home

"Historic" Legislation Is As Lasting As The Next Election

There have been many instances of historic legislation in our Nation's history. But unless the legislation led to constitutional amendments, the historic nature of such legislation could only be guaranteed by the results of subsequent elections. This is especially true when you are considering legislation regarding spending, taxes and "deficit reduction." Today, Jed Lewison reported President Obama "says he wants deficit reduction to focus on long-term spending, not short-term spending:"

The President previously discussed consummating a "historic" Grand Bargain on long term spending. I've repeatedly viewed this thinking as deluded. The reason why is:

A "long term deficit deal with teeth" can not exist. The reason is one Congress can not bind future Congresses. Case in point - the US government ran fiscal surpluses of $236.2 billion from 1998 to 2000. Indeed, the CBO projected trillion dollar surpluses beyond that. Guess what happened next? The massive Bush Tax Cuts plus two trillion dollar wars. Goodbye surpluses.

The most important thing the President can do to reduce long term deficits is to do whatever he can to lift economic growth and job creation now. Indeed, that was the rationale for The Deal in December that extended the Bush Tax Cuts. Certainly no one could argue that The Deal improved our short term deficit situation.

I vehemently opposed The Deal because I believed that the President was trading tax cuts in December for spending cuts this year. Perhaps the President can find a way to resist that impulse now, but the evidence is strongly against such a result. Immediate cuts seem inevitable. And promises of future cuts will also be a part of the package.

None of this new deal will hold with regard to "long term" deficit reduction. It will in fact, negatively impact the deficit, in the medium and long term, as it will harm the economy. As Atrios points out:

One can't know for sure what is theater and what is speculation and what is just bullshit, but this really is frightening.

The White House, by contrast, is pushing hard for a compromise. And Democrats are worried that in his zeal to accomplish something historic, Obama will agree to a debt plan that omits, or complicates, a key Democratic demand: new, concrete sources of tax revenue.

I have not seen any proposal which would any way be "historic." Some would be horrible, some less horrible. All could be changed by a vote of the next Congress, or by the next vote of this Congress. No plans for 5 years from now can be expected to stick that long. Voters don't give a shit about the deficit.

I would only add that the "key Democratic demand" should not be increasing tax revenue now, but rather it should be not reducing spending now. I assume that the demand for new tax revenue is actually more an attempt to lessen spending cuts.

In any event, nothing that will be contained in the Debt Ceiling Deal will be historic. The only way anything historic emerges from this melodrama would be if the debt ceiling is not increased. Then the history would be default by the United States and a plunge into a historic depression.

Speaking for me only

< Friday Morning Open Thread | Father of Najibullah Zazi Convicted at Obstruction Trial >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Baaawaaaa (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jul 22, 2011 at 12:45:33 PM EST
    Obama seems to think everything he does is "historic". The ACA was "historic" according to him but now he's going to completely undo his own "historic" legislation.

    What Clinton did in '93 wasn't historic. It was just good policy. What Obama is doing now is no more "historic" just BAD policy.

    Horrible policy is historic, too. (5.00 / 0) (#8)
    by Towanda on Fri Jul 22, 2011 at 12:57:19 PM EST
    After all, Herbert Hoover made history.

    Or, as the saying goes, Hoover "went down in the history books."

    'Way down.

    Parent

    Every President has a huge ego, but (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by observed on Fri Jul 22, 2011 at 01:04:39 PM EST
    Obama's is totally out of control. He has no ability to sublimate his grandiose sense of self-regard into a dedication towards achieving worthwhile policy aims. Clinton, and even W. to some extent, had an awareness of the long view of the Presidency.

    Parent
    His massive ego (none / 0) (#30)
    by cal1942 on Fri Jul 22, 2011 at 02:58:22 PM EST
    is an obvious factor, IMO, in all of this.

    Elected official ego is often in the form of 'I can do this job better than anyone else.'  Roosevelt was deeply worried that if he lost the 1940 election Hitler would have prevailed.

    But with Obama it seems more grandiose.  Maybe grandma and grandpa pampered him a bit too much and he's too small to get past it.

    Parent

    The problem is that is ego doesn't seem (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by Anne on Fri Jul 22, 2011 at 05:34:51 PM EST
    to be able to stand on its own; the way he sees himself is dependent on how others see him, and the others who matter most are those who are positioned as his political opponents.

    There's also a rigidity, a penchant to judge, and a bit of a puritanical streak, in him that just does not serve him well - and by extension, ends up not serving us well, either.  He so often talks about issues in terms of who "deserves" some benefit - HAMP is a perfect example of him refusing to re-tool a program that was - and probably still is - making matters worse for a lot of people, because there was a chance it might benefit someone who didn't deserve it.

    "Detached" is the word that most often comes to my mind when I think about Obama; it isn't that I want a hot-head for a president, but I guess when you're so busy looking to avoid disappointment, you can't invest much emotionally.  Too painful.

    Being abandoned by his father and pretty much abandoned by his mother has, I believe, damaged him in ways that would have been more obvious before he was elected, if he had ever stuck around in a job for more than 2 years.

