The Bishop and the Butterfly: Murder, Politics, and the End of the Jazz Age

    TUTORIAL IN A PACKAGE

    By Oxy Mora on Thu, 12/09/2010 - 10:18am |

    Democrats and Progressives may have the best platform in a generation.

    I accept the President's jobs compromise deal. The main reason is that it is, with old GOP support, an end run on the Tea Party whose aim is a continuation of the poor economy which spawned it. The package on the other hand gives assurances the economy will grow and gives Democrats a good shot in 2012. Bob Greenstein of CBPP estimated the package would take a full percentage point off unemployment--and without the package the uncertainty of getting any stimulus or unemployment benefits out of the new Congress could tip the economy back into a "double dip". By my calculations, 1% off unemployment is about 1.5 million people.I think of them as particularly vulnerable hostages.

    The big question in my mind is what's next. Much depends on Obama's committment to regulate the financial industry and fend off Republican budget attacks which will be designed to undo every piece of progressive legislation since the New Deal. But leave Obama out of the picture and look at the package as a tutorial. Not in the sense of what Obama might have done right or wrong but in the sense of how the package demonstrates the essential guts of how the system works.

    Part of Democrats' problem is messaging to an uninformed electorate and what at times is an Asapathetic base. Four dinner companions who have respectable careers and who voted for Obama asked me to explain this package. The point is that their curiosity had been piqued on things I took for granted they already knew. It struck me that the package is a teaching moment.
    Some will say it's a teaching moment for how Obama is stiffing us. I choose to take a  broader interpretation. I think there is a tutorial here better than Perot's charts, better than the Democrats have ever produced. And the tutorial, if handled right by Obama, can continue through 2012 and well into the future. Here are the levers of government writ plain. It is now up to the electorate to make some choices, and it is up to Democrats to rally the middle class to defend their safety nets and not have the deficit balanced on their backs.

    I like "Asapathetic" base, despite what spell check says.

     

    Comments

    I'm augmenting here not to shamelessly hype my own blog like certain cosmic bloggers have done but because half the time I lose the whole damn blog before I can post it.

    People are saying the payroll cut provides a bad precedent for the attacks we know to be coming on S.S. I'm not sure what's behind that logic but if the tutorial package opens the door to attacks doesn't the tutorial also show the defense? And doesn't it kick the solution even more into the "proper messaging" camp? Just spitballin' in case my four voters come back for another dinner.


    by Oxy Mora on Thu, 12/09/2010 - 11:58am

    I am indeed a strong advocate for commenting on one's own blog, though the jokes about that almost write themselves...  Cool

    Someone had a great piece up on the subject at Firedoglake, but I wasn't able to find it after scrolling back a few pages.  RJ Eskow has this; I beleive Obey said they're saying they can augment with other funds, but man: if I'm wrong: Don't Beat Me Obey!!!!

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rj-eskow/obamas-tax-holiday-a-pois_b_793526.html


    by we are stardust on Thu, 12/09/2010 - 12:02pm

    Star, Eskow makes a strong argument that the "holiday" opens the door to Republican demagogues when it's time to go back to work. But I notice he hinges his argument largely  upon Obama's messaging ability and guts. Anyway you slice the SS debate, it's bare knuckle between the middle class and the wealthy. Given a decent message I think our side benefits when all the facts are on the table, not when Repubs can pick the part they like and have Fox News frame it 24/7. Don't the package parameters also reveal a clear proposal and simple message from our side--increase the $106,000 cap. Now who would be against the wealthy paying back a little after they just benefitted so greatly from the hostage tax cut blackmail the Republicans forced down our throats.   


    by Oxy Mora on Thu, 12/09/2010 - 12:37pm

    So far, IMO, the guy we thought was a great communicator has proven not to be, his few surrogates are Axelrod-mushmouths, and look perpetually guilty of something.  Guts?  Sorry.  I think he'd have them to defend his family, whom he loves unreservedly, but otherwise?  Nuh-uh.  And I have to offer that it seems increasingly clear that he's gotten what he wants.  Sad, but there it is.

    Can Dems do an end run around him is another question.  Dunno; they have kept looking to him for help on so many issues, especially in the House. My best giuess is that Dems will push for some more sweeteners for the deal they can sell later to voters, and pass it.  I'd rather be wrong, though the clock's arguably running out for action on just UE extensions and a middle cut class check in the mail.  That's both Obama's and the Dem leadership's fault.  All this shoulda happened before the elections, IMO.


    by we are stardust on Thu, 12/09/2010 - 12:56pm

    Star, there is plenty to be angry about with Obama. But I agree with you, the Congress certainly shares the blame for chickening out on this before the election.

