-wants-changes-in-entitlements-...


    by anonymous (not verified) on Mon, 07/11/2011 - 10:39pm

    Interesting how their minds have been changed.  I guess having a Republican President and Congress scaring the crap out of them for months is taking its toll.

    But here is something else that is going on:

    http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2011/07/11/analyst-even-dollar-stores-struggling-in-obama-depression/


    by Dan Kervick on Mon, 07/11/2011 - 10:48pm

    Looks to still be approaching upwards of 90% positive support from Americans who think Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid are "good for the country". Additionally, a solid majority prioritizes protecting benefit levels for Social Security, Medicare *and* Medicaid over deficit reductions and don't seem to think general fund shortfalls should justify impacting benefits.

    What do you see as a significant change in people's opinion (and what point in time are we comparing against)? The responses still seem pretty steady on the core questions to me .

    The "Finances Troubled/Need Changes" questions are both kind of red-herring narrative questions ... not sure they have even been tracked previously. The first is an empirical function of math. Public perception on that one should be irrelevant to policy makers - leaders should be telling the public simple accurate facts, not asking the public what they think. The second would require establishing the respondent has a minimal level of expertise/understanding of the specific extant issues in the structure as it exists to really matter much.

    That's interesting to see if you are trying to track how effective an unchallenged misinformation campaign is working out. But I'm guessing unless a person is dedicated to a specific policy approach, so long as the outcomes work in their favor and they get a better deal than before - they're going to count whatever policy makers do to accomplish it as "right" on those two questions. If not ...


    by kgb999 on Mon, 07/11/2011 - 11:50pm

    Why don't we just make economic policy decisions by plebiscite or referendum?  That would be a swell idea.  Because, you know, the voters, they are very knowledgeable about economic policy, economic theories, economic data.  If you doubt that, just ask someone you come across on the street.  Why would we want to have elected officials getting in the way of their wisdom and judgment on these matters?


    by AmericanDreamer on Tue, 07/12/2011 - 9:04pm

    And it appears Senators Snowe and Collins have studied similar polls of the voters of their fair state:

    http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2011/07/11/265792/snowe-no-medicare-ss...

    That story, combined with a review of those polls, makes it look likely that Obama will eventually be getting some of the extra tax monies he wants to see. Maybe not exactly retirement of Bush tax cuts but a different combo. And it also makes it look like nobody is going to be doing much of anything significant to the two main entitlements for the foreseeable future, despite all the brouhaha.

    Of course, there is a chance that the lowly third entitlement, Medicaid, might be the stepchild that gets punished.  It already has suffered, but then there is nothing new about that. Many states have fiddled with it many a time, sometimes in very nasty ways, sometimes in stupid penny-wise, pound-foolish ways.


    by anonymous (not verified) on Mon, 07/11/2011 - 11:07pm

    So, to recap the narrative as it's unfolding here.

    -Obama is widely reported to have put a specific offer to cut Medicare benefits on the table ... despite the polls saying people don't want that at all.

    -Republicans visibly refuse the offered deal. Deep in the weeds, a few GOPers went over the top wanting absurd cuts to social safety net programs and everything else during the negotiations. However, granting the typical "most folks read headlines only" assumption, the majority of Americans will simply notice that the GOP said no when Obama offered a deal to raise the national debt ceiling and cut Medicare benefits. [The GOP actions have all the appearance of cramming as much quiet tea-fodder as possible into a sham negotiation to give cover for whatever process results in a raise-the-debt deal.]

    - Democratic leaders say the GOP can't have a deal (i.e. Medicare benefit reductions) unless they agree to "revenue" Obama asserts if some sort of revenue package emerges, he'll "go to the American people" ... and tell them they are screwed.

    - Two republican senators say they will not support any debt-ceiling solution that touches Medicare or Social Security.

    (face-palm)

    I am not convinced we're going to see the outcome you predict (and honestly, cuts to Medicaid - which as you note has already suffered - would be a bitter blow for a lot of people at this point). I agree you propose a logical outcome based on the current situation, but IMO there's something totally off-kilter with political reality on the policy maker side right now.

    But. If it does end up going like you imagine ... I'd look far a narrative to start floating around that Republicans saved Medicare from Obama's attempts to cut it. No matter the outcome, Obama's deal-making neutralizes the ability to define the run-up to 2012 in terms of the Ryan Budget as point of contrast between the parties. Difficult to not view that as another GOP gift-horse Obama decided to give an oral examination with a pair of binoculars rather than ride. Bet his downticket is stoked.


    by kgb999 on Tue, 07/12/2011 - 2:48am

     I'm not privy to the "not-so-secret secrets" like Douthat.  But does anyone seriously think that cutting Medicare and/or SS is a guarantee of electoral success in 2012?  Have we already forgotten that  the main, really only remotely substantive, argument the Republicans had in 2010 was that Obama tried to cut your Medicare in order to fund his plot to have government take over our health care system?

    Douthat's take is an abuse of the liberal/conservative dichotomy.  Obama pretty clearly relishes the "only adult in the room" posture.  As far as the 2012 campaign goes, my take is he wants run as the sober, moderate leader, who was willing to put everything, including entitlements, on the table in order get our fiscal house in order.  But Republicans wouldn't play ball; hell they were willing to risk a second Great Recession, all in order to preserve tax cuts for millionaires and subsidies for Big Oil.

    I'm pretty sure that message has a good chance of carrying the election in 2012.  Of course, for those of us who care about Medicare and SS beyond the politics of being in favor or opposed, it's how far has he gone to Republicans to the table when they are ready to pass a bill.


    by brewmn on Mon, 07/11/2011 - 2:34pm

    It's a good point brew, but I think that the calculus is a little different for a sitting president then an average politician. A Democratic congressional candidate may require little more than a big Medicare bat with which to whack Republicans, but an incumbent president has to at least appear like he's trying extremely hard to solve the country's problems (or perceived problems) if he wants to get elected.


    by Michael Wolraich on Mon, 07/11/2011 - 6:29pm

    Ya got me des...I wanna believe the Pres knows they are nuts and is doing all he can do to keep from them pushing the country off a cliff w/o giving in to their blackmail, but a whole lot of people smarter than me think he's in on it and really in his heart of hearts wants to cut SS benefits. I have a hard time believing it, but I sure can't prove they're wrong.

    I've said many times this is the part of politics I do not enjoy. Your suggested phone call scenario is the way I like it. No games, just action. It's going to be a nail-biting few weeks for me.


    by stillidealistic on Mon, 07/11/2011 - 1:53pm

        The national media discussion is now perversely obsessed with which Hooverite austerity camp will win a contest over who can do the most damage to the American economy.  Now Obama and Geithner are out there bragging about how they want to suck even more income out of the economy than the Republicans!

    Once some deal has been made, there will be endless media discussions about “who won” and “who blinked.”  There will be so much discussion of that kind that it will escape media notice that the country just spent a year arguing over which version of a completely asinine, economy-killing austerity policy to implement, and also spent a year neglecting job growth, income disparity, financial sector reform and accountability, household debt restructuring and public investment.

    Obama has gotten so politically invested in this crazy project that he now believes all of the Republican smoke he is blowing.  He apparently really believes that the big thing standing in the way of job growth is business uncertainty and lack of confidence over the budget deficit!  It's not about the sick state of the real fundamentals among the American middle class.   It's just a disruption in the animal spirits!

    Hasn't he been paying attention to what has been happening in Europe?  They have been running an experiment in austerity for some time now.   How's that working out for them?!

    Obama thinks he's some kind of big badass hero for "eating his peas" and "pulling off the band-aid", and having the political courage to stand up to all those needy, dirty jobless people and their incessant demands for more help from their government.  Nixon goes to China!  Obama sticks it to the unemployed!  Profiles in courage!


    by Dan Kervick on Mon, 07/11/2011 - 2:01pm

    Thoma:

    http://moneywatch.bnet.com/economic-news/blog/maximum-utility/the-presidents-press-conference-the-disappointing-embrace-of-job-killing-austerity/1535/

    Krugman:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/11/opinion/11krugman.html?_r=1

    Mitchell:

    http://bilbo.economicoutlook.net/blog/?p=15215


    by Dan Kervick on Mon, 07/11/2011 - 2:14pm

    Obama has been paying attention to his reelection and that's about it.  He doesn't seem to care if the dems lose the senate or retake the house.  He is focused on one thing only.  I can't imagine what polls his team is using on the social programs, or why they can't imagine how the republicans are going to use his proposed cuts against him.  I've completely given up on him.


    by AmiBlue on Mon, 07/11/2011 - 7:49pm

    If you're Obama you think that despite all the grousing most progressives will vote for you in the end.  But if he goes with cuts to entitlements he'll get major editorial board praise for seizing on a GOP-created crisis to make "courageous",  "necessary" changes in entitlement programs.  There certainly are independents who buy that the situation with SS and Medicare is so bad as to require cuts now.  Those folks will like the display of bipartisanship and "centrism" manifested in any deal that looks like it's now a possibility.  Also, if the Republicans are in on this deal, as they have to be, Obama must think he can implicate them far more than he otherwise could in the bad jobs situation that almost certainly will exist during his re-election year.  So Obama may very well see this as a big net political win for him.  Unfortunately I don't think it's clear that he's wrong about that.