    And therapy would have been a much better venue for resolving these old issues than the Oval office.

    Parent

    The parent abandonment or sickness (none / 0) (#68)
    by christinep on Fri Jul 22, 2011 at 05:37:41 PM EST
    challenge seems a fairly common-trait for a number of Presidents.

    Parent
    Can't resist, cal: So... (none / 0) (#50)
    by christinep on Fri Jul 22, 2011 at 04:36:05 PM EST
    you're a psychologist these days, and a mind-reader to boot.

    Since there are historians that frequent these threads: Name a 20th or 21st century President who did not have--in common usage--a fairly large ego? Define why or why not? And, was that President a two-termer?

    My subtext: Nothing wrong with big plans? After all, that is what so many so is needed? Ultimately (and, I say, ultimately) it is what they do and not what we imagine what they do before they do before they do it.

    While this may seem a bit harsh, I think that it is responsive in a straightforward way to claims of what President may or may not imagine/dream.

    Parent

    It's not that his ego is big: it's that he (none / 0) (#52)
    by observed on Fri Jul 22, 2011 at 04:44:29 PM EST
    needs the instant gratification of knowing he is doing something "big" and "historic" whenever he gets up in the morning.
    Of course, he only needs this validation from the person who matters to him most---himself.
    A hearty, public pat on the back for being a "historic" President who thinks "big" is all this modest man needs to feel complete.

    Parent
    Actually, it is our whole society per the media (none / 0) (#59)
    by christinep on Fri Jul 22, 2011 at 05:12:02 PM EST
    How many times in the past several years have we heard something announced as "historic." Everything has been called "historic."

    I remember, in the 90s, where the word of the day in the federal government was "excellence." Strive for "excellence," live for it, reward it (I was on a committee to rewrite the regional Award Manual. Guess what, we were asked to include the word "excellence" in the names of some of the awards.) Yech....

    I hear you. But, this word or phrase of the day (or year or more) thing seems comforting to some. The media & others who like to repeat such things...use it...until the next word comes along.

    I'm guessing Obama is obliging the media...it gives them a byline.

    Parent

    good point. (none / 0) (#75)
    by observed on Fri Jul 22, 2011 at 06:07:36 PM EST
    I said elected officials (none / 0) (#80)
    by cal1942 on Fri Jul 22, 2011 at 07:00:35 PM EST
    have large egos.  Try reading instead of taking shots.

    Parent
    I Beg to Differ (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Jul 22, 2011 at 02:51:09 PM EST
    What Clinton did in '93 wasn't historic. It was just good policy.

    Good policy is so rare that it is historic IMO.

    Parent

    Yeah (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by cal1942 on Fri Jul 22, 2011 at 02:59:34 PM EST
    God help us, it's come down to that.

    Parent
    Several good points, but . . . (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by Trickster on Fri Jul 22, 2011 at 01:00:04 PM EST
    If the structure of medicare and social security are changed, that will not be so easily undone by future congresses.  That's not part of normal budget reconciliation.  I think those changes would be historic.

    Absolutely (5.00 / 0) (#19)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Jul 22, 2011 at 02:10:20 PM EST
    He's already done something historic just by being the first dem. president to offer totally unjustifiable significant cuts to the social safety net to the GOP.

    Feh.


    Parent

    That puts him (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by cal1942 on Fri Jul 22, 2011 at 03:00:26 PM EST
    in The Hall of Shame

    Parent
    A little caution (none / 0) (#60)
    by christinep on Fri Jul 22, 2011 at 05:16:11 PM EST
    Other than Boehner, noone outside the President knows what precisely was offered. For purposes of a record, that becomes important.

    We can & do believe what we want; but, what will matter is what is formally offered & agreed to(after all the give & take of any negotiations.)

    Parent

    and (none / 0) (#72)
    by CoralGables on Fri Jul 22, 2011 at 06:01:09 PM EST
    Boehner walked out because he refused the increase in revenues Obama demanded, making your statement the most accurate and one of the few sane ones of the day.

    Parent
    Which has precisely nuttin' (none / 0) (#74)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Jul 22, 2011 at 06:03:42 PM EST
    to do with offering cuts to safety net benefits.  You realize that, right?

    Parent
    I realize (none / 0) (#76)
    by CoralGables on Fri Jul 22, 2011 at 06:33:30 PM EST
    that anyone that thinks SS is on sound footing has a disconnect with mathematics. How that's fixed (or ignored) after ignoring actuarial tables and kicking the can for 40 years is up to those we elect in the Senate and the House.

    Parent
    Irrelevant (none / 0) (#104)
    by gyrfalcon on Sun Jul 24, 2011 at 07:57:32 PM EST
    SS's financial footing, sound or otherwise, has zippo to do with the debt, the deficit, the debt ceiling, income taxes or anything else.

    And the fix for SS's minor problems is as simple as it gets, raise the decades-old income cap on contributions.  Call it correcting for inflation, if you like.  Whatever.  In any case, end of problem.

