Message Received?

by: Chris Bowers

Fri Jan 09, 2009 at 14:05


In light of my post yesterday about Larry Summers and the Obama economic team not listening to progressive concerns about the business tax-cut currently in the stimulus proposal, I'd like to highlight another passage in the New York Times story already discussed by David earlier today:

Senator Kent Conrad, Democrat of North Dakota and chairman of the Budget Committee, said lawmakers and the incoming administration had differences over how to focus the huge federal spending in a recovery bill. "Investment, investment, investment has got to be the central focus: energy, roads, bridges, waterways, housing," he said. "Job creation is Job One."

Mr. Conrad, who described the meeting as extremely positive, said Mr. Summers ended it by telling the senators, "Message received, loud and clear."

Now, this is a very different version of the meeting than the one Senator Tom Harkin gave to TPM:

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.

I don't know whose version of the meeting is more accurate, but given the press coverage of Senate Democratic opposition to the business tax cuts, it is impossible to believe that the Obama economic team isn't at least aware of the concerns. Whether they care about these concerns, and will actually address them instead of, say, continuing to prioritize cosmetic Republican support for the stimulus package, is the real question.

I never expected progressives to take complete control of the federal government in 2009. All I hoped for was a Democratic trifecta where they were well-represented in congressional leadership, cabinet appointments, senior staff, and all major policy discussions. The goal was for progressives to have a seat at the table, be taken seriously, and thus at least have a chance at influencing policy. While I can't say for certain that has happened, Conrad's comments leave me more optimistic than I was yesterday. The real test will be if the stimulus increases in size, and if the role of business tax cuts decreases.

Chris Bowers :: Message Received?

Tags: , , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Message Received? | 20 comments
Good post, Chris. (4.00 / 1)
The first step is having the message received.  The second step is acting on it.
Harkin and Conrad/Baucus were sending different messages, they objected to different things (4.00 / 2)
Harkins was acting like a progressive...he objected in general to the idea that tax cuts are progressive, rather he says they are another version trickle down economics.

Conrad and Baucus actually objected to the part of the tax cuts that are less offensive, and given how they are structured,  may actually have a stimulative effect.  Conrad etal were objecting to the payroll tax cut of $500 or $1000 dollars spread ot over time....like only $20 per week so it would be more likely to be spent than saved.  Conrad thought 20 bucks was too little to matter.  They were not objecting to the 100 billion in tax rebates to irresponsible financial corporations or any of the other business or high income tax cuts.  

Sad to say Summers was saying he heard Conrad etal loud and clear...Summers, though, wasn't high fiving Harkin.


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

[ Parent ]
Thinking (4.00 / 1)
Why would anyone think "20 bucks was too little to matter"?  It is the total sum that matters, not the 20 bucks.  Can these people not multiply??

My own senator had a similar objection, saying such small numbers don't change a person's habits.  While that is true, rich dudes don't understand the average persons "habits".  Most live pay check to pay check.  The number watched isn't total amount spent but how much is left in the checking account (or in the wallet) until the next paycheck.  That 20 bucks will be spent.

(It is true that some portion of that $20 will go to credit card dept, house payments, etc., so it still isn't as good as more direct mechanisms, but it is close, unlike tax cuts to the wealthy or businesses.)

[ Parent ]
I think $500 as a lump sum would be saved in some fashion (0.00 / 0)
but to be "given back" or that is have less withheld each week at the level of $20 per week , it is likely to get spent.  So this is the only part of the tax cut, if and only if it's done that way, that can have a stimulative impact.


"Incrementalism isn't a different path to the same place, it could be a different path to a different place"
Stoller
[ Parent ]
I think Baucus is against the $3,000 business tax credit too (0.00 / 0)
There is some additional concern, also expressed by senators, about a proposed $3,000 credit for companies that make new hires.

LINK

Not sure where I saw that attributed to Baucus or Conrad too, but I do think I saw it attributed to them. Either The Hill or politico.

[ Parent ]
As always, the proof is in the pudding (4.00 / 3)
some cliches have a long shelf life because they actually mean something ......

too many Obama appointments gave me pause and cause for concern  but I held back from too much public bitching about it but the leaked stimulus package  which places so much emphasis on tax cuts really bothered me and now I am heartened by the willingness of certain Democrats to publicly voice their disappointment with the proposed stimulus package and especially to frame their concern in such a way that it discredits 'St Ronnie' ....rewording what IS 'trickle down economics' isn't change and won't do a damn thing to alleviate the real problems we are facing.

Ya know, with all this talk about "tax cuts stimulating the economy," (4.00 / 3)
I feel like I am living through 1981 again.  And I was only four years old then.

