I like the following excerpt from the president’s speech on the economy today.
Unfortunately, over the past couple of years in particular, Washington hasn’t just ignored the problem; too often, it’s made things worse.
We’ve seen a sizable group of Republican lawmakers suggest they wouldn’t vote to pay the very bills that Congress rang up – a fiasco that harmed a fragile recovery in 2011, and one we can’t afford to repeat. Then, rather than reduce our deficits with a scalpel – by cutting programs we don’t need, fixing ones we do, and making government more efficient – this same group has insisted on leaving in place a meat cleaver called the sequester that has cost jobs, harmed growth, hurt our military, and gutted investments in American education and scientific and medical research that we need to make this country a magnet for good jobs.
Over the last six months, this gridlock has gotten worse. A growing number of Republican Senators are trying to get things done, like an immigration bill that economists say will boost our economy by more than a trillion dollars. But a faction of Republicans in the House won’t even give that bill a vote, and gutted a farm bill that America’s farmers and most vulnerable children depend on.
If you ask some of these Republicans about their economic agenda, or how they’d strengthen the middle class, they’ll shift the topic to “out-of-control” government spending – despite the fact that we have cut the deficit by nearly half as a share of the economy since I took office. Or they’ll talk about government assistance for the poor, despite the fact that they’ve already cut early education for vulnerable kids and insurance for people who’ve lost their jobs through no fault of their own. Or they’ll bring up Obamacare, despite the fact that our businesses have created nearly twice as many jobs in this recovery as they had at the same point in the last recovery, when there was no Obamacare.
With an endless parade of distractions, political posturing and phony scandals, Washington has taken its eye off the ball. And I am here to say this needs to stop. Short-term thinking and stale debates are not what this moment requires. Our focus must be on the basic economic issues that the matter most to you – the people we represent. And as Washington prepares to enter another budget debate, the stakes for our middle class could not be higher. The countries that are passive in the face of a global economy will lose the competition for good jobs and high living standards. That’s why America has to make the investments necessary to promote long-term growth and shared prosperity. Rebuilding our manufacturing base. Educating our workforce. Upgrading our transportation and information networks. That’s what we need to be talking about. That’s what Washington needs to be focused on.
And that’s why, over the next several weeks, in towns across this country, I will engage the American people in this debate. I will lay out my ideas for how we build on the cornerstones of what it means to be middle class in America, and what it takes to work your way into the middle class in America. Job security, with good wages and durable industries. A good education. A home to call your own. Affordable health care when you get sick. A secure retirement even if you’re not rich. Reducing poverty and inequality. Growing prosperity and opportunity.
Some of these ideas I’ve talked about before, and some will be new. Some will require Congress, and some I will pursue on my own. Some will benefit folks right away; some will take years to fully implement. But the key is to break through the tendency in Washington to careen from crisis to crisis. What we need isn’t a three-month plan, or even a three-year plan, but a long-term American strategy, based on steady, persistent effort, to reverse the forces that have conspired against the middle class for decades.
However, I think the president needs to deliver these kind of remarks in Republican congressional districts and take some people on by name. If you’re going to talk smack about Republicans, you might as well get in their face while you’re doing it.
My only problem, and it is a minor one, is that he is giving the GOP too much credit by limiting the obstruction to a “sizeable faction” or “some” Republicans. The only thing that any Republicans have done is to agree to work on an immigration bill, and those only in the Senate and still a minority of the GOP there.
I would prefer he didn’t use qualifiers and speak in a way that implies “all Republicans”.
Well, there is a thought process behind that.
The Senate hasn’t just done immigration reform. They’ve made a deal on college loans. They made a deal on confirmations. They’re trying to figure out how to avoid a second debt ceiling fiasco. They want to fix defense spending, which means they have to deal with president on the budget. Some are trying to get there.
So, the president doesn’t want to beat all Senate Republicans over the head and paint them with the same brush as the House. As it is, talking smack about even some Republicans tends to make them prickly and comes with a price. At this point, however, there is nothing left to lose.
Yes, I know you are correct on that. So give some Republicans in the Senate a pass, but still mention it is a minority of Republicans in the Senate, and just use the term “the Republican House”.
And I expect to hear any second now how mean he was to the poor little GOPers and how are they supposed to be working with him now that he has talked about him this way.