    Parent

    No, sorry, wrong (none / 0) (#73)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Jul 22, 2011 at 06:02:16 PM EST
    We know from multiple, multiple news reports from multiple sources party to the discussions, none of it has been denied by the White House, and in fact Obama has bragged about it, including just now.

    Whether it actually happens this time is almost immaterial.  The genie is out of the bottle and the social safety net is now on the table, splayed out and naked and utterly unable to defend itself.

    Imagine if it was your grandma.


    Parent

    Look at the words (none / 0) (#86)
    by christinep on Fri Jul 22, 2011 at 11:20:20 PM EST
    We do not know what PRECISELY was offered. (Neither do the "sources" who were not in the room.) What you may see as bragging about cutting safety net programs, the President has characterized as making structural changes, etc. We can guess, but that doesn't matter: What matters is the Repubs won't agree to anything...that is the carefully engineered portrait. And what matters is that the emphasis before the walkout was Obama's push for revenue.

    Parent
    I hope (5.00 / 2) (#88)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat Jul 23, 2011 at 12:20:19 AM EST
    there's somebody kind around to catch your fall when it finally penetrates.

    "Structural changes," my dear, is Washington euphemism for cutting benefits.  There's no question his "plan" includes raising the age of eligibility for Medicare to 67 from the current 65, which is not only cruel, it's actuarially insane.

    He's using people like me as pawns in his games with the GOP.

    And yes, it matters very, very, very much what a Democratic president offers, whether the GOP is too stupid to take him up on it or not.


    Parent

    The "sources" don't have to ... (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by Yman on Sat Jul 23, 2011 at 08:53:22 AM EST
    ... be "in the room" to be aware of the details of any offer, although I'm not sure why you state they weren't.  Do you think it's just Boehner and Obama sitting at a table?

    so you don't want anyone criticizing the (sourced) Grand Deal because we don't know the "PRECISE details", yet you're all too happy to tell us about Obama's secret motivations for the proposal - i.e. it's a "carefully engineered portrait" and a secret WH negotiating strategy to make the Republicans look bad.

    Jeezus - be careful.

    Hopium withdrawal is no fun.

    Parent

    Question.... (none / 0) (#92)
    by NYShooter on Sat Jul 23, 2011 at 10:57:47 AM EST
    I'm not really too well versed on some of the details, but what happened to the issue of raising the income level from where it is now capped. (around 106K, I believe)

    Parent
    I haven't seen any articles ... (none / 0) (#94)
    by Yman on Sat Jul 23, 2011 at 11:10:26 AM EST
    ... mentioning that as being part of the Grand Deal, although I've seen it mentioned generically as an alternative.

    Parent
    Good question (none / 0) (#95)
    by christinep on Sat Jul 23, 2011 at 03:29:32 PM EST
    That is my point. Negotiations have lots of audiences...esp when the WH is involved.

    While, contrary to some comments directly above by others, I am not suggesting one shouldn't disagree until the particulars are known, it does make sense not to leap to conclusions that might be far afield when "cuts" or "revenue" are talked about. And as for "sources" for high-level meetings like these: I have a bridge in Brooklyn.... Look, the reason people are at that level of assistants/aides/etc. is because they don't tell tales--unless it is the will of the employer that a spin be fashioned in a specific way for a specific purpose. These "sources" keep their jobs by being "sources" in a very different way than some here seem to believe. After they have left the employ, that is a very different matter.

    Parent

    I'll take the sources ... (none / 0) (#97)
    by Yman on Sat Jul 23, 2011 at 03:33:16 PM EST
    ... (and the non-denials from the WH) inside the discussions over fairy tales of 11th-dimension chess and imagined negotiation strategies - any day of the week.

    Parent
    Woooo..."Consider the source." (none / 0) (#98)
    by christinep on Sat Jul 23, 2011 at 04:03:56 PM EST
    lol (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by lilburro on Fri Jul 22, 2011 at 01:09:49 PM EST
    White House officials have privately told Hill Democrats that this is "the transformational moment" for Obama, and an agreement with Boehner and McConnell would send a clear signal that he is changing the way politics is done in Washington.

    dailykos

    When Geekesque is writing sarcastic diaries about the President, you know something is wrong.  Damn.

    Watching the wheels come off the bots :) (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Jul 22, 2011 at 01:14:29 PM EST
    Geekesque???? OMFG! (none / 0) (#14)
    by observed on Fri Jul 22, 2011 at 01:19:36 PM EST
    Don't tell me Bob  .. something.. the very sarcastic OFBer, effective writer, has left the fold too!

    Parent
    Just for informational purposes (none / 0) (#55)
    by MO Blue on Fri Jul 22, 2011 at 04:59:54 PM EST
    I think you mean Bob Johnson. Don't think he has reversed his view but I could be wrong. Don't go there enough to really know.

    Parent
    Changing the way politics is done? Yeah... (none / 0) (#15)
    by Romberry on Fri Jul 22, 2011 at 01:22:39 PM EST
    ...Obama is changing the way politics is done. He's governing by manufactured crisis and using the crisis to bring the shock doctrine home to the US of A.

