One Word: Grotesque; Another Three Words: Selective Deficit Disorder

by: David Sirota

Mon Jan 25, 2010 at 21:20


There really is no other word for this announcement:

The White House will propose a three-year freeze on discretionary spending unrelated to the military, veterans, homeland security and international affairs, according to senior administration officials...

Among the areas that may be potentially subject to cuts: The departments of Housing and Urban Development, Justice, Energy, Transportation, Agriculture, and Health and Human Services.

This is actually worse - way worse - than John McCain's campaign proposal for across-the-board cuts, as across-the-board cuts would have hit the massive and bloated Pentagon budget. Instead, the Obama administration is specifically and exclusively targeting social safety-net spending for a budget freeze (read: cut in real, inflation-adjusted dollars). Yes,  cutting social safety-net programs during a recession, while increasing spending on wars, underwriting a no-strings-attached bank bailout and pushing a health care bill that is a massive giveaway to the insurance and drug companies.

This is textbook Selective Deficit Disorder and, as I said, it is grotesque. Indefensibly grotesque.

David Sirota :: One Word: Grotesque; Another Three Words: Selective Deficit Disorder

Tags: (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
One Word: Grotesque; Another Three Words: Selective Deficit Disorder | 48 comments
Flabbergasted (4.00 / 5)
And I don't mean "appalled over how much weight you have gained." I can't imagine a worse decision, politically.  

Save Our Schools! March & National Call to Action, July 28-31, 2011 in Washington, DC: http://www.saveourschoolsmarch...
McCain and defense budget (0.00 / 0)
Just to correct David's post, McCain's freeze proposal also exempted defense spending.

But, yes, I am flabbergasted as well. Pandering to conservative nonsense does not help the economy and it most certainly undercuts progressive framing, which is sorely needed. Pathetic move on Obama's part. Spectacularly moronic.

miasmo.com

[ Parent ]
Yeah, grotesque (0.00 / 0)
but precisely how grotesque I'm having trouble determining.

When I first heard this, I though it precluded any additional stimulus, but

The administration officials said the cap won't be imposed across the board. Some areas would see cuts while others, including education and investments related to job creation, would realize increases.

Among the areas that may be potentially subject to cuts: The departments of Housing and Urban Development, Justice, Energy, Transportation, Agriculture, and Health and Human Services.

So spending on education and job creation would be increased?

Someone explain this to me.  

it's not that bad (0.00 / 0)
Entitlements such as health care, medicare/medicaid, etc. will be unaffected. Same for stimulus spending and the upcoming jobs bill. This goes back to his 2008 campaign statements about using targeting cuts in spending (the whole "use a scalpel not a hatchet" argument). However, it's been framed as a "spending freeze" to warm independents and soft Republicans to the idea.
[ Parent ]
Cities get the shaft big time here (4.00 / 1)
It's a disastrous proposal and precisely the opposite of what a Democratic executive needs to offer.

"Not that bad" sounds like the stuff I read on TPM when Obama appointed Geithner and Summers while burying his tongue up Rick Warren's ass.  

"It's not at all good" is a better way of putting it.  

[ Parent ]
my title (0.00 / 0)
...was just a reaction to the hysterics of Sirota's post. I'm not saying this is manna from heaven, but it's already clear it's nothing like a McCain-esque across-the-board spending freeze. It might be a terrible plan anyway, but we don't know. And the knee-jerk ZOMG OBAMA IS TEH SUCK!!1!!! reaction to something we have almost no information about isn't helpful.

If anyone can point to something specific that will be cut as a result of this (and no, the WSJ's list of "areas that may be subject to cuts doesn't count), that would be a good place to start.

[ Parent ]
Why are we talking about spending cuts (4.00 / 2)
and what do you think that means?
[ Parent ]
because that's what this is (0.00 / 0)
A "spending freeze" means stopping the growth of spending (discretionary spending, in this case). That, in essence, amounts to a spending cut over time. That's why the article cited above says "Among the areas that may be potentially subject to cuts".

So, if you prefer, what are some specific areas of discretionary spending that are subject to the spending freeze?

