Why go for deficits? (4.00 / 1)

I've heard it suggested here in Washington that a lot of the liberal glitterati are going after deficits to "take" the issue from the GOP -- you know, if we don't do it, they'll run against us on it and take it. While it's true voters are concerned about the deficit, the other concerns are much more pressing, and using deficit concerns to damage real concerns about what's happening to people in terms of economic justice would be a gigantic failure and borne more of politics than anything economic.

---

by: Terran1212 @ Fri Nov 13, 2009 at 11:52:15 AM CST

It's because the Dem establishment (4.00 / 4)

is committed to disaster capitalism and using this crisis to impose Shock Treatment on the American non-rich every bit as ruthlessly as the Republicans would like to.

That's always been Emanuel's program. He thinks if he lets corporatism run wild enough blood money will flow into Dem coffers to keep them in power forever (even though they don't intend to use that power for anything but more of the same).

That's what he meant by "never let a disaster go to waste". That's what NAFTA was all about. And because he and his cabal are nowhere near as smart as they think they are, they didn't learn the lesson of NAFTA, and this big fire sale is going to work out just as badly for them.

(I made a quick search but couldn't recover the quote where Paulson said one of the points of the bailout was to maneuver the political situation such that it would justify slashing all remaining social spending.

As we've seen with so many other things, Obama and Emanuel concur with their predecessors.)

http://attempter.wordpress.com

---

by: Russ @ Fri Nov 13, 2009 at 12:21:00 PM CST

[ Parent ]

If this is true, it's evidence that elites can't politick their way out of a sack (4.00 / 3)

Everybody knows that the way you screw over your opponents is by putting forward the popular policy they can't match, not by putting forward the popular but stupid policy you don't really want, which your opponents will trump with an even more popular but mind-bogglingly stupid policy of their own.

It's too clever by half, too cute and not nearly viciously confrontational enough.

Forgotten Countries - a foreign policy-focused blog

---

by: Englishlefty @ Sat Nov 14, 2009 at 06:06:21 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Rahm's kinda cynical someimes, but I don't agree they're ultra-cynics (0.00 / 0)

I just think they're pretty wedded to not taking on bold fights and the Dem Establishment has made it in theri second nature to go out and corporate allies for anything they do, which by its nature has to be much weaker because of that fact.

---

by: Terran1212 @ Fri Nov 13, 2009 at 12:34:44 PM CST

Oh, they're willing to fight alright... they're fighting the bottom 95% (4.00 / 2)

Have they lacked any willingness to fight progressives/liberals? No. They do that all the time. Thus far, they've been very good at it.

So it's not a question of being willing to fight, it's a question of who's side they're on. They can try to couch this in terms of emulating GOP positions to 'take it away' from them, but that's just a fig-leaf and a rather transparent one at that.

Thus far, the WH has been on the regressive/corporate side of things. I don't expect that to change. I mean, going after "entitlements" means one thing: making many millions of people much poorer. Is that good economics? Only for the rich. Is it good politics? Only for the rich. They don't even care if they lose a majority of their base support, they're going to do all this anyway. Everything they're doing benefits specific special interests at horrific cost to the nation. That doesn't bother them at all.

They've chosen the side they wish to play on and it's not ours. If anyone has any doubts they're going after Social Security, they haven't been paying attention.

When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men living together in society, they create for themselves in the course of time a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it.

-- Frederic Bastiat, "The Law", 1850

---

by: Emocrat @ Fri Nov 13, 2009 at 13:13:02 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Mini-realignment (4.00 / 2)

At present, we seem headed towards a mini realignment that may sweep many of these deficit hawks out of their elected jobs and into the ones as lobbyists or corporate spokespersons that they have selected.  Good riddance.

Crisitunity over at Swing State Prokect has compiled a list based on Obama's margin/deficit and the incumbent's margin of the most vulnerable House members.

The four most vulnerable seats are all held by moderate Republicans (Castle, Kirk, Cao, Gerlach).  Should these swing, the most Democratic seat held by a Republican would be D+3 (Cook PVI) WA-8 (Reichert).  

Otoh, 18 of the 21 most endangered Democrats are either Blur Dogs or ConservaDems.  The only liberal on the list is Allan Grayson with Eric Massa and Mark Schauer also on the list.  Keep Grayson and a 10 seat net loss would be at worst a draw and a 15 seat net loss not much difference.

In a few cycles we will have gone from replacing moderate Republicans with moderate and conservative Dems to replacing conservative Dems with conservative Republicans.

The middle (take note Versailles) is what gets squished.  They would have kept their jobs by being more open to change.  And with the kind of changes these corporate creeps are proposing, they deserve to get fired.

---

by: David Kowalski @ Fri Nov 13, 2009 at 12:48:13 PM CST

The problem here is choices (4.00 / 2)

What you're saying makes sense on a rational level, but all these districts will go to whomever has the Mo'. The question is whether people have any real choices or not, and I don't know the answer to that in specific terms. I suspect some districts will (like Grayson's) and some won't.

