It all started with a simple bad idea. The idea is seductive. If we’re going to solve our long-term deficit problem, the first thing we need to do is stop going further into debt. The easiest way to do that is to refuse to raise the debt ceiling. Only a small handful of countries have a statutory debt ceiling, but we’re one of them. If the Republicans took advantage of this strange quirk, they could force massive cuts in government. As a fallback plan, they could at least insist that any increase in the debt ceiling be matched dollar-for-dollar with spending cuts. That way, we really wouldn’t be increasing our debt at all.
There are several problems with this line of thinking. First, anyone not blinded by anti-government ideology can tell you that cuts in government spending cause unemployment to go up in both the public and private sectors, at least in the short-term. Any economic reward we might reap from smaller government would only show up far down the line. So, cutting the budget dramatically when we have historically high levels of unemployment is bad timing. Second, creating doubt about whether the U.S. government will pay its bills on time and in full puts our credit rating at risk. This is something that the Republicans probably didn’t consider back when they came up with their simple bad idea. Third, the Republicans only control one branch of Congress, and they cannot expect to dictate to the Senate or the White House. In refusing to compromise, they broke how our government is supposed to function and introduced uncertainty about its ability to take care of even the basics of governance. This contributed mightily to Standard & Poor’s decision to downgrade our country’s credit rating and it hurt our reputation, perhaps irreparably, with the countries that finance our debt.
This crisis arose out of simplistic ideological thinking, but it grew worse because of basic irrationality. If the idea was to force the government to live within its means, the Republicans needed to be realistic about what they could accomplish when they controlled only the House. They needed to accept the fact that the Democrats would not go along with a bill that had no revenue. (The bill they got has no guaranteed revenue, but will trigger massive cuts to the Pentagon and Medicare providers if revenue is not part of the SuperCommittee’s plan). If the idea is to stop deficit spending and control our debt, the president made a generous offer. A refusal to consider any tax revenues, even those restricted to eliminating tax subsidies, signifies that the Republicans really care more about tax-levels than deficit spending. And, that is actually the truth of the matter, as evidenced by the records of both Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush. Dick Cheney neatly made this point when he said, “Ronald Reagan proved that deficits don’t matter.”
The Washington Post article (cited above) shows how this process works. When the Republicans lose the White House after running enormous deficits and creating incredible deficits, they have a little meeting to consider what went wrong. Watch.
In January 2009, on a night aglow with inaugural balls and Democrats celebrating their newly-elected president, a gathering of Republican lawmakers picked at their dinners in the Caucus Room restaurant off Pennsylvania Avenue. They felt anything but cheerful.
The original Young Guns —[Eric] Cantor, Kevin McCarthy of California and Paul Ryan of Wisconsin — were there, along with disconsolate colleagues from the House and Senate.
The evening started as “just another conservative bitch session,” Ryan later recalled. “It was basically, ‘What just happened?’ ”
Excuses mingled with a search for explanations. Some around the table argued that Republicans had simply fallen victim to the crumbling economy. Others suggested that their presidential nominee, John McCain, simply hadn’t stirred enough enthusiasm among voters.
No, said Ryan and others. The problem was deeper. A “fundamental rot” had set in, as party leaders had adopted bloated budgets, chased pork-barrel spending and worried too much about getting reelected.
Did it occur to them that that is exactly what Republicans do every single time they’re entrusted with power? They always come away thinking, “Gee, what happened? Why’d we spend all that money when we’re supposed to be about balanced budgets and small government.”
The solution is obvious. Pretend you’re not responsible for the wrecked economy and start screaming about the spending required to fix your mess. This time, the Republicans regained their footing quite quickly, although not in time to prevent the passage of the thing they’ve feared the most, a health care plan that provides access to all Americans.
However, in ramping up the hypocritical crazy rhetoric to stratospheric heights, they unleashed an untamed beast that they cannot control. The result is a House Caucus that is functionally insane and a U.S. Senate that is as stuck as a stegosaurus in a La Brea tar pit.
