Addressing Progressive Concerns

by: Chris Bowers

Thu Jan 08, 2009 at 19:41


Quite a few Democratic Senators are expressing concern over the business tax cuts in Obama stimulus plan. An MSNBC story points to critical comments from John Kerry and Kent Conrad. A couple hours ago, Talking Points Memo quoted Tom Harkin expressing real worry:

Democratic senators are still emerging from their closed-door briefing with Obama economic adviser Larry Summers ... but a senior Democratic senator, Iowa progressive Tom Harkin, just gave me a dire buzzword: trickle-down.

"There's only one thing we've got to do in this stimulus, and that's create jobs," Harkin told me. "I'm a little concerned by the way Mr. Summers and others are going on this ... it still looks a little more to me like trickle-down."

In this post, I am not going to discuss the validity of the tax cuts themselves. I consider them worrying just as Harkin, Conrad and Kerry do, but there is another pattern emerging today that I find just as worrying: progressive concerns being intentionally ignored and / or snubbed by the transition. Here is the last line in the TPM article (more in the extended entry):

Chris Bowers :: Addressing Progressive Concerns
When I asked if he [Senator Harkin] felt his concerns were heard during the meeting, he looked to the floor and slowly shook his head. It was almost forlorn.

Now, here is an AP source on the absence of Howard Dean at new DNC chair Tim Kaine's press event today (emphasis mine):

"My understanding is that he's traveling, so he couldn't attend," said Tommy Vietor, an Obama spokesman.

Obama's transition officials, however, did not immediately respond when asked whether the former Vermont governor was invited to appear alongside the president-elect and Dean's successor at the news conference.

But Democrats with knowledge of the situation, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to avoid angering the Obama team, say Dean won't attend the event at the request of Obama advisers.

Howard Dean, an important figure for the progressive grassroots, appears to have been intentionally snubbed at Tim Kaine's press event. Tom Harkin doesn't feel as though widespread Democrats concerns over business tax cuts in the stimulus package are even being addressed in meetings with the Obama economic team. This worrying suggests that progressives aren't even invited to the conservation over the stimulus and how to operate the DNC.

And here is the kicker: it is highly likely that while progressives are being snubbed, the business tax cuts were added to the stimulus in order to attract unnecessary, and entirely symbolic, support from a significant number Republicans. Symbolic bipartisanship for the sake of symbolic bipartisanship is valued more than even listening to progressives. This is what I was worried about back in November and December when Open Left fought against a Larry Summers appointment, and openly worried about other appointments. Only now, the "progressives unhappy with Obama" narrative has gone beyond recycling quotes from me, and includes left-wing rabble rousers like John Kerry and Kent Conrad.

If Harkin, Conrad and Kerry are the people expressing progressive concerns over the business cuts in the stimulus package, then it is probably time that we get their backs. What say you?


Tags: , , , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Count me in. (4.00 / 3)
We're not just voices in the wilderness reading tea leaves. Now we know for sure.

They've got my back.


This needs to be an issue (4.00 / 5)
for every confirmation hearing for positions having anything to do with the economy. People like Harkin, Conrad, and Kerry should exercise whatever power they have to hold up the confirmation of Obama's economic team until that team addresses their concerns.

Sorry - the economic problem is too big and too immediate to give Obama any more of a honeymoon.


[ Parent ]
voice (4.00 / 1)
Voice support on the Internet and elsewhere for those progressive legislators to stand up to corporate interventionism in the Democratic party.

[ Parent ]
oh yeah, i bet that puts the fear of god in them (0.00 / 0)
im pretty tired of just the blogging. doesnt anyone ever want to do anything in the real world?

~* the * Will * to go on *~

[ Parent ]
Damn right (4.00 / 4)
The time for the Great Liberal Pushback is now. I really don't understand this desire to get unnecessary GOP votes, at the cost of making the stimulus much less effective.

I'm sorry, but tax cuts don't create jobs. They just cut taxes for people who already have jobs.

Every dollar used on infrastructure with get much more bang for the buck, particularly if it is forward-looking infrastructure regarding public transit and clean energy.

Sometimes Obama says the exact right things, and seems to "get it", but then we have crap like this where his actions seems to line up with the David Broder way of doing things.