    Obama is an absolute and unmitigated disaster for the Democratic Party. Worse, Obama is an absolute and unmitigated disaster for the poor, the working class and the old. He has to go.

    Parent

    Oh, My. Gawd. (none / 0) (#17)
    by masslib on Fri Jul 22, 2011 at 01:31:02 PM EST
    That part actually isn't sarcasm.  

    What kind of self delusional president are we dealing with?

    Parent

    Obama is not (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by Zorba on Fri Jul 22, 2011 at 02:53:52 PM EST
    self-delusional.  This is what he believes, this is what he wants.  He's a neoliberal in domestic economic matters (oh, and, BTW, a neoconservative in foreign policy).  What you see is what he is.

    Parent
    How long, oh Lord, how long, will (none / 0) (#27)
    by oculus on Fri Jul 22, 2011 at 02:55:42 PM EST
    it take us to realize he isn't an empty vessel.  

    Parent
    I feel like (none / 0) (#39)
    by Zorba on Fri Jul 22, 2011 at 03:17:05 PM EST
    I have been beating my head against a brick wall for a long, long time.  Obama is not incompetent, he's not stupid, he's not delusional.  He is working for what he actually believes in, while at the same time using the bi-partisan schtick, and the "this is the best I could get out of the opposition" schtick to try and placate those Democrats who are (still) to the left of his own beliefs and who still believe that he's "trying his best against terrible odds."  It hasn't worked for me since......oh, I would say, at least since his so-called "health care reform," as well as his initial and too long-standing waffling on the DADT repeal.  Among other things.  I was never enamored about him from the get-go (and, no, I was not for Hillary, either).

    Parent
    Well, yes, but he also believes in the (none / 0) (#40)
    by oculus on Fri Jul 22, 2011 at 03:21:14 PM EST
    bi-partisan, reach across the aisle, why can't we all just get along stuff.  Result doesn't seem as important as the process.  Seems unlikely those most adversely effected by cutbacks to safety net will laud him for the process.  

    Parent
    You know what those skills sound good for? (5.00 / 0) (#42)
    by jbindc on Fri Jul 22, 2011 at 03:31:09 PM EST
    Being a camp counselor.

    Parent
    Or a former judge, not retired and earning (none / 0) (#43)
    by oculus on Fri Jul 22, 2011 at 03:36:58 PM EST
    big bucks by presiding over mediations.  

    Parent
    "now retired" (none / 0) (#45)
    by oculus on Fri Jul 22, 2011 at 03:38:05 PM EST
    Yeah, why didn't he stick to (none / 0) (#44)
    by observed on Fri Jul 22, 2011 at 03:37:04 PM EST
    his forte, community organizing?

    Parent
    Scusi...but the title reads like a Greek chorus! (none / 0) (#61)
    by christinep on Fri Jul 22, 2011 at 05:18:34 PM EST
    No doubt. I am reading Euripedes' (none / 0) (#85)
    by oculus on Fri Jul 22, 2011 at 10:46:54 PM EST
    "The Trojan Woman" in preparation for seeing the play at Getty Villa in Sept.

    Parent
    Agree (none / 0) (#33)
    by cal1942 on Fri Jul 22, 2011 at 03:01:06 PM EST
    LOL.

    Parent
    Excellent.. Also, I would add sometimes (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by masslib on Fri Jul 22, 2011 at 01:25:54 PM EST
    the President must not to big historic things.  Sometimes they need to play the role of defense.  In this case, Obama is saying the time is ripe to make an historic bargain.  But the House was just taken over by crazy people to the right of their own Party.  Clearly, even if Obama really wants to make an historical spending bargain, this is not the time to do so.  Right now, he has to protect, dare I say, the status quo.  You don't make grand bargains concerning the safety net with lunatics.

    But, yes, I keep asking but who the hell cares about cutting the deficit right now even if it were "balanced"?  Right now is not the time to cut spending.

    I'm thinking the "lunatic" here is the (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by oculus on Fri Jul 22, 2011 at 01:37:43 PM EST
    President.  

    Parent
    Obama (5.00 / 0) (#35)
    by cal1942 on Fri Jul 22, 2011 at 03:04:04 PM EST
    makes me appreciate Eisenhower.  He refused to dick with the New Deal. No sense messing with something that worked so well.

    On the other hand, Obama ...

    Parent

    Obama is pushing the Grand Bargain (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by MO Blue on Fri Jul 22, 2011 at 05:08:47 PM EST
    and the subsequent cuts to the safety net programs because that is what he wants to do. Obama has set up this "crisis" scenario to help him accomplish his goal and the policies being pushed by the WH are the policies that Obama wants. The Republicans have little or nothing to do with it. They are the excuse and not the problem. The problem is Obama.

    Parent
    Ah, Atrios. (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by cal1942 on Fri Jul 22, 2011 at 04:08:37 PM EST
    Voters don't give a shit about the deficit.

    Agree.  Amazing how the media pumped up the phony deficit/debt "crisis."

    People care about jobs, period.

