Waking Up To Part 2 Of The Deal

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Other Politics
Posted on Mon Dec 20, 2010 at 12:53:43 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Ezra Klein, a supporter of The Deal, now frets about Part 2:

[There will be] a new fight in February over the spending bill that will take the government through to 2012. House Republicans are already talking about cutting back to 2008 levels -- which would require about $90 billion in cuts, and wipe out much of the stimulus in the recent tax deal. [. . .] Republicans will have both a government shutdown and a fiscal crisis to tie to the proverbial train tracks. Will Obama and the Democrat be willing to risk it? Some say they will. [. . .] More pessimistic voices, however, wonder whether a president who wouldn't permit a a modest tax hike will be any more daring when hundreds of thousands of federal workers and the credit of the United States of America are on the line. I'm closer to the pessimists, myself.[. . .]

(Emphasis supplied.) The Deal was a terrible mistake.

Speaking for me only

< The Airing Of The Grievances | Monday Afternoon Open Thread >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Waking Up To Part 2 Of The Deal | 30 comments (30 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Ezra, you are one of the people who support (5.00 / 2) (#1)
by ruffian on Mon Dec 20, 2010 at 01:02:34 PM EST

Obama and the Dems in Congress in their risk-averse behavior.

Ezra is pessimistic about the political advantages of bold policies, and also about the consequences of the lack of boldness. Just can't win with that guy!

: Young Ezra (5.00 / 2) (#14)
by smott on Mon Dec 20, 2010 at 05:11:45 PM EST

Is a moron.
Anyone not clear on that yet?
Also a sellout. He wrote convincingly re public option/single payer early on.
But then like WKJM and SS, tossed his signature issue under the bus to line up with The One...

What to do when those who are (5.00 / 4) (#2)
by Militarytracy on Mon Dec 20, 2010 at 01:55:00 PM EST

labeled brilliant and worthy of being heard aren't strategists? The brilliant leftwing pundits only seem able to see what is before them between now and sunset, what happens tomorrow completely escapes them until it slaps them without mercy upside the head.

Their only goal (5.00 / 4) (#4)
by Pacific John on Mon Dec 20, 2010 at 02:12:58 PM EST

...is to craft a clever argument that will be met fawningly by fellow elites. They don't care if it has real world application.

Recall, Ezra, through sheer force of will and good study habits, became a healthcare wonk, an genuine expert at things that happened while he was in underoos. Many of us took his early work at something concrete, based on principled thinking.

Boy, were we wrong.

Really, the best deconstruction of the Ezras of the world and their mysterious tone deafness outside their class and gender is Anglachel's, "Just Like Grad School."


: That is such a brilliant piece. (5.00 / 2) (#10)
by jeffinalabama on Mon Dec 20, 2010 at 04:15:43 PM EST

I think my intro students now have a new first-week reading.

: Yesiree, bobba! (none / 0) (#18)
by StephenAG on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 12:04:32 AM EST

You are dead on the mark. And thanks so much for the "Anglachel" reminder. For the blogger boiz, good policy discussions only serve to stimulate their "intellectual apparatus".

If Obama were to shut up we wouldn't have a proble (5.00 / 3) (#5)
by Dan the Man on Mon Dec 20, 2010 at 02:15:37 PM EST

m. The Senate Democrats themselves aren't going to willingly support a Republican budget from the House without major changes, and with a 53-47 majority (the same majority Reagan had in 1981), the Senate could kill any budget passed by the House. It's only because Obama himself repeatedly intervenes on behalf of the bipartisan Republican leadership that the House passes any bill at all.

Absolutist statements (5.00 / 1) (#16)
by AngryBlackGuy on Mon Dec 20, 2010 at 10:15:04 PM EST

do little good. "The Dems and Obama" were all wimps who stood for nothing is every bit as foolish as Obama supporters who find no flaw in anything the dems have done (whoever they are . . . I hear about them regularly but I've never met one).

Let's do this now to set the stage:

There will be cuts. We will not like many if not most of them.

However, I hope that the cuts to defense, funds to Israel and some of the other sacred cows on the right should be targeted as well.

Good cuts will hurt everyone to some degree. If the standard is that you will be angry if the final deal cuts things you deem important, prepare to be upset. That's the nature of cuts. The real key is whether the pain is shared by the other side of the aisle.