So instead of saying “a fraction of Republicans” are obstructionists, say “all but a handful of Republicans”. Don’t sound like Caspar Milquetoast.
I have a little list of Republican districts in mind. (“You lie” Joe Wilson, Virginia Foxx, Steve King come to mind.) But I also have a little list of wayward Dems that could use the same thrashing. (Mike McIntyre comes to mind.)
Am I wrong in thinking that Obama speaking out against Wilson or Foxx in their districts would be like GWB speaking out against a representative in Northampton, MA in 2006?
It would be the first time some of these folks heard the President in his own words without the Fox News filter.
You keep making the assumption that just because it is largely a red district that everybody who votes Republican is unpersuadable. And because that is never challenged, it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Besides, news coverage for Foxx’s district spills over into Asheville and Winston-Salem. And news coverage for Joe Wilson’s district spills over into Charleston, Columbia, and Augusta.
It’s true that I believe that people are, by and large, almost entirely unpersuadable–and that that’s more true of conservatives than liberals. I simply don’t believe that fact-checking or speeches matter except on the very margins–and certainly not that shame has any impact.
Mostly I feel hopeless. I donated and phone-banked and door-knocked for Obama, but I didn’t think he’d transform politics. I figured him for a center-leftist, more center than left. Which is pretty much what he is. Maybe I expected a little less of the axis of Geithner/Bernanke/Emanuel/Gates, now Comey, but fair enough. And yet, of late I’ve just found myself unwilling to even listen to Obama talk, the same way I started getting a visceral reaction against Bush (except in Bush’s case, it started during his debates with Gore). I’m not saying it’s fair or wise, it’s just an emotional reaction of kneejerk mistrust. And while I know that politics isn’t a team sport, and that this is pretty unjustifiable, it’s hard to stay hopeful when you don’t have anyone to root for.
This from today: the Obama administration opposes the amendment to restrict the NSA monitoring of Americans to what’s allowed under the Patriot Act as written, not as secretly interpreted by the FISA court. Yesterday I was reading about James Risen. Day before that, about some guy whose house the banks foreclosed on even though he didn’t have a mortgage. Day before that, I saw admitted torturers treated like wise elders. I know that hopelessness is part of the Republican vicious cycle, and I don’t expect to win any of these fights, necessarily, but goddamn.
You’re not alone. Can’t recall when that visceral response to Bush began for me; only that I had to force myself to listen to him by 9/11 and that I endured that hopeless and sickening feeling every time until “mission accomplished” when I tuned him out completely except to watch the 2004 debates. Obama’s Nobel Peace Prize speech is what did it for me with him.
Really? I still listen to his speeches. I’ve never thought it helpful to progressive or liberal cause to attack Obama(or to “tune hime out”) within this political climate. I find him the most progressive president in my lifetime. It’s not that I don’t wish for better, but the eyeopener for me was during the health care debate. There was never going to be single-payer or the public option, but ACA was the first big step toward single-payer. With Republican insanity, I’m grateful every day for Obama. The alternative is unthinkable at this time.
I’m not claiming it’s a good thing that I can’t stand to listen to him anymore. I think it’s a bad thing. I would vote for him again over the alternatives (well, the Republican alternatives, not sure what I’d re-do in the primary), and I’d probably even donate again. Because as you say, Republican insanity.
I’m just mentioning this because, unlike with Marie2 (the peace prize just amused me, and made me a little hopeful), it’s fairly new for me. And I find it pretty worrisome that a middle-of-the-road Obama donor/doorknocker/voter like myself is having that reaction–even as I know that the alternative is actively trying to destroy the country.
Have you read Kevin Drum today? I keep going back to it. It’s what I’ve been thinking forever. (And my utterly unfounded conviction is that if the Obama administration came out strongly for Medicare-for-All, punishing lawbreakers, etc., we’d still have the patched-together-incomplete healthcare bill we have now … but with many more Dems in the House.)
http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2013/07/why-obama-should-have-gone-big-galesburg
Depends on one’s definition of “progressive.” If you want to cite a complicated health insurance reform program crafted at the Heritage Foundation as “progressive,” shouldn’t we also credit GWB for being “progressive” with NCLB and Medicare Part D? “Liberals” got suckered into Reagan’s Social Security reform because at the conceptual level it was progressive — it was the application that was totally regressive.
