The best laid plans of mice

By Carl 

People over a certain age, say twenty, will recall the last time a GOP Congress tried to hold a presidency hostage.

Clearly, overtones of that debacle shadowed Republican obstructionism all year, but as I predicted early on (can't be arsed to do the search, I'm guessing it was late February,) sooner or later events were going to catch up with Weaker Boehner and his faction. The split in the Republican party was too deep for the usual "marching orders" to have much effect.

In the 1995-1996 shut down, the signature moment, when the Republican Congress became the hated enemy and lost the political ground they slowly earned in the 1994 election as well as any moral authority with the Clinton administration, came during a trip to Israel aboard Air Force One for the funeral of Yitzhak Rabin. Newt Gingrich lambasted the president on the record for not taking the opportunity to discuss the budget impact and for making Gingrich exit through the back door of the plane (like every other Congressional leader before and since).

Any negative impact the shutdown had on Clinton's poll numbers immediately shifted to Gingrich and he lost the battle and the war. 

Weaker Boehner has been particularly circumspect when it comes to overt signals like that, and avoiding a shut down in the first place (something that would have angered his constituency more than a small tax hike on the rich, I suspect).

Until now. By walking away from a tax cut, albeit a stop-gap cut designed to allow Congress to head home for the holidays but more important, to give hope to the working people of America, Weaker Boehner has committed the unpardonable sin of not only raising taxes, but taking away a tax cut he himself opposed in the first place, but eventually acceded was a good idea.

Meaning, he's going to get blamed for this failure. Correctly, in my view. It's disingenuous to first oppose, then grudgingly support, then steal back a tax cut, particularly in an era when real Americans are watching every penny. Now he'll have to pass the original tax cut Obama proposed extending (one year) which he vehemently opposed in favor of the two-month stop gap, which he was okay with then, but not now. 

$40 a week matters to people who live paycheck to paycheck and that sadly has become the norm in the American middle and especially working classes. It's a day or two worth of food. It's bus fare for a month. It's a tutor for a child struggling with algebra. It's gas for the car.

Boehner's shortsightedness looks like it may finally have driven a stake deep into the heart of the undead party that is the GOP, as well. He will have to continue to placate the Eric Cantor batwing, while explaining to the Senate Republican caucus, which backed this extension by 83% to 17%, how he could sell them out so readily.

There's a woodshed on the back of which his name is emblazoned, methinks.

(Cross-posted to Simply Left Behind.)

Patriotic Millionaires demand higher taxes on the wealthy

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Very often, patriotism is indeed the last refuge of the scoundrel, as Samuel Johnson said. But sometimes it's genuine -- and sometimes these genuine patriots really do know what their country needs and how they can help.

Via Hullabaloo:

Debt and taxes

By Carl 



It never ceases to amaze me, the ability of the uberrighteous to shoot themselves in the foot: 

Greenspan said he expected more turmoil on Wall Street.



"Considering the momentum in which the market went down over the last week, it's very unlikely — if history is any guide — that this isn't going to take a while to bottom out. So the initial reaction, in my judgment, is going to be negative," Greenspan said of S&P’s downgrade.



Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner tried to reassure investors in a Sunday night interview but conceded he could not predict the reaction.



"It's hard to know what'll happen in this context," Geithner said on CNBC. "But, again, I think that everyone can be confident, both here and around the world, that treasuries are the most — these days — the most liquid — the strongest place to put your money at a time like this."

He said S&P "has shown really terrible judgment" and "a stunning lack of knowledge about basic U.S. fiscal budget math."

Actually, Mr.
Secretary, I think the S&P has this just right. After all, it's a
temporary arrangement that will have to be revisited sooner than you
expect, since the Federal tax on gasoline expires next month and budget
projections included that in the debt ceiling agreement. It is very
likely that tax will be at least scaled back if not eliminated, thanks
to the Teabaggers. You can't say this. S&P can.

We get the government we deserve. We are officially a banana republic.

A lot of fingerpointing went on this weekend, but ultimately, the blame rests in two places: The Bush administration and the Teabaggers.

After all, the only significant spending the Obama administration passed was the $787 billion stimulus package, a thickly-wrongheaded attempt to shore up the banking system when that banking system was responsible for the mess we found ourselves in AND will suffer now from the debt ceiling debacle, as interest rates will ratchet up.

Better he should have spent the money here, at home, on works projects designed to get people permanent jobs. There's so much we can use idle labor for, from replacing the national grid to upgrading bridges and tunnels, to just cleaning the damned streets. Jobs = income = spending = more jobs. It's not a hard calculation to make, and given how the banks rebounded better than expected...

How the Bush administration fits into all this? Well, the national debt in 2001 was somewhere around $6 trillion. It's now $14 trillion. Obama can rightly be blamed for $1 trillion or so (let's credit -- debit? -- him with the unnecessary extension of the Bush tax cuts, too), leaving... carry the one... $7 trillion dollars that Bush spent without the income to show for it.

Republicans: they do spend big.

The Teabagger mantra with respect to the debt ceiling was basically nihilist from the get-go: burn it down, let God sort it out.

All we have ever had to do was to roll back the Bush tax cuts, restore the Clinton tax rates (proven job creator, that) and history would have been happy and marked this as a remarkable time when the US yet again ducked a bullet. The idea of minimalist government is so ludicrous, so stupid, so moronic, that I seriously believe the "libertarians" who propose this ought to be locked away in a cage and put on display in the Coney Island freak show.

(Cross-posted to Simply Left Behind.)

On vacation, full of debt ceiling rage

By Michael J.W. Stickings

I'm currently on vacation and won't be blogging all that much over the next few weeks. Here and there, when the mood is right, but otherwise not. Rest, relaxation, and family are the priorities.

But, fear not, Richard and the gang will keep things rolling, and so I hope you keep checking back for new posts from my wonderful team.

Actually, though, I'm full of rage at the moment. I'm generally trying to avoid the news, and especially U.S. politics, but, well...

What has me enraged? The Deal, of course.