If this were no more than a cynical ploy to ruin the economy and destroy Obama’s presidency, it would be less concerning. It’s actually something worse. It’s the crack-up of a formerly great country.
Did it occur to them that that is exactly what Republicans do every single time they’re entrusted with power?
Did it ever occur did Cantor and Eddie Munster that they are part of the problem? Since they voted for all the budget busting bills they passed between Jan. 2001 and Jan. 2007?
That was then; this is now.
Speaking of Eddies, Cantor very much seems like an Eddie Haskell personality.
Do you have any thoughts on Westen’s new article?
link?
I believe he might be referring to this article in the NYT.
Worthless drivel.
outside of libya and sometimes civil liberties, that’s pretty much how you respond to any criticism of Obama.
No, it really is worthless drivel. It’s not even worth anything as criticism, because it’s based on a wrong premise.
“worthless drivel”?
really!?…you honestly believe that what he’s written doesn’t lay out, in the simplest language l’ve seen to date, the basics for the underlying angst of much of the population surrounding the economic crisis of the past 2 1/2 years?
if so, you are in a sadly terminal state of denial. i would posit that a very large percentage, perhaps a majority, of the general population, excluding policy wonks and political junkies, harbour those exact feelings, albeit without the skills or the access opportunities to articulate them as lucidly….believe that.
l’ve said it before, and l’ll say it again: obama squandered the largest mandate for change in modern politics with his wishy washy bipartisanship. granted, there is complicity aplenty to go around for every single politico inside the beltway.
the mindset that seems to be becoming more prevalent here is that we…progressives… have to have obamas’ back, even though he keeps sticking knives in ours, because the alternative is going to be worse…bullshit. if it’s going to get worse…and it no doubt has the potential… then obama better man up and own it and start acting like there are actions he can take to neutralize the real enemies out there. frankly, l believe that’s a move he’s incapable of, or unwilling to do.
point is, in the grand scheme of things, he, and the democratic party, has been a miserable failure on the economy. [and don’t get me started on civil rights, habeas corpus and the like.] but the gist of the matter is, this is what comes from a serious lack of leadership at the highest levels…and please, spare me the litany of successful progressive accomplishments that l’m sure will follow. l get it. l also get, along with a hell of a lot of others, just how fucked up we really are. but at the end of the day, the buck’s going to stop on the presidents desk, whether he wants it to or not.
so how about no more skirting the blame, and ducking responsibility, please. maybe it’s time for some good old fashioned partisanship…ya think?
.
"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."
completely and totally. They may lose the next election: but that doesn’t really matter. I think people are in denial of the extent of their victory.
Here is why: a downgrade by all three raters would probably cost the country 100 Billion to 150 Billion a year in increased interest rates. As a result, any proposed increase in spending becomes self-defeating.
Previously the best arguments had true conservatives had against government was that it would result in higher taxes. But now they can point to a downgrade as an argument against government spending.
The goal of the ideological types like Norquist was always to strangle government. He believes that broad based tax increases were never going to happen ever since Mondale got creamed. He tolerated the budget deficits because he knew you couldn’t run them forever. Sure, Democrats might be for higher taxes on the rich, but they were for lower taxes for the middle class.
Stimulus is now off the table forever unless you increase taxes on the rich, and given the deficit you have to go a lot father than reversing the Bush taxes to get enough revenue that would really matter.
The truth is the answer is to reverse ALL of the Bush tax cuts, but I think Democrats believe that would be a political disaster.
So the only debate will be about what to cut.
As I have said, they have won a complete victory.
Fladem, I’m poor. Therefore, I think I can save them the debate & just start cutting pieces off of my own ass until I see daylight.
That’s where the moral level is.
The more that government is obviously strangled, the more the folks who don’t realize how much they depend on that government are going to ask what’s going on.
That leads down one of three paths, and all lead to bigger government. We’ve seen this movie before.
The conservatives are dishonest when they say they want smaller government. They want “their” government to be bigger – more military, more enforcement of restrictions on abortion, more police, more enforcement of discrimination against a whole list of people, more small business loans, …..
