home

A Grover Norquist Christmas

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Other Politics
Posted on Fri Dec 03, 2010 at 10:12:31 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit
My goal is to cut government in half in twenty-five years, to get it down to the size where we can drown it in the bathtub. - Grover Norquist

This December, the federal government is preparing to extend the Bush tax cuts and take up recommendations to reduce the deficit by way of the Catfood Commission.

This only makes sense if you ascribe to the views of Grover Norquist and want to eventually drown the government in a bathtub. The failure to connect fiscal policy with tax policy has been a glaring failure of the Beltway and its bloggers.

An amazing end to the first two years of the Obama Presidency.

Speaking for me only

< Thursday Early Evening Open Thread | Jobless Rate Goes Up To 9.8% >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    A Grover Norquist Christmas | 35 comments (35 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    The message Obama is sending is (5.00 / 4) (#3)
    by Anne on Fri Dec 03, 2010 at 10:44:19 AM EST
    that he doesn't believe in the power of government to help get us out of the economic mess we're in, that he's buying in to the two-faced Republican hysteria on deficits.

    As Robert Reich posted on Wednesday:

    Quiz: What's responsible for the lousy economy most Americans continue to wallow in?

    A. Big government, bureaucrats, and the cultural and intellectual elites who back them.

    B. Big business, Wall Street, and the powerful and privileged who represent them.

    [snip]

    So B is closer to the truth.

    [snip]

    If Obama and the Democrats were serious about story B they'd at least mention it. They'd tell the nation that income and wealth haven't been this concentrated at the top since 1928, the year before the Great Crash. They'd be indignant about the secret money funneled into midterm campaigns. They'd demand Congress pass the Disclose Act so the public would know where the money comes from.

    They'd introduce legislation to curb Wall Street bonuses - exactly what European leaders are doing with their financial firms. They'd demand that the big banks, now profitable after taxpayer bailouts, reorganize the mortgage debt of distressed homeowners. They'd call for a new WPA to put the unemployed back to work, and pay for it with a tax surcharge on incomes over $1 million.

    They'd insist on extended unemployment benefits for long-term jobless who are now exhausting their benefits. And they'd hang tough on the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy - daring Republicans to vote against extending the cuts for everyone else.

    But Obama is doing none of this. Instead, he's telling story A.

    Making a big deal out of the deficit - appointing a deficit commission and letting them grandstand with a plan to cut $4 trillion out of the projected deficit over the next ten years -- $3 of government spending for every $1 of tax increase - is telling story A.

    What the public hears is that our economic problems stem from too much government and that if we reduce government spending we'll be fine.

    Announcing a two-year freeze on federal salaries - explaining that "I did not reach this decision easily... these are people's lives" - is also telling story A.

    What the public hears is government bureaucrats are being paid too much, and that if we get the federal payroll under control we'll all be better off.

    Proposing a freeze on discretionary (non-defense) spending is telling story A. So is signaling a willingness to extend the Bush tax cuts to the top. So is appointing his top economic advisor from Wall Street (as apparently he's about to do).

    Nary a Democratic view to be found in Obama's approach to government and the economy, which doesn't bode well for the next two years, or the forseeable future - if, that is, you are an average person and not one of the elites.  The Elite will do fine, as they always do.

    Not a dime's worth of difference (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by observed on Fri Dec 03, 2010 at 10:59:29 AM EST
    anymore---between Obama and Bush.. not on the issues I care about.

    Bush Deficit Expansion Plan (5.00 / 4) (#20)
    by Faust on Fri Dec 03, 2010 at 11:53:52 AM EST
    That's what we should call it. As in:

    "Why are the Democrats so eager to extend the Bush Deficit Expansion Plan?"

    not really (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by The Addams Family on Fri Dec 03, 2010 at 01:58:01 PM EST
    An amazing end to the first two years of the Obama Presidency.
    The window has closed (none / 0) (#1)
    by Demi Moaned on Fri Dec 03, 2010 at 10:41:05 AM EST
    Amazing and not very hopeful.

    It's hard to see how we get a shot at any serious progressive policy initiatives before 2017 at the earliest.

    Worse (5.00 / 5) (#2)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Dec 03, 2010 at 10:42:51 AM EST
    the prospect of stopping regressive policies is becoming very slim.

