Month: April 2011

I still don’t like the cheap shots. My point, for example, isn’t that he’s “articulate” or any other similar code word . . . my point is that Obama talks a great game, but isn’t concerned enough with delivering. Anyone who cares about Guantanamo, rendition, Patriot Act, war, etc. ought to agree with this. Anyone who cares about transparency or the influence of lobbyists or clean government ought to agree with this. So when I accuse him of empty rhetoric, it’s not because I’m a closet racist. It’s because his rhetoric is so often empty. But as to your employment charts: (1) the first is overall government employment, (2) the second is simply share of overall market place, which says nothing about employment numbers, (3) neither take into account (as far as I can tell) the shifting of work from government employee to government contractors (which does little to shrink the size of government, (4) I think it’s pretty much undisputed that the number of federal employees has grown under Obama (even if you exclude census workers, (5) it’s a bit strange to measure the size of government by the number of employees and not, say, expenditures, which have undeniably grown since Obama took office, and (6) if Obama had actually shrunk the size of government, it wouldn’t be hard to show me what exactly he did to do this, right?–yet you can’t. Finally, I have no desire to be a GWB apologist–I think he was a terrible president who should have been impeached. But regardless of whether you agree or disagree with him, GWB ran for governor of Texas based upon an agenda, and he actually achieved things he promised to do. You may think these are terrible things that he accomplished, but he accomplished them. What did Obama accomplish as a legislator? Not much. And that’s fine . . . you don’t need to accomplish anything to become President. But you ought to have a burning desire to accomplish something if you’re going to run for President, lest the whole endeavor become a vanity project.

First paragraph: fair enough. It was never intended as a reference to “closet racism”; for that matter, I don’t think Reid is a closet racist either. He simply said something stupid and completely aside from the point at hand…which was sort of my point. That Obama is a gifted orator has as little to do with the Peace Prize as does his choice in socks.
You will get no argument from me on rendition and the rest. This, however, does not render every political statement ever made by the man “empty rhetoric.” You act as though he’s operating in a political vacuum. With what budget money is he going to close Guantanamo? In what federal facility is he going to house these prisoners? With what court system is he going to try them? All of these issues have been brought to you by GOP fear-mongering and Obama’s unwillingness to use political capital to fight them.

Second paragraph: of course expenditures have risen dramatically. One time stimulus, TARP money, auto bailouts, and automatic stabilizers. It’s a recession. Spending goes up. It comes back down again too. This is the core reason “do nothing” will work at all; the spending is largely one time or automatic stabilizers and is or soon will be over. Then the Bush tax cuts automatically expire and you find yourself most of the way back to balance.
Using the “up” side of that equation as a bludgeon against the social safety net is simply political misdirection in aid of a long term goal (the elimination of the New Deal and its policy descendents). Cantor has publicly said as much.

The Bush tax cuts were and are the primary deficit driver in the past decade. Obama signed their extension, and for that he does indeed share some of the blame, but this doesn’t make him a big government socialist. By the by, Bush promised the complete repayment of the debt at the hand of these tax cuts within 10 years.

Beating “Beating a Dead Hobby Horse”

jeffmiller:

I think this response is at times weird and at times unfair.

1. You may hate Ryan’s plan. You may agree with Krugman. (Whose criticisms, ironically, can be just as appropriately applied to the Affordable Care Act.) You might think its unserious, or that its ideological. I would agree that its ideological, and that it’s based on some fantasy numbers. But it is a plan and not a speech. Obama has offered a speech. We’d like to see a plan. That’s a fair request of a President who has increased spending to unprecedented levels.

Outline for Obama’s plan. Isn’t legislation but he’s also not the House.

2. The Negro Dialect crack is completely unfair. It has nothing to do with my criticism.

3. Yes, winning office is an achievement. Becoming Senator is an achievement. Neither of these made the world more peaceful. It is wonderful that Obama was able to become the first African-American president. He deserves a lot of credit for this. So does the American electorate, but I wouldn’t give them a Peace prize either.

