The Norquist Strategy Is Working

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Other Politics
Posted on Wed Mar 23, 2011 at 10:36:39 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Citing Matt Yglesias, Paul Krugman writes:

[T]he only way we’ll get any budget deal now — or, I’d say, any time in the next several years — will be if conservatives come up with an offer. And they won’t.

[. . . W]hat Republicans want is for Obama to propose [spending] cuts– and therefore to take the political heat — while they give up nothing whatsoever. Not going to happen.

(Emphasis supplied.) Krugman is entirely too sanguine about this. Time after time, the GOP's Norquist strategy has worked on Obama. The Deal in December being the most prominent. Unlike Krugman, I do not have confidence that Obama (especially with Tim Geithner being a key player) and the Dems will not propose spending cuts to key programs. After all, in the ongoing budget negotiations, they have done so already. Obama and the Dems have proven to be inept political bargainers

Speaking for me only

< Elizabeth Taylor, RIP | "There Are No Saints Or Geniuses In Politics" >

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.

The Norquist Strategy Is Working | 39 comments (39 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Inept or dishonest? (5.00 / 1) (#1)
by Dadler on Wed Mar 23, 2011 at 10:59:52 AM EST

Or both?

When you only make the poor "share" in the "sacrifice," and you actually try to pitch it as genuinely shared across the economic spectrum (and you're POTUS Mr. Change Obama, I'd suggest you are not merely inept, but dishonest, cruel, cowardly and truly puny soul.

Shouldn't we be asking (5.00 / 2) (#3)
by dk on Wed Mar 23, 2011 at 11:11:31 AM EST

what the Democratic leadership's big-money donors want? Assuming it's cuts to social security, etc., won't the eventual "relenting" of Obama and the Democratic leadership really be, in fact, what they want to do, rather than an example of ineptitude in negotiations?

: Yep (none / 0) (#5)
by MO Blue on Wed Mar 23, 2011 at 11:15:58 AM EST

What actions will provide Obama with a billion dollars in campaign funds and put funds in the other Dem politicians coffers?

Good chance that like "The Deal" (5.00 / 2) (#4)
by MO Blue on Wed Mar 23, 2011 at 11:13:18 AM EST

Obama will shut down Dems who might put the Republicans in a difficult position and will, oh so reluctantly {major snark alert}, give the Republicans what they want. Agendas coincide IMO.

NPR commenter yesterday opining (none / 0) (#2)
by oculus on Wed Mar 23, 2011 at 11:09:07 AM EST

that, due to high cost of our military actions in Libya, either have to cut defense costs in other areas or cut domestic spending.

You would have been proud of my husband (5.00 / 1) (#7)
by Militarytracy on Wed Mar 23, 2011 at 11:29:28 AM EST

When he was watching the news report of all we were doing last night he kept asking the television how many teachers that would have paid for? I threatened to send him to go live with one of you guys and I wasn't going to take his balls out of my purse and send them with him either :)


Hey they were talking about how much (none / 0) (#8)
by Militarytracy on Wed Mar 23, 2011 at 11:31:53 AM EST

this is costing us and my husband added at least 300 million in his head last night. According to CNN we have spent between 100 million to 300 million daily on it since we began firing.


i'd have to question those numbers: (none / 0) (#13)
by cpinva on Wed Mar 23, 2011 at 11:43:53 AM EST

According to CNN we have spent between 100 million to 300 million daily on it since we began firing.

the only amounts "we've spent on libya" would be the direct cost of ammunition fired and fuel used by the planes on missions, all other costs are "sunk" costs. even the cost of the f-15 that went down represents a "sunk" cost. the tomahawk cruise missiles, at $625k a pop, represent the single largest direct expense so far, because they have to be replaced.

so far, the direct costs may be roughly $150 million, total, certainly not daily.