    Parent
    In that light (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Dec 03, 2010 at 10:49:12 AM EST
    How will anyone stop a giant economic crash?  Nobody cleaned up the rules to the games being played much, and we have eased our way into oblivion on a ruleless lawless playing field from hell.

    Parent
    Crash is the goal (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by waldenpond on Fri Dec 03, 2010 at 11:18:15 AM EST
    I don't think you are remembering how markets work.  The powerful and elite transfer wealth to themselves when the market goes up and they transfer more wealth to themselves when the market goes down.  The ups and downs don't happen on their own, they make them happen.  They bounce to commodities, bleeding off wealth and then switch to equities, bleeding off wealth.  They target pension funds, counties, cities and countries.

    Corporations have determined they can bleed more wealth by collapsing whole economies.  Just think of the jobs that will pop up in the US once wages are cut in half.  Won't have to go to the trouble of repressing foreign workers as US workers will be completely cowed.

    Parent

    If this is true (none / 0) (#17)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Dec 03, 2010 at 11:39:11 AM EST
    they have failed to factor in the wrath of the people and large scale upheaval, violence, and suffering could spell out for them.  I personally don't think it is true, I think the corporations remain the same profit driven machinations day in and day out, and they must be well regulated......or not :)

    A corporation or its members don'tt often "know better" when it is busy destroying its own means to survive.

    Parent

    Americans won't do anything (none / 0) (#18)
    by waldenpond on Fri Dec 03, 2010 at 11:43:45 AM EST
    If they aren't doing anything now, they won't.  Heck, unemployment was just stopped and I was hopeful for a protest to join, but no, crickets from the people.  

    Are you thinking manufacturing when I say corporations?  I am referencing wealth accumulators not manufacturers that are dependent on demand.  Supply siders are in control.

    Our conservative Pres seems to be a supply sider, thinking an oligarchy can save the economy.

    Parent

    Tis true, it seems. (5.00 / 4) (#24)
    by Dr Molly on Fri Dec 03, 2010 at 12:44:05 PM EST
    If they aren't doing anything now, they won't.  Heck, unemployment was just stopped and I was hopeful for a protest to join, but no, crickets from the people.

    As Anne mentioned previously, the citizenry resembles the proverbial frog in the pot of gradually heating water, boiled to death without realizing it. (Although I would add, in this case, that the frogs seem to be more consciously participating in their own demise - even lighting the match for the fire themselves.)

    Parent

    Why would any grifters want to? (none / 0) (#7)
    by kdog on Fri Dec 03, 2010 at 10:56:11 AM EST
    Economic crash = socialized losses for grifters, depressed wages & benefit cuts for workers, and lower tax revenues to spur entitlement cuts...aka the oligarchy's wet dream.

    We're gonna have to get used to regularly scheduled economic apocolypses...or take our government back from the oligarchs.

    Parent

    We are pretty much done (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Dec 03, 2010 at 11:03:07 AM EST
    where we stand right now if we don't get some real assistance here.  They have set us up for one giant apocolaypse

    Parent
    I know (none / 0) (#4)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Dec 03, 2010 at 10:45:58 AM EST
    If Obama at least created gridlock that would be somewhat positive.

    Parent
    Nor will Hillary save us ... (none / 0) (#6)
    by Demi Moaned on Fri Dec 03, 2010 at 10:55:45 AM EST
    if this report from AP is to be believed.

    Parent
    {sigh} (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by nycstray on Fri Dec 03, 2010 at 11:45:37 AM EST
    although I do see her getting out there and busting a** for women and children as has her husband with the CGI. She'll prob be quite happy.

    Parent
    Well (none / 0) (#9)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Dec 03, 2010 at 11:01:24 AM EST
    I hope she doesn't retire from politics but I can understand her wanting to. I knew that she would be leaving the SoS position.

    There's also the possibility that someone else will rise to the top of the heap though I have no idea who that will be right now.

    Parent

    Holy ripples (none / 0) (#11)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Dec 03, 2010 at 11:07:08 AM EST
    Is she setting herself to be the savior of the party in 2012?  See, it doesn't look like you are trying to faceplant anyone (like what happened to Teddy when he tried to take Carter to the woodshed) if people are begging you to come back in.  If she decides to "retire" from politics this spring, I'd say she is setting herself up to run against Obama if begged upon.

