I’m generally supportive of Obama’s preference for pragmatic progressivism, and I don’t mind too much that he’s positioned himself in the center of the Democratic Party. The leader of the party must take into account the needs and desires of all parts of the party. In any case, how do you deal with Blue Dogs who demonstrated nothing if not a collective death-wish as they watered down the popular elements of Obama’s agenda, complained about what was left, voted for it (in the main), and then acted apologetic about the product? That they lost half their members is mostly their fault. If the public disliked the 111th Congress’s performance, it was the Blue Dogs’ responsibility to try to make them like it.
Because Obama is first and foremost a pragmatist, he is temperamentally opposed to losing legislative battles. He doesn’t want bills to die, and with the notable exception of the effort to enact Cap and Trade, he succeeded in passing something on nearly every legislative effort he made (turning around Bush’s security state is another matter). But, sometimes, you can win by losing. Sometimes the most popular thing is to veto a bill. Sometimes you gain politically by making the opposition kill something popular. That’s why I agree with Ezra:
Obama shouldn’t be leaving [job creation] up to [his economic advisers]. If the president wants to go bold on job creation, he needs to go bold on job creation. The votes may not be there now, but perhaps it’s worth mounting a very public effort to get them there. At the State of the Union, say. And if Republicans block the proposals, well, sometimes the best way to show the public where you stand on something is to go down fighting for it.
The president decided to extend Bush’s tax cuts, in part, so that he could get a lot of stimulus into the economy that he couldn’t get in any other way. He made a difficult, but correct, decision. That fit into his pragmatic nature. Better to do whatever he can to create jobs than admit that he can do nothing without breaking a campaign promise and making our economic inequality and long-term budgetary situation worse.
But that was then. Now that the Republicans have much more power, it’s going to be impossible to do anything more on job creation without making unacceptable concessions to the Republicans. At this point, it’s really time to start blaming Republicans for the jobs situation rather than trying to wring meager amounts of help from them. To do that, he needs to level with the American people. Tell us what would be needed to bring down unemployment to acceptable levels and demand that Congress take action. Sure, we all know the Republicans won’t listen, but that’s why they can’t be trusted to govern either in Congress or the White House.
Pragmatism made sense when there was a long laundry list of things to get done and a totally unified opposition and a skittish majority. It makes much less sense now. As much as he hates losing, Obama needs to lose a high profile battle on the economy. But he needs to lose on his terms, not the terms imposed by Boehner and McConnell.
I also think he might need to do the same thing on climate. A little climate reform that gives false comfort is worse than no climate reform at all. He needs to change the narrative about how you create jobs and on whether climate change is occurring at all.
My worry is that the whispers about the SOTU focusing on deficits, cutting social security and govt spending will come true. Also, Obama has ceded a lot of ground ideologically to the GOP that the way to create jobs is through tax cuts and being nice to bankers and rich people. Kind of hard for him to pivot and start talking about public investment and industrial policy to create jobs- although I’d love to see it, even if it means losing battles.
The most powerful critique of progressives of Obama, when you cut out all the chicken-littling and misplaced charges of betrayal, is that in pursuing a productive, pragmatic legislative agenda in his first 2 years, Obama let the politics get away from him- resulting in a stunning reversal and the ascent in power of a radical and emboldened republican party. If your larger point about symbolic losing battles (which other progressive bloggers were hoping for in his first 2 years) is really a wish that Obama gets back to focusing on and winning political battles, now that any policy fight is DOA, then I’m hundred percent behind you Boo.
Why waste your time fretting about what he might say?
Omg! What are you talking about? Obama ceded nothing to the GOP ideologically. He repeatedly said he doesn’t agree with their ideas on what creates jobs. Repeatedly! over and over and over. He hasn’t changed on that.
You need to stop paying attention to worry warts and whispers and listen to what actually comes out of Obama’s mouth.