You specifically stated that the President won his Nobel because of his oratorical gifts. I simply say that this is not significantly different than pointing out that he has “no negro dialect”. Hyperbole to be sure, but not utterly unfair as they are similarly unrelated to the issue at hand: the Nobel Prize. He did not win the Peace Prize because he is a fine orator. Didn’t hurt his chances, but not why he won. Deserved or not, he won it because he had an historically significant election over the more typical “angry old white man who promises endless war if elected” and because he was replacing Bush. I don’t think this is even a particularly debated point outside of more loopy websites. This factors into (8), but we’ll get there.

4. Why are you acting as though I suggested or believe that ACORN rigged the election, or that Obama didn’t win legitimately? Again, that’s completely unfair.

Again, you stated he had no experience whatever. This despite the fact that he previously won an election for a national office. Disregarding that implies that that win was not won fairly or otherwise simply doesn’t count for some reason. I simply inserted a potential motivation for that belief.

5. Obama has not reduced the size of government, […] Federal government employment has grown since Obama took office.

We’ve covered this extensively before. But, by all means, let’s go to the chartsngraphs:


You are simply incorrect by any measure you care to look at. The federal government hired people to conduct the Constitutionally mandated census. Period. The GOP has used this particular hobby horse again and again to create the illusion of massive federal government expansion and “takeover” of everything under the sun that simply does not exist. Period. Repeating this bit of dogma, though, again leads to point (8).

6. George W. Bush, Clinton, and most of their predecessors had a considerably firmer record of actual achievement prior to election than Obama. I find it difficult to imagine how one could make a case to the contrary. But if you can provide a list of Obama’s legislative achievements, I’ll gladly reconsider.

George W. Bush owned the Rangers (primarily and by his own admission he was there as the “showcase” minority owner) and was governor of Texas, also a largely ceremonial position. He had very little achievement politically. Every business he was involved with prior to his political career had failed. He couldn’t even show up regularly for the National Guard. It is an insult to imply that he was more qualified than Obama. Period. I see this level of purposeful ignorance and silliness as on par with birtherism; the previous statements above simply add to that. Thus point (8). Again: hyperbole. But hyperbole in service of a larger point made across a relatively long post.

Just me on my little tumblr. Nothing personal.

…the most plausible deficit reduction plan is to rely on gridlock rather than cooperation. Obama yesterday held absolutely firm in his opposition to extending tax cuts on income over $250,000. If Obama won’t relent, then Republicans probably won’t relent on the rest of the tax cuts, and the whole thing will expire. And then, if Obama wins reelection, he’ll be most of the way toward a sustainable deficit, and the Republicans will have had their triumphalism beaten out of them. At that point, a deal to raise a little revenue by reforming the tax code plus spending restraint would be far more plausible.

Jonathan Chait, seemingly forgetting the part where Obama gets to campaign on the GOP eliminating tax cuts for the middle class because they weren’t getting tax cuts for the very richest of the rich. Who, you know, only destroyed the global economy and aren’t the most popular folks electorally. But by all means, GOP, campaign on an all fat-cat ticket. It’s working out great so far in the Midwest.

The Marker

Obama: In December, I agreed to extend the tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans because it was the only way I could prevent a tax hike on middle-class Americans. But we cannot afford $1 trillion worth of tax cuts for every millionaire and billionaire in our society. And I refuse to renew them again.
Kevin Drum:Question: is Obama laying down a marker in hopes of getting a bill that extends only the middle-class cuts? Or is he laying down a marker knowing that Republicans will refuse to budge and therefore the entire Bush tax cut package will expire?
Lemkin: He is putting the onus of middle class tax cut extension or expiration squarely on the GOP House, which is where it should have been all along. We would have had a very different outcome last time around if this had been the shape of the negotiation. There is very real power in pursuing a “do nothing” approach if Obama and the Democrats at large will just deign to use it. Shrill, I know, but following such a path would really punish the GOP and force them to come out squarely against their own stated goals again and again and all in defense of the very richest people on the Earth.