    Parent
    At the very least, it might signal (5.00 / 3) (#12)
    by inclusiveheart on Fri Dec 03, 2010 at 11:10:15 AM EST
    that she doesn't want to be a part of an Administration that would do things like destroy Social Security and Medicare.

    Parent
    Spoken like a true campaign manager :) (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Dec 03, 2010 at 11:12:50 AM EST


    Parent
    lol n/t (none / 0) (#16)
    by inclusiveheart on Fri Dec 03, 2010 at 11:36:36 AM EST


    Parent
    But she is part of the Administration (none / 0) (#34)
    by BackFromOhio on Fri Dec 03, 2010 at 07:48:06 PM EST
    and, I don't understand whether she means she'll retire at the end of President Obama's first term or 2nd (assuming there is a 2nd)???

    Parent
    But who will beg her? (none / 0) (#21)
    by Demi Moaned on Fri Dec 03, 2010 at 12:03:27 PM EST
    The deck is always stacked pretty heavily in favor of an incumbent President for his party's nomination.

    I can't conceive of her mounting a long-shot bid for the nomination. It would just re-open the wounds of the '08 primary battle with the same net outcome (i.e., Obama gets the nomination) and much more vicious personal vilification than she has seen so far (and that's saying something).

    Parent

    It would open different wounds (5.00 / 2) (#25)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Dec 03, 2010 at 01:01:36 PM EST
    I think.  Obama doesn't have the same pack of worshippers that he had before, that's for certain.  Obama has done nothing that would improve the economy either in two years.  I think you'd be surprised where things could go in two years and who would want what.

    Parent
    You know (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Dec 03, 2010 at 02:01:59 PM EST
    what I wonder is if Obama knows that he's a sure loser in '12 would he not run again?

    Parent
    I dunno (none / 0) (#29)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Dec 03, 2010 at 02:04:37 PM EST
    I think this is something we are going to have to live through to see where it goes and when he goes.

    Parent
    Probably (none / 0) (#30)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Dec 03, 2010 at 02:21:03 PM EST
    There seem to some gossip on the blogs about him not running again but I really can't imagine it. It would take a lot for that to happen because he has an ego so huge that he simply can't imagine himself losing to anyone.

    Parent
    Well, Lyndon Johnson (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by Zorba on Fri Dec 03, 2010 at 06:40:41 PM EST
    had an enormous ego, too, and he bowed out in 1968.  Of course, that was after Gene McCarthy made a very strong showing against him in the New Hampshire Primary, and then Bobby Kennedy entered the race.  I don't see any strong Democrats willing to challenge him in 2012, though, which is the only thing that might give Obama pause about running again.

    Parent
    Yeah (none / 0) (#33)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Dec 03, 2010 at 07:37:00 PM EST
    but I'm seeing all over the blogs about the big money people taking their money elsewhere and discontent among the former Obots so it still MIGHT happen but I certainly can't imagine who. They would have to start very soon with raising money.

    Parent
    And he doesn't see anything wrong (5.00 / 2) (#32)
    by nycstray on Fri Dec 03, 2010 at 06:41:01 PM EST
    with what he's doing, aside from not being nice enough to the Right . . .

    Parent
    I prefer this report ... (none / 0) (#35)
    by Erehwon on Sat Dec 04, 2010 at 04:46:33 AM EST
    Hillary's 2016 denials mean nothing. I also wish she'd resign now and make it 2012. But then I am a dreamer ... :-)

    Parent
    Read Krugman today,,, (none / 0) (#15)
    by oldpro on Fri Dec 03, 2010 at 11:19:32 AM EST
    Sorry....I don't do the linky thing...

    Devestating.

    It was a good (none / 0) (#22)
    by Buckeye on Fri Dec 03, 2010 at 12:18:02 PM EST
    article.

    Parent
    Excellent, as usual. (none / 0) (#23)
    by Dr Molly on Fri Dec 03, 2010 at 12:41:26 PM EST


    Parent
    Yes, pretty strong-- (none / 0) (#26)
    by KeysDan on Fri Dec 03, 2010 at 01:55:04 PM EST
    but now that Krugman is an "enemy" he may be catered to.

    Parent
    A Grover Norquist Christmas | 35 comments (35 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment