Tag: governing

Yglesisas Answers it All

Matt Yglesias asks:

There’s no mystery as to why the National Republican Campaign Committee hates Nancy Pelosi, but their dislike for San Francisco is a bit puzzling.

Almost directly, and seemingly without realizing it, Matt Yglesias also provides the answer:

[San Francisco is] an enormous economic success story. The San Francisco metropolitan area has the fourth-highest median household income in the country, with its Bay Area partner San Jose coming in at number three. Metro San Francisco is in a tie for having the third-highest-pay for low-wage workers, its fourth in median wages, and third in 90th percentile wages.

GOP orthodoxy requires “government” of any kind to be an abject and self-evident failure. Few citizens of the US would dispute the sense that San Francisco is the liberal bastion of the United States. Therefore it must be an urban hellhole and not be visited by any kind of success. Where success exists, it must be ignored. Similarly, old Taxachusetts must be forever suffering under the yoke of ludicrously high taxes (and one must never acknowledge the reality: that MA’s effective tax rates and collective tax burden generally trend lower than those of old Live Free or Die itself, that glibertarian heaven called New Hampshire).

Much like the Post Office and many other examples, any functioning example of government, large or small, must be (at a minimum) denigrated. If possible, it must also be actively undermined such that it may then be pointed to as an example of the impossibility of government intervention, large or small. All evidence to the contrary must be marginalized. And that is why the GOP “hates” San Francisco and largely assumes it to be barely survivable smoking ruin.

In the coming days we will force members of Congress to vote on the individual proposals in the American Jobs Act. They’ll have a chance to vote on whether they believe we should keep teachers out of work or whether we should put them back in the classroom where they belong. They’ll get to vote on whether they believe construction workers should stay unemployed while our roads and bridges fall apart, or whether we should put these men and women back to work rebuilding America. They’ll be forced to decide whether we should cut taxes for middle class Americans or let them go up next year.

Barack Obama talks tough. Finally. Imagine if we’d had this guy (and every other Democrat) out there saying words like these starting on January 21, 2009 and then continuing to say them every day since, each and every time a microphone turned on. The economic and legislative situation might well be very much the same, but the political situation would be very different indeed.

…I don’t think there’s a single Democrat out there, who if they looked at where we started when I came into office and look at where we are now, would say that somehow we have not moved in the direction that I promised. Take a tally, look at what I promised during the campaign. There’s not a single thing that I said that I would do that I have not either done or tried to do. And if I have not gotten it done yet, I’m still trying to do it.

Barack Obama, perhaps being a bit testy on the reaction of the left to his strategy and overall leadership style thus far.
And, basically, he’s right. The key issue, though, is the pervasive perception that when the GOP is in charge, they get the policy they want to the letter, often with Democratic help. Alternatively, when the Democrats are in charge, they rarely achieve that standard, and more often slump across the finish line with badly compromised legislation that is, as a result, more difficult to talk about and more difficult to defend, all the while presented in a manner best described as: “shut up, you smelly hippies; why can’t you just be happy with whatever shit sandwich it is we’re giving you today.”
Take tax cuts: most of America (wrongly) believes their taxes went up under Obama. Likewise the widespread but utterly misplaced belief in the increasing size of government under Obama (it’s gotten smaller). These and other issues like them are the direct product of a messy, painful compromise and triangulation-prone legislative output that can’t easily be described, much less described in two word, rhyming catch-phrases and, in the case of healthcare reform, isn’t even really in effect yet, and won’t be until 2015…nearly the end of a theoretical second term.
So: you’re supposed to be a communicator, Obama. Get out there and communicate, passionately, about something. Anything. Forcefully explain what you’ve done. And, more importantly, what you would have seen done if not for rampant obstructionism and demonstrable lies. Call out, by name, lies and the liars propagating them, be that House, Senate, or most popular broadcast news network employees. Repeatedly. Every day. Every hour. Every time a microphone is switched on, we want to see you fight. That is all. We will then shut up and sit quietly in the corner with our drugs that we are all on. Thanks in advance.