Beating a Dead Hobby Horse

jeffmiller:

[…]Challenged to produce an actual plan, Obama produced rhetoric.  

As opposed to Ryan’s plan and its magical unicorns based solutions? Honestly and specifically please detail exactly which programs and federal initiatives Ryan is specifically cutting to get spending to 3% of GDP? Are you aware that current military spending is all on its own consuming about 3% GDP? It’s no coincidence that the only specifics in Ryan’s plans are the tax cuts to the wealthy and the functional elimination of Medicare and Medicaid. That’s all he cares about. Deficits don’t even enter into it; that’s why the plan so brazenly doesn’t even bother to pretend it’s really lowering deficits. Only the math addled beltway media seems to think it will do anything but increase deficits. Instead, Ryan’s plan is all about undoing a social contract that’s been in place for nearly a century. Anything else that happens, any outcome for good or ill is simply window dressing and utterly unintentional. The elder poor will kindly go die in the streets, as the plutocrats need that money.

[…]

Obama is different president than I expected him to be.  I expected him to be a pragmatic crusader, but he’s not really that.  Were he a crusader, he’d better exploit his bully pulpit.  

Clinton, I think, was driven by power.  Obama doesn’t seem that interested in power … he’s more interested in importance.  Or rather, I think Obama wants to feel important. Wielding power is one way to feel important, but so is talking about wielding power.  And lest you think that talk isn’t important, remember that our warmongering President won a Nobel Peace prize as a result of his talking.  I think that prize was terrible psychologically for our President, in the same way that our election was terrible for him too.  He was elected without actual achievement, and he was given a Nobel Prize without actual achievement … naturally, he’s learned that actual achievement isn’t that important.  That’s not a good lesson for a President to learn.  

Sorry, but this is simply horseshit. Obama won a Peace Prize because of his talking? I’m fully aware that he has no negro dialect, but Barack Hussein Obama won a Peace Prize because he’s a black man who was elected President of the United States of America, which only 150 years ago fought a war over the “states’ rights” to allow its citizens to own other human beings who just so happen to share an ethnic background with Obama. He furthermore won that election by means of the first non-plurality (e.g. true majority election) that’s occurred in this country in decades. This apparent non-achievement was deemed utterly impossible and was the subject of utter “no Serious Person can believe this is possible” derision as recently as 20 years ago when Jesse Jackson was running regularly. But, yeah, total non-event.
And, oh my stars, a Peace Prize recipient is presiding over killing and wars! To the fainting couch! I’m sure they’ll get around to the W Bush statues in our new and wonderful Peace Spring Eternal Middle East any day now.

All that aside, maybe it’s escaped your memory that Obama was also elected a United States Senator. Now that’s suddenly not an actual achievement? I guess ACORN rigged it up for him then too. But which high national office did George W. Bush hold before being elected President? Clinton? Jimmy Carter? Gerald Ford? I must be forgetting all their reams of national-level elected experience before landing the top job.

Finally, and most importantly, anything Obama proposes as “deficit policy” is actually unnecessary. While his plan includes specifics, why even bother? Leaving aside that the GOP House will simply shitcan his stated preferences as a starting point (even if said stated preferences are/were the GOP priorities of that morning), please do recall that doing nothing at all will largely solve this issue in short order. Thus Obama can sit back, veto extensions of the Bush tax cuts and watch the budget come into balance. Period. Or, using parts of the Bush tax cuts as leverage, he can perhaps shape some sort of policy compromise that suits his desired outcome.

And that’s the key. His desired outcome. If we’ve learned anything about this President, it’s that Obama is interested in outcomes. He could care less about tilting at preferred policy windmills, plaudits, power, and most problematic of all: the credit for any of it. For example, Obama has lowered taxes and reduced the size of government, but seems to be going out of his way not to tell anyone. Most polls show people believe the opposite is true on both counts. Even more importantly, though, his administration managed to pass the ACA, which likely will prove to be the single most important legislative achievement of my lifetime when all is said and done.