    During WWII we spent double revenue and the national debt was 120% of GNP. What followed was the longest period of economic expansion in our history.

    you noticed (5.00 / 0) (#69)
    by NYShooter on Fri Jul 22, 2011 at 05:39:22 PM EST
    how they dumped Olbermann, and now, Ungar?

    both had great ratings, but stepped across the "can't we just all get along line." not enough "both sides to every story"

    Left/Right, FOX/CNBC, radio, Newspapers.....all owned by the same guy: Ollie-Plutoc-Racy.

    We are phu...ph.....phu...phuc......ed!

    Parent

    The longest period of economic expansion (none / 0) (#47)
    by Politalkix on Fri Jul 22, 2011 at 04:13:10 PM EST
    after WW2 occurred because America had no economic competitors. You could make things here and sell it in other countries.
    Very different situation now!
    Why is this fact so hard to grasp?

    Parent
    Doesn't change the fact (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by lilburro on Fri Jul 22, 2011 at 04:42:36 PM EST
    that what we are experiencing is not structural unemployment.

    Parent
    It is structural unemployment (none / 0) (#79)
    by Politalkix on Fri Jul 22, 2011 at 07:00:17 PM EST
    offshoring and automation has created massive levels of unemployment. This will continue.

    Parent
    Funny thing (none / 0) (#87)
    by lilburro on Sat Jul 23, 2011 at 12:20:10 AM EST
    is that you're wrong.

    Maybe you can conjure up a job for me as of August 31st from the economy you know so well.

    Parent

    Or at least expand the safety net (none / 0) (#89)
    by lilburro on Sat Jul 23, 2011 at 12:21:19 AM EST
    since this is "structural" instead of planning to cut it.

    Parent
    What do you mean grasp? (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by cal1942 on Fri Jul 22, 2011 at 06:47:05 PM EST
    I have some familiarity with the post WWII period.  Do you think I somehow don't 'grasp' what happened.

    While it's true the world's other industrial powers were in tatters I have to deliver to you the news that the subject is far more complicated than you think.  We didn't prosper just because we were in a favorable export position for a brief period.

    My point had nothing to do with post WWII trade conditions but had everything to do with the needless panic over deficits and national debt.

    Parent

    How did those other countries (none / 0) (#48)
    by Warren Terrer on Fri Jul 22, 2011 at 04:30:28 PM EST
    manage to pay for it?

    Parent
    Loans from us (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by cal1942 on Fri Jul 22, 2011 at 06:48:07 PM EST
    So we got rich (none / 0) (#102)
    by Warren Terrer on Sun Jul 24, 2011 at 10:24:08 AM EST
    using your own money! Tell me again why we need foreigners?

    Parent
    People in those countries (1.00 / 1) (#81)
    by Politalkix on Fri Jul 22, 2011 at 07:09:55 PM EST
    save and take longer term view of things. The government in every country is reflective of its citizens. The culture of instant gratification is less prevalent in countries that have become our economic competitors. We were better as a country when our urge for instant gratification was lower.

    Parent
    Criminy (5.00 / 3) (#99)
    by cal1942 on Sat Jul 23, 2011 at 06:18:55 PM EST
    Before conservatives got their mitts on this country and their policies caused huge income disparity household savings rates were higher.  Now families/students have to go deeply into hock just to attend university.  They have to go into hock just to stay healthy.  Are you aware that in recent years people have borrowed to eat.  Before conservatives insured dominance of the finance industry we took the long view. Now profits this second dominate business decisions.

    Then we borrowed to finance the future now we borrow to stay alive.

    Get the Obama propaganda out of your head.

    Parent

    Well said Politaklix (none / 0) (#84)
    by BTAL on Fri Jul 22, 2011 at 07:46:05 PM EST
    The longest period of economic expansion after WW2 occurred because America had no economic competitors. You could make things here and sell it in other countries.
    Very different situation now!
    Why is this fact so hard to grasp?

    Well said.  

    Regardless of other comments about "pure exports" or words to that effect, we effectively owned the oyster and the pearls of manufacturing, currency and world opinion post WWII.  

    Parent

    Well, the repeal of ACA would be (none / 0) (#1)
    by observed on Fri Jul 22, 2011 at 12:40:25 PM EST
    a historic repeal of a historic bill. Pretty ironic.

    I can't even think about that (5.00 / 0) (#3)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Jul 22, 2011 at 12:45:27 PM EST
    If he goes there, it's a new low.  He torched his political capital for nothing then.  I hope Michelle is the one who handles their money and investing, otherwise left to his own devices who knows where Barack will end up before he qualifies for what is left of Social Security?

    Parent
    He already spent his political (none / 0) (#58)
    by MO Blue on Fri Jul 22, 2011 at 05:12:00 PM EST
    capital to benefit the insurance, pharma and medical industries. His course going further is to help the insurance industry to provide the least amount of actual health care for the most amount of money. He is doing a real good job, too.