Just speaking locally, it seems like there are three shades of conservatives around here. Those who are driven primarily by the financial aspects (more for the “haves”), social issue conservatives (religious righties) and those who seem to primarily be driven by race and class (government is taking from hard working white people and giving it to the “others”).
Of course, these can exist in any sort of ratio. Most seem to have at least two of three going on in their heads.
But when they start turning on their own Republican Tea Party Congresscritters because “They went to Washington and got corrupted”, there is a glimmer of daylight in there somewhere.
I often think that a three week power outage that shut down all of the media completely so that there was nothing but silence and talking to family and friends could have a disenthralling effect. Pulling the plug on the Wurlitzer that is driving these people crazy.
l wouldn’t count on those folks asking the proper questions let alone drawing the proper conclusions until the situation is well past the point of no return…which it, arguably, may already be. but that is another subject entirely.
like george carlin said…“think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that”.
for irrefutable evidence, you need look no farther than the teahadists.
you are right, of course.
on top of the two-step drivel that most Republicans have been talking on the state level. talking about that EVIL FEDERAL GUBBAMINT MONEY
all the while using it to balance their fucking butdgets.
On the ‘crack-up’: empires collapse; they always have, they always will; people will suffer; they always have, they always will.
Now. How do we, as individuals, survive the change with a consciousness? How do we live decently, without compounding our own suffering or that of others?
That’s the key question for me. On a certain level, it’s the only one that counts.
If the collapse is a done deal — like the changing seasons, like birth & death — maybe we’d best start thinking in those terms. It’s not just idle contemplation, either, because sustainable survival means creative industry.
The GOP doesn’t ‘win’; nobody ‘wins’. Unless you think of natural processes as some kinda contest.
“However, in ramping up the hypocritical crazy rhetoric to stratospheric heights, they unleashed an untamed beast that they cannot control.”
I agree with everything else you say, except for this. Yes that’s a fair characterization of the tea party Republicans, but in the debt ceiling debate at least I don’t think they were ever in control. Rather, the more senior Republicans used them to get as many concessions from Democrats as they could, pushing things as far as they could go. In the end they did make a deal after all, while getting as many concessions as they probably could have, which was not the tea party agenda.
Sounds good to me. As far as I can tell, the whole goddamn ‘movement’ has been a tool of the power elite for a long time. The Congressional tea-heads are just doing their bit.
No, if they had control of the beast, they would have taken Obama’s offer of the grand bargain. I doubt they’ll be able to get as much even if they make a clean sweep on the Presidency, House and Senate next year.
I wonder exactly what you guys are talking about, I really do.
http://www.editedforclarity.com/2011/08/01/debt-ceiling-deal-the-devil-is-in-the-details/
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/08/01/1001645/-3-Big-Victories-for-ObamaDems-in-Debt-Ceiling-Figh
t-%E2%80%93-Republicans-Just-Trying-to-Save-Face
The John Kerry slogan “Tea party Downgrade” is starting to circle around blogs, and frankly its a freaking good slogan. I hope to heck the Dem machine grabs it and runs with it.
they won’t.
Yeah, the Democrats are scared to death of being accused of being partisans.
This is why I am so annoyed at Weiner. He was willing to put up his dukes. What a moron, really.
Kent COnrad and Max Baucus wouldn’t like it.
Say, aren’t they part of the Super Congress committee? Gee, with Democrats like those, why did the Republicans need any representation?
They are.
Axelrod Repeated it in his interviews today. And Move on has started a campaign on it. http://front.moveon.org/the-tea-party-wont-like-this-pass-it-on/
This article was poorly reported because it neglected the December 2009 hostage-taking of the debt-ceiling vote by four Democrats and one independent. The hostage was exchanged for the setting up of the Simpson-Bowles Commission.
The longer this fact is buried in the memory hole, the longer Obama takes the rap for something he might necessarily have wanted — at least not at that time in his administration.
You think Cantor watched this and said to himself, “Oh well, those irresponsible Democrats, pulling this stunt on their own President”?