I think he’s hedged this a bit. He realizes that tax cuts for the rich and an austerity agenda is being pushed by a lot of powerful elites, and he’s not looking to be a martyr populist. But he made the stimulus in february 2009 half tax cuts- which still wasn’t enough to get moderate GOP senators to sign on. He’s put “entitlement reform” on the table for the deficit, and his deficit commission came up with proposals that basically said that the new deal and great society entitlement programs we’ve put in place need to go away. Seniors (based on 2010 midterm exit polls) believe that the GOP is the party looking out for them, not Dems. The policy battles are over- its time for Obama to start winning the politics again.
Did it get a lot of stimulus into the economy? I thought it was essentially a push between the economy-killing parts and the stimulus parts.
The overall stimulative effect of the deal he cut probably exceeds the original stimulus package. It includes really inefficient stimulus (high-end marginal income tax cuts) and really efficient stimulus (13 month extension of unemployment insurance). It preserved the child credit, it had an AMT fix, it has a two percent payroll holiday (very stimulative), and higher education tax breaks.
There are other tax breaks that encourage companies to buy equipment and conduct research and development.
It’s obviously a mixed bag. It’s not what we would do if given a free hand, but it’s a huge amount of stimulus that we couldn’t have gotten in any other way.
I think you still need to factor in to that the fact that the next budget is going to include cuts, the only question is how much and where they hit. I’m predicting it plays out like this:
The GOP gave up the prospect of good-faith governing a long long time ago. Now governing for them is just a way to enhance their power.
well, this year’s economy is more important than next year’s anyway. He needs a jobs recovery and that needs time to happen and to sink in with the public. Insofar as it is inadequate, that’s where the blame-game comes into it.
I would point out that Obama’s deficit commission asked for deeper cuts to tax rates than the extension provided. If you take him seriously that he takes the commission seriously, then one might say Obama got all those concessions from the GOP for basically nothing: his own commission was asking for deeper cuts to the top bracket(s)!
The GOP essentially took the huge cuts of the deficit commission and turned them into a big relative tax hike. They own the current rates, about 7% higher on the highest bracket than the catfood commission had suggested.
I would not be surprised at all if his SOTU is draconian and leaves the GOP trying to spare their own pork/special interest spending from dramatic cuts, instead of their current bloviating about $100 Billion in unspecified cuts.
By taking most of the catfood commission’s suggestions seriously, but leaving the highest bracket at 35%, Obama can reduce a lot of the painful cuts/changes and still fix this fucked country in a political climate where cutting 1/2 of Camden’s police force makes more sense than raising taxes.
As much as I don’t like cuts in programs or tax cuts for tax cuts sake, we’ve got to stabilize our national debt at a level that doesn’t threaten stability (let’s say 66% of the overall economy, which sounds crazy high to me, but that’s how F’d we are).
There are two ways to stabilize the debt. Eliminate the deficit. Or grow the economy. The GOP is holding the first hostage to their spending cuts. Wall Street is holding the second hostage on behalf of the GOP and their own bonuses.
But the voters are unaware of either of these, maddeningly unaware for a variety of reasons; some are working so many jobs they don’t know what is going on; others are locked in Beck-Limbaugh la-la-land; others are making money and don’t care about future consequences.
Yes we are indeed financially eff’d through the bad political decisions of the last 30 years.
the Deficit Commission also proposed eliminating the mortgage deduction, so we’re not talking apples to apples here.
Did they factor in what state budgets this year will look like? I don’t think I have to tell you what Teahadist Tom Corbett is likely to propose here.
I don’t think he listens to you Boo.
I agree with you on this.
what is the difference between Bill Clinton and Barack Obama?
Bill wants everybody to love him. Barack wants Republicans to love him.
I don’t think ‘love’ has anything to do with it. He wants some votes.
but he is not gonna get GOP votes for a Dem agenda, he will get GOP votes if he decides to cut SocSecurity. but why would he want to do that? he will get some Dem votes for a GOP agenda, especially if he embraces that agenda.
????? he’ll do fine with Dem and Independent votes
Oh is that nonsense meme still going around? that Obama only wants Republicans to love him? I think what’s going on with that silly talking point is that the left needs to admit that they want Obama to cower and worship them as much as the Republicans do with the right wing media. Obama is not rejecting you for another, okay?