    By the way, for full disclosure, I've just discovered that my diary here is the antithesis or what R. Reich has argued about the educational value of the package. He said that the package teaches how big government failed and how the solution is to shrink the government. To paraphrase he says the package is disastrous from the standpoint of educating the public about what has happened in the past and what needs to happen in the future.


    by Oxy Mora on Thu, 12/09/2010 - 1:22pm

    Thanks for the disclosure; I agree and said at length on your diary of yesterday: that's one thing I'm most bitter about concerning Obama's major fail. 


    by we are stardust on Thu, 12/09/2010 - 1:32pm

    Interesting stuff here. Just on the SocSec trust fund issue. There just is no good option on the payroll tax cut for the Dems. Either they end up raiding the trust fund, which brings forward the date the SS administration can no longer cover outlays, OR they top up the fund with money from general revenue (this is the option they're apparently going with), and undermine the justificatory foundations of the SS program - that it is NOT a redistributive welfare program. If you start funding it out of general revenue it is BY DEFINITION redistributive, which leaves it vulnerable to the GOP's demagogueing.

    So it is basically the worst kind of stimulus one can conceive of: it gets you some money up front, but concedes the narrative. And, as we know, the GOP is great at leveraging a narrative that they have established. There is going to be a Social Security fight next year, and the dems just gave up their strongest card. Accordingly, their propaganda and negotiating position is weakened, and they will - oh-so-regrettably - have to make concessions, accepting benefit cuts, of course not on the currently elderly (they have too much political clout) but on the young. Yup, those same under 25's who are all currently out of work (7 million and counting), or in a dead-end retail job somewhere, destroying their earnings capacity going forward.

    This is just sickening. At this point, you CAN'T talk about incompetence on the part of the administration, this is just willful sabotage. They WANT Social Security 'reform'.



    by Obey on Thu, 12/09/2010 - 1:46pm

    (Whew!  Dodged a bullet...)  ;oP


    by we are stardust on Thu, 12/09/2010 - 2:01pm

    Yeah, that one took out my right engine.


    by Oxy Mora on Thu, 12/09/2010 - 2:24pm

    I'd been quoting Obey on that issue above, and was afraid I'd made a mash of it was all.  ;o)


    by we are stardust on Thu, 12/09/2010 - 5:33pm

    I see. Thanks.


    by Oxy Mora on Thu, 12/09/2010 - 6:08pm

    Obey, how soon would they have to "top off" the funds? Could this be done by upping the cap on earnings, say after 2012?  

     


    by Oxy Mora on Thu, 12/09/2010 - 2:07pm

    I'm not quite sure how to answer that question, Oxy. There isn't a deadline as such. The SS situation is 2.6 trillion saved up in the trust fund and the payroll tax revenue to pay out 400 billion in benefits - and rising - every year. Here they are cutting 120 billion from the revenue stream, leaving a funding gap. So either they sell some bonds from the fund, or they find some money form general federal revenue.

    They're going with the latter. So there is no question of 'when-to-top-up'.

    If they had gone with the former, there would be 120 billion less in the trust fund. When would they need to top up the trust fund to be able to keep covering outlays? Well, before 2038 or so. But that doesn't sound like what you were asking.

    So not sure what to say. Maybe someone else with a better grasp of the SocSec mechanics has a better answer.


    by Obey on Thu, 12/09/2010 - 5:05pm

    Obey, it wasn't a clear question, nor is my mind very clear at the moment.  I was mainly wondering if the term "redistributive" is a technical one which takes us over the point of no return on what SS technically is. Also is there is a way to delay transfers from general revenue--which I think is unanswerable--been a long day.     


    by Oxy Mora on Thu, 12/09/2010 - 6:02pm

    I think there is a tutorial here better than Perot's charts, better than the Democrats have ever produced. And the tutorial, if handled right by Obama, can continue through 2012 and well into the future.

    What are the early Las Vegas odds on the White House putting the Powerpoint slides up on its website?

    So that interested members of the public, including past supporters who they want to support them going forward might gain, for starters, some insight into their thinking along with access to the facts and data they see as supporting their view?