Yes, and it makes me think of Krugman’s pissy blogpost today, where he throws up his hands about what to do about Obama. What Krugman seems to be unable to recognize is that Obama is not the principal problem, and never has been. It’s congress. In Krugman’s medium term, it’s really quite obvious that if we want Obama to act more liberal, we need to work to get him a more liberal congress.
.
"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."
So what is Obama? A potted plant?
He is supposed to be the LEADER OF THE PARTY.
Bush had no problem playing the part of Leader of the Republicans. He led the country by using his conservative principles. The result sucked but it was entirely predictable, consistent, and fit the Repukeliscum frame.
Obama has no frame. He has no principles. He has no idea where he is going, and neither do we. He will make a speech, and then put Medicare on the table.
He is the worst Democratic President since Carter. He is actually worse than Carter since he is a better politician, and he has less interest in Democratic policies.
He is a moderate Republican.
Well, personally, I think it’s better that he doesn’t govern like Bush, but I’m really not into the whole dear leader thing.
It’s simply a fact that Obama wouldn’t govern like a moderate Republican if he had a more liberal congress. Krugman had this much right: Obama never promised to govern as anything but a centrist. And that’s why Krugman’s blogpost came off as so pissy. You want Obama to move left, you need to do the hard work of making the political situation such that it makes sense for him to move left. Have you called your congressman recently, your senators? Have you volunteered to work on the election next year? Or do you think that you are being politically active because you are yelling at people on blogs?
I worked quite a bit in 2008, and have contributed in several other elections.
Many of you Obama apologists seem to think that Obama critics are idiots. I never believed that Obama was a progressive. What I wanted was a smart centrist. But we have the worst of the possible choices – we have a centrist who has a governing ideology which leads him to bargain like an idiot, give away his advantages, and otherwise look like a fucking chump.
I’ll vote for him. I am waiting for him to say WHY he is running. Why is he running? What is he going to accomplish? Will he be a Democrat or Republican?
“… and otherwise look like a fucking chump.”
A ‘fucking chump’ who’s approval ratings actually went up after all this. It appears that the American people don’t agree with you about what he looks like.
Do you know what you are talking about dataguy or do you just like to emote?
http://www.editedforclarity.com/2011/08/01/debt-ceiling-deal-the-devil-is-in-the-details/
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/08/01/1001645/-3-Big-Victories-for-ObamaDems-in-Debt-Ceiling-Figh
t-%E2%80%93-Republicans-Just-Trying-to-Save-Face
Hmm…the way I see it, he has too many principles, if anything. I think he can’t let go of this “president of all the people” idea, being the uniter of “one nation”. As a result he appears incapable of recognizing that we are in a class war, that there is a real enemy trying to drown America, that it’s time to give up on conciliation and lead the country into battle. His principles can even be seen as noble and desirable, but next to useless in the present reality. All we end up with is a Vichy regime instead of fighting with the Resistance.
Is he worse than Clinton? In spite of everything I’d have to say no. He’s gotten more done on the good side of the ledger while enduring a savage attack not just on him, but on America that dwarfs even the Clinton impeachment shamelessness. He’s disappointed his most ardent supporters with his blindness to the political landscape, but I see no choice except to support what he does well and bitch about his maddening refusal to engage the enemy. Thing is, some of us were desperately hoping for someone much, much better than Clinton because that’s what the times require. So far that’s not what we’re getting, and it may be too late to change that.
He realizes that we are in a class war and has said as much. But his position is that he doesn’t have to accept the fact that class war is inevitable; after all, contrary to propaganda from the right, he’s not a Marxist.
I think that you are right about his principles sometimes tripping him up. And the Vichy regime was dictated by a small group of Democratic Senators who understand their power is as swing voters and want to make the best of it.
We were hoping that the Republicans would accept their decisive defeat. Instead they dug in as resistance fighters.
Events are still unwinding. The public is beginning to get even more dissatisfied with the disconnect among the media, the Congress, and their own lives. Something has got to give soon. The system is just under too much pressure. And we have an even chance that it breaks our way. If it does, all prognostications are out the window. If it doesn’t, we’re going to have another long decade.