The administration’s inability to assess & communicate blame, Bush/Wall St/GOP, etc, for the mess they inherited has been one of the disappointing turn of events that I never imagined. They spent way too much time raising expectations and patting themselves on the back instead of lowering them and putting onus on their opponents for not doing anything to help.
“The stimulus did not fix the problem because GOP would not help out.” I would have loved to use that talking point for years but we got Summery of Recovery instead.
I agree that the President needs to pick a political fight with Republicans and let everyone know in country that he has their backs against Corporate Controlled GOP.
The problem is WH will do anything to prevent hurting the feelings of Wall St because they want their donations. It is how politics works but the American public hates Wall Street and the banks. They want jobs and the economy fixed. The President needs to tap into that and quick. The truth is on his side.
Great idea. I agree completely. Furthermore, I think that he can talk in the SOTU about how he has proven his ability to compromise and find bipartisan solutions. Now the republicans need to step up and show that they can do so too. Time to paint refusal to compromise as being backwards. Then he can deal with them from a position of strength.
He has shown that he can win. After the lame duck session he has the wind at his back and the Giffords shootings make partisan extremism a difficult place to stand. Now Obama needs to put the Republicans in a place where they either do business with him or look bad for refusing. This moment is right in the strongest part of his communication strategy. Now he needs to follow through.
Unfortunately, climate change is getting thrown overboard. It is simply too unpopular with the business community to pass in Congress, and there is no margin in putting chips on the board in a losing spot. No one will have his back on it, after all, and his best friends the Chinese made him look like a chump on this issue. It’s done. Kaput. We will never see a carbon tax in the U.S, and it’s not the job of the President to get the people to take scientists seriously.
The good move now is to focus on job creation and play the Republicans as either bipartisan mensches who want America to prosper or as ideological hacks who would rather see America fall than cooperate. This move is well within the game of Washington politics, and it attacks the other side’s strategy. It also follows through on his own hard fought narrative. Let’s hope he does it.
Agree with most of what you say. Climate change is much bigger than carbon tax and it is critical world wide – thus far Obama has combined green energy with stimulus. Competition w. China is another angle on climate change (does usa really want to be left behind re: new technologies? some oil ppl do, of course.)
He’s going to go bold alright:
He has single handedly made the Republicans more popular on Social Security than the Democrats, something I suspect no one would ever have imagined. If he goes through with his deal, the Democratic Party as we know it could well be stuck in a long walking wilderness.
that doesn’t fit the narrative seabe. BOLD! Go BOLD!
The moment that he appointed Alan Simpson and Erskine Bowles I knew that he was going to go down the tubes on this issue. Just like the Blue Dogs who marched to oblivion by opposing Obama’s policy and trying to sound like Republicans. Heath Shuler got lucky in the opponent the Republicans put up against him. Same for McIntyre.
I know this. If Democrats go down this road, they will have lost me, after 42 years of being a yellow dog Democrat in the political desert. If Social Security or Medicare is going to be threatened, let the Republicans do it; maybe a half of their supporters will snap out of the Rush-Beck thrall.
The State of the Union Address and the ongoing follow-up from there is going to set the tone for the 2012 political environment. I’m not sure that “going bold” exactly gets it, but I essentially agree with your point.
So what would be going bold. Go for a substantial program for cutting off imported oil and natural gas. Sell the fact that either you go with a cap-and-trade market-based solution for reducing greenhouse gases, tighter regulations on emitters of greenhouse gases, or a carbon tax on items producing CO2 and methane and other greenhouse gases. A market, tighter regulations, or a tax–take your pick because “this President will not endanger the health, prosperity, and environment of this country by pretending that the issue does not exist”.
Healthcare. Call for states to use their flexibility to create alternatives for health care reform that meet the criteria in the law. Hang tough on the patients bill of rights section and decouple it from the individual mandate (separate issues).
Ask for stronger and tighter anti-trust legislation immediately and tell why — corporations operating in the US are getting “too big to fail”. Break them up so that they can compete again.