    I am only partly kidding.


    by AmericanDreamer on Thu, 12/09/2010 - 11:54am

    Dreamer, that torpedo passed astern but came awfully close to my engine room. The charts indeed might be a laughing stock. Good point. LaughingGoolsby might want to wait until the package clears, the Tea Party has shut down the government, and then put the charts up.

    Goolsby's charts came too late to do any good. Even so, with 24/7 disinformation from FOX and then Main Stream taking up that frame of the news the messaging from Democrats has had to plow through mud to try to make a case about whether or not the rich create jobs, for example.

    What I think this tutorial does it put the essentials into one framework--you can try to piecemeal the parts you like, but the antithesis pops up, and I think that benefits our side going forward, since we're been so negligent in framing the issues as a whole.

      


    by Oxy Mora on Thu, 12/09/2010 - 1:35pm

    Not kidding, they've got this on the WhiteHouse.gov home page in a slideshow right now, they've also got a video to go with it:

    The video is advertised across the top of the home page with this banner:


    by artappraiser on Thu, 12/09/2010 - 1:47pm

    Here's the direct link to the video page, for when after the home page changes:

    http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2010/12/09/white-house-white-board-tax-cu...

    P.S. BTW, I had no idea about this, I only went to check the site after reading the comments here- that I found them already doing it in this manner made me laugh out loud!


    by artappraiser on Thu, 12/09/2010 - 1:56pm

    Artsy, I'm laughin' too. Laughing


    by Oxy Mora on Thu, 12/09/2010 - 2:09pm

    Artsy, I watched and for starters it was o.k. Now if we had our own cable channel, it might help. He made a ridiculous comment, that it had no impact on the long term defiicit--left himself wide open.

    I just thought if he wrote  "2 people got this much" and "98 people got this much" , the response would have to be "no f#cking way!".


    by Oxy Mora on Thu, 12/09/2010 - 2:22pm

    Well howdy doody!  Bad on me for not checking.  I have to admit it fleetingly occurred to me, before I hit send on that comment, that this WH might, possibly, perhaps, maybe have something up on these lines.  And that if it did, artsy would sniff it out (not hard, after all, unlike some of the stuff you sniff out), find it, and link to it.

    But it seemed more apt to rag on them some more about their totally, (upwardly revised to) almost totally lameass communications "strategy".  I'll say it before you do, artsy ('cause I am pretty sure you're thinking it :<)): perhaps I am hanging out in relatively anti-Obama precincts of the liberal blogosphere a bit too much.  Surprised   


    by AmericanDreamer on Thu, 12/09/2010 - 2:32pm

    Dreamer, I think I'm convincing myself that this tax package is a turorial on how and why we should primary Obama. But I'm not making a final decision until after the State of the Union.

    The only way Goolsby's chart board is going to get legs is to have Jon Stewart and Colbert parody it.


    by Oxy Mora on Thu, 12/09/2010 - 2:40pm

    Hmmm...wonder if fellow dagblogoviator smitty has a former SNL contact who could pass along that suggestion to Stewart/Colbert?  Say, is that email address box you provided the dag operator one you check sometimes?  Wink 


    by AmericanDreamer on Thu, 12/09/2010 - 2:46pm

    Dreamer, received. Thanks much.Laughing


    by Oxy Mora on Thu, 12/09/2010 - 3:22pm

    From David Coates new diary, he offers links about: .  And he links to Yves Smith's 'Trojan Horse' of the tax plan (bet it's good):

    “But more than six million federal, state and local government employees do not pay into Social Security at all. Instead they pay into public pension systems. So if the agreed proposal becomes law, such employees will lose the $400 credit and would not reap any benefit from the payroll tax cut.”  (David Kocieniewski, ‘In Tax Deal, Many Public Employees Will Pay More”, The New York Times, December 8, 2010)

     [13] For details of this, see Yves Smith, Trojan Horse in Tax Compromise: GOP Plan to Bankrupt States, Break Unions (Updated); posted on the website ‘naked capitalism’ and available at http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2010/12/trojan-horse-in-tax-compromise-gop-plan-to-bankrupt-states-break-union.html


    by we are stardust on Thu, 12/09/2010 - 9:48pm

    Thanks, I'll check it out.


    by Oxy Mora on Thu, 12/09/2010 - 10:47pm

    Oxy, I can see that you haven't lost the faith and continue to flagellate yourself with Obama's fairy tale. Truly, I don't think even Sarah Palin can save Obama from defeat in 2012. Me, I've got my eye on Bloomberg, both the man and the screen.


    by David Seaton on Fri, 12/10/2010 - 6:41am

    David, I'm growing pretty disenchanted with him. Unlike most of you I dropped out after '08 so I missed a lot of the debates. I operate a business so I just didn't have time to be involved. I was pretty shocked when I focused on the election in September.