I’m hearing Republicans say that the Congresscritters that they themselves elected are now corrupt because they picked up the Washington corruption disease. They never said anything close to that during the Bush regime.
He reminds me of the portrayal of Mandela in Invictus.
You really think we have an even shot once the public has finally had enough? Seems to me the trends are toward fascism and the media is too dumb and corrupt to influence opinion our way. But I hope you’re right.
PS: If he knows we’re in a class war, how can he still be working on the assumption that class war is not inevitable? He still thinks he’s going to be so reasonable that the enemy will see the error of its ways and repent? Maybe the problem is as simple as an excess of Christian liberalism. He reminds me of the liberal churches that put up banners warning that their building is a nuclear-free zone.
“I’m hearing Republicans say that the Congresscritters that they themselves elected are now corrupt because they picked up the Washington corruption disease.”
If they are referring to the TP contingent, then their just deluding themselves a usual, that’s not what happened at all. The TP remain gloriously uncorrupted, they know nothing and they learn nothing, they are just as stupid as the day they were elected.
What is the crap about “pissy blogpost”? Krugman said the truth: Obama is not a democrat, he is a centrist; 2) progressives have no leverage?
Why is that pissy>?
The phrase “pissy blogpost” is simply fucking stupid.
democrat does not equal progressive
progressive does not equal democrat
centrist does not equal corporatist
corporatist does not equal centrist
centrist does not equal independent
independent does not equal centrist
Even in the lower-case form of that. It appears that Obama is very much a small-d democrat trying to bend policy to the sweet spot in public opinion.
Progressive easily get the illusion that small-d democrats are necessarily progressive. That has rarely been the case, and certainly ever with the big-D Democratic Party.
kindly do not patronize me, jack. I am not a moron.
As I noted other places, few and not me were under the illusion that Obama was a progressive. I was under the illusion that he was a Democrat. That is now in considerable doubt.
Plus I was under the illusion that he was a poker player. If so, he lost thousands. He is the worst negotiator I have ever watched. I believed that we had a centrist who was smart. Instead, we have a moderate Republican who is incapable of recognizing that he has been taken for ride after ride. The guy is seriously stupid in that way.
“kindly do not patronize me, jack. I am not a moron.”
You’re sure of that, right?
We do need to balance spending and revenue. This is elementary. We need to ensure that 1) we have money coming in 2) to cover necessary expenditures.
What is BAD about the Repukeliscum is that they have swallowed the Norquist venom, and will not restore revenues to the pre-Bush level. Remember Clinton? The balanced budget?
We need to 1) END ALL BUSH TAX-CUTS, INCLUDING TO THE LOWER INCOME TYPES 2) raise the Capital Gains tax to the same level as ordinary income 3) end ALL overseas tax shelters.
The rich used to pay 35% of income in tax, now they pay 15 % (that is, they pay all income tax at the capital gains level).
The corporations used to cover 20% of all tax revenue, now they cover 7%.
Between the huge tax cuts for billionaires and the huge loopholes for corporations, there is no surprise about our current fiscal difficulties.
.
Just semantics, surprise? Why doesn’t Obama pounce on this opening and announce the Bush Tax Cuts will end in 2012.
"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."
Yeah, good question. What does Obama feel about this? You know that the conservaturds are going to spend the next 12 months moaning, groaning, and setting the agenda.
Obama is going to play the Responsible Adult card. So, in the midst of the election, the Repukeliscum will pull out the “HES-A-SOCIALIST-WHO-LIVES-TO-RAISE-TAXES” card, Obama will get all adult-like, and then …
He will fold again.
Except this time, he will really fold, and he will make the tax cuts permanent.
I won’t claim originality on this scenario. I will say that this is going to happen. Because Obama is doing NOTHING to change the narrative. In fact, he is buying into the Repukeliscum narrative about taxes.
It’s like watching a kid get beat up over and over and over and over. At first, you think “Gee, how terrible that those bullies pick on the kid”. But after the 3rd time, you think “GET A FUCKING CLUE, KID!!! YOU ARE GONNA GET BEAT UP!!!”