Yes, the new bipartisan deal to avert default by raising the debt ceiling and, to please Republicans, slash spending (of course, mostly spending that benefits the poor and downtrodden, the usual GOP targets, those no one in power seems to give a shit about).

Now, it's not yet a done deal. President Obama and the Democratic and Republican leadership have agreed to it, but not the rank and file -- and there are sure to be many on both sides who object to it.

Democrats have good reason to object. The deal is heavily Republican, a largely right-wing fix to a crisis created by Republicans. It's all about cuts, not revenue increases, and cuts that, again, will hurt those Democrats supposedly care about. Some Republicans will object as well, but only because -- let's put it kindly -- they're a bunch of petulant extremists who refuse to compromise and who are willing to let the country go into default, and face economic calamity, to get everything they want.

In fact, it has come to this largely because Republicans, from the top down (the leadership included), are bullies crazy enough to risk the country's health, so "patriotic" are they, having basically held the country hostage throughout this entire process.

Sure, I'm deeply critical of Democrats, including the president, for not fighting harder to prevent this, and for not standing up more determinedly for what they purportedly stand for, but, honestly, what were they supposed to do? Let the country go into default? Let the debt ceiling deadline pass, come what may? Sure, maybe. Maybe they could have spun that and kept the blame on the other side, and even come away with a political win, and maybe the impending crisis and public outcry would have forced Republicans back to the negotiating table with their tails somewhat between their legs, but... should they really have taken such an enormous risk?

Maybe Republicans were always going to win this, maybe it was inevitable, because all along they were willing to go further and risk more. That's the problem trying to negotiate with crazy people. They're willing to do things you're not. (Isn't that how Keyser Söze solidified his power?) In this case, Republicans were willing to sacrifice their country for their ideological demands. Democrats, being mature and rational and responsible, were not. And so they had to agree to a deal on Republican (i.e., insane) terms.

There was a brief time when Obama had the upper hand, after he had turned the tables on Republicans and back them into a corner, and with public opinion on his side, but he was only going to win this if he went all the way. And, say what you will about him, he wasn't prepared to play that game, not with so much at stake.

I suspect the deal will pass tomorrow. There will be major defections, but surely enough arms can be twisted, enough dissenters bought off, to make it happen.

And then? Crisis will have been averted, at least temporarily, but Republicans will declare victory -- for getting most of they want (loads of cuts, no new revenue).

The Democrats? They'll get nothing out of this politically.

Obama? Yes, probably. He'll be able to reinforce his credibility among independents by presenting himself as a bipartisan leader who got it done when it mattered (no matter the awful details of what got done).

But unless Democrats can gain control of the narrative and make the debate about ending the deeply unpopular Bush tax cuts for the wealthy and protecting deeply popular entitlement programs (Social Security, Medicare, etc.), this deal won't do them any political favors next year, with with Republicans set to hammer them, however dishonestly (as usual), for being tax-happy, spend-happy socialists.

At least for now, there is reason for cautious, extremely cautious optimism. The deal would allow the president to raise the debt ceiling by $2.4 trillion (with $900 billion in spending cuts):

That will be paired with the formation of a Congressional committee tasked with reducing deficits by a minimum of $1.2 trillion. That reduction can come from spending cuts, tax increases or a mixture thereof.

If the committee fails to reach $1.2 trillion, it will trigger an automatic across the board spending cut, half from domestic spending, half from defense spending, of $1.2 trillion. The domestic cuts come from Medicare providers, but Medicaid and Social Security would be exempted. The enforcement mechanism carves out programs that help the poor and veterans as well.

If the committee finds $1.5 trillion or more in savings, the enforcement mechanism would not be triggered. That's because Republicans are insisting on a dollar-for-dollar match between deficit reduction and new borrowing authority, and $900 billion plus $1.5 trillion add up to $2.4 trillion.

However, if the committee finds somewhere between $1.2 and $1.5 trillion in savings, the balance will be made up by the corresponding percentage of the enforcement mechanism's cuts, still in a one-to-one ratio.

Democrats say they're confident that the enforcement mechanism is robust enough to convince Democrats and Republicans to deal fairly on the committee -- to come up with a somewhat balanced package of entitlement reforms and tax increases. However, the White House assures them that if the committee fails to produce "tax reform" he will veto any attempt to extend the Bush tax cuts, which expire at the end of next year.

Again, the focus is on spending cuts, not revenue increases, but at least cuts to defence spending are on the table and at least it's possible that revenue increases will be part of any future deal.

Actually, scratch that. I'm still highly enraged. And there's really no good reason for optimism at all, even cautious optimism. Obama may want to use the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy in his re-election campaign, as a winning issue (assuming public opinion stays roughly where it is), but he has shown little to no willingness to stand up for progressive principles -- indeed, for principles that are simply not Republican, so much of a moderate Republican does he appear to be -- and, what's more, neither have most Democrats on Capitol Hill, it seems.

All of which is to say, if Obama and the Democrats have been willing to cave so much already, what should make us think anything will change?

The right-wing obsession with President Obama's "obsession" with raising taxes

By Michael J.W. Stickings

We're hearing it all the time from Republicans these days: Obama's "obsessed" with raising taxes. It's the same old tired partisan bullshit, of course, and a blatant lie, but the uninitiated, those unaware of how Republicans do their thing, might be excused for thinking, upon hearing this over and over again, that the president is maniacally trying to transform America into some sort of retro-Scandinavian dystopia, Scandinavia before right-wing neo-liberalism arrived on the scene.

Take James Pethokoukis, for example. In his latest smearfest of a post at Reuters, Pethokoukis opens, as usual, by stacking the deck against reasonable debate and an appreciation of the facts:

It's the great mystery of the debt ceiling debate: Why is President Barack Obama so darn adamant about raising taxes?

Really, that's "the great mystery"? Well, I suppose it's no mystery why Republicans, even those who should know better (and probably do) have caved in to the Tea Party and are pulling the country towards financial, fiscal, and economic catastrophe.