Christ.  What's Obama smoking?  Let's see, what should our money be spent on that can make a PERMANENT impact on our economy?

Infrastructure

Infrastructure

Infrastructure



For some reason, it seems that Obama has some pathological and deep-seated psychological need for Republicans to like him.  Seriously.  It's weird.

1981 (4.00 / 4)
Forget about 1981.  For the past 8 years, our government's sole means of economic "stimulus" has been tax cuts.  Has it worked?  Gee, I wonder.
[ Parent ]
Fuckin-A well told!!! (4.00 / 2)
What we need is a wholesale shift away from the past eight years and wholesale change since 1980.

Clinton didn't do it because he has that same weird desire for Republicans to like him, just like what I wrote in my signature.

For some reason, it seems that Obama has some pathological and deep-seated psychological need for Republicans to like him.  Seriously.  It's weird.

[ Parent ]
It seems that Obama is addicted to the notion that people want bi-partisanship (4.00 / 3)
I would submit that people are fed up with what Republicans are offering and have been offering and that 'bipartisanship' did not factor into that many Obama votes....but I also think that Obama himself thinks that was a major reason why people voted for him.

And therein lies the problem...because Obama will see any effort by Democrats that does not get 'bi-partisan' support to be somehow 'flawed'.

He is going to have to be dragged into changing the package from tax cuts to spending on infrastructure and if that is what it will take....I don't think he'll go that route.

[ Parent ]
I think you're right. And it's NOT anti-Obama to point out that through (4.00 / 1)
sheer ego or pigheadedness, or whatever (I personally think it's ego because it's something that he conjured up a loooong time ago at the very beginning of the primary season, that people yearned for "bipartisanship" and he has refused to budge on it) that he is really flirting with being "had" by the Republicans.  They know he has this weakness and they are experts at exploiting their opponents' weaknesses.  I sincerely hope....I REALLY hope, that Obama doesn't turn out to have a huge hubris in being "too nice" to those who hate him and everything he "supposedly" stands for.

For some reason, it seems that Obama has some pathological and deep-seated psychological need for Republicans to like him.  Seriously.  It's weird.
[ Parent ]
Look, does anyone in any (4.00 / 3)
seriousness believe that between the self-imposed constraints of pulling in some non-trivial number of Republican votes, and satisfying people like Harkin and Kerry, that the overall effect will be to achieve a larger, and less business tax cut laden proposal?

Look, some people here want to believe that it's all just a matter of getting Obama to listen to progressive concerns, and this package will greatly improve. But Obama has promised, emphatically and repeatedly, a leadership style of such a nature that he really does not have a free hand in how he deals with Republican objections. He has granted them great leverage in any negotiation, especially at the beginning of his Presidency, because of how he has defined himself -- a definition that goes all the way back to his speech at the 2004 Democratic convention.

I just wonder how people imagine this would play out for Obama if he doesn't get buy-in from Republicans for the stimulus. He will immediately be denounced by Republicans as steamrolling them, and completely ignoring their strongly held views. Obama, again, has already claimed bipartisanship and his ability to negotiate as the signature characteristic of his political leadership, and his "transformative" Presidency. I simply don't see this scenario coming to pass. Such is the penalty for building your campaign on promises that don't make sense.

I expect, at most, some cosmetic alterations to the package to satisfy some stated concern of the Senate Democrats, and then significant revisions, essentially in the opposite direction, to satisfy Republicans.

I think the only way to take this package as it has been detailed so far is as a first "high ball" proposal in a negotiation with the real opposition here, the Republicans. Given the kinds of potential very damaging political attacks Obama has afforded them by all his bipartisan emphasis, I would certainly expect it to be whittled down significantly.

And of course, on the miracle that it was actually adjusted slightly up instead of down, the real issue is whether the package is even within shouting distance of being something effective. Krugman estimated that it was likely off by a factor of two or even three.

In that case, of course, we are screwed right out of the box.

Jeez, this may turn out even worse (4.00 / 1)
than I thought if Politico is to be believed:

Obama strategists say he wants to get 80 or more votes in the 100-member Senate, and the emphasis on tax cuts is a way to defuse conservative criticism and enlist Republican support.

I mean, 80 votes?? That's over half of the Republican delegation in the Senate.

God only knows what kind of compromises would be necessary to get that level of buy in -- I was expecting Obama would count it a great success if he picked off 10 Republicans.

[ Parent ]
Over 20 Republicans? (0.00 / 0)
That's crazy. There are twenty certifiable Republicans in the Senate.