    The "only" (!) problem is that it's terrible economic policy for the country right now if, as seems inevitable, it depresses demand.  But Obama is precluded from being able to get  policy any time before Jan 2013 earliest which will help short-term with that--the GOP will block any further stimulus.  So the jobs situation will not be improved by public policy between now and 2013 earliest, no matter what.  So, if you can't do anything to improve the jobs situation, implicate the Republicans more in the making of economic policy so as to blur the lines of responsibility for that situation, aka spread the blame on jobs.

    That's how I read the situation. I think he will agree to social insurance cutbacks before all is said and done instead of handling the situation in the way you described, destor--which is the way I've wanted him to handle it from the start, supplemented by going back to the public and explaining why we need more stimulus to improve the jobs situation, proposing measures to do that that the GOP will certainly reject, but at least be able to make a choice on jobs and economic policy part of what the elections, Congressional as well as his own, next year could be about.  

    I still want him to do just what you said, destor.  Just say no and let the Chamber of Commerce and others squeeze the GOP until they cry uncle and raise the ceiling, without concessions.  If that's how this plays out Obama looks strong, and why shouldn't he?  He'll have stood the crazies down.  They are clearly the initiator of this Las Vegas approach to economic policy, not Obama.  

    What you could do if you're Obama and you have a huge number of crazy people opposing everything you do in Congress and recklessly endangering the country is take advantage of their missteps to show the public that there are a bunch of crazy, and dangerous people in Congress who are recklessly endangering the country.

    Invite the public to make its own assessment of whether it believes his good-faith efforts at bipartisanship can lead to a stronger economy, with more jobs and a shrinking deficit, when engaged in with a political party that has gone to the far, far right, clearly does not care about either jobs or deficit reduction other than by destroying Social Security and Medicare, and, failing utterly at persuasion, constantly moves the goalposts farther and farther to try to blackmail those who disagree with them into policies that will simply worsen our economic situation.  

    One of the problems he faces if he goes back to advocating stimulus is explaining why he is changing his mind on that after having been advocating austerity since last fall's elections.  That will not be easy to pull off.   But if he actually wanted to do it, he could cite the latest jobs figures and make a virtue out of having worked with the GOP in search of deficit reduction when he believed the jobs situation was improving.  So it turns out, as of a few days ago after the debt ceiling talks were well underway,  it's not improving and we need to rethink the situation.  He can try to make a virtue out of that by talking about the need to be flexible and base his decisions on what is actually happening in the economy rather than lock in and be driven by some rigid ideology that at this point would only make things worse.

    The bad job news this week could give Obama the "excuse" he needs to return to pressing for stimulus--if he really wants to do that.  I don't think he does.  That would be a tougher road for him to go down than the one he appears to have chosen now.  To go down that return-to-stimulus road, he would have to:

    *really and truly believe that only more stimulus will really make a significant difference any time soon on jobs (I'm not aware of any evidence he believes that); and 

    *believe the jobs issue is one he is looking to be vulnerable on at this time heading into next year and could conceivably cost him the election (my sense is that he probably does think both those things, if I had to guess); and

    *believe that he has no other way to reduce his vulnerability on the jobs issue (I think he disagrees with that--what I wrote above--if he cuts a deal with the GOP he can tie them to the economic, including jobs, situation going into next year, such that they are on the hook as well as he.  He would go a long way towards taking the issue off the table.).

    He does not have available to him any easy options.  There are significant political risks for him no matter which way he goes, as well as opportunities for a major political win.  The option he is pursuing may well be the politically lowest-risk option he faces (again the "only" problem with it, for those of who believe stimulus is the only way to go right now, being that it worsens the jobs picture and the economy generally).  Once he bought into the deficit-reduction argument, that has dictated much else that has followed since last November.  


    by AmericanDreamer on Mon, 07/11/2011 - 8:06pm

    I don't think he wants to do it, either.  Some of it might be the headache of reversing course and trying to re-explain himself.  The other part might be having to admit that we never really passed the crisis phase of the economic calamity and, well, he's already publicly taken credit for leading us through the worst so how can he bring himself to say that things still stink?  In a way, it's the George HW Bush dilemma.  You can almost here these guys thinking, "But all those banks stopped failing!"

    The other issue is, you have to wonder what Obama has learned as President.  It's likely that Obama had never even met Tim Geithner before Bush brought McCain and Obama to DC to meet with the economic team for the TARP briefing.  Now, Geithner's probably the most influential guy in Obama's cabinet when it comes to economic issues.  Geithner spent a lot of his career studying and dealing with debt induced crises.  I believe that Geithner long ago reached the limits of his inner Keynes.

     


    by Michael Maiello on Mon, 07/11/2011 - 8:26pm

    The other part might be having to admit that we never really passed the crisis phase of the economic calamity and, well, he's already publicly taken credit for leading us through the worst so how can he bring himself to say that things still stink? 

    He could continue to take credit, justifiably so, for keeping us from going into a severe depression, while also saying that we aren't producing enough jobs to grow our way out of the deficit, can do better, and therefore should.  Surely his opponent next year will say we can do better, without in all likelihood proposing any measures which would actually do that without doing greater harm.  Of course we're already well out of sound-bite territory if he goes that route.

    On a side note, I saw an Obama '12 bumpersticker today that read "Yes, We Did."

    In re to another comment I saw in this thread, is it possible to reduce the deficit via social insurance cuts without either reducing actual benefits or reducing aggregate demand?  Even if it were possible to cut social insurance outlays without reducing benefits wouldn't it still likely reduce aggregate demand? 

    Just from my own experience and local observations I know that restoring the Bush tax cuts would reduce aggregate demand at least some because for those towards the bottom end benefiting ($250 K) from those cuts who live in high cost of living areas such as DC, Boston, NYC, SanFran, LA, they are spending some or even most of that money.  Are there CBO or other solid estimates on the net effect on aggregate demand of ending the Bush tax cuts at this time? 


    by AmericanDreamer on Mon, 07/11/2011 - 9:17pm

     There certainly are independents who buy that the situation with SS and Medicare is so bad as to require cuts now.  Those folks will like the display of bipartisanship and "centrism" manifested in any deal that looks like it's now a possibility.

    Just curious. Do you actually know any independents (people calling themselves independent who have voted exclusively for the same party for decades don't count)? The only people I've seen react positively to Obama's bipartisany thing are Third-Way Democrats. Period.  Do you honestly believe that any of the voters asserting Medicare and Social Security should be cut would ever break for a Democrat? They won't ... even if the Democrats cut Social Security.

    Obama has already agreed to significant cuts to self-funded social safety net programs ... and all is not nearly said and done yet. The only question is what vehicle legislative vehicle he will be able to tack them on to and how much he'll get away with robbing from us. If it doesn't happen in the debt ceiling ... Obama will just ensure the issue is a part of the next debate ... and the next ... and the next ... until our Social Security is taken and given to the bankers. Obama is cut from the same cloth and has the same general economic philosophy as Ronald Regan. Ever think of that?


    by kgb999 on Tue, 07/12/2011 - 12:54pm

    It should be clear to even the most challenged of the jaded American public that the Republicans do not want to solve any major issue facing America. Doing so would show government works, and would knock the blocks out from under their never changing campaign strategy. The GOP does NOT want to:

    1. Balance the budget, they were given one by Clinton and immediately destroyed it with tax cuts.

    2. Restore the economy, it might help Obama.

    3. Prevent the next implosion on Wall Street with tighter regulation.

    4. Reduce abortions, they do not support birth control, or funding the availability of planning for parenthood.

    5. They do not want gay issues to be resolved, witness the hullabaloo over DADT and the results of its repeal (crickets).