But how exactly is Obama "so darn adamant"? Dismissing progressives altogether, not to mention his party's base, the president has responded to the debt ceiling crisis by playing aggressively to the center. He has put Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid on the table, much to our chagrin. He continues to negotiate with a Republican Party that refuses to compromise and that is essentially holding the process -- and the country -- hostage. Indeed, he appears to have positioned himself not as some sort of Big Government leftist (not that such leftists even exist anymore in the Democratic Party, or on the American left at all, they're just straw men created by the Republicans to scare people) but rather as a moderate Republican, as the sort of Republican who used to run the GOP. If this were the '90s, Obama, at least on economic policy, would be very much at home there.

Even now, even with Republicans doing poorly in the polls over the debt ceiling crisis, even with Republicans divided and on the run, even after he turned the tables and backed them into a corner, gaining the upper hand, Obama continues to push for a Grand Bargain that includes massive spending cuts and only relatively small revenue increases (mostly by closing tax loopholes, not by actually raising taxes). The so-called Gang of Six re-emerges yesterday with a $3.7 trillion deficit-reduction package, a package that while bipartisan is Republican in terms of its priorities, a package that if passed may not actually benefit him politically, and Obama showers it with praise.

Now, maybe Obama is being so kind to it because he knows it will never pass the GOP-led House of Representatives, and so maybe he's still just trying to appeal to independents by presenting himself as open to compromise and serious about getting something meaningful done -- and so when the package goes nowhere he can let Republicans take the fall for sinking it. But he's been pretty consistent on the policy and at no point has he even come close to appearing obsessed with raising taxes. Not now, not before, not ever.

If anything, Obama is just being responsible. He knows full well, even if Republicans do not (and Pethokoukis does not), that the only way to solve America's deficit/debt problem over the long term is to increase revenue. And that can be done in part by closing loopholes and letting the Bush tax cuts, and particularly the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, expire. Though of course it was Obama who agreed with Republicans last fall to extend the tax cuts.

Pethokoukis also accuses Obama of violating Keynesianism by calling for tax increases. Well, I agree that the focus should be on economic stimulation (deficit spending) instead of deficit-cutting, but, again, Obama hasn't called for anti-stimulative tax increases. If anything, Obama wants more stimulus.

Obama's tax obsession becomes understandable when you realize the long game he's playing: Big Taxes to fund Big Government. Decade after decade. See, it's an almost universal belief among left-of-center journalists, economists, policymakers and politicians that Americans must pay higher taxes in coming years to cover the medical expenses of its aging population – not to mention all sorts of brand new social spending and green "investment." Dramatically higher taxes. On everybody. And if we have a debt crisis, maybe those tax increases come sooner rather than later.

This makes no sense at all. Across the board, taxes are at an extremely low level. Raising them slightly -- for example, by letting the Bush tax cuts expire -- would only mean a return to Clinton-era levels. And that was hardly an era of Big Government Socialism. In fact, it was a rather successful era for the economy. And if Obama's agenda is really all about "Big Government," what are we to make of his willingness to cut core entitlement programs? Is it all about health care? About, say, funding a government-controlled single-payer system? How could it be, given that the Affordable Care Act, while extending coverage to tens of millions, proposes only a reformed market-based approach to health insurance? Green investment? Please. Obama isn't even talking cap and trade anymore, and that, too, is a market-based approach to reducing greenhouse gas emissions, one that Republicans used to support (just as they used to support what's in the Affordable Care Act).

Okay, enough. I think you get the point. (If you don't, you need help.) Pethokoukis is just regurgitating the same old lies, the Obama-as-tax-loving-Socialist meme that has no basis whatsoever in reality.

If you really want to talk about obsession, look no further than these anti-Obama smearmongers on the right. They just keep repeating themselves, and looking increasingly desperate and stupid in the process.

Bush tax cuts cost $329,220 for each job created

Guest post by Publius

The Bush tax cuts cost $329,220 for each job it created. That, according to the math recently employed by The Weekly Standard in its analysis of the cost per job from Obama’s stimulus package.

The Weekly Standard argued that because the overall cost of the stimulus to date is $666 billion, and the number of jobs created since the stimulus was passed (according to the low estimate by the Council of Economic Advisors) is 2.4 million jobs, the cost per job from the stimulus equals $278,000 per job. The Weekly Standard went on to note that we could have simply written a check for $100,000 to everyone whose employment was allegedly made possible by the stimulus and come out $427 billion ahead.

Sounds pretty bad, right?

Well, using the exact same formula, the Bush tax cuts passed in 2001 were estimated by the Joint Committee on Taxation to cost about $864.2 billion from 2001-2008 (the first year of the Bush tax cuts through the last year of his presidency). During that period, according to The Wall Street Journal, 2,625,000 jobs were created. That comes out to a total cost of $329,220 per job under the Bush tax cuts. And that’s if we assume that every single job which was created during Bush’s presidency was attributable to the Bush tax cuts (pretty unlikely) AND if we exclude the costs of the 2003 tax cut (estimated to cost another $350 billion over 10 years). We could have written a check for $100,000 to each person who “allegedly” had their job created by the Bush tax cuts and saved $600 billion, but they wouldn’t have received it because the check was instead delivered to really wealthy people.

My point isn’t that the Obama stimulus was good because the Bush tax cuts were bad. Instead, my point is that the math employed by The Weekly Standard is absurd. This example highlights the absurdity.

It’s wrong to suggest that the sole purpose of the stimulus was to “buy jobs.” If that was the sole purpose, then yes- the cost would arguably have been $278,000 per job. As White House spokesperson Liz Oxhorn noted the other day, however:

[The Weekly Standard] study is based on partial information and false analysis. The Recovery Act was more than a measure to create and save jobs; it was also an investment in American infrastructure, education and industries that are critical to America’s long-term success and an investment in the economic future of America’s working families. Thanks to the Recovery Act, 110 million working families received a tax cut through the Making Work Pay tax credit, over 110,000 small businesses received critical access to capital through $27 billion in small business loans and more than 75,000 projects were started nationwide to improve our infrastructure, jump-start emerging industries and spur local economic development.