Well, that's about half of what we (5.00 / 0) (#17)
by inclusiveheart on Wed Mar 23, 2011 at 12:49:42 PM EST

spend on family planning services annually - so in a few more days that budget will be gone.


: And a Tomahawk costs 1 million dollars (5.00 / 2) (#26)
by Militarytracy on Wed Mar 23, 2011 at 02:38:29 PM EST

each to make, load, and deploy. The new model that was did use too costs 1.4 million dollars each. Just pumping that baby out is only the beginning of what it costs us because the munition is highly protected at all times. It costs a lot of money to house, transport, and deploy.

He was only tallying up what a Tomahawk (none / 0) (#18)
by Militarytracy on Wed Mar 23, 2011 at 01:42:56 PM EST

missile costs to build, deploy, and deliver on targe, and what crashing an F-15 costs, and approx jet fuel costs :) He wasn't even counting wages paid out to soldiers serving on the mission :)


I think he's thinking (none / 0) (#20)
by Zorba on Wed Mar 23, 2011 at 02:02:03 PM EST

that the soldiers, sailors, and airmen would have to be paid anyway, regardless of where they are stationed, so he would not count those costs as part of the Libyan operation. ;-)


He always thinks that way (none / 0) (#22)
by Militarytracy on Wed Mar 23, 2011 at 02:05:35 PM EST

His wages come from heaven :) He was just tallying up hardware.


: Can I get (5.00 / 1) (#25)
by Zorba on Wed Mar 23, 2011 at 02:12:26 PM EST

some of that manna (or money) from heaven, too? ;-)

again, i must disagree: (none / 0) (#21)
by cpinva on Wed Mar 23, 2011 at 02:03:37 PM EST

He wasn't even counting wages paid out to soldiers serving on the mission :)

unless those sailors/airmen were hired specifically for this mission, their wages are a fixed cost: they would be paid, regardless of their specific location and duties. this is basic cost-accounting.


: That was the figure without counting wages (5.00 / 0) (#23)
by Militarytracy on Wed Mar 23, 2011 at 02:06:53 PM EST

paid. That was just your large ticket hardware items :) That wasn't even counting replacement parts on those F-15s :) I'm a business major though, and prior to creative bookkeeping your soldier wages are counted in the bookkeeping world of the cost of doing a job :)

: It could be said that they were. (none / 0) (#31)
by inclusiveheart on Wed Mar 23, 2011 at 04:35:31 PM EST

Don't forget that we were already stretched pretty thinly in terms of service personnel with Iraq and Afghanistan.

So you are the hawk in the family? (none / 0) (#9)
by oculus on Wed Mar 23, 2011 at 11:32:48 AM EST

What is Josh's opinion about U.S. military incursion into Libya?


I am the hawk on Libya :) (none / 0) (#10)
by Militarytracy on Wed Mar 23, 2011 at 11:36:52 AM EST

I'm almost afraid to admit that since some people have proclaimed Libya the Vag*na War :) Josh hasn't said anything. He has asked a few questions, but I think it seems murky to him I guess. We haven't really seen footage of Libyans being attacked, and I didn't show him any of the photos of Gaddafi's own soldiers that were killed because they refused to obey the order to attack the people. Those photos were too gruesome. But I don't think the conflict seems clear to him as to why we are involved.


It isn't clear to me either. (none / 0) (#11)
by oculus on Wed Mar 23, 2011 at 11:38:48 AM EST

Must google V*agina War.


I was refering to the recent write ups (5.00 / 1) (#12)
by Militarytracy on Wed Mar 23, 2011 at 11:42:47 AM EST

That are trying to claim that our involvement in Libya is due to the menstruating in the administration.


If Hillary is still doing that, at her age..... (none / 0) (#14)
by observed on Wed Mar 23, 2011 at 11:44:17 AM EST

She did once (5.00 / 1) (#15)
by Militarytracy on Wed Mar 23, 2011 at 11:45:16 AM EST

We have evidence. She can never be fully trusted :)


: Actually, we only have evidence that she (none / 0) (#37)
by observed on Thu Mar 24, 2011 at 10:38:31 AM EST

DIDN'T do that once.