I would caution against making proclamations (I'm admittedly overstating here) of realignments. The GOP is in the tank and looking worse. The Democratic Party is looking a lot like the GOP in the polling. We're in a national race to the bottom. A realignment would suggest people have a viable choice they can make in a given race. I'm not sure that's going to happen in a lot of races, if more people don't actually run primaries against corrupt incumbents.

At this point, the Democratic Majority is proving a meaningless notion. The agenda of the ruling elites hasn't changed one bit. Indeed, the current leadership can get away with even more medieval policies than the previous one did. How the Democratic leadership can push policies like rewarding companies that use slave labor, or take away women's reproductive healthcare, well, it's just blowing my mind at this point. I can't think of a better way for the Democratic Elites to basically flip a bird at the whole nation.

So what's going to happen over the next 6 months? I suspect Dem polling numbers are going to crash and that will take out some of the good, as well as the bad, if the good folks don't run hard against leadership and start making a much more populist appeal.

Banking, finance, healthcare, environment, labor rights, our various wars... almost all the policies being pushed are going to make life a lot worse for most people. The results of these new predatory policies  will send people into a deep funk, once they see them in action.

Something's going to have to happen to get people out to the polls, because I think an awful lot of the Dem base are going to stay home if they don't have anything to vote FOR. And the status quo won't cut it.

When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men living together in society, they create for themselves in the course of time a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it.

-- Frederic Bastiat, "The Law", 1850

---

by: Emocrat @ Fri Nov 13, 2009 at 13:35:31 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Bad week (4.00 / 3)

The stuff that passes and the stuff that is proposed is sometimes so bad it seems like a joke.  Slavery?  Deficit reduction during the worst economy in 70 years?  Easing up on corporate regulation?  Promoting tax dodges through defense contracts?  Making insurance coverage for women for contraception and abortion difficult or impossible under private insurance paid privately?  Wishy washy treatment of gays?   All part of the package.

A lot of this comes from a small number of Blue Dogs and conservadems.  If they get swept down the toilet, who cares?

We were, of course, supposed to have a real realignment.  Real Democratic policies would have accomplished that.  Instead, the realignment that seems to be coming is simply the slaufghter of the Democratic obstructors with a few moderate Republicans thrown in (DeDe led that pack).

As long as the losses are small and targeted and we protect our own, that's OK with me.  Too bad Evan Bayh and Steny Hoyer are unlikely to be in this pack of losers.

I'd rather have 240 good Democrats than the mess of 18% support in the clutch coming from Parker Griffith.

---

by: David Kowalski @ Fri Nov 13, 2009 at 15:57:15 PM CST

[ Parent ]

These ARE real Democratic policies (4.00 / 1)

This crap is coming from the top and two-party-tards keep thinking that if we can only get good people in a primary... well, if you're not willing to vote against a Democrat then the D party doesn't need to care what you think.

If the Democratic party leadership actually desired to expend energy in favor of the left they'd show it by now.  Instead, they tell the left to shut up and they do.  Hopefully it will become apparent very soon that these advocacy organizations legitimizing the establishment parties in exchange for access is getting them access to precisely nothing.

Seriously, why is anyone who's still paying attention voting Democrat unless they have a Kucinich or Grayson on their ballot or don't have any third party to vote for?

---

by: marxmarv @ Fri Nov 13, 2009 at 16:17:51 PM CST

[ Parent ]

This is precisely what people will be asking real soon (4.00 / 3)

Seriously, why is anyone who's still paying attention voting Democrat unless they have a Kucinich or Grayson on their ballot or don't have any third party to vote for?

This is, no doubt, a major crisis for liberals/progressives. But after seething with anger all week (oh, since last Saturday night), I also think there are opportunities here. I'm just not sure if the progressive community can muster the gumption to run against the Administration.

The DNC and RNC are both in a race to the bottom now. It seems to me an enterprising group of progressives could make a lot of trouble for the establishment hacks at this juncture. It would be profoundly stupid to let this moment pass...

When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men living together in society, they create for themselves in the course of time a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it.

-- Frederic Bastiat, "The Law", 1850

---

by: Emocrat @ Fri Nov 13, 2009 at 17:58:36 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Oh, hell yes. (4.00 / 4)

Agreed. If 20 Blue dogs are shown the door, even if they're replaced with ReThugs, that's fine with me.

Protecting our own and running primaries against right-wingers (regardless of party) should be the biggest concerns. That means we're going to have to run against the administration.

Let the hacks fall on their own swords for Hoover Two-Point-D'Oh!

When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men living together in society, they create for themselves in the course of time a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it.

-- Frederic Bastiat, "The Law", 1850

---

by: Emocrat @ Fri Nov 13, 2009 at 17:47:35 PM CST

[ Parent ]

David Swanson's article (4.00 / 1)

http://www.openleft.com/showDi...

...addresses organizing for re-ordering national spending priorities.