The concept of the stimulus was grounded in Keynesian economic theory- government countercyclical spending is critical to countermand the effects of a recession. Increased government spending increases GDP, frees up capital and, consequently, creates jobs. Jobs are part of the benefits of stimulus. They aren’t the direct purchase.

By most metrics, the stimulus was a success. According to the CBO, the stimulus increased GDP by 3.1%. It added as many as 3.6 million jobs to boot. It gave us new factories, roads, bridges, and other infrastructure which we benefit from each day. Boiling all of this down to a cost per job is just silly.

The Weekly Standard would also be wise to note that about $288 billion of the projected $747 billion stimulus came in the form of tax cuts (about 38.5% of total spending), despite the fact that according to many prominent economists (such as Mark Zandi), tax cuts are far less stimulative than other types of spending, such as food stamps, unemployment benefits and infrastructure spending (all of which Republicans opposed).

If The Weekly Standard wants to argue the stimulus could have been more effective, it won’t find many on the left who disagree. If it wants good ideas on how to make it more effective, step one is to stop believing tax cuts are the best solution to all economic ills.

(Cross-posted at The Fourth Branch.)

How you know Republicans aren't serious about tackling the deficit

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Is it when they fall in line behind their chief budget guru, wunderkind Rep. Paul Ryan, who once said the deficit was "too small" and now supports the Bush tax cuts, and especially those for the wealthy, that are perhaps the greatest impediment to addressing the deficit problem in a meaningful way?

Yes, sure.

But it's also when they pull out of bipartisan budget talks because, really, they have no interest at all in compromise given their extremist right-wing position on taxes:

After House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA) dropped out of the talks [yesterday] morning, Senator Kyl was the lone Republican in the group left. And with his withdrawal late [yesterday] morning, the group does not have a Republican negotiator left in the room.

That's right. Zero Republicans. There's what Republicans think of bipartisanship. And about tackling the deficit.

Although, I should say, a few Republicans realize that they have to be at the table and have to work constructively with Democrats to get something done -- or at least have to make it appear as if they're serious:

A Senior Democratic aide says, "Cantor and Kyl just threw Boehner and McConnell under the bus. This move is an admission that there will be a need for revenues and Cantor and Kyl don't want to be the ones to make that deal."

There you go. If only future generations of Americans could express their disgust. They're the ones, after all, who will be left with this mess.

Way to put your country before your partisan agenda, Republicans.

I'm glad he does, cuz I don't!

By Carl 

President Obama sees common ground on debt reduction and the budget: 

Democrats and Republicans agree that $4 trillion needs to be slashed over roughly a decade, Obama told a town hall-style event in Virginia. But the two parties disagree on what to cut to get there.

"The big question that is going to have to be resolved is: how do we do it?" Obama told students at a community college. "I don't want to lie to you, there is a big philosophical divide right now."

The president was promoting his plan for cutting the deficit a day after Standard & Poor's threatened to strip America of its prized triple-A credit rating. The Wall Street ratings agency cited concern that Washington's polarized politics would make it difficult to reach a debt deal before the 2012 presidential election.

Obama, who is traveling around the country this week to advocate his deficit proposals, did not show any greater flexibility over his demands that taxes go up for the wealthiest Americans. 

Unless by common ground, he means that the two sides agree on the $4 trillion, I don't see how there's common ground here. Republicans are between Iraq and a hard place, needing to make their Teabagger constituency happy without cutting defense spending, Medicare entitlements or raising taxes.

Democrats have the luxury of standing around, tapping their watches and sighing imaptiently.

Lest you think this is another political kabuki, this year's budget is it. This is the whole enchilada for the progressive movement in this nation. If we allow the Republicans to extend the Bush tax cuts, then we have no business being a movement.

Sure, there's some posturing involved: I don't think the Republicans can let this budget go without some attempt at face-saving for their centerpiece platform plank of lower taxes, which has proven over the past thirty years to neither create jobs nor improve the economy much. I think even they know it, and that they're shamelessly pandering to the corporatocracy and the orc minions who somehow believe if they're fervent enough, their overlords will shower gelt upon them.

Likewise, much of the "senior scarifying" that the Dems have been doing is a mask to the very real growth of Medicare and what that bodes for the future of the budget.

I'm not suggesting that we have to have entitlement cuts immediately (frankly, I haven't studied the problem enough to have an opinion) but what I am suggesting is, given the current anti-tax climate, it's going to be hard to justify the kinds of benefits we have to pay out in a few years. When does it become enough? At fifty percent of the budget? We're tracking perilously close to that, which means we're sopping up funds for other critical progressive programs like energy reform and infrastructure repair. I would like this not to have to come down to clean air for our children and grandchildren versus keeping me alive on a ventilator.

All that said, this is an urgently important budget coming upon us, because what grows out of it will impact the next decade's worth of budget proposals and likely the economic growth for the next century, and along with it, the income and well-being of every American.

As Ben Bradlee said during Watergate, "Nothing's riding on this except the... future of the country.

So if you've been holding onto someone's balls for a rainy day, well, the clouds have gathered.

(Cross-posted to Simply Left Behind.)

The real fight

By Carl 

The drums have been beating for months over this fight, ever since the GOP took back the House in November. This week, they get much louder. The time is at hand:

"Obviously, we need to look at all corners of government," said Obama senior adviser David Plouffe in announcing the speech on NBC's Meet The Press. House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, R-Va., on Fox News Sunday, said, "we've had to bring this president kicking and screaming to the table to cut spending."

Obama's forthcoming plan to reduce the government's red ink will also re-frame a variety of budget-related political battles. 

Cantor's comment is particularly irritating, since Obama's original budget proposal cut $33 billion dollars, which is eerily close to what Boener caved in on for the continuing budget resolution.

But I digress...

What this week's battle will really be about is the debt ceiling. Approve it, and the nation can go on and try to get a handle on the bills. Turn it down, and the nation will instantaneously lose any and all credibility in the world, becoming no better than Uganda or Zimbabwe or Myanmar or Greece or Portugal, or any number of nations who have repudiated or otherwise abrogated their responsibilities to the world.