Yes, we must might for progressive ideas (0.00 / 0)
We need to let these progressive Congressmen know that we support them. We can also give feedback directly to Obama at his change.gov site.

Progressive America isn't going to happen by itself. We'll have to fight hard every day.


Here's my Change.gov letter: (0.00 / 0)
President Obama -

Thank you so much for providing this avenue to your ear.  I trust you will give due consideration to the voices of the people.

For the sake of our economy, please enact a carbon-tax to balance out the unfair advantage the Chinese have fabricated for their industry by keeping their currency artificially low for so long.  Not only would this allow our industry to grow, employing American citizens who desparately need work, it would also benefit the environment, improving health and the long-term sustainability of our ecosystem.

Beware the carpetbaggers who seek self-aggrandizement, exploiting the poorest labor to enrich the wealthy.  Revoke the charters of corporations which do not serve the public good, and raise estate taxes so that the excesses of each generation are reinvested in our nation as they should be.

Please resist pressure to repeat the failed policies of the last quarter-century.  With your modest background and with your having worked so hard on affordable housing, you recognize the talent squandered because half the people in our society cannot afford to pursue their dreams.  You were lucky that opportunities came your way so that your hard work paid off, and I urge you to act so that opportunity will be more widely available across our society.

Our nation is in dire straits because your predecessor's ilk are either selfish or stupid.  We elected you because you are neither of those things and we believe you will do what's best for our nation; I urge you to uphold our confidence.


[ Parent ]
DINO (4.00 / 4)
Let's be honest here--if you could go back to the political definitions of twenty years ago, Obama would be considered a moderate Republican. He is only considered "progressive" because the goalposts have been moved so far right during the last two decades. Until the netroots can unify as a liberal movement who will except nothing less than truly liberal candidates, we are going to continue to get mediocrities like Obama.  

He came to adulthood under Reagan and never knew true liberalism (4.00 / 1)
I made this point while the primary was still hot and heavy, so most people either got angry or ignored me.  The only person here who got what I said was Paul Rosenberg.

Unlike baby boomers, who came into adulthood during a progressive era of governance in this country under Kennedy and LBJ (note I excluded Jimmy Carter), Obama's adulthood was during the emergence of the conservative period in America and its hegemony in terms of ideas having valency and effectiveness.  Boomers like me, Paul and yes the hated Hillary Clinton actually lived in an era when liberal ideas were predominant, where they were admired and where they were ACTUALLY EFFECTIVE.  Then Nixon and the Republican Southern, racial strategy destroyed that coalition....and the seeds of the right wing reaction began....but zeitgeists have lagging effects; Nixon signed Medicaid, got the EPA and OSHA.  Now we may be in the lingering aftereffects of a right wing era, which explain some of Barack Obama's retrograde tendencies.

Under Reagan, those with right wing ideas laughed at liberal ideas, and eventually either made liberals ashamed of being liberals, or among those who had to get elected, like Bill and Hillary Clinton, actually had to embrace some versions of right wing ideology in order to gain and keep office.  The DLC turned this calculated repudiation of liberalism into a principle rather than a ploy.

Boomer pols still know what liberalism was about and know it can work. (a primary plug...almost none of Hillary's proposals were tax cuts, they were in one way or another typical Keynsian stimulus ideas.)  I always felt to have a progressive president a boomer was better.

Barack Obama grew into adulthood under the right wing hegemony...he had no real life memory of liberalism triumphant and it takes an enormous strain of contraryness in one's personality to actively repudiate every idea you grew up with.  Barack Obama is not that kind of person.
David Sirota though is that kind of person, thank god.



"Incrementalism isn't a different path to the same place, it could be a different path to a different place"
Stoller


[ Parent ]
Nixon & Reagan (4.00 / 2)
I'll repeat a point I made once before.  Paul has often pointed out the real re(de)aligning election for conservatives was 68, not 80.  In this context it is important to remember that Nixon was actually quite liberal in many ways, perhaps to the left of Clinton economically.  That wasn't because Nixon identified with liberalism, obviously, but because he was a product of his time.

I consider Obama to be our Nixon, not our Reagan.  Although Obama triggers/rides the realignment, he is still a product of the previous era.  (Howard Dean plays the role of Barry Goldwater, btw.)