    It all comes down to alternatives and right now I don't any. No one is going to win a primary against him. As for Bloomberg, it could be interesting and it could elect Thune for the Republicans. I'm really waiting to see what the State of the Union looks like. Also, the appointments will be important.


    by Oxy Mora on Fri, 12/10/2010 - 7:46am

    I'm thinking Governor Pawlenty of Minnesota might be a logical choice for the anti-Palin GOP movers and shakers to coalesce around.  Being a Governor seems to convey greater reassurance than being a Senator--even if, in a given case, it arguably shouldn't.  Like Thune, Pawlenty is not well-defined nationally, which is a huge advantage to a party establishment in need of defining a candidate who can be acceptable enough to the various wings of the GOP and the electorate that a successful nominee would need to be.

    I don't see Romney as someone even the GOP, which after all got Richard "You Won't Have to Kick Around Any More" Nixon elected President twice before they got even much better yet at image construction and resuscitation, could clean up to fit that bill.  Ditto for Gingrich if he runs. 


    by AmericanDreamer on Fri, 12/10/2010 - 10:21am

    Dreamer, the hard core Christians don't have a kindly view of Mormons. I just don't think Romney can win a primary and if he does the base might be apathetic. More as a V.P. I think. I try to picture Obama up against some of these possible candidates and the only threat I can see is George Schiavo Bush. Although if Teddy Roosevelt were nominated I'd vote for him.


    by Oxy Mora on Fri, 12/10/2010 - 1:20pm

    Bloomberg would get crushed in a national election and he knows it.  The country won't tolerate what we New Yorkers will.  I honestly think he's been an uber competent, if still entirely imperious mayor but he'd make a lousy president who would mostly just tick people off.


    by Michael Maiello on Fri, 12/10/2010 - 9:59am

    he'd make a lousy president who would mostly just tick people off.

    He's never get that far, he'd do the ticking off during the campaign. However, maybe that's what he's looking to do, run and tick people off, shake things up.

    I certainly enjoyed what Perot did to the presidential debates, didn't you? He got them off the blah blah blah two-party robotic talking points (tho Clinton was also revolutionary in his handling of the town hall format.) 

    He'd also get a bigger footnote in the history books if he ran, things like that are "priceless." Wink

    But American Dreamer did make a good point in a comment on my news story on Bloomberg's speech

    http://dagblog.com/link/bloomberg-critiques-economic-policies-7732#comments

    that he represents the hated Wall Street. It's just that am not sure about that, how that really plays out, I suspect the populist rage against Wall Sreet is very vague and unfocused, they are bogeyman nobody sees, not anyone real that they know, and it's not focused on successful oligarch types. Donald Trump still seems very popular. A lot of people still seem to very much appreciate hearing from "plain speaking" big shots. Same as the Perot phenomenon, they don't get tarred as greedy rich guys. All they have to do is talk about how stupid most politicians are and a lot of people prick up their ears. (Dylan Ratigan's career trajectory comes to mind for some reason.Tongue out)



    by artappraiser on Fri, 12/10/2010 - 11:36am

    Artsy, just a side note here. I listen to Bloomberg radio a lot and T.V. occasionally. It is a different fish than CNBC, not nearly as rah rah the rich. Bloomberg actually has a new debate format where an old syle formal debate takes place instead of we yell our heads off at each other at the same time. It's  called "Intelligence"  --something like that. It's a pleasure to watch reasoned discourse. I think Bloomberg can differentiate himself from Wall St. per se and who knows how reform minded he really could become.

    As for the three way debates with Clinton, I have always thought Perot gave Clinton the biggest gift ever when he refused to go along with Poppy's attack on Clinton's lack of military experience, etc.


    by Oxy Mora on Fri, 12/10/2010 - 1:50pm

    Bloomberg praises Obama and is not running:

    Bloomberg rules out 2012 presidential bid 

    New York City mayor praises Obama: 'His success is the country’s success'

    December 12, 2010

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40628514/ns/politics/


    by artappraiser on Sun, 12/12/2010 - 4:27pm

    Right, that New York state of mind doesn't translate elsewhere. What was that joke about New York State's motto:  "New York!  ...You wanna make somethin outta it?"  Whadaya?

