As the economy worsens, President Obama and his senior aides are considering whether to adopt a more combative approach on economic issues, seeking to highlight substantive differences with Republicans in Congress and on the campaign trail rather than continuing to pursue elusive compromises, advisers to the president say.

Mr. Obama’s senior adviser, David Plouffe, and his chief of staff, William M. Daley, want him to maintain a pragmatic strategy of appealing to independent voters by advocating ideas that can pass Congress, even if they may not have much economic impact. [. . .] But others, including Gene Sperling, Mr. Obama’s chief economic adviser, say public anger over the debt ceiling debate has weakened Republicans and created an opening for bigger ideas like tax incentives for businesses that hire more workers, according to Congressional Democrats who share that view. Democrats are also pushing the White House to help homeowners facing foreclosure.

[. . .] So far, most signs point to a continuation of the nonconfrontational approach — better to do something than nothing — that has defined this administration. Mr. Obama and his aides are skeptical that voters will reward bold proposals if those ideas do not pass Congress. It is their judgment that moderate voters want tangible results rather than speeches.

Just passing bills that do nothing are not "results." Pretending that they are "results" with the economy floundering is part of the President's political problem. Another "Recovery Summer" stunt won't help - it will hurt.

Speaking for me only

President Obama is turning 50. He celebrated in Chicago with friends, at parties that doubled as fundraisers for his re-election.

As to his first term, he told the crowd:

The thing that we all have to remember is, is that as much good as we’ve done, precisely because the challenges were so daunting, precisely because we were inheriting so many challenges, that we’re not even halfway there yet. When I said, “change we can believe in,” I didn’t say “change we can believe in tomorrow."

Shorter version: His first term was such a dud, we should give him a do-over.

Nonsense:

The agreement removes the threat of default and lowers the prospect of using the debt limit as an instrument of coercion. [. . .]

Beneath all the bluster, the prospects for compromise on broader and deeper reforms are better than they have been in years. [. . .]

The government’s ability to make smart, long-term budget choices has long been broken. This gives us a chance to fix it. [. . .]

[B]y locking in long-term savings, Congress will have more room in the fall to pass additional short-term measures to strengthen the economy — such as extending the payroll tax cut, which provides an average of a thousand dollars to the after-tax incomes of working Americans; extending unemployment benefits; and financing infrastructure investments.

Fool? Knave? Both?

Speaking for me only

Remember throwing things at your computer will not actually hit him.

White House sez:

BIPARTISAN DEBT DEAL: A WIN FOR THE ECONOMY AND BUDGET DISCIPLINE The debt deal announced today is a victory for bipartisan compromise, for the economy and for the American people.

Incredible. Smells like something allright.

Jed Lewison links to Ezra Klein describing the latest in a pattern of miscalculations by the Obama Administration in its negotiations with the Republicans. Ezra writes:

The White House proposed a balanced trigger in April: It would have automatically [increase] taxes and [cut] spending if America wasn’t on a path to balanced budgets by 2014. [. . . ] But privately, they’re less concerned about a spending-only trigger, which was seriously considered during their negotiations with Boehner. They point out that Republicans might want to cut spending, but they don’t want the blame for automatic, untargeted spending cuts that slash away at Social Security, Medicare and defense during an election year.

This is a monumental miscalculation. I'll explain why on the flip.

It's really distressing not to hear our Democratic President point out that social security and Medicare are not government welfare programs. The Government forcibly took our money with a promise we would get it back after we reached retirement age. And retirement age shouldn't be the age we need to move to assisted living facilities and nursing homes.

Millions of us have paid these taxes for forty plus years. Obama should flat out refuse to shift the goalposts. Raising the eligibility age by two years will force those of us without employer paid insurance to stick with our private plans at a cost of $1,000 a month or more during that period. Even those who responsibly planned for retirement didn't count on another $20,000 in private health care premiums foisted on them at the last minute (And yes, three years before reaching 65 is the last minute considering most people are having trouble paying their existing bills and can't just decide to put aside another $12,000 a year.) [More...]

[T]he point is that if you ask what Mitt Romney would probably be doing if he were in the White House and not trying desperately to convince his party that he shares its madness, it would look a lot like what Obama is doing [on the economy.]

There are, however, two crucial points to understand. First, Obama gets no credit for his moderation, and never will. [. . .] Second, moderate conservatism isn’t working as a policy matter. As I’ve tried to tell everyone from the beginning of the Lesser Depression, a deeply depressed economy in which monetary policy is up against the zero lower bound turns the normal rules of policy upside down. We’re in a world in which conventional prudence is folly, in which playing it safe is extremely risky. And we have, alas, a conventionally prudent, play-it-safe president — the kind of president who might have done fine in the 1990s, but not now.

(Emphasis supplied.) This. To put the point another way, Bill Clinton would likely have been a subpar President in these times. Unless he changed his policy tune. And in the end, politics follows policy success, especially on the economy. Yes, it's the economy, stupid.

Speaking for me only

"I think the College Republicans here would say I'm a pretty liberal President but if you read the Huffington Post you think I was some right wing tool of Wall Street. Both things can't be true. - President Barack Obama

I came across that video at Hullabaloo and Digby points to d-day's reaction to it. I want to share my own before I react to d-day's. It is in my title - some things are true. For example, it is true that:

(1) the 2009 stimulus was inadequate for the problems in the economy; (2) HAMP was a failure; (3) the Bush tax cuts were extended in December 2010 without an agreement on the budget or the debt ceiling; (4) the debt ceiling deal Obama seems on the verge of making will not be good for the economy; (5) Democrats were walloped in the 2010 elections; (6) the 2012 election looks like it is gonna be close, much closer than the 2008 election.

Let's assume for the moment that the truths described above are not what the President intended. What is his explanation for these results? Do these truths justify his approach to politics and the Presidency? If so, why? After all, the president is basically justifying himself in that video. Perhaps he could explain why the truths I list occurred if his approach was the right one. More . . .

Of all the disagreements I've had with President Obama over the years, this could be the proverbial straw that breaks the camel's back. I strongly suspect I'm not the only one who feels this way.

• 2008: Obama Disses Boomers
• 2011: Don't Blame it on the Boomers

A generational war is the last thing Obama or the Democrats need.

Sam Stein:

According to five separate sources with knowledge of negotiations -- including both Republicans and Democrats -- the president offered an increase in the eligibility age for Medicare, from 65 to 67, in exchange for Republican movement on increasing tax revenues.

The GOP won't do it, thank Gawd. But Obama is reallllly eager to please Pete Peterson isn't he?

According to the NYTimes:

The president ... called on Congressional Democrats to be open to a deal that would makes changes to entitlement programs like Social Security and Medicare, which some parts of the caucus have strictly opposed. .... He added that .... "I’m prepared to take on significant heat from my party to get something done.”

.... Democrats, meanwhile, have expressed opposition to any deal negotiated by Mr. Obama that would cut benefits to Medicare or Social Security recipients.

I'm pretty sure the President is not referring to raising the FICA cap here.