I don't know who our Reagan will be.  Personally, I'm hoping it will still be Obama, playing both roles.  (Think of how Mao is compared to both Lenin and Stalin.)  But that will take time if it happens at all.

Now, I'm lazy, an optimist and barely have a perfectionist bone in my body.  I don't really have a problem with Obama playing the role of Nixon, realigning our electorate without really grasping what to do with it.  Heck, there is part of me that thinks this is actually necessary -- he has to take the Versailles with him to generate a lasting realignment.  One step at a time and all that...


[ Parent ]
Yes (4.00 / 3)
If the fucker wants our support, he has to earn it. And earning it involves fixing the problems his bastard predecessor left, not contributikng to the ridiculously awful income inequality statistics some more.

Forgotten Countries - a foreign policy-focused blog

Dear God (4.00 / 3)
Even during the most frustrating moments of November, when it was one free marketer after another being appointed to Obama's economic team, I didn't think it would get this bad. Openly attacking and excluding progressives while courting the right.

And why should it be any other way? Most progressives online - the rank and file commenters who make up by far the bulk of this movement, such as it is - have already made it clear that they're Obama backers first, progressives and citizens second, and that whatever Obama wants, they'll support.

Currently Obama has little incentive to reward his progressive supporters and little reason to fear us. So he promotes an anti-left strategy that will fatally weaken the stimulus (and his own presidency) and we're grasping for air because we weren't prepared for it.

If the House is as progressive as it seems, perhaps there is an opening there to force Obama to pay attention. Otherwise I'm not quite sure what to do to push back against what is rapidly becoming a disaster.


Obama doesn't need progressive support (0.00 / 0)
Progressives have nothing to threaten Obama with. Do you think he'll be all sad if progressives stop supporting him? No, he'll love it. He's cultivating himself as the emblem of a new national unity, and leftist discontent will only bolster that image of him.

It's my opinion that Obama is smarter than the collective "progressive blogosphere" and that he generally has better views. But here is one issue - and it's the most important issue of the day - where I'm genuinely concerned about the direction he's taken.

I hoped that he would show courage in the face of this challenge. Instead, he seems to be doing the "here's some for you, and some for you, ..." sort of compromising that we can no longer afford. What sealed it for me was his decision to reinstate the Bush tax cuts. That just undoes a very central campaign promise, and it's economically stupid. If he wants to lower taxes, he should lower them on people who are the most hurt by this recession.


[ Parent ]
Reinstate the Bush tax cuts? (4.00 / 1)
If I understand correctly, Obama is proposing to cut taxes for middle class people (as he promised during the primaries) and to cut certain taxes for businesses.

The tax cuts commonly referred to as "the Bush tax cuts," i.e. the lowering of the income tax rate for the upper brackets, are not implicated here; Obama is certainly not trying to reinstate the Bush tax cuts.

To a large extent he IS lowering taxes for the "people who are the most hurt by this recession." The business tax cuts seem intended to stimulate growth.


[ Parent ]
No, he promised he woud cancel the $200K+ tax cuts (0.00 / 0)
And now he thinks that the right way to stimulate the economy is to continue the tax cuts (voted on at a time when we were trying to spend our surplus) for people making $200,000 a year and more. He said he wouldn't do this. Yes, the middle class tax cut was always a part of his campaign, and I don't object to that. Just as prominent was his pledge to repeal the tax cut for the highest income bracket.

Does he, Jason C. or any other sane person think that going back on this promise is the best way to stimulate the economy?


[ Parent ]
Here I agree with Chris (4.00 / 1)
I wouldn't represent this as a "progressives vs. others" issue, but I think Chris's worry is justified all the same. What I want from this recovery package is that it works. It doesn't have to stick to the progressive ideology or whatever, but it has to be effective. At this point, I have some real doubts.

I think that Obama is treating this with too much ideology - the ideology of "healing and compromise" or some other hippie nonsense. Well, this would have been nice back in times of splendor, but it seems pretty cowardly right now. The new president needs to kick some ass. He needs to reject the easy compromises and instead step on the many toes of establishment - and occasionally even crack some skulls. It's an emergency. We'll all go along if his reasons are sound, even if skulls must be cracked.