    I had a cab driver once who did four Whadaya's in succession--which might have been the record.


    by Oxy Mora on Fri, 12/10/2010 - 1:37pm

    Pertinent to discussion in this thread, re whether the deal on the table would improve the jobs situation and the economy generally over the next couple of years, this today from Krugman:

    But here's the thing: while the bad stuff in the deal lasts for two years, the not-so-bad stuff expires at the end of 2011. This means that we're talking about a boost to growth next year -- but growth in 2012 that would actually be slower than in the absence of the deal.

    This has big political implications. Political scientists tell us that voting is much more strongly affected by the economy's direction in the year or less preceding an election than by how well the nation is doing in some absolute sense.

    When Ronald Reagan ran for re-election in 1984, the unemployment rate was almost exactly the same as it had been just before the 1980 election -- but because the economic trend in 1980 was down while the trend in 1984 was up, an unemployment rate that spelled defeat for Jimmy Carter translated into landslide victory for Reagan.

    This political reality makes the tax deal a bad bargain for Democrats. Think of it this way: The deal essentially sets up 2011-2012 to be a repeat of 2009-2010. Once again, there would be initial benefits from the stimulus, and decent growth a year before the election. But as the stimulus faded, growth would tend to stall -- and this stall would, once again, come in the months leading up to the election, with seriously negative consequences for Mr. Obama and his party.

    You may say that economic policy shouldn't be affected by partisan considerations. But even if you believe that -- how's the weather on your planet? -- you have to consider the situation likely to prevail a year from now, as the good parts of the Obama-McConnell deal are about to expire. Wouldn't there be pressure on Democrats to offer Republicans something, anything, to improve economic prospects for 2012? And wouldn't that be a recipe for another bad deal?


    by AmericanDreamer on Fri, 12/10/2010 - 11:15am

    It's hard to argue with an economist like Krugman but I get the impression that he now has an awful lot invested in continuing his criticism of Summers/Geitner. I'm fairly impressed with some of the anecdotal evidence on the posiitive side. PIMCO, the major bond house, is now projecting GDP growth next year as high as 4%. I think Krugman's downside is that he is an analytical pessimist. A lot of what happens in the next two years depends on psychology. Such factors as a NASDAQ rally could add a lot of kick. I'm not sure the 09 trough and the 12 trough are comparable.  


    by Oxy Mora on Fri, 12/10/2010 - 1:36pm

    Pertaining to the White House packaging and tutorials (Ho ho ho!):  from Wm. Black:

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/william-k-black/the-effort-to-claim-that-_b_794862.html

     


    by we are stardust on Fri, 12/10/2010 - 2:12pm

    Ho,Ho,Ho, yersalf. Did you see the scruffy beard on that mother? Looks kinda ox-like. Nope. Don't trust him. Not even a "full" Professor, just an "Assosciate"--there's a million of them at Home Depot so why don't we just ask one of them instead.

    And don't kid yoursef about BofA, they're going down--just as soon as the tax package clears.


    by Oxy Mora on Fri, 12/10/2010 - 3:07pm

    This has been an amazingly high level  exchange.

    I'll comment on only two points.

    Agree that Obama , and his team, are hopeless at selling their policies.

    Disagree that he's been a disappointing president. Obamacare was a seminal achievement. And this current deal with the republicans is finally going to  provide the missing second bite at the stimulus.

    Oh, three points. It was stupid for him to attack the left. A. don't attack your supporters, B that sort of whining is beneath the dignity of the office.  

     


    by Flavius on Sat, 12/11/2010 - 10:44am

    Flavius--on the point of "selling" policies. Bernie Sanders took the idea of a tutorial and drove it through six feet of solid concrete. I think his performance will stand the test of time as pivotal in laying out the essential case of Progressives. I still think the package will pass but I'm wondering if an amendment on the estate tax might be included. But Sanders performance fast forwarded history for Obama. 2012 is now. Using the platform that this package is in its whole, do we think Obama intends to and will be able to make the future case against the Republicans when it comes time to reverse the holiday, the estate tax and the upper end tax cut? If not, this package will have been a disaster. If we don't think he can make that case we should fight this package or if it is passed, be looking for Obama's replacement. 


    by Oxy Mora on Sat, 12/11/2010 - 2:50pm

    Greg Sargent published a copy of the chart that the White House sent around to Congressional Dems to convince them to support the deal:

    http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2010/12/how_the_white_house_w...


    by artappraiser on Mon, 12/13/2010 - 7:58pm