But, yeah. He’s not achieved anything.

I’d advise you to get some new hobby horses. These are very tired indeed. Maybe try “where’s the long form!?!” on for size.

Ideal Framework

Ygleisas dares to dream about the “ideal negotiating framework” for the debt ceiling:

White House demands clean debt ceiling increase, House majority demands big spending cuts, Senate majority demands partial repeal of Bush tax cuts, and we all compromise on just doing the damn debt increase.

That would be nice. But it would also require non-feckless Democrats in the Senate. Which, so far as I can tell, do not exist.

But, since the plutocrats and banksters seem to realize they’ve got skin in this game, maybe we can just cut some insanely rich people’s taxes, raise the debt ceiling, start a fourth war (I’m thinking Spain is due), and call it a day.

His Master’s Voice

The people actually in charge of Our One True Plutocracy seem to be getting antsy:

House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) has had conversations with top Wall Street executives, asking how close Congress could push to the debt limit deadline without sending interests rates soaring and causing stock prices to go lower, people familiar with the matter said.

[…]

The Wall Street executives say even pushing close to the deadline — or talking about it — could have grave consequences in the marketplace.
“[GOP leaders in Congress] don’t seem to understand that you can’t put everything back in the box. Once that fear of default is in the markets, it doesn’t just go away. We’ll be paying the price for years in higher rates,” said one executive.

Nothing some massive tax cuts couldn’t paper over, right?

His Master’s Voice

Mr. Boehner may face just as much risk as Mr. Obama, if not more. He has promised his more conservative members that he will extract significant concessions from the Democrats before he agrees to an increase in the debt limit. A White House that was willing to play hardball could put him to the test, and perhaps cause a substantial loss of face.

[…]

If Mr. Obama is a good poker player, he’ll know not to disregard Mr. Boehner’s earlier rhetoric, which gave away the vulnerability of his hand. And he’ll recognize Mr. Boehner’s more recent and more confident rhetoric for what it is: the oldest “tell” in the poker book, a show of strength betraying the ultimate weakness of his position.

Nate Silver
Mr. Obama is most decidedly not a good poker player.
Source: The New York Times

Did We Secretly Elect McCain?

Softening the administration’s earlier insistence that Congress raise the so-called debt ceiling without conditions, officials now say they won’t rule out linking an increase of the borrowing cap with cuts aimed at reducing the deficit—even though they’d prefer to keep the issues separate.

Honestly, it’s getting hard to tell. Whoever leaked this circular firing squad horseshit should be out before lunch. That they’ll instead be promoted is why the administration fails.

Did We Secretly Elect McCain?

Rightward Lurch

And so it begins:

Obama will not blaze a fresh path when he delivers a much-anticipated speech Wednesday afternoon at George Washington University. Instead, he is expected to offer support for the commission’s work and a related effort underway in the Senate to develop a strategy for curbing borrowing. Obama will frame the approach as a responsible alternative to the 2012 plan unveiled last week by House Republicans, according to people briefed by the White House.

Just as we predicted a few days ago, your choices, the entire extent of the debate will be between a center-right proposal (Simpson-Bowles) and a far-right proposal (Ryan plan). Where do you think the Serious Person “sensible middle ground” will be in that fight? Left unsaid will be any discussion of the true driver of deficits: individual healthcare costs. Left unsaid will be: if we had individual health costs of any other Western democracy we’d be facing surpluses and not deficits. Limit rate of growth in healthcare and you fix everything we’re currently fighting over, and without doing it on the backs of the poorest.

It’s now down to just how much of Medicare we will eliminate (er: “privatize”) and what percent of older Americans still get access to it. Then, a couple of years down the road: fewer. In a few more years: gone, because it only serves the poor and they don’t vote. Legislative inertia is literally the only chance that program has for survival.

The old will kindly go die in the streets.