Yes, they are so liberal (5.00 / 1) (#29)
by ruffian on Wed Mar 23, 2011 at 03:08:00 PM EST

I never heard raising taxes mentioned as an option.


The bookmakers odds on which way (none / 0) (#6)
by MO Blue on Wed Mar 23, 2011 at 11:17:31 AM EST

that decision would be decided would probably equal or exceed an individual's chance of winning the lottery.


dr. krugman has me a bit confused. (none / 0) (#16)
by cpinva on Wed Mar 23, 2011 at 12:39:29 PM EST

in prior blog posts & op-eds, he has stated that social security does not contribute to the budget deficit. i have corrected him, noting that anytime SS receipts are exceeded by SS payments, and trust fund bonds must be redeemed to cover the shortfall, then it most certainly does impact the budget, as it mathematically must.*

* a budget is not the same as an income statement, being simply a list of anticipated receipts and expenditures, not revenue & expenses. redeeming the trust fund bonds would be an additional budget expenditure, though not an expense of the period.

now, he states in the linked blog post that defense, medicaid and Social Security are the three big-ticket budget items that republicans won't touch. you can see the source of my confusion: since the good dr. (who i respect very much) hasn't publicly noted that i am right and he is wrong (i am right), i trust he clings to his "SS doesn't affect the budget" mantra, which is now completely reversed in his blog post.

what is a cpa to do?

: YOU are a CPA (5.00 / 0) (#27)
by Militarytracy on Wed Mar 23, 2011 at 02:42:49 PM EST

and you don't consider the soldier wages as part of the cost of the missions they are preforming? WTF? I thoughtf Arthur Andersen folded...joke...joke

No, Krugman is right (none / 0) (#19)
by beowulf on Wed Mar 23, 2011 at 01:57:48 PM EST

Social Security receipts (which are FICA taxes plus interest from the T-bonds it holds) exceed payout and will for years to come. The constraint on federal spending in any given year, ultimately, potential GDP vs actual GDP. If there's an output gap, then the govt can spend without consequence. If there isn't an output gap than yes, the govt must remove by taxation a dollar for every dollar it spends (when unemployment is under 4.0% like at the end of the Clinton administration, we can worry about that).

no, he is not right: (5.00 / 1) (#24)
by cpinva on Wed Mar 23, 2011 at 02:08:21 PM EST

dr. krugman's position is:

social security, by definition, can't be a part of any budget deficit.
social security is one of the "big ticket" items of the budget, that the republicans won't touch.

he is wrong on both counts, you're post notwithstanding. go, read (no, actually read, not just skim) my post, regarding this issue.

again, budgets and income statements ARE NOT MUTUALLY INCLUSIVE ITEMS!


Maybe the Norquist strategy works on (none / 0) (#28)
by Anne on Wed Mar 23, 2011 at 03:02:05 PM EST

Obama because he's made pretty clear in his actions and decisions that he's really not all that opposed to it.

And maybe it isn't so much that Obama and the Dems are inept bargainers as it is that too many of them don't seem to want what it is that we want - or too many of them have forgotten - if they ever knew - that they are part of an independent branch of government and do not have to read from whatever script the president hands them.

But then, when the president - and leader of your party - is the guy who raised hundreds of millions of dollars, and probably has the power to influence which Democratic members of Congress ride those monetary coattails, you'd probably put on a Broadway-caliber production of Les Miserables if that's what he told you to do. The meek, in this case, apparently inherit PAC money, and get re-elected.

It comes down to principle, ideology and worldview, I think, because there are some things that, if one believes strongly enough about, one doesn't offer them up as a sacrifice to comity. What does Obama believe in strongly enough to draw that line in the sand, call some bluffs, force others to put their own beliefs out there for everyone to see and for them to be accountable for?