Would have to go back to Carter to see any substantive “progressive” economic/environmental policies. Although it may be arguable that upgrading education and energy (initiated by Nixon) to a cabinet level departments is substantive.
Seen any increase in the minimum wage since he’s been president? Income/wealth inequality reduced or even not increasing?
Are the TBTF banks smaller? Any bansters indicted?
Security/defense operations made leaner and/or less intrusive and global? (WTF is “progressive” about increasing US military presence in the Pacific region?)
“Clean coal” is not only not progressive, it’s a fantasy. The only thing that slowed down the sales of more offshore oil leases was the BP blow-out and subsequent exposure of the corrupt leasing agency.
The last “progressive” president was LBJ. (No surprise that the minimum wage peaked in 1968.) OTOH, he presided over the first half of the US-Vietnam War.
If it were not for the Vietnam War, yes, LBJ would have been great, maybe. But there was the war. And it was hell.
Know how we’d have gotten a healthcare bill through with any Republican support, Heritage or no? Or how we’d break Dem arms in conservative states to get one through? It was barely possible the way it was.
Your other questions seem to presume Obama can raise the minimum wage, fix wage disparity, etc. by fiat. And you can’t possibly mean that.
Meanwhile, the Dems, forming their big tent coalition, are not easy to herd or support in sufficient numbers any liberal policy. And republicans vote against any thing because its a Dem president and a Black Dem president.
As long as the problem with US health care is framed as an inadequate supply of affordable health insurance we’ll keep chasing our tail.
The problem is the supply of health care resources within a for-profit and fee-for-service system. Too few general practitioners, including gerontologist, and nurse practitioners both within the mix of current resources and in absolute numbers. Why? Specialists make a lot more money and given the high cost of medical school, many can’t afford to become GPs. Ignore that and the cost of health care, regardless of the various insurance schemes that can be constructed, and costs for everybody will continue to increase faster than inflation. Fear sells doesn’t it?
If all those old Republican folks in Congress want to keep losing their market share, keep unfunding and closing Planned Parenthood clinics in poor communities. Lots more minority babies are good for Democrats — and women in labor without health insurance can’t be turned away from hospitals; so, Republicans will pay for the birth of those babies anyway and that’s more expensive than funding Planned Parenthood.
I’m thinking more like those gerrymandered 55% districts where the GOP reps can be beaten if independents can be mobilized against them.
No call to expropriate the expropriators?
No announcement that property is theft?
No proposal for ownership by the people of the commanding heights of the economy?
You won’t catch me voting for him again..
Jeebus, “Washington hasn’t just ignored….a faction of House Repubs [are there others?]…Washington prepares to enter another budget debate”, etc. This is about one-tenth the needed rhetorical strength. This level of denunciation is meaningless to the House Rats in their gerrymandered districts. The lead line is “Washington”? A “faction” of House Repubs? What’s the size of the non-insane Repub faction in the House? And why cater to them? This pablum won’t even make the teevee news, haha.
Yes, (a few) senate Repubs have allowed a couple crappy bills to pass. They also refused to pass a gun bill and are filibustering every Obama judge and had to be forced to allow a vote on the Labor Sec, for God’s sake. So they’re Partners in Paralysis and they should be called on their contribution to the paralysis. If they are unhappy about being tarred with the Repub brush, then THEY can start denouncing Boner’s House of Imbeciles, too. Obama doesn’t need to protect them, he needs to scare them, unsettle them. Mostly he needs to tell the truth about them: REPUBS are paralyzing the gub’mint by design.
McFool & Co. aren’t “doing something” because they feel sorry for Obama or for the good of the country, for Christ’s sake. Maybe Obama plans on turning up the rhetorical volume as he goes along. He better.
This is the first in a series of speeches. I expect the rhetoric to get stronger, building to a crescendo just before the mid-terms. Although, base4d upon their performance today, I am not counting on the media presenting his message to the public
I hope so. And the prez blaming “Washington” for paralysis isn’t exactly news.
Reminds me of Jimmy Carter blaming “malaise”.
Carter never used the word “malaise” in the “malaise” speech. That was the first clue the MSM were no longer the Fourth Estate but GOP shills.