…because it is always 1980, right wingers are incapable of seeing that monetary policy functions very, very differently in an inflationary and a deflationary environment. They seem utterly incapable of comprehending constraints like the zero-bound problem, which sets a floor on how low interest rates can go. They are also incapable of seeing the exchange value of the dollar except in macho terms, which demands that the dollar be strong at all times. […] [The dollar] must be allowed to adjust freely for changes in supply and demand or the result will be imbalances–too much will be imported if the dollar is overvalued, too little exports, thus increasing American’s international indebtedness. Indeed, it was right wing saint Milton Friedman who taught economists the truth of this mechanism.
[…]
The sad thing is that Pence at least spent five minutes [on monetary policy]; most other Republicans don’t appear to have spent even that much. They just have interns watch Kudlow’s show and write down whatever slogan was highlighted and then repeat it.

Bruce Bartlett, adviser to Presidents Reagan and GHW Bush, holds forth on the notable idiocy of Mike Pence (R, IN), sadly one of the leading intellectual lights of the new GOP majority.
Painfully yet dangerously true.

…conservatives and Republicans who had no problem with strong-arm security measures back in the Bush 43 days but are upset now. Charles Krauthammer is the classic example: forthrightly defending torture as, in limited circumstances, a necessary tool against terrorism, yet now outraged about “touching my junk” as a symbol of the intrusive state.

James Fallows on liberals, conservatives, and maintaining a consistent foundation to one’s thoughts no matter whose party may be in charge of executing the policy in question.

The Wrath of the Bond Vigilantes

At first, the vigour with which Dublin wielded the spending axe won plaudits from bond markets. But the deflationary impact of the cuts has since seen the deficit widen.

Clearly the answer to this is simply deeper cuts. But only to services for the poor and unemployed. Couple that with a massive tax cut for the top 2% and you’ve got yourself a recipe for runaway growth…

The Wrath of the Bond Vigilantes

GOP: Party of Compromise

Greg Sargent talks Bush tax cuts and GOP/Democratic comity and compromise:

There is a way a one-year or two-year temporary extension could represent a compromise of sorts: If Republicans signal a willingness to at least entertain the idea of letting the high end cuts expire after that temporary extension. But many of them aren’t doing that. Their position is that the high-end cuts need to be made permanent. Full stop.

Exactly right. The GOP idea of compromise here is permanent Bush tax cuts. I suspect they might be willing to dump the tax cuts for the bottom 99% of America, but that top 1% isn’t going anywhere and they don’t want some two-year fix, they want it made permanent.

Democrats need to get through their heads that losing the entire Bush tax cuts package is actually the best long-term policy outcome; that this is also the “no deal, time expires” outcome makes it all the more powerful as a bargaining chip. Always be willing to walk away from the entire thing, and always make clear that all blame rests on the GOP by making clear that full-extension is their position, so partial repeal is the compromise position. Yes, walking away means short term harm to everyone making below $250k/yr, but if that’s what it takes to roll back the tax cuts for the richest of the rich: so be it. Only from that position of relative strength do you get the GOP to even approach the table. And, I’ll let you in on a secret: they still won’t.

This is why it’s the perfect issue for the Democrats. It’s important, easy to understand, and directly pits the hyper-rich against the interests of most Americans. Swing for the fences. You’ve got nothing to lose. If you force the GOP to accept short-term, top 1% cuts, it’s a win. If you force the media to face the fact that the GOP has zero interest in compromise on anything, it’s a win, and if you force the true compromise position of time-limited cuts for 99% of Americans and an immediate roll-back to Clinton-era rates for the top 1%: it’s a giant win of the sort that could redefine the terms and dimensions of exactly how policies do or don’t get done over the next two years. So why not try?

If Obama stood there and said ‘Republicans lied to you and now we’re going to put those lies to the test" would it be any worse for him?

Peter Daou
Nope. In fact, this is the one and only way to defeat them over the next two years. A few tweaks around the edges on Daylight Savings Time start dates and such aren’t going to pull voters any more than a year long sausage making festival over a bill that won’t enact until 2014 did.
Issue one had better be “Extend the Tax Cuts for Bottom 99%, but Not Top 1%.”