    6. Reduce health care spending with national single payer.....etc.....etc

    The GOP thrives on perpetuating 'hot-button' issues, division, lies and nonsense to get The Base off their butts on election day. Solving the nation's major problems is not in the Republican game plan. Any move in that direction would be a disaster for the GOP. If they could they would raise the debt limit on a week by week basis until Nov. 2012.

    The GOP needs national problems and crisis after crisis like a drug addict needs a hit, and like a drug addict, the problems are never their fault. The fault always lies with liberals, illegals, Clinton, Obama, unions......It may be Obama realizes that, and is trying to expose the hollowness of the pot-stirring Republican rhetoric.


    by NCD on Mon, 07/11/2011 - 2:18pm

    Hmmmm. I think this would seem less hypocritical if the Democratic approach in the age of Obama had not primarily consisted of blaming everything Obama has done on Bush.

    In fact. If you think about it ... this comment itself (essentially blaming everything that is wrong on Republicans) is pretty ironic. The fault actually always lies with the GOP, eh?

    Sure Republicans suck. Democrats also suck. My understanding is that the Democrats being sucky is something that you, as a Democrat, might have some influence on. Why are you talking about Republicans instead of cleaning your own house?


    by kgb999 on Tue, 07/12/2011 - 1:01pm

    kgb; I have your bird photos ready, but lost my address book courtesy of microsoft; had to get a new email address:  wendyedavis at msn.com


    by wendy davis (not verified) on Tue, 07/12/2011 - 1:09pm

    See, this is what I mean...one calls oneself an independent, and one can just sit back and say both your parties suck. Don't indies get to take some of the blame as well? Seems like the indies have to take at least some of the blame for the whiplash we're experiencing - vote for the dems, then because they don't deliver fast enough,  they vote for repubs after 2 years and completely cut the dems off at the knees so they can be assured of not being able to accomplish anything in the next 2. What kinda sense does that make?

    I get that Obama has been a disappointment, but seriously? This crap going on in the house is better?

     


    by stillidealistic on Tue, 07/12/2011 - 2:16pm

    Excellent point.


    by brewmn on Tue, 07/12/2011 - 2:22pm

    "He used his bully pulpit to very clearly articulate that all of the debt ceiling obstruction is coming from the right."

    That's absurd.

    It's not absurd that he did what the statement says (if, in fact, that was really what he  claimed). It's absurd that all obstruction is coming from the right, which is the same as saying that dealing with debt by not using borrowing or a tax (i.e. to take more out of the indebted system) is obstructive. It may very well be possible to do neither thing.

    Note: You cannot obstruct something by an action that you are not taking. By not doing one of those two things you cannot possibly be obstructing anything. There's no obstruction in this issue, even if you'd like there to be. People are not agree what to do, or even that anything should be done. There's nothing more than that happening.


    by smithers_T on Mon, 07/11/2011 - 2:56pm

    The issue here isn't "how to deal with the debt," the issue is the debt ceiling.  The Republicans are being obstructionist because they're refusing to budge on the debt ceiling vote unless they get concessions on other issues.  It's like refusing to vote on the NASA budget because you want to end ethanol subsidies.  It's obstructionist.


    by Michael Maiello on Mon, 07/11/2011 - 3:17pm

    Exactly. If they were not playing politics, this would be just a straight vote on raising the debt ceiling, which HAS to be done. The repubs feel like they've got the dems by the hangie downies and want to make cuts they wouldn't be able to get on their own, so they are clouding the issue. The debt issue can be addressed later, but then the repubs have less leverage. The question is, do the dems have the ability/desire to stand up to them? And I don't have an answer to that, merely the hope that they do.


    by stillidealistic on Mon, 07/11/2011 - 4:11pm

    I've never heard anyone in these parts call it obstructionism when the Democrats do it.

    The other side of the coin is an important question: what are the specific hangie downies that the repubs currently have the Democrats by ... and why are they exposed in the first place? To me it looks like Obama whipped them out last December and basically said "Hey guys ... grab on to these and get a really tight grip for after January when you have control of the House and we undertake the long-scheduled Budget/Debt Ceiling negotiations." It's not like this came out of the blue.

    Folks who still support traditional Dem values (and those who often like their policy) are fighting on two fronts here. This particular attack on the social net is primarily originating within the ranks of the Democratic party - organized through the think-tanks loosely affiliated with the Third Way. The Rubanites. They control your party. They've wanted to dismantle Social Security for years. And now they are pushing the cart to get it done. Obama appears to be one of them ... or at the very least has surrounded himself exclusively with them. You people need to wise up. The true enemy that must be defeated lurks within. Either their grip on Obama must be broken, or Obama needs to go. It's not the GOP.


    by kgb999 on Tue, 07/12/2011 - 1:34pm

    Smithers is an all-American crackpot.

    You cannot obstruct something by an action that you are not taking.

    I suppose if the Republicans had not taken the action to pass the Iraq Use of Force Resolution in 2002, they would not have been 'obstructing' anything. Just the ability of George W. Bush to start his war.


    by NCD on Mon, 07/11/2011 - 4:28pm

    Do you suppose he really believes all this tripe he comes up with, or is just taking the contrarian viewpoint on EVERY issue? Isn't there a word for that?


    by stillidealistic on Mon, 07/11/2011 - 4:35pm

    Yes: Clever Bulldog.


    by Donal on Mon, 07/11/2011 - 4:43pm

    No kidding!? I thought he sounded familiar, but couldn't place him! Ha!


    by stillidealistic on Mon, 07/11/2011 - 5:52pm

    The difference is that I think Clever actually believed that posting stale right wing memes would be a revelation to folks on a left wing blog.


    by Donal on Mon, 07/11/2011 - 6:56pm

    You have it backward. Positive action is required of two branches of government in order to participate in war. The executive branch must commit troops, and the legislature has to provide funding to continue it.

    By the way, this has been occurring in bipartisan fashion for some time (despite disputes over "what" exactly "war" is, which it seems intends to make it easy to escalate war without allowing the public to weigh in).


    by smithers_T on Mon, 07/11/2011 - 11:30pm

    Positive action is required of two branches of government in order to participate in war.

    But by NOT taking up the AUMF, they would have been obstructing Bush's request by NOT doing something.

    Similarly, NOT holding confirmation hearings or votes on nominees is a way of obstructing the appointment of those, or any, nominees.

    You could argue that not doing something is doing something, but then we're at a different level of discourse, are we not?

     


    by Peter Schwartz on Tue, 07/12/2011 - 2:21pm

    "I suppose if the Republicans had not taken the action to pass the Iraq Use of Force Resolution in 2002, they would not have been 'obstructing' anything. Just the ability of George W. Bush to start his war."

    I have no idea what this means. It's not what I said. I'm curious. Do you make your mind up about what something will mean before you actually read it? Try reading it again, and don't add anything to it in your mind:

    You cannot obstruct something by an action that you are not taking.

    It's not that complicated. It's also relevant to the discussion because once you get it you'll understand that the author's statement isn't authoritative or logical. Where destor23 says, "I get the logic" you have to understand the only logic or truth in the statement following that (if it can be verified) is that Obama clearly articulated that "all of the obstruction is coming from the right" regarding the debt ceiling. It says nothing about whether it's true that all of the obstruction actually is coming from the right, only that Obama articulated that. And of course it's very easy to prove that statement is false. All of the obstruction is obviously not coming from the right. I proved that false in my other posts. What is happening is merely that neither of the parties required to an action in order for there to be resolution is willing to do anything right now. That's all there is right now.   

     


    by smithers_T on Tue, 07/12/2011 - 12:14am

    Rummy might put it this way smithers:

    The absence of obstructive action is not evidence of the absence of obstruction.

    If the GOP deficit caterwauling turns into a big failure for the economy and the country, will you then 'denounce' the GOP Deciders?  Like you claimed you have done with GW Bush when you finally realized his wars were 'failures'?


    by NCD on Tue, 07/12/2011 - 1:29am

    No, what's in your block quote is gobbledygook. It's so simple, you do not need to employ philosophy to understand it. Obama wants something done... he wants it done by certain people... (who don't work for him, by the way) ... he wants it done in a certain way... and the people he wants doing it refuse him.... So.... he perceives them as an obstruction.

    It's just about the stupidest thing in the world to think a person should say: "Look, if you don't do what I want you to do, you are an obstructionist!" I suppose if they don't vote for you they're obstructionist? What convoluted /manipulative thinking that is.