Interesting!
Sadly, he’s buying into the narrative that it was all a credit/housing bubble and that the DEFICIT!!!1!!!Eleventy!!! is the Greatest Danger We Have All Faced.
This means that Larry Summers is definitely the next Fed chair and it’s catfood from here on out, folks. 🙁
No it wasn’t a goddamn “credit bubble” it was a goddamn “stripmine the middle class” bubble. We had an economy largely guided by a sociopathic cultist (Alan “Shocked, shocked that there’s gambling going on in the Banks” Greenspan), a complete un-shackling of the finance sector, and the destruction of labor as a political force.
So today we get treated to things like this without a peep, and Obama is going on about fucking bi-goddamn-partisanship again. What POSSIBLE incentive do the R’s have to cooperate with him? They’ve shown again and again that they just don’t give a good goddamn if they destroy the country, so long as they get theirs.
The sequester? Why the HELL should they get out of that briar patch that they’ve been comfortably thrown into. They get all the credit, Obama gets all the blame, and they and the rest of the Koch-suckers get to drown our democracy in a bathtub.
“That’s why I’ll be nominating Larry Summers to fill Ben Bernanke’s set at the Federal Reserve.” (Left unstated: “Liberals get in line and STFU.”
I think that wild-eyed leftie radical Kevin Drum pretty much put his finger on it: “The reason Obama should be bolder is not because it might “break through the resistance.” He should be bolder precisely because it wouldn’t make any difference. If you’re going to meet an adamantine wall no matter what you do, why not shoot for the stars? At least that way you’ve made it clear whose side you’re on. Obama’s speech got in some good shots at the Republican Party’s continuing economic derangement, but he needs more than that.”
http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2013/07/why-obama-should-have-gone-big-galesburg
Only the teabaggers and “wild-eyed lefties” don’t know which side he’s on.
I know which side he’s on and it isn’t mine.
That’s because you’re a leftie. “Wild-eyed lefties” are Democrats trying to make themselves sound chic without bothering to know much about public policy.
There’s another thing he said that I like for the truth but simultaneously scares the willies out of me:
“If you think education is expensive, wait until you see how much ignorance costs in the 21st century.”
That just reminds me of how f***ed up this country will continue to be if the right continues to embrace the ignorance inherent in fundamentalism, Fox news, bigotry and all the rest. It reminds me of Dickens even:
‘Spirit. are they yours.’ Scrooge could say no more.
‘They are Man’s,’ said the Spirit, looking down upon them. ‘And they cling to me, appealing from their fathers. This boy is Ignorance. This girl is Want. Beware them both, and all of their degree, but most of all beware this boy, for on his brow I see that written which is Doom, unless the writing be erased. Deny it.’ cried the Spirit, stretching out its hand towards the city. ‘Slander those who tell it ye.
Admit it for your factious purposes, and make it worse. And abide the end.’
So he’s saying “STFU and quit crying about the cost of college”. How bi-partisan of him.
He said that at a part in the speech in which he was rotating to talk about eduction policies.
Please excuse my error in posting a line from the Prez here while assuming any commenters would know something about his speech.
Every damn thing I hear him say sounds elitist and non-caring.
Friday’s defense of Trayvon Martin was a high point for me, but today’s speech was a balm in Gilead.
While the equity markets are at their peak and the quantitative easing is still in play it would make sense to warn that Republican shananigans are going to tank the economy; it just might be headed South in any case. If I had to pick a month for the stalling recovery to start descending it would be September, right around the time the next debt default circus is likely to arise. Stay tuned; shorter Obama, “You broke it, you bought it.”
Does anyone think that Hillary wants to be president of a profoundly recessionary America? I wonder.
Is making that argument in Republican Congressional districts really a job for the President?
Obama is very polarizing. Remember, once upon a time, National Review ran an anti-Zimmerman column; it was only after Obama spoke about it the first time (“if I had a son, he would look like Trayvon Martin”) that they turned against him.
This isn’t his fault; it’s the way Republicans are. That suggests to me that this message would be better delivered in a sharp, partisan fashion not by the President, but by local Democrats in those districts. There’s a better chance of people actually listening, and not reflexively signing up for the opposite position.