The standard for me is: (5.00 / 0) (#19)
by sj on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 12:09:41 AM EST

Does it promote the public good. Taking 2% from Social Security which does not affect the deficit until that shortfall is taken from the general fund as planned does not promote the public good.

The public good. That's the real key. Who cares what the "other side of the aisle" squawks about?


After 30 years of welfare to the wealthy (5.00 / 1) (#20)
by BobTinKY on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 08:12:34 AM EST

and corporate handouts of biblical proportions, those who will depend upon and have paid premiums for SS are expected to accept cuts to pay for tax cuts, senseless wars, and welfare to Wall Street mutli millionaires?

Screw that and the Trojan horse it is riding in on.


Cuts (5.00 / 1) (#23)
by lilburro on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 09:05:28 AM EST

are not necessary at this time. What liberal priorities need to be cut at this time? Esp. since the tax cuts are only going to work if we don't gut the government? And if you think the sacred cows on the right are going to get cut, I have to say I think you're crazy.

Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid all need to be embraced by the Democratic Party, and need to be protected. Otherwise the Dems are completely screwed and are going to be led into the wilderness...oh and many normal people will be screwed too.


It's a good thing that Republicans (none / 0) (#25)
by Farmboy on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 09:12:55 AM EST

passed a bill that expanded Medicaid coverage to all individuals under age 65 with incomes up to 133 percent of the federal poverty level. It looks like at they, at least, embrace Medicaid.


That's a Democrat (none / 0) (#27)
by lilburro on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 09:58:15 AM EST

thing (Medicaid to 133 percent). The GOP hates Medicaid.


: Yeah, that was the point. (none / 0) (#29)
by Farmboy on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 10:32:27 AM EST

I just figured, tongue firmly in cheek, that since an expansion of Medicaid has passed, but yet the Democrats have accomplished absolutely nothing for the last two years - nothing of which a progressive or liberal could approve, at any rate - it must have been the Republicans who passed the bill. QED.

This was a general statement (none / 0) (#17)
by AngryBlackGuy on Mon Dec 20, 2010 at 10:30:36 PM EST

and not to the author of the post necessarily. Just a general thought after reading the comments.


Cuts to SS and other domestic programs (none / 0) (#26)
by MO Blue on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 09:15:41 AM EST

for the poorest among us are what is on the agenda. But hey, the poorest and least able to influence government not being able to afford even the bare necessities of living is no big thing if Obama finds some way to benefit from it politically.

BTW, the only pain and the only real sacrifice will be made by the poor and middle class. Obama, his political cronies on both sides of the aisle and his very savvy business friends will make out like †he bandits that they are.

Lets all cheer for Obama. Clap louder now and remember no matter how bad it gets and how many more people fall into real poverty, lose their jobs and their homes, at least he isn't a Republican. Obama and his political well being is the only real important thing here. So saith, ABG.

"Good cuts (none / 0) (#30)
by Warren Terrer on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 01:49:54 PM EST

will hurt everyone to some degree."

Only a deficit hawk could believe such nonsense. Please explain how such cuts are good.


The credit of the US? (none / 0) (#3)
by masslib on Mon Dec 20, 2010 at 02:08:24 PM EST

This isn't based on that bs from Moody's, is it? I'm with Barney Frank here. There is absolutely zero evidence the US government will default on it's debt. Are we going to see the President of the United States scare the hell out of the public with a suggestion that we may default to avoid a fight with Republicans?

: probably yes (none / 0) (#8)
by The Addams Family on Mon Dec 20, 2010 at 03:30:01 PM EST

Are we going to see the President of the United States scare the hell out of the public with a suggestion that we may default to avoid a fight with Republicans?
if it will avoid a fight with the Republicans, i think that is exactly what we can count on the craven Obama to say

: It's impossible (none / 0) (#9)
by Warren Terrer on Mon Dec 20, 2010 at 03:58:16 PM EST

for a country that is sovereign in its own currency to default on its debt except by deliberately deciding to do so. All those people who worry about default need to explain how exactly this could happen.

: He already did (none / 0) (#15)
by Left of the Left on Mon Dec 20, 2010 at 10:11:18 PM EST

in the press conference. Possibly overshadowed by the incredibly naive (that's putting it nicely) expectation of taking Boehner at his word.