    Parent
    Good writing (none / 0) (#2)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Jul 22, 2011 at 12:42:45 PM EST
    I suppose the best thing that can happen to us all at this point is that nothing in this deal is going to be historic, because our problems are and they will require a completely different course of action to repair than this bull$hit deal it looks like we are getting :)

    When the time comes THAT WILL BE THE CHANGE THAT I CAN BELIEVE IN

    I think his campaign slogan is set: (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by observed on Fri Jul 22, 2011 at 12:51:25 PM EST
    Obama is the one who is not afraid to think big to solve America's problems. There's no sense he is making a mistake, in the White House.


    Parent
    The voters (none / 0) (#5)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jul 22, 2011 at 12:47:40 PM EST
    in this country are going to be yelling the "change you can believe in" towards the GOP nominee if Obama follows through.

    Parent
    Even though their "solutions" (none / 0) (#6)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Jul 22, 2011 at 12:49:10 PM EST
    are even worse :)

    Parent
    When was it? (none / 0) (#12)
    by NYShooter on Fri Jul 22, 2011 at 01:13:09 PM EST
    Did they ring a bell? Was it announced on the 6 o'clock news? When was the point this country lost its ability to deal in reality? Like some cosmic dust descended from the heavens, and when it receded, our brains were missing.

    What's taking place in Washington today, and the lead up to it,  wouldn't even make it as a "B" Grade movie. Imagine a President falling into a coma 30-40 years ago, and waking up now, 2011. What could he possibly think?

    If, by some magic, he was still President, he would go on tee vee, and say to the American people, "Are we crazy? Who are these imbeciles, masquerading as Senators and Congressmen? Can you believe what they're saying? I'm calling the Secret Service and have them all rounded up, and put in a safe place until we find an antidote for their derangement.

    Now, my fellow Americans, let's get to work."

    Then When the Lobbyists Come.. (none / 0) (#37)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Jul 22, 2011 at 03:10:43 PM EST
    ... a knocking, inform him he will need a billion dollars for his next campaign, he will join the rest of the idiots, write a book, and nothing will have changed except for me sh!tting my pants once I realized Nixon (40 years ago) or Reagan (30 years ago)is the current President.

    How about going back to at least FDR or Lincoln.

    Pretty sure Nixon would cream himself over the Patriot Act and Gitmo.  And Ronny, well... he didn't know what year it was in the 80's, doubt he would even notice the slight change in Asia.

    Parent

    That was (none / 0) (#65)
    by NYShooter on Fri Jul 22, 2011 at 05:29:34 PM EST
    a "Generic" President, one with, presumably, a functioning brain.


    Parent
    The 1997 Capital Gains Tax Cut (none / 0) (#20)
    by Politalkix on Fri Jul 22, 2011 at 02:16:30 PM EST
    which Bill Clinton signed into law never gets mentioned in this blog as an important factor that caused the deficit as well as a downward economic spiral for most people in this country. Not mentioning it won't make this factor go away.
     

    Because it isn't an important factor (5.00 / 2) (#23)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jul 22, 2011 at 02:47:52 PM EST
    Not an important factor to you (none / 0) (#38)
    by Politalkix on Fri Jul 22, 2011 at 03:16:50 PM EST
    but you also do not think that movement of the manufacturing sector out of this country has anything to do with declining standards of the middle class in this country....
    We will have to disagree.

    Parent
    It's not an important factor (none / 0) (#53)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jul 22, 2011 at 04:51:47 PM EST
    regarding the deficit.

    Parent
    how would you keep manufacturing (none / 0) (#82)
    by NYShooter on Fri Jul 22, 2011 at 07:11:23 PM EST
    in the country?

    Parent
    I would (none / 0) (#83)
    by Politalkix on Fri Jul 22, 2011 at 07:29:48 PM EST
    decrease corporate tax rates, increase capital gains tax rates significantly, create an infrastructure bank, appeal to people on the progressive side of politics to stop investing in companies that move jobs overseas while laying off people so that CEOs can get bigger bonuses, make R&D tax credits permanent, create better government-mid & small size company-university manufacturing initiatives to build a strong manufacturing and technology base in this country, etc.

    Parent
    At least (none / 0) (#101)
    by NYShooter on Sun Jul 24, 2011 at 10:13:11 AM EST
    you've stated things that can be debated.

    1.  "increase capital gains tax rates significantly," ............I agree, would be great. But, the obscenity of 15% cap. Gains is one of the most sacred of the Right's sacred cows. We're talking about a Democracy here; if we had a Dictatorship, or Representatives who weren't completely captured by the money interests, we'd have something to talk about.

    2......`create an infrastructure bank'........Fine idea, but in a culture of "downsizing Government," the idea that you could add a whole level of bureaucracy, is simply a non-starter.

    1. "appeal to people on the progressive side of politics to stop investing in companies that move jobs overseas while laying off people so that CEOs can get bigger bonuses".............Love it, that would be a perfect use of the bully pulpit. But, why only "the Progressive side?

    2. "create better government-mid & small size company-university manufacturing initiatives to build a strong manufacturing and technology base in this country, etc.".............see answer to #2. Plus the Right hates Universities,... a bunch of "Liberal Elites," and they're into CUTTING aid, not increasing it. Again, most everybody agrees that a partnership between Government and Universities is vital to tackle some of the most important, intransient, amd expensive issues of our time, but, well, you know.....