Like those other nations, we will have sold out to tyrannical dictators, only ours won't be in office, only the men behind the curtains.

The Republicans have already signaled they will agree to the raise, but in exchange they want spending cuts.

Um, duh. Then ur doin et rong, if you're going to play brinksmanship without the very real threat you'll go over the edge. After all, what's the thrill in seeing someone swim in the Niagara River if he's tied by a rope to the mainland? It just amounts to an exercise in exhaustion.

What this really amounts to is the Bush tax cuts, which will expire next year after an extension... again... in 2010. Allowing these to expire would of course immediately cut the deficit and the growth of the debt, but it would also inflict pain on the überrich and the corporatocracy.

Pain, in this case, being defined as the bite of the mite that sits on the gnat that's piggybacking on the mosquito on the collective butt.

The rest of the debate is really just smoke and noise and amounts to next to nothing in terms of cuts... no one seriously thinks Paul Ryan's plan is worth the paper it's printed on... and really is just the GOP saving face from the charge of being the Party of No.

Which they are. You really ought to embrace your inner hater, boys.

(Cross-posted to Simply Left Behind.) 

Addendum: I just wanted to add my voice to those who are expressing their regrets over the loss of one of our very best and brightest here at The Reaction.

Creature, in your retirement, may you find the thread you believe you've lost and come out fighting again really soon. You will be missed.

Obama is a tax-cutting, budget-slashing socialist

By Nicholas Wilbur

President Obama is an unabashed socialist, and the Democratic Party is an unashamed guerrilla band of anti-business, tax-and-spend liberals bent on destroying the American Dream by punishing hard-working entrepreneurs and small business owners in order to pay for social services benefitting the weak, the lazy, and the government-teat-suckling post-hippie stoner generation of anti-capitalistic communists, flag burners, and lifetime welfare recipients.

Right?

Isn't that what the right is always accusing? Is that not the sole purpose for Rupert Murdoch's creation of the Fox News Network – to tell these truths to the American people and open their eyes to the devastation socialism is bringing to the United States?

Let us assume for a moment that everything that comes out of the mouths of Glenn Beck, Bill O'Reilly, Mike Huckabee, Sarah Palin, and Megyn Kelly is irrefutable fact.

Why is it, then, that Democrats have, as of this writing, agreed to cut more than $50 billion from Obama's 2011 fiscal year budget proposal?

If Republicans are stereotyped as fearmongering war profiteers, corporate lackeys, and radical Bible thumpers, it's fair to say Democrats are most often stereotyped as anti-business, tax-and-spend defenders of big government.

And yet, it was the Democrats in Congress who voted for a bill in December, signed into law by Obama, to extend tax cuts for all Americans, even the richest income earners. And now they're negotiating with Republicans to reduce government spending in order to quell the conservative base, whom Republicans promised during the 2010 midterm campaign to cut spending by exactly $100 billion.

Are we to believe Democrats are so afraid of a government shutdown they're willing to abandon the core tenets of their ideology, even though the history of 1995 tells us that a shutdown spurred by uncompromising fiscal hawks will pay huge election dividends to the party defending against such massive cuts to social programs? Do they actually believe – as, apparently, a strong bloc of conservative voters did in 2010 – that the deficit is so disgustingly high that Chinese debt collectors will foreclose our homes, repo our cars, and sell the bone marrow they sucked from our children's spines if we don't get our fiscal house in order?

Does any American, particularly the most patriotic among us (those within the Tea Party, of course), actually believe that the deficit monsters will go back into hibernation if Democrats accept the nice, round $100 billion in budget cuts proposed by House Republicans? Will that gargantuan 3.7 percent reduction in the deficit keep us safe from the financial collapse Republicans warned us about in 2010?

Of course, these are all rhetorical questions. The only reason the deficit is a concern is that Republicans made it a concern as part of a carefully orchestrated campaign strategy designed to scare the masses out of their recliners and into the voting booths. Congratulations, GOP. It worked.

When the Federal Reserve announced in February of this year that it had increased its economic growth predictions to as much as 3.9 percent for 2011, the problem of the national deficit suddenly looked less apocalyptic than it had in November, when projections for 2011 growth were a respectable but unflattering 2.7 percent.

Higher economic growth means more government revenue, which means a lower deficit. At 3.9 percent growth, the deficit would fall to $113 billion in 10 years, according to a Time magazine analysis. That doesn't include the hundreds of billions the nation will save at the end of 2012, when tax cuts for the rich are set to expire. (Obama and Democrats have vowed to allow this expiration, although they have supported extending the cuts for Americans making less than $250,000 annually.)

Complete the withdrawal of U.S. troops in Iraq and end the occupation of Afghanistan by 2014, and we're looking at a government surplus by the time Obama leaves the White House... in 2016.

But that's all beside the point. The apocalyptic deficit forecasts during the campaign served one purpose for the Republicans Party, and it wasn't to raise awareness about any real threats to American sovereignty.

The point is that we've allowed the media to portray the Obama Administration's emergency response to the recession as a sign of his socialist governing philosophy even though he agreed to the GOP's demands to spend $800 billion on tax cuts largely benefiting the rich and spending cuts to social programs largely benefiting the working class, the poor, and the elderly.

That said, don't expect the Republican sound machine to take it down a notch on the socialism rhetoric. Fox has a business to run, after all. 

(Cross-posted at Muddy Politics.)

Credits: cartoon, graph.

The straw that broke the liberal's back?