[ Parent ]
I get that (4.00 / 2)
but this isn't an either/or.  Spending cuts and freezes hardly exhaust the range of options available to us.  

Do you not understand that this isn't about "getting more info" but an indication of a fundamentally mistaken type of policy choice?

[ Parent ]
no, because (0.00 / 0)
at this point, this is all about people getting hung up over messaging. If this is targeting freezing of actual government waste, while continuing to fund and/or increase funding for vital programs, then that would be a healthy thing to do. If all the reporting thus far is wrong and we're talking about freezing entitlements, not so much.

This wasn't called a "spending freeze" to win you over. (That was what the leak about Obama bringing up DADT in the speech was supposed to do.) This is being done to send a message to people who've had it drilled into their heads every day for a freaking year by the media that the deficit is the BIGGEST PROBLEM EVAH. We can argue about whether that's going to work or not, but really, Sirota hyperventilating about "targeting social safety-net spending" without knowing if that's true, and then calling it "indefensibly grotesque," is just way too much drama.

[ Parent ]
It's not drama, its understanding politics (4.00 / 3)
First, the media says that the deficit is a problem because key people in the Village say it's a problem. The White House is causing the problem with this step.  They are not victims of it.

Second, messaging matters. Calling it a spending freeze will not win anyone over. It will trigger conservative frames that encourage people to support conservatives.  

Third, it's not enough to say we cut bad spending and increased good spending - the overall amount of spending matters.  Cutting it is dumb right now, even if it's "waste." (Changing how you are spending the money is a good thing, but a different thing.)

Lastly, waiting to react until we have all the details is another way of saying waiting to react until you've already lost. Accuse people of being excessively emotional if you want, but you're really encouraging us to get out of the game.

Politics is the art of the possible, but that means you have to think about changing what is possible, not that you have to accept it in perpetuity.

[ Parent ]
I think your ideas are ridiculous (4.00 / 3)
Do you not understand that reducing the deficit is among the lowest priorities of American voters?

Bringing back Plouffe, focusing on "messaging," gratifying the campaign consultant class and the people in the MSM like Chris Matthews who think they matter, focusing on the deficit instead of jobs, etc., etc., etc., are all pieces of a moldy old pie that's going to prove highly toxic to any Democratic candidate who dares eat from it over the next couple election cycles.  

If you think Sirota's hyperventilating, look at the Presidents who have promised to cut waste since Jimmy Carter and analyze the policy choices that follow.  This is a part of a deep pattern of political behavior that should be antithetical to anyone who cares about leftist politics in the US.    

[ Parent ]
like I said (0.00 / 0)
People are getting hung up over messaging, when it's not clear whether it's going to matter. I think if Obama can turn his administration around and actually deliver on real, progressive reforms, with health care as the biggest example, that would outweigh any framing successes or mistakes in voters' minds.

But the messaging wasn't the point of the original post. Saying that "This is actually worse - way worse - than John McCain's campaign proposal for across-the-board cuts, as across-the-board cuts would have hit the massive and bloated Pentagon budget. Instead, the Obama administration is specifically and exclusively targeting social safety-net spending for a budget freeze (read: cut in real, inflation-adjusted dollars)." has nothing to do with messaging. It's a claim that Sirota made without knowing what the facts are. (And it's worth noting that Obama has already taken action against the bloated Pentagon budget.)

I haven't seen any poll numbers lately on what people think about the deficit, but there is the recent CNN poll about how 3/4 of Americans think most of the stimulus money was wasted. Perhaps this is a reaction to numbers like that. And hell, I think every modern president since Teddy Roosevelt has promised to cut government waste. It's like coming out against flag-burning: it's a safe, non-controversial thing to say. So before I get worried about all of our social safety nets being yanked from us or the irreversible damage to the liberal brand, I'd like to see exactly what the cuts will look like and hear how Obama and his administration explain them.  

[ Parent ]
What leak about Obama bringing up DADT? (0.00 / 0)
Missed it. Has it been reported somewhere?
[ Parent ]
1000 Ponies! (4.00 / 1)
I know they're in there!