    You've got some good ideas, but so do many people. Almost everyone knows "what needs to be done,"..........that has never been the problem

    Parent
    Link? (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by Yman on Fri Jul 22, 2011 at 04:34:18 PM EST
    The 1997 Capital Gains Tax Cut which Bill Clinton signed into law never gets mentioned in this blog as an important factor that caused the deficit as well as a downward economic spiral for most people in this country. Not mentioning it won't make this factor go away.

    The Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 was passed by a large, bipartisan majority (389-42 and 92-8) because, in addition to lowering capital gains rates, it furthered several Democratic goals at a time when both houses of Congress were controlled by the GOP - child tax credit, SCHIP and tax breaks for education (HOPE scholarship and Lifetime Learning) and retirement savings.

    Parent

    Most people (none / 0) (#21)
    by NYShooter on Fri Jul 22, 2011 at 02:37:33 PM EST
    here don't sit around thinking what other people don't blog about. They just post what they themselves would like to say.

    See how refreshing that is?

    And, by the way, what are talking about?


    Parent

    Refreshing? (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by Politalkix on Fri Jul 22, 2011 at 02:44:06 PM EST
    Most people here seem to boiling with anger all the time.

    Parent
    People (5.00 / 2) (#26)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jul 22, 2011 at 02:54:11 PM EST
    are boiling over in anger all over the country. Unemployment is high but apparently that's acceptable to some people like Obama. It's the "new normal" and we're all just supposed to shut up and sing and clap for Obama.

    Parent
    Well, to be fair (5.00 / 0) (#28)
    by jbindc on Fri Jul 22, 2011 at 02:56:32 PM EST
    Obama has a job.  He may not have one come January 20, 2013, but who cares?  He'll have speaking engagements and more book sales and tours, I'm sure.

    Parent
    Boiling with anger? (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by NYShooter on Fri Jul 22, 2011 at 02:57:09 PM EST
     

    Is that like dancing with Matilda?

    Or rock'n with raja?

    Parent

    A bunch of punks (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Jul 22, 2011 at 03:06:26 PM EST
    Who will not stop Rockin the Casbah.

    Parent
    To Politalkix: Amen (none / 0) (#63)
    by christinep on Fri Jul 22, 2011 at 05:20:26 PM EST
    Sexist comment (none / 0) (#93)
    by NYShooter on Sat Jul 23, 2011 at 11:03:48 AM EST
    s/b:  A(wo)men

    Parent
    Huh? (none / 0) (#96)
    by christinep on Sat Jul 23, 2011 at 03:31:23 PM EST
    how do you say it? Scuzi? (none / 0) (#100)
    by NYShooter on Sun Jul 24, 2011 at 09:52:59 AM EST
    It was a joke.

    admittedly, not a very good one.

    Parent

    Yes...sorry, pardon me, uzvenite, scuzi. (none / 0) (#103)
    by christinep on Sun Jul 24, 2011 at 10:52:44 AM EST
    i think that's a good thing (none / 0) (#71)
    by The Addams Family on Fri Jul 22, 2011 at 05:50:14 PM EST
    not sufficient, but necessary

    to paraphrase Taj Mahal, "If you ain't mad, you ain't right"

    Parent

    Hyperbole Much ? (none / 0) (#56)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Jul 22, 2011 at 05:07:58 PM EST
    caused the deficit

    downward economic spiral for most people in this country

    Caused the deficit, still laughing at that one.  Not sure what you even mean, but it's funny.  Created it, like how, like god ?

    Stoooopid me always thought Reagan was the father of the phrase 'trillion dollar deficit'.  Now I learn it didn't even exist back then... damn public school education.

    And them 90's, some hellish years if there was every any, or was the Big Dog such an evil genius that he managed to ensure the 'downward economic spiral' would start in GWB's second term.  I bet he even made sure Congress was controlled by republicans as well, so they would look really bad at governing.

    Damn evil geniuses.

    Parent

    Still no link? (none / 0) (#91)
    by Yman on Sat Jul 23, 2011 at 10:47:51 AM EST
    Other people prefer to back up their opinions with facts and evidence, rather than making it up.

    Parent
    I hope (none / 0) (#34)
    by jbindc on Fri Jul 22, 2011 at 03:01:40 PM EST
    No one here is flying this weekend.

    The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is expected to furlough about 4,000 of its employees on Saturday, as the Senate on Friday failed to approve a controversial House-passed extension of taxes that help fund the FAA.

    Those taxes expire at midnight Friday, and FAA Administrator Randy Babbitt has already warned that without an extension, furloughs would start Saturday.  

    "We are going to be forced to furlough valuable FAA employees unless this situation is resolved quickly," Babbitt said earlier in the week. "These employees do everything from getting money out the door for airport construction projects to airport safety planning and NextGen research."

    Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood has stressed that essential personnel related to airport and air safety would not be cut. "I want to reassure the flying public that, during this period, safety will not be compromised," he said.