By Nicholas Wilbur

A band of liberal revolutionaries is storming the Capitol, hip-checking elderly Tea Party activists and snatching the anti-Obama protest signs right from their arthritic hands. They're chanting, screaming, wailing – "Traitor," "Vile Betrayer," "No-bama, No-bama..." – and tearing the cloth from their breasts in agony as they fall to their knees, pound the earth with clenched fists, and curse the gods of progressivism for the posturing con artist occupying the White House. American flags burn in the background. Hope and Change T-shirts burn in the foreground. Blue flames crisscross like daggers in the sky as the ominous clouds form like cyclones above the White House. The governors who have gathered with Obama inside the State Dining Room are all smiles and nods as the president explains his openness to the idea of letting individual states create their own health-care laws in lieu of the ever-unpopular "ObamaCare" legislation, while everyone outside hoists pitchforks and decries the unraveling of populism, not as they know it, but as they imagine it.

When I saw the headline from The Hill, "Obama backtracks on health mandate, wants to allow earlier opt-out," this was the fantasy my conscious mind created as it envisioned the reaction of the news from left-wing diehards, bleeding hearts, and feverish bloggers.

The already fine line between fantasy and political reality draws paper thin the more time President Obama spends in the White House. The details don't matter to the extremists on the left who envisioned Obama during the campaign as a messiah of modern American leadership. Politics today is less about policy than it is about perceptions, and the president's admission that his health-care law could be altered or amended if such adjustments helped the country implement across-the-board reforms serves only to ignite the flames of doubt and fuel the fires of intra-party betrayal in the eyes of uncompromising liberals.

He's already guilty of compromise, negotiation and capitulation – the trifecta of evil that is embodied, historically, by those whose souls are either sold to the powerful deal-makers within Washington or bought by the corporate lobbyists without. We saw it first when he gave up on the single-payer health care option. We saw it a second time in his deal with Republicans to cut taxes for the rich. We're seeing it again with this appeal to bipartisanship over implementation of what is arguably the most historic piece of social legislation enacted in Congress since civil rights.

For the lefties who voted for, campaigned for, and prayed to their Wiccan goddesses for a progressive panacea to the Bush era, this may prove to be the straw that broke the liberal's back.

And yet it means nothing to the pragmatists who understand that consensus is key to any law and that popularity is paramount to any successful legislation.

Twenty-five governors – representing half the country – have filed suit against the series of reforms included in the 2010 legislation that conservatives refer to as "ObamaCare." Polls consistently show an equal division of opinion on whether the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is good or bad for America. And minds are still unmade as to whether repeal of "ObamaCare" is better than the health insurance company abuses that plagued the country before such protections were put in place.

If it is disappointing to a certain faction of the American public that Obama has decided to continue his efforts to improve the law that will most likely define his presidency, then that in itself is disappointing. It is, after all, the liberal class in America that boasts of top placement on the intellectual hierarchy of the political – and social – ladder. They should be the first not only to understand but to appropriately analyze the limitations of bureaucracy, the stalwart opposition to change, and the restraints of progressivism. They are not only its advocates but its victims.

The president's abandonment of the single-payer option nearly split the Democratic Party in two, even if it was consistent with his campaign promise to lead by consensus, not with an iron fist. His capitulation on tax cuts nearly severed his ties not only to liberals but to fiscally conservative Blue Dog Democrats, and he accepted that blowback as a consequence of his suddenly treasonous promise to reach out, whenever possible, to his opponents in Washington. It's worth mentioning that all of his alleged "capitulations" polled well for him, as the general public seemed to appreciate that a national leader tried to unite the country with a willingness to compromise rather than to divide the country by refusing to listen to the opposition.

It seems not every Democrat in America is liberal. (Somewhere in the world, a bird of idealism dropped dead from surprise.) 

(Cross-posted at Muddy Politics.)

How the GOP is a party of words: Promises are promises are promises...

By Nicholas Wilbur

Transitions are always difficult. If you're a Republican, Change® is particularly tough to swallow – which is why the GOP spent the last two years projectile vomiting on anything that tasted like "Progress" and throwing filibuster tantrums whenever Congress debated a bill on Capitol Hill.

They swept the midterm elections, nonetheless, not with a strong record – or any record at all – but by riding the coattails of the anti-government prattle of the Tea Party patriots who flooded the mainstream media with sensational circus theatrics and apocalyptic prophesies of the country's imminent demise were Democrats to remain in power.

The seemingly sane but obviously stubborn Republicans teamed up with Tea Party candidates and capitalized on the nation's fears and doubts by crafting a national message so bold it could not be ignored, even by liberals, who, for good or ill, were transfixed. Traditional Republicans, as the media has since dubbed the non-Tea Partiers, touted a "repeal and replace" strategy to undo the alleged devastation wrought by the Obama Administration and his Democratic Party minions in Congress. The Teabaggers, as the left-wing media dubbed the ideological extremists, did their part by peppering the rhetoric with threats to amend the Constitution and deny citizenship to brown people, abolish the IRS, and defund the departments of interior, commerce and education that these Fox News junkies believed had become a black hole for taxpayer dollars. 

But Republicans knew they couldn't continue riding in the back of the leadership bus through 2011. With majority control of the lower branch of Congress, there was a sudden expectation that these new leaders would actually lead, that these new lawmakers would actually make laws. Bitching and whining and obstructing the legislative process at every turn would not suffice with majority status in "the people's house" of Congress. 

They had to appear, at least on the surface, that they were worthy of the government paychecks they received.

And so, after a year-long campaign focused on accusing Democrats of ignoring the main concern of the American people – job creation – Republicans got right down to business upon entering office. Sort of. 

They amended the House rules to require that all bills brought to the floor include a constitutional citation of lawfulness. They rescinded the already limited voting rights of delegates from D.C., Puerto Rico, American Samoa, and elsewhere. They required that all bills include spending cuts to offset any costs needed for implementation of the newly-proposed legislation (exempting, of course, tax cuts for the rich and their repeal of President Obama's health-care law). And they changed the House schedule to give every lawmaker one week off for every two weeks worked. 

That was just the beginning. 

As they settled into their new positions of power, Republicans showed their dedication to the financially strapped American working class by introducing... a bill to remove the polar bear from the endangered species list, a bill to abolish the IRS and eliminate the income tax, and another bill that would redefine rape. 