Give corporations a year to bring jobs back to the US voluntarily. Business as usual is not good enough. The government is doing everything it can to provide opportunities; don’t say “thank you very much” and walk away with the public’s generosity.
Beating up on the large banks would not be a bad tack either. The timing is right (as it was right after his inauguration) for the FDR style “they hate me and I welcome their hatred” sort of speech without the slapping the other aristocrats at the club tone about it. Unlike FDR, Obama does not move in aristocratic circles despite what his detractors right and left might think. From their point of view, he is an invader.
Another tack would be to ask Congress for a federal corporation law that requires public disclosure of the finances of both privately held and public corporations. And a law to audit SEC reports against IRS reports. Both of these would be bold, popular, and could be traded away in the short term. And a good Constitutional lawyer could probably frame both of these so they would pass muster in a typical Supreme Court (not the current bunch).
Reductions in unneeded military bases. Does Europe really need US troops as a tripwire today like South Korea does? Shouldn’t we leave Okinawa and all its problems? Consolidate bases in the US to not be so concentrated in the southern tier of the US. Cut the $100 billion that Gates says DoD doesn’t need. Put non-essential military expenditures on the table.
Then, say the GOP had some good ideas. Cut the Economic Development Administration, the Appalachian Regional Commission (and other regional commissions) funding; cutting the federal travel budget in half is a good target and the administration will see how fast it can reach that goal and provide jobs and reduce dependence on foreign oil; beach replenishment funds can go (a recurring expense resulting from poor local development decisions); Congressional death gratuity (and why not forgo subsidies for healthcare and retirement programs as well); the USDA Sugar program could go (and why not add other subsidized programs); cap office space acquisition by federal agencies in total (not excluding military or the other branches). In other words, paint the agreement and up the ante. And he gently could hint that maybe the Department of Agriculture has outlived its usefulness and the government should withdraw from intervening in agricultural sector except for safety and food security (move Food Stamps to HHS, and meat inspections to the FDA.) Convert the forest service lands to wilderness lands (that does away with a federal subsidy). In other words, gently point out the hypocrisy in the Republican list of cuts. They want to cut spending that they have labeled as “spending to Democratic constituencies” and hold harmless spending that is more likely to go their states. Suggest that if CPB is cut; so should the Voice of America and associated radio (that medium has become less relevant as technology has developed-this is no longer the Cold War…)
LOL! I love how Obama courtiers and cheerleaders always say that Obama’s (it’s not Bush’s anymore!) ever-strengthening right-wing national-security state is “another matter.” Every Cheney-ite that Boo used to castigate during the Bush years is poking his/her head up and praising Obama for all the “continuity” and recogizing that what was done then was the “right thing.”
Anything going against the constant paeans and flower-throwing is always dismissed as uncivil chatter. Nothing to see here, Good Citizen; move along! Let us look forward, not back.
So, Obama will boldly cut SocSec. Who knew? But no sooner than the words creep out of Obama’s lips will Boo proclaim that it’s the only thing that could be done due to the media landscape.
May the circle be unbroken…
Actually, you may have noticed that I have probably never written a word about protecting Social Security. I was basically silent on the issue during the effort at privatization. I regarded a lot of the work being done by TPM and others to oppose privatization to be dishonest. It’s not that I support privatization. And it’s not that I think a deficit caused by historically low marginal tax rates should be shored up by attacking Social Security benefits. And I don’t think the Village is honest about Social Security either. Far from it.
Basically, I don’t have a problem with making minor tweaks (which are all that is really required) to Social Security to make it self-sufficient on a permanent basis. As a political matter, the only way to do that is to do a small amount of everything. So, the solution is probably to raise the amount of taxable income, bump up the retirement age a year, and maybe slow the adjustment for cost of living a bit. Or, we could do nothing. I’m perfectly fine with that, too. I just don’t care that much as long as they don’t try to put all the pain on retirees.
I’d gladly trade a small fix for people shutting the fuck up about the program. I’m tired of listening to all the bullshit from all sides.