THE PRESIDENT: Look, here's my expectation -- and I'll take John Boehner at his word -- that nobody, Democrat or Republican, is willing to see the full faith and credit of the United States government collapse, that that would not be a good thing to happen.

2008 goals not levels (none / 0) (#6)
by waldenpond on Mon Dec 20, 2010 at 02:26:05 PM EST

I thought they wanted to trot out the 2008 bill so that they could un-fund any legislation passed the last two years?

Just curious BTD (none / 0) (#7)
by BobTinKY on Mon Dec 20, 2010 at 03:01:56 PM EST

I agree it was a HUGE mistake. From the viewpoint of a Democrat, what would you hope can or should be done about it? If, as is almost certain, the mistake become apparent by next Summer any accountability for anyone?

Hopefully we're both wrong and it will kick the eocnomy into gear. Personally, that hopey changey thing has worn thin for me.

obama must go! he should be primaried (none / 0) (#12)
by pluege2 on Mon Dec 20, 2010 at 04:52:02 PM EST

obama must go! he should be primaried (none / 0) (#13)
by pluege2 on Mon Dec 20, 2010 at 04:52:36 PM EST

If you're a liberal is there any choice? (none / 0) (#21)
by BobTinKY on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 08:20:18 AM EST

Obama gets re-elected so four more years of corporate friendly, non job creating policies for which Democrats and liberals will be blamed. And we get a GOP Pres in 2016. A total of eight lost years, including four GOP nightmare years minimum.

Or Obama gets beat. At least the GOP will be left holding the bag for the disaster in 2016. A minimum of four lost years including four GOP nightmarish years.

Or we nominate someone else. Doesn't happen? Well LBJ was forced out. Sure not much supprting precedent but these are unprecedented times. Did anyone ever think a Dem President would champion Bush tax cuts and lead the raid on SS? Did Obama give any of his supporters (of which I was at one time one) an inkling that this is what he would do?

I pray for a decently funded primary challenger.


Obama gave everyone including supporters (5.00 / 1) (#22)
by MO Blue on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 09:01:25 AM EST

more than an inkling of what he planned to do on SS. On the campaign trail he clearly said that SS was on the table. The true believers and those who voted for the lesser of two evils chose to ignore this and the fact that Obama had the ability to accomplish a raid on SS where Republicans had failed.


: Yep (5.00 / 2) (#24)
by DancingOpossum on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 09:08:41 AM EST

I don't hold myself to be the sharpest knife in the drawer (not by a long shot) but I was horrified by Obama the minute he started opening his yap about the "excesses" of the 60s, his adoration of Ronald Reagan, his refusal to say the word "DEMOCRAT" or use it in a sentence, e.g., "I am a Democrat," the haughty little scolding hissy fit he threw on the Giant Cheeto's site when he felt its readers were not sufficiently obsequious to him, and the list goes on.
The signs were there in neon red. Of course, those of us who pointed them out were labeled shrieking harpies, racists, and insufficiently enlightened.
Read Paul Street's two books about Obama. Incredibly eye-opening. One was published during the primaries when it could still have done some good, had anyone bothered to pay attention to Street's loudly shouted warnings about Obama.

Lost Years (none / 0) (#28)
by sj on Tue Dec 21, 2010 at 10:18:28 AM EST

Depending on how you define a Lost Year. I kind of define it as a year taken from the Public Good with resources diverted to the Robber Barons (yep, I'm definitely a liberal).

Take it from where it started:

8 years Bush, 4 years Obama = 12 lost years. 2012: A Democrat elected, Obama out. That's the best case scenario.

8 years Bush, 4 years Obama, at least 4 years of an R presidency. That's 16 lost years.

8 years Bush, 8 years Obama will give us another Republican President for at least 4 years. That's 20 lost years.

The best, the best, that I can hope for is that a real Democrat runs and wins in 2012 and Obama does not. Think that's likely? Yeah, me neither.

And yes, Obama gave many inklings on where he stood re Social Security and Reagan and Wall Street vs Main Street. Not that any O supporters I knew would listen. It was all "Clinton brought us NAFTA!!!!!" as if Bill and Hillary were one person.

That was from my family. Obviously we stopped talking politics.


"The Deal" was no mistake (none / 0) (#11)
by pluege2 on Mon Dec 20, 2010 at 04:51:01 PM EST

for progressives, obama is a Trojan Horse.
.