Having promised to cut $100 billion from the federal budget this fiscal year, Republicans drafted legislation to free up a whopping $61 million (yes, million) in the budget by abolishing public financing for presidential elections. Most recently, they voted on what amounts to an office memo, a skeletal outline, a very rough, very unspecific, and very ambiguous House Resolution that calls for $32 billion in cuts.

Not exactly landmark legislation. Not legislation at all, in most cases. In fact, the only significant piece of legislation proposed thus far by Republicans has been the health-care repeal bill, which, given its chances of becoming law, wasn't much of a bill at all. They spent the last year promising to "repeal and replace" the 2,000-plus-page law known by conservatives as "ObamaCare," but the "replace" portion of the promise was conveniently absent from the two-paragraph repeal bill passed in the House. As they knew it would, this faux legislation failed in the Senate.

So here we are one month into the new Congress, with Republicans still reeling from a landslide victory over Democrats in the midterm election, and what do we have to show for it? 

Nothing. 

And looking back, we should not be surprised. We all saw this coming. 

After "shellacking" Democrats in the midterm elections, Republicans returned to Washington intent on "saving millions of taxpayer dollars." They began this quest by attempting to eliminate grant funding for public radio. The $3.2 million in projected annual savings was pittance, they knew, and doomed to failure, as they eventually saw. But they tooted their horns and banged their drums nonetheless, eventually blaming liberals for offering government handouts to Not Pro Republican media outlets. Next in line: banning earmarks, another pittance estimated to save $16 billion a year. That fell flat when Republicans realized that banning earmarks meant they could no longer fund infrastructure projects in their home states. There were also targeted efforts to deny unemployment benefits, thwart the judicial "interference" in cases where employees are raped on the job, and kill a bill to award health care to 9/11 first responders. 

The last two months of the 111th Congress saw more of the same blind Republican opposition that had defined their presence in Washington, really, since Democrats won the majority in 2006. In the final days of 2010, Republicans followed up their backward opposition to the DREAM Act and the repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" by fighting vigorously against even the no-brainer nuclear arms treaty with Russia, New START. 

They railed against excessive government spending (without acknowledging their role in the unpaid-for prescription drug program, the Bush tax cuts, and the two wars that created a $1.3 trillion deficit by the end of Bush's second term), but then balked when it came time to identify specific spending cuts. Perhaps in their most egregious display of hypocrisy, Republicans threatened to shut down the government if President Obama and the Democrats didn't get on board with the GOP priority of extending Bush's tax cuts for another two years. 

It worked. The rich kept their disproportionate tax breaks, but the result didn't quite live up to the Republican Party's pledge to cut spending back to 2008 levels, as outlined in their "Pledge to America" campaign manifesto. Conversely, it cost about $100 billion more than the 2009 economic stimulus bill they so loathed. 

The empty promises, the lofty and impractical goals, the "repeal and replace" agenda that has thus far come up empty on both fronts – these have all proven mere strategies in a shell game of hallow rhetoric meant to brainwash taxpayers into thinking that their new leaders in Washington are well-deserving of the $174,000 (plus health care benefits) that we pay them for representing We the People.

The naysayers and witch hunters of anything smelling of liberalism have demonstrated that they are not patriots defending against Socialism as much as they are stalwart defenders of the Bush-era status quo. The people loved them for it throughout the last congressional session, they praised them for it throughout the campaign season, and they turned out in swaths to reward them for it at the ballot box on Nov. 2, 2010. Now a month into the 112th Congress, Republicans are enjoying their highest popularity rating in years.

Republicans interpreted the last election as a mandate against the progressive agenda. Voters, they said, showed unequivocally that they wanted whatever was the opposite of progress and change. 

This is about as close as it gets.

(Cross-posted at Muddy Politics.) 

***********

Background photo of John Boehner from National Journal.

Republican favorable/unfavorable chart from Gallup.

Happy SOTU Day! (or, Obama on Social Security)

By Michael J.W. Stickings

I have no doubt that Obama will present a largely centrist policy agenda in his State of the Union address tonight.

But I also hope that he will use the occasion to defend the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, one of the great accomplishments of his presidency so far (even if it's not as progressive as it ought to be), after the Republican House voted to repeal it last week, and that, on issues where he might actually get something done over the next two years, such as immigration reform and deficit reduction, he presents a vision that Democrats can get behind and ultimately use for electoral gain, a vision that at the very least doesn't further alienate progressives.

On the latter at least, deficit reduction, it seems we may get just that:

President Obama has decided not to endorse his deficit commission's recommendation to raise the retirement age, and otherwise reduce Social Security benefits, in Tuesday's State of the Union address, cheering liberals and drawing a stark line between the White House and key Republicans in Congress.

Over the weekend, the White House informed Democratic lawmakers and advocates for seniors that Obama will emphasize the need to reduce record deficits in the speech, but that he will not call for reducing spending on Social Security -- the single largest federal program -- as part of that effort.

*****

Administration officials said Obama is unlikely to specifically endorse any of the deficit commission's recommendations in the speech, but cautioned that he is unlikely to rule them off the table, either. On Social Security, for example, he is likely to urge lawmakers to work together to make the program solvent, without going into details, according to congressional sources.

Ah, so there's the out. It's sort of like how Obama was for the public option before he wasn't really for it or against it and it died. Or how he was against extending the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy until he cut a deal to allow just that. Now he's against cuts to Social Security, or so he will say tonight, but, well, who knows? He may just allow cuts to be made so as to win points somewhere else.

Oh, and by the way. Social Security is in good shape. The system isn't about to go bankrupt, as Bush alleged in his 2005 SOTU, and, as Paul Krugman has noted time and time again, there is no crisis. That's just a myth perpetuated by the right, by conservatives who want to privatize it and Republicans who want to cut it so that they can have their tax cuts.

If you really want to balance the budget, as Obama apparently does (even at this time of ongoing economic uncertainty, when frugality is hardly what is called for), the best thing to do is to return to the sensible tax levels of the Clinton era, particularly for the wealthy, and to cut military spending. It is not to target a successful program designed to help those who desperately need help.