    This is why the din (whining /complaining /bickering /etc.) in Washington is what is. People want their way, they don't get their way and then they blame the people who don't agree with them for getting in their way. It's a lot of boorishness at the people's expense, it's so counter-productive.

    In answer to your question, no, I won't take sides. That's a bit like asking someone what kind of suicide weapon they prefer, isn't it? If it fails to be resolved the voters will spread the blame around according to their respective party affiliations and beliefs. And the din will continue....

     

     


    by smithers_T on Tue, 07/12/2011 - 12:39pm

    Perhaps, but I think it's worth adding some information:

    • McConnell has admitted that his only legislative goal is to make Obama a one-term president. This suggests that the point isn't a disagreement over this policy or that, but a wholesale desire to block, or obstruct, this president.

    • Many of Obama's big programs, like HCR, have a Republican provenance. DeMint is on video record as supporting Romney's health care plan in MA, now he's against it. The same thing for Newt. This suggests that the point isn't a disagreement over the policy, but rather a desire to sink, obstruct, any idea Obama puts forward.

    • The same point applies to the Debt Commission.

    Do they have a right to do all this? Yes. But it's hard to characterize this as a simple disagreement over policy. It's an attempt to obstruct the president's ability to do anything.


    by Peter Schwartz on Tue, 07/12/2011 - 3:11pm

    Correct me if I'm wrong, but it looks to be like McConnell just gave up.  He wants to wash Congress's hands of the debt ceiling, and effectively delegate debt ceiling increases to the White House.

    Now hopefully Obama will just accept this arrangement - which makes it clear that the last several months were a complete waste of time engineered by radical Republican grand-standing - instead of barging ahead with his "grand bargain" and an economy-killing austerity budget.

    If the government can't be induced to inject more money into the economy to boost job growth, then the best alternative outcome is to at least refrain from sucking money out of the economy in a pointless and untimely effort to slash the deficit during a deep recession.


    by Dan Kervick on Tue, 07/12/2011 - 3:57pm

    I agree with this.

    From what I read, Cantor is feeling the fool and is going to try to make Obama look bad by forcing him to renege on cuts he had agreed to in discussions over the grand bargain. All Obama needs to do is quote Miles Davis: "That was then. This is now."

    Meaning, Obama had agreed to cuts WITH revenue increases in the context of a deal that was SUPPOSED to reduce the deficit. But if cuts are severed from revenue increases, then it's no longer about deficit reduction and there is no deal. O'Donnell put it well on one of his shows: "Nothing is agreed to until everything is agreed to."

    But I agree with you: This is not the time to be taking money out of the economy either through cuts or tax increases.

    The specter of tax increases--principally the sunseting of tax cuts--is Obama's principal tool for keeping the spending cutters at bay. It's a bit like warding off vampires with garlic and a torch.

    (It's my understanding, which could be wrong, that Obama's plan has been to make cuts to entitlements--reduce their cost--without cutting benefits.)

    Overall, Obama seems to genuinely believe that the debt is a problem, and one that needs to be handled in short order. Unfortunately, a LOT of people do, even folks on this blog, I'd wager.

    This is a big conceptual hurdle to clear because of the apparently straightforward analogy between a household budget and the federal government's budget. Since even MMTers (I think) believe that state and local and company budgets ARE, in fact, analogous to household budgets, making the distinction apply to just the federal budget is even harder (IMO).

    Also...

    The Krugmanites think the debt is a problem, but just not an immediate problem. He might even agree that it would be better to address the debt sooner than later. It's just that he believes that employment is a much more pressing problem and probably would say that you can't address the debt unless you solve the employment problem, first. But this is a harder, more nuanced position to get across.

    "Yes, the debt is a problem, but not now."

    "But it's 14 trillion and increasing exponentially!"

    With people losing their jobs and homes left and right, you'd think that it wouldn't be hard to focus people's attention there and not on the debt, but apparently not. I don't know--maybe because they think nothing can be done.

     


    by Peter Schwartz on Thu, 07/14/2011 - 10:13am

    So.... he perceives them as an obstruction.

    It's not that he "perceives" them as an obstruction; they ARE an obstruction. They are preventing him from getting what he wants. That's obvious.

    The less obvious point is whether they should be called "obstructionist."

    Here's a pretty good definition from the Free Dictionary: "One who systematically blocks or interrupts a process, especially one who attempts to impede passage of legislation by the use of delaying tactics, such as a filibuster."

    "Systematically" is the operative word, I think. "Filibuster" is pretty interesting, too, inasmuch as the Republicans have used an historically high number of them.

    Given the Republican's avowed strategy of blocking or obstructing almost every major piece of legislation, I think it's fair to call them obstructionist.

    Now, they're doing it because they do disagree with him--in part. But given the number of ideas that started off as Republican ideas, but were abandoned or obstructed once Obama embraced them, it's hard to reduce this to anything so civilized as a "disagreement."

    It's more properly called an obstructionist strategy that impedes the doing of the people's with the primary purpose of gaining power.


    by Peter Schwartz on Tue, 07/12/2011 - 3:58pm

    "It's not that he "perceives" them as an obstruction; they ARE an obstruction. They are preventing him from getting what he wants. That's obvious."   -Peter Schwartz

    If I don't promote your idea or help you to put the idea in place, I'm not in any way obstructing you, I'm simply not helping you do it.

    This is important. The burden of responsibility for the outcome of an action rests with the person acting unless someone else acts (usually in opposition) intending to change the outcome.

    If you walk down a path and someone is standing there and you have to go around, they didn't obstruct you. If they intentionally stood in your way by an action that could be called obstructing you.

    The action presently suggested is to raise the debt ceiling to generate more revenue. You can figure out the rest, it's the same as in the example above.

    Perhaps you perceive an obstructive action is "obvious" because you feel what's not being done is interfering with something you want done?

    I realize you're using the word as a noun, but that's not in context of the discussion.

     


    by smithers_T on Tue, 07/12/2011 - 8:30pm

    We had a big storm last night. Lots of lightning, wind and rain. I was riding to work this morning and my path was blocked by a fallen tree branch. The path wasn't obstructed though, because the tree didn't intend to block the path, so my wheels went right through the wood as if it wasn't even there.


    by Donal on Tue, 07/12/2011 - 8:46pm

    "The path wasn't obstructed though, because the tree didn't intend to block the path"

    Exactly my point Donal. The tree didn't act, it fell. It couldn't possibly have obstructed you. It couldn't possibly heave meant to do anything to you.

    Your analogy really doesn't fit because the outcome of the storm can't have been different by persuasion or "agreement". It was fate or an act of God. There's only one actor in your comparison and two are required for it to be analogous to the situation with Obama perceiving obstruction from the House.

    It's pretty amazing to me the great number of rationalizations and new explanations that people have surmised to try and defend Obama's errant contention that because people won't do his will they must be wholly responsible for the absence of a resolution.

    It's good that Obama is not negotiating peace treaties!

     

    T. Smithers

     


    by smithers_T on Wed, 07/13/2011 - 12:09am

    The Republicans hold the House. It is their responsibility to produce a House resolution on this matter - nobody else's. If the GOP-led House produces something that can not pass in the Senate or withstand presidential veto, the responsibility for the absence of a wider resolution would lie also with them.

    Call the tactics whatever you want ... the outcome will still be called failure.


    by kgb999 on Wed, 07/13/2011 - 3:19am

     

    "The Republicans hold the House. It is their responsibility to produce a House resolution on this matter - nobody else's."

    I don't believe anyone has argued otherwise.

    The emphasis below (in bold) was added by me:  

    "If the GOP-led House produces something that can not pass in the Senate or withstand presidential veto, the responsibility for the absence of a wider resolution would lie also with them."

    I don't think anyone has argued otherwise. The word "also" is the key one. That's not what Obama apparently said though. He blamed the House for the entirety of the situation, probably to make the Republicans look bad. It's pure politics, and it's  deceitful.  

    "Call the tactics whatever you want ... the outcome will still be called failure."

    Well, that's not something you can know. Occasionally a measure receives bipartisan support and is considered a success by all involved. You're never going to please everyone though, so if you're saying that someone, somewhere will call the outcome  "failed" no matter what, that's a safe bet!

     


    by smithers_T on Wed, 07/13/2011 - 4:29pm

    And that's why my wheels went right through the wood. Because without intention, there is no obstruction.


    by Donal on Wed, 07/13/2011 - 4:23am

    If I don't promote your idea or help you to put the idea in place, I'm not in any way obstructing you, I'm simply not helping you do it.