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3
[ Parent ]
More like a giant unicorn (0.00 / 0)
shoved up our collective bunghole.
[ Parent ]
Context dude! (4.00 / 2)
This is all about embracing centrism and bipartisanship. Exactly what screwed the Dems in the Mass senate race. Messages like this influence progressives to stay home on election day and give no money. Oh wait, SCOTUS says our participation is meaningless anyway, since corporations are now allowed to have more "speech" than we are. No wonder the Obama administration is now talking "government restraint." I'm sure that next up is "tax relief."  

Save Our Schools! March & National Call to Action, July 28-31, 2011 in Washington, DC: http://www.saveourschoolsmarch...
[ Parent ]
This is about embracing Reaganism (4.00 / 1)
So the big sales pitch on Wednesday is to be the embrace of the security state and cuts to human services - cuts to human services in a depression.  
[ Parent ]
Agree (0.00 / 0)
But what Reagan espoused would be a "centrist" POV today, according to what Versailles describes as "centrist," i.e.;  government spending as "the problem."

Save Our Schools! March & National Call to Action, July 28-31, 2011 in Washington, DC: http://www.saveourschoolsmarch...
[ Parent ]
It's interesting (0.00 / 0)
How Sirota's ellipsis leaves out the very next line, "Also untouched are big entitlement programs such as Social Security and Medicare."  Of course, mentioning it would take away from the narrative.

If Agriculture is one department which is under the knife, I wouldn't mind seeing some agricultural subsidies being pared back.

Things You Don't Talk About in Polite Company: Religion, Politics, the Occasional Intersection of Both

[ Parent ]
Good point (4.00 / 1)
But you have to admit that at a time when progressives are looking for an aggressive leader to put forward government programs that could make a difference in people's lives, it's disheartening to be met with tepid "we're focused on the deficit" messages. It makes Obama come off as a total sell-out to the "bipartisanship" DC narrative that we have to accommodate conservatives who basically want a continuation of the Bush administration.

Save Our Schools! March & National Call to Action, July 28-31, 2011 in Washington, DC: http://www.saveourschoolsmarch...
[ Parent ]
Not really (4.00 / 1)
The story here is the promotion of so-called "fiscal responsibility" over economic stimulus, and it's a disastrous move.

There's a reason why Evan Bayh is ecstatic about this, and it's not because Obama is preparing to fight big agricultural interests.  He will take on people who live in subsidized housing, urban transit systems, and state subsidies for highway improvements, though.  

[ Parent ]
The Entitle Programs Are ALREADY Targetted By The Catfood Commission (4.00 / 2)
How many ways does he have to cut them?

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3
[ Parent ]
Another way of saying (4.00 / 2)
"to warm independents and soft Republicans to the idea" is advancing conservative frames that undermine progressive policies and the Democratic Party. He could be reaching out to those people in ways that don't help the other side.  


Politics is the art of the possible, but that means you have to think about changing what is possible, not that you have to accept it in perpetuity.
[ Parent ]
Someone remind me why progressives should fund this guy (4.00 / 6)
(or any establishment Democrat) for the Presidency in 2012.  

Beyond the fact that we're not in Iran, I see precious little in the way of tangible benefits from neoliberal policies.  In fact, the downside has been so pronounced over the Carter, Clinton and Obama administrations that it seems like people on the left need to just say no to neoliberals, pay a big short term price, and take back the Democratic Party for the long term.    

time to look for a presidential primary challenger in 2012 (4.00 / 2)
hard to find a good one

start looking now

Anyone Who Got An "A" In Undergrad Macro-Economics Is Looking Pretty Good Right Now (4.00 / 7)
Or a "B" in the history of the New Deal.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3
[ Parent ]
Ron Paul? (4.00 / 1)
At least he would have gotten us out of Iraq.
[ Parent ]
And Dismantled The Entire Federal Government! (4.00 / 3)
Woo-Hoo!