But of course the poor and the desperate don't have nearly the political clout the rich do, and Obama, it seems, despite whatever he says tonight, will likely appeal directly to the centrist obsession with fiscal conservatism as this issue plays out over the next couple of years, leading up to the 2012 election.

Oh, I have high hopes that he says all the right things tonight, but he's already signalled what his priorities are, and what his politics are, and there's no reason to think that he will actually advance anything even resembling a progressive vision for America, on Social Security or anything else -- at least until the campaign, when he'll need to win some of us back.

The apocalyptic pain of starving the beast

Guest post by Nicholas Wilbur 

Nicholas Wilbur is an award-winning reporter and opinion columnist turned political junkie and critic. He is the founder of the blog Muddy Politics and lives in New Mexico.

(Ed. note: This is Nicholas's fifth guest post for us. You can find his first two, both on the Obama-GOP tax deal, here and here. You can find his third, on the potential for revolution, here, and his fourth, on the state of American democracy, here. -- MJWS)

********** 

When you starve the beast, the last think you expect is "apocalyptic pain," especially when the former strategy and the latter warning come from the same political party.

After two years of vigorously opposing and consistently filibustering any Democratic-proposed initiatives that were not paid for – and even many that were – Republicans executed a flawless about-face this month by then lobbying the White House to add more than $675 billion to the national deficit with an extension of tax cuts for all Americans.

"The worst time in the world to raise taxes on anybody is during a recession," Republican Sen. Tom Coburn said in the lead-up to the tax-cut debate.

After President Obama and the majority of Democrats in Congress capitulated to GOP demands and approved the tax cuts for another two years, Coburn came out spewing the usual Republican fire-and-brimstone venom about government spending.

According to The Hill, Coburn is now on a "crusade against spending." He's calling for "sacrifice," warning of "punishment" for runaway spending, and prophesying "destruction" of the middle class if Washington doesn't get its house in order.

If it seems like a gold metal winner in the Hypocrite Olympics, it is.

(Perhaps it's time for the GOP to update its traditional title to reflect its modern political stances – something like Grand Old Hypocritical Party would do just fine.)

But it's also good politics. And it doesn't take a modern political science expert to see how.

George Lakoff’s 2004 description of the Republican Party's tax-cut pitch to America still applies to the extension Obama just signed into law.

The Republican Party holds to the theory that "social programs are immoral because they make people dependent," Lakoff writes. After hearing Republicans argue throughout the year against providing unemployment benefits to the millions of American who still cannot find work, it has become acceptable to describe these people not only as dependent but also lazy, serially breeding animals, drug addicts, hobos and, in general, taxpayer leeches who ride on the backs of the ever-dwindling population of hard-working and patriotic Americans.

Lakoff continues: "[I]f you believe that social programs are immoral, how do you stop these immoral people? It is quite simple. What you have to do is reward the good people – the ones whose prosperity reveals their discipline and hence their capacity for morality – with a tax cut, and make it big enough so that there is not enough money left over for social programs. By this logic, the deficit is a good thing. As Grover Norquist says, it 'starves the beast.'"

And that is exactly what Republicans have accomplished with the latest, mostly bipartisan effort to extend tax cuts for all Americans. 

By "starving the beast" of $675 billion worth in tax cuts, and another $183 billion in additional spending measures, Republicans are now squawking that the sky is falling. And Coburn is not alone in his argument that if something isn't done – and soon – the country as a whole will feel the "apocalyptic pain" of this administration's spending spree, economic emergency or not. 

For an added bit of irony, it's worth noting that Republicans spent the majority of the 2010 campaign season railing against Obama and Democrats for adding to the deficit, stretching the government too thin, and jeopardizing the fiscal safety of the nation by shoving a $787 billion stimulus bill down the throats of the American people, and then, after the election, coming out in near unanimous support for a second, even more costly stimulus bill totaling $858 billion.

Because of these measures, "wasteful spending" is now on the chopping block – which sounds like a good thing, a necessary thing, a vital thing if America is going to avoid a financial apocalypse. But wasteful spending, according to the GOP, is spending on social programs. And that debate is fast approaching.

To avoid defaulting on the national debt, Congress will begin debating in early 2011 whether or not to increase the national debt ceiling above the current $14.2-trillion limit.

The new House majority leader, John Boehner, has signaled that increasing the debt ceiling is necessary, even if it is not desirable. Not all Republicans are on board, but with Republicans taking control of the lower branch of Congress come January, and with a good many of them representing the anti-government, "Don't Tread on Me" philosophy of the Tea Party movement, spending cuts are guaranteed no matter what decision is made with regard to the debt ceiling.

If the Republican Party's "Pledge to America" is any indication of where spending allegiances lie, seniors, veterans, and troops will not be on the chopping block.

That may come as a relief to some, but it signals its own Armageddon to others. By ignoring cuts to Medicare, Social Security, and defense spending, only one-third of the federal budget is then open to cuts. One could bet with almost certain odds that social programs will be first to slide under the guillotine.

That means early child education, crime and violence prevention and resources, substance abuse treatment, mental health therapy, youth development, housing subsidies, after-school programming, college tuition assistance and grants... the list goes on, and on, and on – and it affects millions of people.

It's unlikely that Sen. Coburn will revise his statement about tax cuts and add that, "The worst time in the world to cut social programs on anybody is during a recession."

That said, it's the argument Democrats are going to have to take. Spending cuts are necessary, but their effects are mostly directed toward those who are already on the brink of poverty. More importantly, at least as far as politics is concerned, spending cuts result in staff reductions, which result in further unemployment.

It's not a battle any individual should look forward to fighting, because no matter who wins the debate, Coburn's forecast of "apocalyptic pain" is inevitable.

Such is the nature of starving the beast. When all of the money runs out, it's those without who suffer the most. A politically and morally divided Congress must now decide where to direct the apocalyptic storm.

If it weren't for the sluggish economy, one might feel it appropriate to give these lawmakers a raise for the life-or-death consequences their decisions will reap on America.