    But if the context is one in which the consent of all or a majority of the parties is required, then the lack of consent by one party prevents/obstructs the motion from going forward.

    Lack of consent IS an action; voting nay is an action; preventing a vote from coming to the floor is an action; even not showing up to make a quorum is an action.

    It's not that the these obstructors just happened vote nay, or missed a vote, or performed any of a number of obstructing tactics. Their intention--and this is key--was to block your way. So the example below about the tree doesn't work, because a tree doesn't intend to fall, nor could it agree not to fall.

    Now, obstructors have the power and the right to do this--but it's still obstruction.

    What we see here is not analogous to this: I'm walking along a beach. I pass someone trying to push his boat out into the water. He can't because the boat is mired in the sand. Moving it will take a second person, but I simply walk past.

    In THAT case, I'm not helping him. I'm not obstructing him. I'm not part of the context, really. It's not my boat; I just happened to pass the scene; he doesn't really need me to move the boat because someone else could be enlisted.

    So, at the level of simple obstruction, the case is clear, I think. The other side intends to obstruct and thus does obstruct.

    I think the problem enters when we call someone an obstructionist. There, other connotations come into play as do different criteria.


    by Peter Schwartz on Thu, 07/14/2011 - 9:46am

    "But if the context is one in which the consent of all or a majority of the parties is required, then the lack of consent by one party prevents/obstructs the motion from going forward.  -Peter Schwartz"

    If the House previously intended to vote the way Obama wants and they're only now changing their positions, in that case you might be able to call it "obstructionist". But that's not the case. A majority of House members have held this position (to not increase debt or taxes) since long before the debt ceiling issue received focus.

    The House is not now creating obstruction, and I'm sure Obama knows that. I'm sure he's "articulating it" as obstruction to manipulate the press in the hope that they might print something like "Republicans obstruct measure - Social Security checks will be halted", you know produce a formal lie and hope nobody's looking.

    Why people are so unwilling to identify and report lies when leaders produce them (no matter which party they belong to) is a complete mystery to me. It's as though people are hypnotized according to their respective party lines and don't think for themselves anymore.

     


    by smithers_T on Thu, 07/14/2011 - 4:24pm

    If the House previously intended to vote the way Obama wants and they're only now changing their positions, in that case you might be able to call it "obstructionist".

    Now you're trying to set an arbitrary time period. The debt limit has been passed regularly since...forever...and in the recent past. Many of these same Republicans passed many debt ceiling limits many times before.

    So, if you enlarge the time period just a bit to see what has been the norm and what has not, you can see that they HAVE changed their positions and are doing something different with a different intention.

    One good thing, though, is you've admitted they are doing something.

    You can look at this way: Obama wants to do something--something that many people regard as necessary-- that has been done many times before and almost automatically. Now, suddenly, Republicans aren't just doing the usual grumbling, they are doing things to prevent it from happening.

    Or, I could put it this way: Obama wanted and expected to raise the debt ceiling long before the Republican caucus decided they were not going to let it happen. How do I know this? Because the debt ceiling has ALWAYS been raised even with the usual grumbling. Many of the Republicans now putting up a fight raised the debt ceiling (was it seven times during Bush?) and have now changed their actions.

    You might have a point if Obama wanted to do something new and the Republicans wanted to do something else new. But raising the debt ceiling occurs regularly.

    (In fact, I suspect that Senator Obama's vote against raising it wasn't cast with the expectation or even the intention of ACTUALLY blocking it.)

    (I understand there was a brief default in the early 1990s that actually created a lasting increase in interest rates.)


    by Peter Schwartz on Fri, 07/15/2011 - 11:19am

    One more thing, since you appear to not be able to let go of this... I'll only respond to this one more time with you.

    "Like you claimed you have done with GW Bush when you finally realized his wars were 'failures'?   -NCD"

    There was no "finally realizing" the failure. I didn't vote for him (long before that event!), and I also warned the people who did vote for him of what to expect. I was very surprised that he was re-elected because information denying WMDs was extant. 

    You need to accept what people say online when you don't know them (unless they contradict themselves in which case it's fair to point that out.) But what you're doing is trolling me on the issue of Bush. Why that's tolerated I find mystifying unless no one actively moderates it. But in the future I'm not answering that and if it continues I'll do what I can to bring it to someone's attention. Honestly NCD, it's pointless, it's annoying... and it's wasteful of other's time. The author or moderator shouldn't need  to explain this.

    Respectfully,

    T. Smithers


    by smithers_T on Tue, 07/12/2011 - 1:29pm

    "The issue here isn't "how to deal with the debt," the issue is the debt ceiling."

    That's a farcical statement. The debt ceiling has no meaning other than to establish a limit on debt, i.e. deal _ with _ debt.

    "The Republicans are being obstructionist because they're refusing to budge on the debt ceiling vote unless they get concessions on other issues.  It's like refusing to vote on the NASA budget because you want to end ethanol subsidies.  It's obstructionist."

    Listen to your own statement. People are "refusing to budge", i.e. take action.

    Words matter. Please don't read something and think there is meaning if I didn't actually say what you're trying to infer (like your two examples, neither of which relates to what I said).

    If The house doesn't do something in the hope something else may happen, there's no certain outcome. It shifts to the other party. If that party refuses action for a similar reason, then what you have is people not acting and nothing more than that.

    Don't try to turn a simple observation and statement into sophistry.


    by smithers_T on Mon, 07/11/2011 - 11:45pm

    Don't the Democrats load down must-pass bills with a bunch of unrelated stuff Republicans hate all the time? Don't they play with the schedule to bring votes in a way that benefits them and blocks GOP objectives?


    by kgb999 on Tue, 07/12/2011 - 1:43pm

    Don't both sides do that? Don't they also introduce "feeler" bills with extreme content in order to bring out drama and vitriol, stuff that can be used by the press to paint a negative image of opponents so they can more easily pass the "scaled back" unpopular bill they really wanted? And don't they name bills in ways that confuse ordinary citizens, for the same reason, to pass unpopular legislation? 

    You have to consider the crassness and misinformation that comes out of Washington from both sides as a means to exercise power in ways that weren't originally intended at the foundation of the American system of governance. It was the most important aspect of it (and what made it so distinct from the British monarchy) that power was balanced by strictly limiting it. These deceptions fly in the face of that. Leaders (and their lobbies and interest groups) are constantly looking for ways to impose more power over people than the government intended them to have. It's sad, and I'm sure it would require an informed electorate (especially one freed from the bought-and-paid-for political "hypnotic group think" and elitism of the parties) if it's ever to be rectified.

    Thoughtfully,

    T. Smithers

     


    by smithers_T on Tue, 07/12/2011 - 5:38pm

    Well-stated, and well-argued. If we don't hodl the line now, we may never do so. I know I am not alone in saying that I'm sick and tired of the Rethug games, and I am ready for The President to call them on their bluff. I especially am fond of the phone call script above - hope he's reading your post. Hell, I hope they both are!

    Nice post, friend.


    by Perry MacNeil (not verified) on Mon, 07/11/2011 - 6:11pm

    Intrade Prediction Market:

    Congress to approve increase in US debt ceiling to $15.1T or more before midnight ET 31 Aug 2011

    http://www.intrade.com/v4/markets/contract/?contractId=749123


    by A Guy Called LULU on Mon, 07/11/2011 - 7:31pm

    This type of market is one of the best predictive devises there is but this prediction is not very significant. I think most of us expect the ceiling to be raised just as do most investors at Intrade. What is not addressed in this case and what is most up in the air is how much will be given away to the Republicans before it happens.


    by A Guy Called LULU on Mon, 07/11/2011 - 7:42pm

    Re the tpm bit, I get how saying how well intentioned your foe is can turn a card in your favor but wouldn't it be much simpler to tell the country that the debt ceiling is about money already borrowed (a healthy chunk of which was spent by the previous administration) and that if you want to change the budget, the time to do that is when we put together a budget.