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3
[ Parent ]
Look on the bright side (0.00 / 0)
He'll be gone in three years.
But until the Democratic Party changes (4.00 / 4)
in profound, structural ways, candidates who offer policies like this is exactly what we'll get.  David Plouffe wrote in today's Post that "change is not about policies." Good God.

The biggest impediments to this are the difficulties organizing workers in a service economy.    

[ Parent ]
He's The Democratic Anti-Reagan (4.00 / 8)
If one person can utterly destroy a political party, Barack Obama is going do his best to find out.

Un-fucking-believable.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

Three Words... (0.00 / 0)
Right On, Sirota!
Purely political (0.00 / 0)
The problem with the deficit right now is a lack of revenue because people are not working.  Focus on jobs and the deficit improves.

If he was so concerned about the deficit why didn't he fight harder for real health care reform.

RebelCapitalist - Financial Information for the Rest of Us.

Cutting HHS is healthcare "reform" (0.00 / 0)
We just didn't know what the word "reform" meant.  
[ Parent ]
They're morons (0.00 / 0)
leave the dems already!  This is not just wrong headedness.  Obama mislead everyone about who he was and what he stood for.  

My blog  
Funny, I was spot on. (0.00 / 0)

[ Parent ]
Dems are much less of a problem than Obama! (0.00 / 0)
Millions leeaving the paty because of one idiot would be the wrong move. Stay in the party and kick Obama out! In other nations, where parties are much more organized and membership is more fomal than simple xprssing paty affiliation., thiswould be no problem. But in those coutries a party traitor like Obama wouldn't run the government, of course.  
[ Parent ]
credulous fool (4.00 / 2)
he's really just letting pundits, corporatists, and Republicans lead him around by the nose, isn't he? All the backbone is rhetorical.

What's even more discouraging is that so many of us on the left are caught in a conundrum: the worst Democrats are better than the best Republicans (although the gap is closing; some would argue it's gone but I disagree), but how to mount a meaningful organized opposition to all this that doesn't enable further Republican takeovers? talk about your "shock doctrine," this has been a week of them.

You do have a choice to leave the dems (0.00 / 0)
they are just a stupid addiction.

My blog  
[ Parent ]
From Free Soilers, to the Temperance Party, the Farmer-Labor Party, (4.00 / 3)
People's Party, and on and on and on.  If major parties are a "stupid addiction," third parties are nothing more than a quick fix.  They do force major parties to change, but the political incentives for subsuming themselves within those same parties inevitably proves irresistible.  

The key is not to focus on building political parties to run candidates for campaigns, but building movements to set political agendas for those candidates once they reach office.

[ Parent ]
I am not supporting Obama (0.00 / 0)
and I probably won't support any progressives either. They just capitulate all the time.    

My blog  
[ Parent ]
Vote Republican! (4.00 / 1)
That'll show 'em!

That's what lots of folks in MA did, and look how well it turned out!

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
I am voting third party or writing in (0.00 / 0)
blame the system not me!

My blog  
[ Parent ]
We've Had Several Months Of Discussion Here About Effective Progressive Alternatives (0.00 / 0)
and you're still committed to a strategy with zero chance of working.

You've exactly like Obama.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
Not grotesque - INSANE (4.00 / 1)
The president seems to have taken leave of his senses. He's going to go down as "Herbert" Obama and take the rest of the Dems with him.

Someone wake him and tell he won, not John McCain.

Obama's New Jobs Plan: The Anti-Stimulus! (4.00 / 1)
If you're reading this and thinking, "Well, the deficit is out of control," then you need to put down your bullshit, discredited Chicago-School economic theory that got us in this mess in the first place, and read some John Maynard Keynes. Because the one thing you don't do in the middle of a recession is cut spending.

Read more here:

http://www.guerillapost.com/20...

I don't think this dipshit that I voted for (4.00 / 1)
has a clue.  We've elected a guy who makes up his plan day by day.  And when things go wrong, he lies.  Start getting ready for another 20 years of Republicans.

"Oh. My. God. .... We're doomed." -- Paul Krugman
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.c...">http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.c...">http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.c...
One Word: Grotesque; Another Three Words: Selective Deficit Disorder | 48 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