Bush was a much shrewder politician in this than Obama. W saw that he could circumvent all opposition after 9/11, even opposition to something as stupid as an invasion and occupation of Iraq. He wanted something, saw he could get it, so he took it. He thought the war, torture and murder were for the greater good, so he just went full speed ahead.

This should be Obama's inspiration - a president who takes charge. I don't imagine that Obama really wants to come out with the sort of gutless and mangled recovery plan that's shaping up, and he must know that he doesn't have to. So why would he inflict this on the country? For the sake of looking like a compromiser? To trade symbolism for suffering seems to me immoral.


Gutless and Mangled (4.00 / 2)
"I don't imagine that Obama really wants to come out with the sort of gutless and mangled recovery plan that's shaping up, and he must know that he doesn't have to."

Not trying to be nasty or anything, but what makes you think that Obama believes his recovery plan to be gutless and mangled? Because we think it is? In his worldview--one of pro-business, moderate compromise--he probably thinks his recovery plan is just fine. I think we have to disavow ourselves of the notion--yet again--that there is some sort of secret progressive lurking underneath his moderate rhetoric. Obama is what he appears to be. Just because he makes inspiring speeches doesn't mean he is an inspiring thinker.  


I'll give one example (4.00 / 1)
Tax cuts for people making $200,000 and more - despite the campaign promise that he would repeal this part of the Bush tax cuts, which were voted on in a time of surplus.

Can you honestly tell me that recanting this promise belongs in a courageous and targeted plan to stimulate the economy? Is there nothing better that could be done with this money than to give it to the people for whom it has the least marginal utility?

If you think there isn't, you are free to think that his plan isn't gutless and mangled. I can't imagine that Obama himself thinks that this is the best thing to do with this money - but maybe I overestimate him.

If you read this blog you will see other examples of gutlessness and incoherence in the proposed recovery plan. I have enough faith in Obama to at least assume that he realizes these defects, and finds them politically "worth it" - which is sort of cowardly, but that's still better than ignorance.


[ Parent ]
This is so why we need a third party. (0.00 / 0)
How do you get a donkey to move?  Sure isn't by saying please and thank you.   I don't even believe in "taking our party back" anymore.  When you have progressive blogs pimping Obama (not OpenLeft) and so called progressives attacking anyone who dares to criticize the chosen one, it is time to give it up.  

Ross Perot was right.  We need the right Independent to make a run.  Even if we lose, we expose the Democrats for what they are ~ Republican/corporatists pretending to be Democrats.  


Obama cant see the forest for the trees (0.00 / 0)
By focusing all his efforts on appealing to a right-wing that is never going to lift a finger to help him succeed, and at the same time throwing the Progressive left to the wolves, Obama is ultimately doing nothing but narrowing his own overall base of support. And it's going to cost him in the end.

Very simply, Larry Summers is bad news (4.00 / 2)
1. He's a neolib freetrader in the worst sense of the word.
2. He's a zombie retro when it comes to his views on women, ethnic minorities and other groups of "little people" (like third world countries).
3. He was a cheerleader for derivatives deregulation. He would rather gamble everyones' money in the Wall Street casinos than create goods and services to make U.S. citizens' lives better.
4. Even with the total collapse and bankruptcy of "free money" monopoly corporatist ideology, he's still channeling Ayn Rand.

Obama knew all this. He could not have done much worse damage to progressive economic reform than to appoint Summers. It's a mistake we are all going to pay for. More than anything else, it calls Obama's judgment into question.


Obama (0.00 / 0)
Barack Obama has all the power now.  It's going to be a long four years.

I have never met an Obama supporter, online or offline, who was willing to criticize some of the policy advisors who had Obama's ear over the past two years.  

Those were just some of the red flags and bright red they were.  And they were ignored.  He's a crafty s.o.b. that Obama guy.  He made the progressives, young people and African American's fall in love with him.

And today, he doesn't need them or even give a shit.

It's a sad day for Democrats when Rick Warren and Joe Lieberman are annointed and forgiven; and Howard Dean is thrown aside like yesterday's trash.

I didn't vote in the general election.  I have no regrets about that.



USER MENU

Open Left Campaigns

SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

QUICK HITS
STATE BLOGS
Powered by: SoapBlox