I'll just be over here, wracking my brain on that one.

: Obama has no coat strings or any ability (none / 0) (#34)
by Bornagaindem on Wed Mar 23, 2011 at 07:00:24 PM EST

nor inclination to raise money for anyone but himself. This could not have been made any clearer than his fall from grace between 2008 and 2010. Any dem that thinks Obama will help in his/her election is insane. The sooner dems realize this the better chance we have that Obama will decide not to run. Can someone please offer him a job where he gets paid tons of money and doesn't have to do anything except run around and furrow his brow so we can move on and get a real candidate?

This is why (none / 0) (#30)
by Ga6thDem on Wed Mar 23, 2011 at 04:16:10 PM EST

I don't understand why people are so sure Obama is going to be elected. After all, what is there to vote FOR?????

The GOP has run roughshod over him time and again. I've never seen any President wave the white flag of surrender as many times as Obama.

Obama's re-election strategy now (none / 0) (#32)
by The Addams Family on Wed Mar 23, 2011 at 05:38:08 PM EST

& thru 2012 is to appeal to "moderate" Republicans & conservative-leaning independents

he knows he won't be primaried, & he knows that his analogue of the diehard Bushies, plus many mainstream Dems, will still turn out for him in the general

the GOP could help Obama's cause by nominating a b@tsh!t-crazy reactionary - but the GOP knows that & will instead try to slip a less extreme nominee past its Tea Party/Praise Jay-sus factions

so will it come down to which party's diehards muster more loyalty in the face of their presidential candidate's appeal to "moderate" Republicans & conservative-leaning independents?

we will see - meanwhile there's a real draft from the Overton Window


Not a chance (none / 0) (#33)
by Bornagaindem on Wed Mar 23, 2011 at 06:54:51 PM EST

my husband is a moderate republican (if there really is such a thing) and he always scoffs at me when I tell him that Obama's policies have absolutely no appeal to me because they are way too conservative and are essentially what the GOP have been touting forever. So not a chance in hell Obama appeals to any republican, moderate or otherwise.


: Yep (none / 0) (#36)
by Ga6thDem on Thu Mar 24, 2011 at 07:01:25 AM EST

look at what the Donald is saying. He's a "moderate" Republican if ever there was one. He should actually "love" Obama's policies but does not.

: ok (none / 0) (#38)
by The Addams Family on Thu Mar 24, 2011 at 12:22:17 PM EST

so if the Tea Party forces an extreme right-winger on the GOP (an unlikely scenario imo), who are people like your husband going to vote for?

Patty Pathetic Murray in WA. was trashed last (none / 0) (#35)
by seabos84 on Wed Mar 23, 2011 at 07:17:50 PM EST

fall in the Seattle t.v. ad wars. She was blamed for ALL things caused by Raygun-Cheney-ism, and she only deserved blame for aiding the raygun-cheney crowd with her sell out rotating villain Dim-0-Crap votes, AND by NEVER seriously standing in the way of Raygun-Cheny-ism.

She won with 53%, give or take ( what a resounding success after 18 years ) in part cuz her opponent is such a slimy thug liar.

And the thugs aren't gonna trash 0bummer for all his sell outs? Given their stellar track record over 40+ years of finding the right combination of smears, lies and trash to win ...

yawn ... what was I saying ... ???

I'm gonna worry about 0bummer as much as he's worried about me.

rmm.


Not buying ineptitude (none / 0) (#39)
by pluege2 on Thu Mar 24, 2011 at 05:23:02 PM EST

Obama and the Dems have proven to be inept political bargainers

Its all too consistent and the outcome is always conveniently exactly what the rich wanted to begin with. No, obama and the dems are just the republicans' foil; part of the same ruse to steal from average Americans in order to further enrich the already hugely rich.

There can be no doubt that obama is working on "The Deal" part deux. Bye, bye social security and medicare.