Forgotten Countries - a foreign policy-focused blog
[ Parent ]
That was the original goal when this all started like a week ago. (0.00 / 0)
McConnell even made mention of it in his news conference earlier this week (talked about 20 republicans, remember we do have 60 Democrats now).

So I kind of doubt that politico reference is new info. It's more like 6-10 days old. I'm sure Obama would still like to get that much support. But after the reaction from his own party, I would hazard that they would dial back that number now. I think they'd be glad to get 70 now because they know that the actual people writing the bill (i.e. Democrats) are not in a mood to write a bill that will bring on 20 republicans. There just aren't 20 moderate republicans in the senate.  

[ Parent ]
In fact (0.00 / 0)
if we remember the 2001 Bush tax cut, I think they picked off 12 democrats. And Bush for the next 4 years, labeled that a bi-partisan legislation that Democrats weren't sufficiently able to counter against. So I don't think (and I bet the Obama team now sees) that 20 is not necessary and not even possible. 10 votes is fine. Heck 5 votes is fine.  
[ Parent ]
Overton window (4.00 / 3)
get a seat at the policy table, yes. But we also need exposure in the media, so that we can move the overton window leftwards.
"Now, make me do it" (4.00 / 3)
As FDR told the progressive liberals who were pushing him to do more, faster -- now is the time to raise the flag for the CORRECT solutions in the face of discredited conservative orthodoxy.

We need to make Obama do the right thing.  Nice to see Conrad and Kerry carryng the water for the progressive toolkit.

Bi-partisanship (4.00 / 4)
Democracy in the United States is founded not on bi-partisanship but on partisanship.  The few examples of bi-partisanship are geared to war.  

Lincoln put a "war Democrat" on his ticket in 1864 (Andrew Johnson).  How did that work out?  Well, when Lincoln died, Johnson had little or no support in Congress.  The face off led to a) a challenge in the 1866 election where Johnson went toe-to-toe with the ruling wing of the Republicans and lost badly b) "Dare me" legislation and c) an impeachment vote.  Not so hot

FDR put several Republicans in charge of important parts of the military.  Under his firm control, it mostly worked.  Republicans were noteworthy for their continued and personal attacks on Roosevelt anyway. Limited success.

Truman worked closely with one key Republican, Arthur Vandenberg, on foreign policy aspects (Cold War).  Vandenberg's famous line (partisanship stops at the water's edge) has been the bi-partisan holy writ for over 60 years.  Vandenberg died in 1951 and Republicans relentlessly attacked the patriotism of Truman and Marshall.  Leading the pack was Joe McCarthy.  Sitting on the sidelines until he was the victim was Dwight Eisenhower.  Mostly a failure.

I might note, that even following Vandenberg, issues like the economy and stimulus plan would be highly partisan.

Bush post 9/11: we caved they attacked   A huge, huge failure.  

Washington tried for non-partisan and it blew up with a sharp split between Adams and Hamilton on one side and Jefferson on the other.  It doesn't work even withn the full persona of The founding father.

Right from the start, Obama lauded Republicans (including and especially Tom Coburn) and attacked liberals (Nobody attacks Progressives, the term liberal is the Fox Assault Weapon du jour.).  It turns out that he wasn't catering to the "bipartisan virus of Iowa" (Matt Stoller, Open Left, January 3, 2008) but acually stating his real beliefs.

Funny thing, with Voinovich now likely to retire and Specter, Gregg and McCain at least candidates to do the same, potentially little is left of any bipartisanship within the Republican Reichwing.  

The Lifetime Chips Are Down scores of GOPers in the Senate are Snowe (28.26%), Specter (27.59%), Collins (24.56%), McCain (11.87%), Voinovich (10.15%), Gregg (6.92%), Shelby (6.88% and my most loathed Senator), Lugar (6.61%), Martinez (6.14%) and Coburn (5.63%).  There's not much to play with beyond the top 3 and much of the list could be gone very soon.  The facts on the ground indicate that "getting a substantial number of Republicans" on board is ridiculous.

Where does this come from?  What's in the water?  Inquiring minds want to know.

Never fear, Chris! (0.00 / 0)
While the Democratic leadership would be falling over themselves to please a Republican president, they have absolutely no problem standing up to a fellow Democrat.

At least this time, it's warranted!

REID: Voting against us was never part of our arrangement!
SPECTER: I am altering the deal! Pray I don't alter it any further!
REID: This deal keeps getting worse all the time!

Message Received? | 20 comments
USER MENU

Open Left Campaigns

SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

QUICK HITS
STATE BLOGS

Home | RSS/XML Feed | Register | Contact

  © OpenLeft 2007-2010, Powered by SoapBlox

Powered by: SoapBlox