    It just doesn't look like three dimensional chess from this particular ditch.


    by moat on Mon, 07/11/2011 - 8:12pm

    That's a good point.  I haven't done any research into what most people think the debt ceiling is.  My hunch is that more people link it to budget-making than not.  As if Congress is your bank, setting your maximum borrowing limit on your credit card.


    by Michael Maiello on Mon, 07/11/2011 - 9:05pm

    Sooner or later Destor, you and many others who continue (despite all the evidence) to give Obama the benefit of the doubt, are going to have to admit that the people his three dimensional chase game is designed to bamboozle is you and not his allies in the Republican Party.  The reason Obama is doing all of this is because he WANTS to cut Social Security and Medicare and he WANTS to cut all kinds of domestic programs to pay for his irresponsible and immoral wars and for his tax cuts for the rich.  In essence, this deceptive politician agrees with the Republicans about the federal budget and he agrees that entitlement cuts are not only necessary but desirable.  Who, after all, do you think appointed the abominable Catfood Commission?  It wasn't Bush it was Obama.  When it was instantly made clear that the Catfood Commission's recs to cut social security and medicare were as popular as bubonic plague they fell into the background but using this manufactured budget crisis gives Obama the opportunity to revive and perhaps implement much of what the Catfood Commision recommended.  When he capitulates to the Republican demands, as he surely will, just as he did at the end of last year over the tax cuts, he'll offer lame excuses about how he "had" to give in for the greater good of the country, it was the only responsible choice and other bullshit lies that many people have believed when he has told those lies in the past.  So he'll trot them out again to see how many stupid Democrats will continue to swallow this crap without complaint even though they know it's crap. The essential features of his excuse for caving in once again to unreasonable Republican demands will be the same as they were at the end of last year and he will promise that "next time" he'll really fight em.  He'll then cross his fingers and pray that enough people in this country are so stupid that they'll buy his unacceptable excuses any longer.


    by oleeb on Tue, 07/12/2011 - 3:02am

    I doubt that Social Security or Medicare benefits will be cut in any meaningful way. Part of what Obama has done is to galvanize the Dems and the public against that. People say he's doing this for himself, but the individual House members benefit politically when they go home and say they fought to hold the line, and they all know what they are doing on this. No Dem legislators are saying they support the president's supposed proposed cuts. These cuts are so unpopular that, while you blame Obama for them (though they don't really exist as an actual proposal), the Republicans are tarred with them. And to some extent Obama is tarred with these imagined cuts, as a kind of sacrificial lamb.

    I saw things on the nightly news last night like I have never seen. Obama has moved the national will to tax the rich and the Republicans are finally being described and even self-described as defenders of low taxes for "job creators" and personal jet aircraft. The debate has been transformed, while we were looking the other way.


    by Rootman on Tue, 07/12/2011 - 7:15am

    The depth of your denial is pretty amazing.  It is particularly so since this bait and swtich BS has been pulled now by Obama numerous times and the outcome is invariably favorable to Republicans, not to Democrats and not even to Obama.  How was it again we excused the extension of the tax cuts by Obama and how was it that this was really the politically smart thing to do?  Uh huh. Or remind me how he was going to insist on a public option in his alleged healthcare reform plan, but then when it was clear he was lying about that, the excuse was that we'll work it in to the plan later.  Right.

    It could not be clearer that Obama intends to cut Social Security and Medicare before his Presidency ends one way or another.  Your twisting that around, as only Obama right or wrongers can do, to interpret his clear intentions as a way to somehow galvanize public support against such cuts and for taxing the rich is just way out there and totally lacking in any connection to reality.  Wow.


    by oleeb on Tue, 07/12/2011 - 1:51pm

    Maybe you are right.


    by Rootman on Tue, 07/12/2011 - 2:30pm

    "What Obama Wants"

     

    By PAUL KRUGMAN

    Published: July 7, 2011

    Which raises the big question: If a debt deal does emerge, and it overwhelmingly reflects conservative priorities and ideology, should Democrats in Congress vote for it?

    Mr. Obama’s people will no doubt argue that their fellow party members should trust him, that whatever deal emerges was the best he could get. But it’s hard to see why a president who has gone out of his way to echo Republican rhetoric and endorse false conservative views deserves that kind of trust.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/08/opinion/08krugman.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss


    by Resistance on Tue, 07/12/2011 - 9:47am

    None of us knows what's in Obama's head, nor even what's in anyone else's. 

    All of us hope that we can weather through this. 

    Those two facts are just about the only facts I know.

    Destor, good to see you.  How's the little one? 

     


    by LisB on Tue, 07/12/2011 - 4:00am

    to what end?

    That's  all pretty well explained here today:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/12/us/politics/12obama.html?_r=1&hp

    Read the whole thing. He's dancing with those that brought him. And contrary to common liberal blogosphere narrative, that was Independents and swings, not "the base." There is further evidence in the Pew polls posted upthread at 9:46pm and 10:39pm.


    by anonymous (not verified) on Tue, 07/12/2011 - 7:30am

    You're saying that the base did not vote overwhelmingly for Obama, and in much higher proportions than independents and swing voters?


    by Dan Kervick on Tue, 07/12/2011 - 10:04am

    So Obama won with independents and swing voters and the base is not relevant huh?

    Fine and dandy then.  Let him get re-elected without the votes of the irelevant base.

    What an ignorant comment for you to have made.  Oy!


    by oleeb on Tue, 07/12/2011 - 1:52pm

    Thanks for that link, anon. I was struck by the article as well.

    To dan and oleeb, Obama of course relied on independents and the democratic base in 2008. The question is how many he risks losing from either side in 2012. Independents tend to be far more fickle, and Obama has struggled to maintain his approval rating among this group.

    And here are the latest Gallup numbers...

    As you can see, he's managed to recovered some of his independents in 2011 without actually losing any more Democrats.

    Obama is not unique in focusing on the independents. That's been the standard practice in presidential elections, particularly for an incumbent without a primary challenger, precisely because independents are so fickle.

    The one recent exception was 2004. Karl Rove rejected decades of political wisdom when he steered Bush towards the base. But here's why Bush could pull that off and Obama cannot:


    As I've written many times before, politics is a numbers game. Liberals need to recruit more adherents if they want politicians to pay attention.


    by Michael Wolraich on Tue, 07/12/2011 - 3:01pm

    I understand all this.  But it is just factually incorrect to say that Obama is dancing with the people who brought him.   As you more correctly suggest, he is dancing with a minority of the people who brought him, because he can afford to take the majority of the people who brought him for granted.


    by Dan Kervick on Tue, 07/12/2011 - 3:46pm

    Fair enough


    by Michael Wolraich on Tue, 07/12/2011 - 5:27pm

    Just using the last polling graph:

    Who is the "majority" that you speak of?  For instance saying that he got all 21% of the liberal vote, the only way he could break 50% is to get 26% of the non-liberals.  One can break this non-liberal group into sub-groups (moderate and conservatives, etc) or one can see the moderates and (moderate) conservative as one group.  If the latter, then one can say he dancing with them and they are the majority. 

    Of course the liberal vote counts, and without it he couldn't get the victory in 2008 nor get it in 2012. 

    Which is why the conservative (republican) national candidate has a easy road to travel.  With 40% starting point, the conservative candidate / politician only to peel off the moderates, while the liberal (democrat) candidate has to likely to peel off conservatives, given the notion some of the moderates will go toward the conservative candidate if he or she is not a radical conservative. 

    The numbers point to the idea that not all Democrats see themselves as liberal.  In fact one could easily posit that the Democrats are composed of at half moderates and half liberals.  So whose party is it?  In the two party system where the scales tilt in a three way race to the conservatives, it is not surprising the slow trend is for politics to become increasingly conservative as politicians look for the winning formula.

    And for a moderate candidate like Obama (and it is irrelevant if someone wants to think he is a modern moderate Dem or '70s moderate Repub, there isn't much difference between the two), he is going to appeal to the center hoping to appeal to the moderate and peel off enough conservatives to counter disgruntled liberals so he can win in places like Indiana as well as New York.


    by Elusive Trope on Tue, 07/12/2011 - 8:52pm

    Who is the "majority" that you speak of?  For instance saying that he got all 21% of the liberal vote, the only way he could break 50% is to get 26% of the non-liberals.  One can break this non-liberal group into sub-groups (moderate and conservatives, etc) or one can see the moderates and (moderate) conservative as one group.  If the latter, then one can say he dancing with them and they are the majority.

    Are you kidding me? Yeah, technically DK is using the word "majority" where he should be using "plurality". But in what universe do you append a bunch of people who don't even agree with you to your side to declare by fiat that the largest voting block within the coalition that elected Obama should STFU and accept being given the least voice?

    One could *posit* that the party is half liberals and half moderates, but one should probably scamper off and get some actual data to support such a supposition if you would like it to be taken seriously - because I'm quite certain this is not, in fact, true.