    Nothing the Overfunded... (none / 0) (#70)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Jul 22, 2011 at 05:49:49 PM EST
    ... TSA can't handle...

    We got funds to fondle kids, Xray my nads, but just can't seem to dig up the cash for the folks who regulate the industry.  

    Who cares if the plane crashes, so long as we don't find any nail clippers or lotion bottles on their carcasses...

    Going on vacation next week, yeah.

    Parent

    I agree with you completely (none / 0) (#41)
    by Warren Terrer on Fri Jul 22, 2011 at 03:24:30 PM EST
    on this comment:

    I would only add that the "key Democratic demand" should not be increasing tax revenue now, but rather it should be not reducing spending now. I assume that the demand for new tax revenue is actually more an attempt to lessen spending cuts.

    You are probably right in your assumption of what the administration is thinking, that new tax revenue will lesson spending cuts in a deal. However I would point out, once again, that new tax revenue is the equivalent of spending cuts. Both reduce the money supply and, hence, both are recessionary. They do not offset one another.

    Your surmise, BTD, that demands for revenue (none / 0) (#54)
    by christinep on Fri Jul 22, 2011 at 04:59:29 PM EST
    increases may well be a stand-in & tactic to lessening the Repub demand for cuts is sensible, and a good way to define the strategy.

    As I repeat (too often even for me), who knows  what would have happened with spending "if wishes were fishes." Even with majorities in both Houses at the outset, the Senate clearly was not going
    to go for the higher number that Krugman correctly predicted would be needed for the jump-start stimulus (see, e.g., Nelson, Landrieu, Liebermann, probably Prior, etc.) While it will be awhile until the books are written, my bet has been that the smaller semi-effective stimulus $$ number was arrived at because it could get throught both Houses...quickly. (And, passage was quite quick.) At the outset of a Presidency, one is better situated for future battles is starting with a proposal that succeeds. (And, #2, recall that people appeared to be in no mood to be stampeded--because they were nowhere near the depths of the '30s and the mindset has been altered via the no-tax monologue of Repubs pretending to pursue Reagan.)

    Without even the surface numbers for votes that existed in 2009, it seems to me that Obama has pressed at every opportunity to keep the pressure on the Republicans, moving it bit by bit from himself as they show themselves to be & he reinforces them as un-reasonable buddies of the wealthy who won't give an inch, etc. As you suggest, BTD, focusing on the revenue aspect in press conferences, at the MD speech, in tv intervies is more than uncomfortable for the Repubs. If you start from the belief that Repubs today want to slash as much government as possible without regard to purpose and with the recognition that the House could function as more than a gadfly to do that, the step-by-step ratcheting up the pressure by the WH may work. It is a "gamble" but an educated acceptable risk, IMO, that the WH is undertaking.

    Agree also that these things change with the Presidency. And, I would add that they can change with the same President over time. A possibility: The "long term"--depending on how its structure--can mush the cuts, with the consequences, down the road. It can--also, depending on structure--allow che face-saving for both sides (while the President reaps the public rewards of arbiter per the media's need for "how it came to be.")  

    I'm not sure...until I see the details. 'Agree that the word "historic" is overused; would seem that everyone is on to "iconic" as the overstatement of choice these days.
    Finally: The back-up plan is still sitting there.

    Yes, Obama has put pressure on the (5.00 / 0) (#62)
    by MO Blue on Fri Jul 22, 2011 at 05:19:24 PM EST
    Republicans. When McConnell offered a bill to raise the debt ceiling without cuts, Obama flatly refused and demanded that the Republicans let him cut domestic and the safety net programs. He is even continuing to pressure the Dems to accept massive cuts without any revenue increases.

    He is one persistent fellow.

    Parent

    Correction (none / 0) (#64)
    by christinep on Fri Jul 22, 2011 at 05:26:52 PM EST
    Neither Obama nor Boehner "flatly refused." Citation please. That is why McConnell & Boehner have--according to this am's reports--almost finished the final draft for intro in the event that there is no agreement on voting to increase the debt ceiling.

    In point of fact, there have been reports in all the papers I scan--NYTimes, WasPo, & hometown Denver Post, that the reaction of the House Repubs was immediately & initially against the McConnell suggestion. Strongly against; letters against, etc. That is a matter of record, fact. Trans: The votes were not there for Boehner, and certainly not for Obama. (Now, it may be a classic psych-out negotiation tactic at play here in that one has to allow all the other big schemes, all the other House Repub acting-out to take place bdfore the coming to terms with what is.  IOW, as I have said to the extent of boring y'all & also myself, let's see what happens next week.)

    Parent

    Oops. Correction to me (none / 0) (#66)
    by christinep on Fri Jul 22, 2011 at 05:30:46 PM EST
    McConnell & Boehner should read "McConnell & Reid." Sorry.

    Another add-on: Deep-down, I have felt (and it is only "feeling") that this really is a situation where the leaders recognize that a certain amount of distance/non-committal remarks about the pragmatic McConnell insert may have a better effect with these really "freshmen" Repubs than pushing it too much. Thats only speculation, on my part..heh, heh.

    Parent