How stupid is Obama, anyway?
Because the deal he made to end DADT extend unemployment extensions etc means they last till 2013. If he broke that deal the Liberal media would be all over his ass for bieng an Oathbreaker and would bury the utter hammering the Tea party are taking now.
Feck sake cant you even think about gaming in your head what such a move would be spun as?
If the US wants to remain a thriving and livable country, I see no reason to raise taxes at the lower income levels until the brackets have been returned not just to pre-Bush, but pre-Reagan levels. We’re going to have to adjust to the reality that the era of endless growth through exploitation of endless resources, markets, and labor is over. We have a choice between a slow and soft decline that leaves a free and livable country — maybe one that, with the end of social-darwinist economic bullshit makes it better than before — and a permanent plutocracy that ends in dissolution and disaster. Oddly enough it will be something as dull as tax policy that determines where our next America falls on that spectrum.
I’m perfectly happy to give up the modest tax cuts that gained me no more than a K or two. If we can trade away my modest tax cuts for the elimination of the whole rancid pile of shit, that would be great. If at the same time, we could get capital gains taxes returned to the level of ordinary income, our entire fiscal picture would be MUCH better. My long-term objective is the elimination of all off-shore tax havens.
With ya on that. It’s amazing that Americans have put up with these special breaks for the richest for so long. Another idea that would help balance things enormously is the Tobin tax: a less than half of one-percent tax on international money flows. It would hardly make a dent in the profits of anyone but useless speculators, yet yield significant revenues. It is, of course, absolutely ignored by the media and the rulers.
We need to do more than balance spending and revenue. We need some years of substantial surpluses to lower the debt. There is no progressive reason that transfer of $300B a year from ordinary taxpayers to holders of T-bills is a good thing.
Exactly.
A tax dollar that goes to a gun, plane, or bomb might conceivably do some good. At the very least, it will create a job. A tax dollar that goes to pay interest on our debt? That’s wasted money.
We should borrow when money is cheap, or when we need to stimulate the economy, and we should run surpluses in good times and pay down that debt.
Yup. We’ve become ungovernable, pretty much.
But at least Obama has been reasonable and hasn’t called anyone out. Goodness knows that casting blame on the people who crashed the economy would be very wrong. Partisan even.
So as the ship goes down, it’s good to know the captain was unfailingly polite to the mutineers.
KAL’s cartoon | The Economist
And if McCain had beaten Obama and been our president and if 2010 had given the Rep’s a majority in the Senate as well as the House?
We may be down but at least there is a chance for sanity and resurection. If McCain were in power together with Senate majority all would be truly dire.
.
"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."
I know some are responding to this with enthusiasm, but to me it’s just more excuses for the Republican Party. This is a Republican Downgrade. There is no Tea Party. The teabaggers are not saying or doing anything that Reaganites haven’t been yapping about for decades. This is your GOP ideology at work, not some alien takeover. Even Kerry can’t seem to bring himself to put the blame where it clearly belongs.
Axelrod said the same thing on another show, and it looks like its going viral.
http://front.moveon.org/the-tea-party-wont-like-this-pass-it-on/
Also several Union lists are spreading it.
I haven’t read any of the other comments yet, I just want to respond directly to your post, then I’ll read them. I think it’s a fine, clear analysis, but I also think you could have given a little more emphasis to the fundamental flaw in the Tea Party’s strategy: you don’t start to control spending by unilaterally refusing to pay the bills you already have. That creates new and even worse problems. That should be obvious, even for a family budget. “You know dear, I think we have to go on a budget.” “OK — let’s start by refusing to pay our outstanding bills, that will save lots of money. Even if you think we should, I’m not going to let you. It’s for your own good.” I mean, that’s just plain moronic, isn’t it?
I think that is a fair criticism. In my defense, I did originally want to make that point but the post was cut short when I ran out of free time (parenting) to complete it.
I certainly can understand that! (father of 3 little ones).