    BTW, the GOP candidate is really hoping for moderates to stay home and to peel off independent protest/revenge votes. Independents disillusioned with Obama aren't generally breaking for the GOP at all (according to GOP internal focus groups) - they are simply being turned off from the Democrats. If independents largely sit out, 2012 becomes a battle of the bases - and the GOP has outflanked Obama in a big way assuming he keeps depressing his own base.

    Which comes back around to *accurately* assessing what independents want. Winning a meta war doesn't really matter. If the democrats assess wrong and don't motivate independents to the polls, you guys will be hurting based on how the activist base has been treated.


    by kgb999 on Wed, 07/13/2011 - 6:19am

    Based on this gallup poll:

    Democrats are 22% conservative, 40% moderate and 38% liberal.

    Independents are 34% conservative, 45% moderate and 20% liberal.

    Gallup also posits that 36% see themselves as Democrats, 28% Republican and 37% Independent.  This was in 2009, likely that the number of Independents has grown since then. 

    Now from a Presidential election where you are looking to win places like North Carolina, Montana and Indiana, one is probably looking at numbers that are skewed more to the moderates and conservatives for both the Independents and Democrats.  They become the key voting block that secures a winning path to that particular election. 

    One of the key points in this information is that "independents" are as diverse as Democrats.  One cannot answer the question "what do Independents want."  What you can get close to answering is what will appeal a large segment of the independents that will also appeal to a large segment of the Democrats.  Just looking at those numbers from a purely political, want-to-get-elected point of view, the answer would be differently moderate, leaning a little right, with the hope/expectation that the liberal side will choose the lesser of two evils.

    But the main point is that in a Democratic-Independent block necessary to get 50% plus 1 in an election, the moderates are going to be in the driver seat, and depending on the constituency, the liberal or the conservative wings might be able to shift things in their direction.  In a country that skews conservative in general, the odds are that more often than not, one is going to find the moderate-conservative mix is going to be a winning strategy than a moderate-liberal mix.

    Of course these are just polling numbers on people's perceived ideological slants and party identification.  There are many other factors that come into play.


    by Elusive Trope on Wed, 07/13/2011 - 9:06am

    That isn't 50/50.

    If it is not possible to answer the question "what do independents want," that pretty much blows the premise that Obama is doing things to appeal to independents out of the water.

    Moderates should only be in the drivers seat if it can be demonstrated what they have been doing had actually been appealing to independents. It totally has not.

    The thing I find most hilarious about your premise is that you keep including Montana. The most popular politician in the state is a Democrat ... and he disagrees with you 100% on he most effective approach to attracting that electorate. Ever spent any time in Montana?

    The cool thing about this is that these are facts, not opinions. We will see with our own two eyes how the public reacts. Thus far, at every stage of Obama's administration where I've seen you posit a belief about how the electorate will react .... your view has been Bill Kristol-like in it's dead wrongness. I'm still waiting for the moderate/independent coalition  of happy gratitude to form over the seminal centrist achievement of fucking us all over on HCR (a fuck-over specifically justified because so-called independent moderates would love it).

    The simple fact is that if the demographics you imagine are loving the warmed-over Regan bullshit you calling "centrist/moderate" really liked it... we should have seen SOME sort of positive movement by this point - but everything is going negative. Why do you imagine that is?

    I propose that taking a good policy approach that is generally popular and fucking it all up by ass-kissing the guys who just ran our country in a ditch is not an example of being moderate at all. If the policy that you allowed to get all fucked up started as being attractive to moderates, you just pissed them off just like you have been pissing everyone else off.


    by kgb999 on Wed, 07/13/2011 - 1:16pm

    you seem to talk about independents and moderates as if they are subgroups of a larger pool of constituents.  Independents are simply people who don't identify with one party or another.  They can be extreme right wings or extreme left wings or moderate of the moderates.  If you appeal to moderates, then you appeal to moderate Republicans, moderate Democrats and moderate Independents.  Obama is appealing to moderates - if they happen to be independents, fine, if they are Democrats, fine, if they are Republicans, fine.  Remember how proud he was (and many of the liberal supporters) of the Obamaicans during the election.

    It is possible that the policies and results of a moderate politician may not appeal to someone who claims to be moderate because they are unhappy with the results. 

    If the economy was doing better, given the exact same policies, there would be a whole different opinion.  [Although I am of the belief that even with the best of policies enacted we wouldn't be a whole lot better off (maybe just under 8% unemployment), but that is another matter]

    Care to name the name of the "most popular" of the politicians there in Montana. And what exactly is this "most effective strategy."

     But a state that not only voted for John McCain, but also voted for Bush over Kerry by 60 to 40 is state that I would say has a lean towards the conservative. Candidates appealing to the liberals in general (and we are speaking in generalities here) are not going to be successful in Montana as whole (although there are pockets). (And I lived in SE Idaho, and spent some good times travelling in Montana Wyoming area.  I'm no expert, but if you're positing it is a epicenter of liberalism...hmmmm)

    And in this strand in particular I am in no way saying how the electorate is going to act.  I am merely talking about how the politicians approach the electorate, and why Democratic politicians, especially a presidential politician is going to focus on the center in an attempt to appeal to the moderate conservatives and moderate liberals.  Whether this is a winning strategy for 2012 - who the freak knows.  I certainly haven't made any predictions about that. 

    Especially in your last paragraph I am not exactly following what you are saying here - you seem to be avoiding specific details, so it is hard to respond - for instance both sides are saying the other side ran the us or them or everyone into the ditch, etc etc etc.


    by Elusive Trope on Wed, 07/13/2011 - 4:24pm

    Oh and by the way if you read what I wrote:

    The numbers point to the idea that not all Democrats see themselves as liberal.  In fact one could easily posit that the Democrats are composed of half moderates and half liberals.

    I think it is pretty easy to see that I wasn't making some claim that the party was split 50/50 down the middle.  San Francisco is different than Tulsa.  Who knows what the numbers really are. We just have polls.  If one counts those who seem themselves as conservatives as really moderates who prefer to see themselves as conservatives, and some moderates who when it comes down to it are really liberal, they just don't like to call themselves that, then one might assume (and it is an assumption, yes) that the party is roughly a split between the moderates and the liberals.


    by Elusive Trope on Wed, 07/13/2011 - 4:31pm

    For extra bonus points (using the final graph): please define (in a way a consensus of those who self-identify would agree):

    Liberal:_____________

    Moderate:_____________

    Conservative:_____________

    Unless the respondents have been provided a uniform definition for the ambiguous abstracts as a part of the polling question, the metric seems little better than tracking noise. It may be possible to infer or even extrapolate reasons behind people having selected one over the other but as a solid statistic for determining what the result is most often used to assess (as you do here), the entire approach is pretty much shit.

    And an interesting thing about the "recovery" with independents. The graph you highlight starts on May 1 showing independent approval within the margin from where it had been in July 2010 (40 vs. 38). On May 2, his approval with independents shot up 7 points. It appears you are proposing that on May 2, American independents woke up with an epiphany to realize how much they like Obama's policy and/or approach? You can't think of anything else that happened on May 2 that could more plausibly account for a quick improvement in Obama's numbers?

    Another way of looking at the data would be to say that after filtering the Bin Laden bounce from the range, Obama appears to be sitting in the 38-40 range with independents - where he landed around this time last year and has been stuck ever since. If his approval numbers upon taking office can be seen as indicative of the level of support he saw in the last election, he's over 20 points down with independents any way you want to spin it. On it's face, that wouldn't seem to support an idea independents have responded well to his bipartisan/centrist approach up to this point.


    by kgb999 on Wed, 07/13/2011 - 5:31am

    It's interesting to constantly debate theoretics about labels given people as regards the national electorate (i.e., conservative, moderate, liberal, Independent, Democrat, Republican) as regards the national culture and changes to it.

    But it really doesn't have much to do with actual elections when dealing with an electorate with a lot of Independent and/or swing voters. Those work like this, from The Wisconsin Voter Blog:

    All three districts voted for Democrat Barack Obama for president in 2008 (by between four and 12 points).

    All three voted for Republican Scott Walker for governor in 2010 (by between eight and nine points).

    All three have seen tough, tight, expensive battles for state Senate over the past decade.

    And all three would become far safer Republican seats under the GOP plan, shielding them from any serious Democratic challenge in the coming years, and giving Democrats fewer paths to winning the state Senate back over the next decade. In essence, the plan shifts each district westward to shed urban Democratic voters and gain suburban Republican voters.