---

by: nasrudin @ Fri Nov 13, 2009 at 12:57:01 PM CST

Selective Deficit Disorder. That's classic! (4.00 / 4)

Seriously, that should be used by every progressive within earshot of a TV camera or radio station mic any time the deficit comes up. Progressives have to call this shit out in a big way.

When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men living together in society, they create for themselves in the course of time a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it.

-- Frederic Bastiat, "The Law", 1850

---

by: Emocrat @ Fri Nov 13, 2009 at 13:39:25 PM CST

Six Hundred Thirty Six Billion and no/100---- (4.00 / 2)

All my life the amount of money spent on defense in any given year has never made sense, never had traction. Suddenly, after TARP, after Fed guarantees up to 21 trillion, after the stimulus bill, after this long health care debate, suddenly $636 billion makes sense. It has context.

Unlike before, progressives should talk about the defense budget in terms of these other programs. We spend on defense in ONE year 6-8 times what we've spent on TARP? And six years of government health care spending in the new bills? For what? Where does that money go? And we can't cut from the defense budget 10%? 20%?

I think we're seeing an era of golden opportunities to reshape debates. Selective Deficit Disorder is brilliant. But we also have a public educated enough to wrap their heads around massive outrageous spending numbers, enough to force a debate about these protected programs. We also have a public ready to see the trade-offs between endless unfunded wars (with no draft) and creating domestic programs that are adequately funded. One approach is crazy and suicidal. The approach is likely to succeed with minimal fuss and expense relative to the alternatives.

Indeed, focus on the deficit is fighting the last war. The real fight is to provide government that is funded well and meets people's needs. To replace wanton excess and greed with reasonable, transparent, and effective programs. Regardless of what corporations and the political elite want, I bet most Americans want reasonable restraint and results on problems like unemployment, defense spending, health care, and all the rest. It's the sanity, stupid. Or something like that.

---

by: TSlavin @ Fri Nov 13, 2009 at 15:58:36 PM CST

[ Parent ]

And you're only counting on-budget expenditures (0.00 / 0)

It's closer to $1Trillion each year and that's almost ALL deficit spending.

We spend more than the rest of the world combined on "defense," and yet, somehow we're still (according to the administration) not "safe enough yet."

We simply cannot afford our military misadventures anymore. Indeed, Dean Baker says it's hurting our economy:

...defense spending means that the government is pulling away resources from the uses determined by the market and instead using them to buy weapons and supplies and to pay for soldiers and other military personnel. In standard economic models, defense spending is a direct drain on the economy, reducing efficiency, slowing growth and costing jobs.

http://www.cepr.net/index.php/...

The long-term deficit is very much a problem, but the idea that they can pay it down at OUR expense, rather than cutting back on colonial warfare is preposterous. It doesn't make even the slightest amount of sense.

When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men living together in society, they create for themselves in the course of time a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it.

-- Frederic Bastiat, "The Law", 1850

---

by: Emocrat @ Fri Nov 13, 2009 at 17:42:41 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Great Column (4.00 / 1)

One clear answer is values - or lack thereof. In our militaristic culture, we are taught to prioritize Pentagon spending over everything else.

Another less obvious answer is ignorance sown by skewed reporting.

You are absolutely right on the second point. Voters are perfectly willing to agree with reductions in military spending when they get a sense of what we are spending on it. While a certain amount of militarism in the culture may make it easier to get this past the public, when the choice is clearly put to them they are pretty good on this issue.

Of course with elites the problem is values.  Military spending and prisons and border walls are good - social insurance is bad. It's the core of neo-liberalism - pound regular people, take away what protects them, funnel money to those most advantaged.

Support a Pennsylvania Progressive for Governor - Joe Hoeffel

---

by: David Kaib @ Fri Nov 13, 2009 at 18:00:46 PM CST

good article (0.00 / 0)

and i say that as someone who is concerned about the debt issue and has done some reading on the economics of the collapse of various global powers.

---

by: dr anonymous @ Fri Nov 13, 2009 at 23:01:49 PM CST

Lewis Black summed it up this way: (0.00 / 0)

Republicans have nothing but bad ideas and Democrats have no ideas.

And:

A Republican stands up in congress and says 'I GOT A REALLY BAD IDEA!!' and the Democrat stands up after him and says 'AND I CAN MAKE IT SH---IER!!

And that's really what politics have become in Washington, D.C.  The GOP comes up with all the bad ideas, and the Democrats -- having no practical alternatives themselves and having been thoroughly bought by large corporate interests just like the Republicans -- can do nothing but help the GOP implement those bad ideas.  So now we're going to see weak economic policies made even weaker because the idiocy in Washington dictates that we throw every single tax dollar at Wall Street and the Pentagon, borrowing from foreign powers to pay for it all and leaving the rest of us stuck with the bill.

Someone explain to me why we should continue to put up with this from the two major parties?  Oh yeah, I forgot, because "it's not politically feasible" to do anything else.  ROLLS EYES

Single-Payer is the ONLY viable public option.

---

by: Single-Payer Advocate @ Mon Nov 16, 2009 at 09:40:06 AM CST