    All that can be safely generalizes about those who dislike voting party line enough to register as Independents or swing vote if they are allowed to is that they don't always like what either party is offering as a general platform over time. The point to note is that Obama is positioning himself to look like he too is not following any party line on this issue and others. Not that what he's doing is conservative, liberal or moderate or whatever. That's really all you have to do as a politician to attract a lot of them: make it look like you don't cotton to party line, that you are not a player on one of the two big teams but are looking for consensus somewhere inbetween or outside of the two big teams. No more red vs. blue is the way he won the presidency the first time and it seems pretty clear he is trying that again.

    To Dan Kervick who elsewhere claims Obama is leaving the majority of them that brought him behind, I would point out that he purposefully set up an organization outside of the Democratic party to promote his first campaign and fund raise and attracted many to it with talk of going beyond partisanship. A lot of the most avid participants were people who would never consider volunteering for the Democratic party, or for organizations like moveon.org for that matter.


    by anonymous (not verified) on Wed, 07/13/2011 - 2:48pm

    A dynamic at play in these current discussions is the culmination of the deteriorating trust the American people have in the federal government.  The current debt and the corresponding ceiling is not a "crisis."   Where the crisis is manifested is in the minds of those who look down the road and see a time when the debt is too big.  Now, one can trust the people in D.C. will, once the economy gets back on track reel in the spending, start doing balanced budgets and begin to bring the debt level down.  This level of trust is hard to find.  In part because there is little evidence in the 21st century that D.C. can get its act together.

    Even those who say we should have more stimulus spending will usually spend a good amount of time railing against all of the corrupt politicians who are doing the bidding of their corporate overlords. 

    The days of Congress and the President saying let us spend a whole lot and trust us in the future we will deal with it are over. 

    Whether it is ideologically or politically motivated, or some mixture of the two, Obama is approaching the current situation, it would seem, aimed at convincing those people who have lost trust in government, who believe Reagan was right that government was the problem, that they can trust him, and by extension the government and Democrats, to fix things not just in the short run, but in the long run.  The Simpson Bowles Commission was designed along these lines. 

    IMO Obama believes that if safety net spending, medicare and SS are to be saved in the long run, then there has to be a readjustment and reform of the whole approach.  Part of that will have to be a rethinking on the American peoples part.  The system in which half of Americans sending politicians aimed at treating these as sacred cows and the other half sending politicians aimed at destroying them is not working. 

    There are many "independents" who have at least a vague mindset that was captured in the classic tea party chant "keep the government out of my medicare."  Most of these people are also concerned about the debt, see the politicians as just wanting to tax more so they can spend more, and that government is out of control.  If these people can be brought over to the side of the rational approach to reform, where government is seen as part of the solution, and away from the anti-government radicals of the right, then Obama stands a chance of getting elected.  Moreover, Democrats can stand a fighting chance in areas that aren't deep blue to start with. 


    by Elusive Trope on Tue, 07/12/2011 - 9:02am

    Repeal the Davis-Bacon Act?

    (This was sent to me in an email, I don’t know if all this is true )

    These are all the programs that the new House of Representatives has proposed cutting.

    End prohibitions on competitive sourcing of government services. Repeal the Davis-Bacon Act. More than $1 billion annually.

    Prohibit taxpayer funded union activities by federal employees. $1.2 billion savings over ten years.

    Corporation for Public Broadcasting Subsidy. $445 million annual savings.

    Save America 's Treasures Program. $25 million annual savings.

    International Fund for Ireland . $17 million annual savings.

    Legal Services Corporation. $420 million annual savings.

    National Endowment for the Arts. $167.5 million annual savings.

    National Endowment for the Humanities. $167.5 million annual savings.

    Hope VI Program.. $250 million annual savings.

    Amtrak Subsidies. $1.565 billion annual savings.

    Eliminate duplicative education programs. H.R. 2274 (in last Congress), authored by Rep. McKeon, eliminates 68 at a savings of $1.3 billion annually.

    U.S. Trade Development Agency. $55 million annual savings.

    Woodrow Wilson Center Subsidy. $20 million annual savings.

    Cut in half funding for congressional printing and binding. $47 million annual savings.

    John C. Stennis Center Subsidy. $430,000 annual savings.

    Community Development Fund. $4.5 billion annual savings.

    Heritage Area Grants and Statutory Aid. $24 million annual savings.

    Cut Federal Travel Budget in Half. $7.5 billion annual savings.

    Trim Federal Vehicle Budget by 20%. $600 million annual savings.

    Essential Air Service. $150 million annual savings.

    Technology Innovation Program. $70 million annual savings.

    Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP) Program. $125 million annual savings.

    Department of Energy Grants to States for Weatherization. $530 million annual savings.

    Beach Replenishment. $95 million annual savings.

    New Starts Transit. $2 billion annual savings.

    Exchange Programs for Alaska Natives, Native Hawaiians, and Their Historical Trading Partners in Massachusetts . $9 million annual savings.

    Intercity and High Speed Rail Grants. $2.5 billion annual savings.

    Title X Family Planning. $318 million annual savings.

    Appalachian Regional Commission. $76 million annual savings.

    Economic Development Administration. $293 million annual savings.

    Programs under the National and Community Services Act. $1.15 billion annual savings.

    Applied Research at Department of Energy. $1.27 billion annual savings.

    FreedomCAR and Fuel Partnership. $200 million annual savings.

    Energy Star Program. $52 million annual savings.

    Economic Assistance to Egypt . $250 million annually.

    U.S. Agency for International Development. $1.39 billion annual savings.

    General Assistance to District of Columbia . $210 million annual savings.

    Subsidy for Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority. $150 million annual savings.

    Presidential Campaign Fund. $775 million savings over ten years.

    No funding for federal office space acquisition. $864 million annual savings.

    IRS Direct Deposit: Require the IRS to deposit fees for services it offers (such as processing payment plans for taxpayers) to the Treasury, instead of allowing payments to remain as part of its budget. $1.8 billion savings over ten years.

    Require collection of unpaid taxes by federal employees. $1 billion total savings.   

    Sell excess federal properties the government does not make use of. $15 billion total savings.

    Eliminate Mohair Subsidies. $1 million annual savings.

    Eliminate taxpayer subsidies to the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. $12.5 million annual savings.

    Eliminate Market Access Program. $200 million annual savings.

    USDA Sugar Program. $14 million annual savings.

    Subsidy to Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD).$93 million annual savings.

    Eliminate the National Organic Certification Cost-Share Program. $56.2 million annual savings.

    Eliminate fund for Obamacare administrative costs. $900 million savings.

    Ready to Learn TV Program. $27 million savings.

    Eliminate death gratuity for Members of Congress.

    HUD Ph.D. Program.

    Deficit Reduction Check-Off Act

    TOTAL SAVINGS: $2.5 Trillion over Ten Years


    by Resistance on Tue, 07/12/2011 - 9:31am

    I think I have a plan that is much better!

    Let's prohibit any payments of any kind by the Federal government to Republicans as well as any payments to businesses owned by Republicans.  And first on the list would be all payments to all Republican members of Congress for pay, staff, etc...  After all, everyone is going to need to sacrifice to pay for those tax cuts for the "job creators" formerly known as rich people.


    by oleeb on Tue, 07/12/2011 - 1:55pm

    +1


    by stillidealistic on Tue, 07/12/2011 - 2:04pm

    O: "Raise the debt ceiling."

    R: Only if you cut spending and support a balanced budget amendment to the constitution.

    O: No.

    R: Then we won't raise the debt ceiling.

    O: Enjoy your global depression. (Click.)

    R: Hello?  Hello?

    Would have been fun. Is this what happened instead?

    O: Raise the debt ceiling.

    R: Only if you cut spending and support a balanced budget amendment to the constitution.

    O: I'll give you that and more, but only if we tax the rich.

    R: Plus, gut Social Security and Medicare.

    O: We'll look at minor cost cutting and means testing if we tax the rich.

    R: Never mind about the balanced budget thing.

    O: Raise the debt ceiling.

    R: Um, gotta go. (Click.)

    O: (To voters.) The Republican Congress didn't sign your Social Security checks or agree to balance the budget.

     


    by Rootman on Tue, 07/12/2011 - 2:44pm

    This kinda explains it better: Lawrence O'Donnell:

     

    Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

     


    by Rootman on Tue, 07/12/2011 - 5:02pm