It is unlikely that spending will actually be frozen or cut

by: Chris Bowers

Mon Jan 25, 2010 at 23:26


In the midst of the rightful outrage over President Obama's call for cuts in social spending during poor economic times, keep in mind that the likelihood of social spending actually being frozen or cut remain pretty low.

This is because the people who actually write spending bills--members of the House Appropriation and Budget committees--say they won't be freezing or cutting social spending:

House Democrats are rejecting an idea floated by the Obama administration to freeze or cut discretionary spending in 2011.

Key members of the House Appropriations and Budget committees told The Hill this month they would not go along with alternative spending plans being requested by White House Budget Director Peter Orszag, which are part of the administration's plan to reduce the deficit.

Months ago, the White House asked the relevant House Democrats to prepare three budget drafts, including one with a freeze on discretionary spending and one with a 5% cut in discretionary spending.  They didn't even prepare the drafts.

Members of Congress write and vote on the budget, and members of Congress like to bring the bacon home to their districts. As such, the legislative process will ultimately make President Obama's call for a spending freeze a hollow one.  Like the President's deficit commission, not much will actually come of this.

This call for a spending cut is a press release.  It is a sop to elites make it appear as though the administration is "serious" in the way that only people who propose bombing and / or cutting support for poor people can be "serious."  It is the latest instance in very a long running PR campaign to portray President Obama as anything but a DFH (hat tip: david mizner in the comments).

While it is sad that President Obama isn't using the filibuster proof budget process to pursue an expansion of the social safety net, time and time again President Obama has demonstrated that he does not want to use the budget process for significant legislative change (and neither does the Senate).  However, since that is no longer a surprise, it also isn't really a disappointment.  The same goes for his triangulation against the progressive-left.  It has been going on for years, and it shouldn't surprise anyone anymore.

Chris Bowers :: It is unlikely that spending will actually be frozen or cut

Tags: , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email

It is unlikely that spending will actually be frozen or cut | 92 comments
By "not a disappointment" (4.00 / 2)
I take you to mean "entirely predictable," i.e., part of deeply entrenched pattern of cynical cowardice by DLC politicians.  
He means we should all be ashamed... (4.00 / 1)
...that we were fooled by Obama.

The only larger shame belongs to Obama himself.

What a lucky man he was.

[ Parent ]
The real problem (4.00 / 16)
Is that the reinforcement of Republican frames does further serious damage to the Democratic brand. Also, when the inevitable process that you outline does occur, effectively Obama will have hung the Congressional party out to dry. I would have voted for McCain if I wanted this kind of stupid sit.
Idea: Reverse privatization of government (4.00 / 16)
Since the majority of government waste and fraud arises from the privatization of its functions, we could save a huge chunk of cash by placing outsourced tasks back inside it.  
Now there's an meme that needs amplification. (0.00 / 0)
n/t
[ Parent ]
To paraphrase Digby (4.00 / 18)
and I believe Maddow mentioned it as well...

Even talking about a spending freeze, when what you really need is more government spending to get the economy back on track, is counterproductive, unless you really do advocate a sort of kinder, gentler neo-hooverism.

True It May Not Happen (4.00 / 21)
But having the President sound like Herbert Hooever is still going to damage the party enormously.

I'd rather have incompetent messaging than Benedict Arnold messaging.

"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

Jerome Armstrong (4.00 / 2)
was right all along.  I'll just leave it at that.
[ Parent ]
But hey (4.00 / 11)
next fall Dems are impress those independents who care more about the deficit than the overall economy, all six of them...till they decide in the end to vote Republican, cause, hey, that party is really serious about cutting the deficit.  
[ Parent ]
Benedict Arnold (4.00 / 2)
So his denial IS malicious; not innocent. I thought so. Nice of you yesterday to have given him the benefit of the dougt, but glad that today you admit it.
[ Parent ]
Well, This Is OBJECTIVELY A Betrayal (0.00 / 0)
I don't know about a malicious state of mind.  It's really beside the point for this discussion.

"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 ]
Benedict Arnold? (0.00 / 0)
It's not beside the point for this discussion; you brought it up.
[ Parent ]
It's OBJECTIVELY True (0.00 / 0)
What part of "objectively" don't you understand?

"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 ]
So, you take your BEnedict Arnold comparison back? (0.00 / 0)
I mean, really Paul, Neil has a point. Benedict Arnold is best known for being a traitor (but at least he had reason to be bitter about his country). Hmm, you brought this up, but if you don't want to say that Obama is a traitor, deliberately selling out, why don't you simply admit it was a mistake? Obama is no Benedict Arnold anyway. Never won any battles, never really suffered under intrigues, no reason to be bitter about his carreer.
[ Parent ]
Your Basic Problem Is The Same As Obama's (4.00 / 1)
You think in terms of personalities, and individual motivations.  The atomized individualist view of history.

You think the important thing about Benedict Arnold was his individual motivation.

I think the important thing about Benedict Arnold was what he did.

But, for the record, he also thought that the Revolution was a lost cause, so what he was doing was actually good for America.  Which is not that different from GOP-brainwashed 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 ]
Well, it's not unreasonable to also look at the motivation. (0.00 / 0)
Actually, most stories about Arnold put a strong focus on his motivation, because otherwise you can't really understand why he switched sides. So, while you're right that I see this as an important point, I'm not unreasonable in doing so.

"he also thought that the Revolution was a lost cause, so what he was doing was actually good for America.  Which is not that different from GOP-brainwashed Obama."
Ok, that's a point. In this light, the comparison makes some sense.

(However, on a meta level: When was the last time you admitted a mistake, Paul? And why do you have so obvious problems with that? Nobody's perfect, not even Paul Rosenberg!)

[ Parent ]
Btw, imho it would have done you good if you had siblings... (0.00 / 0)
...who are even smarter than you! It sure did help me.
:D
[ Parent ]
So, it's largely (4.00 / 7)
about picking (another) fight with the hippies.

Well, he wants a fight; he's got one.  

It's Called "Displacement" (0.00 / 0)
Another defense mechanism.

"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 ]
Like blaming me and other ordinary (0.00 / 0)
voters for your inability to take over the democrats, when they have never in history been driven by progressives.  

My blog  
[ Parent ]
This Is Simply False (0.00 / 0)
The Dems HAVE been driven by progressives on two major occassions--the 30s and the 60s.  They weren't controlled by progressives, but they were driven by them, and a whole lot of good was done as a result.

"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 ]
Then you should be focusing on strikes and protests (4.00 / 2)
and not elections or primaries.  Which would get me interested!

My blog  
[ Parent ]
Strikes & Protests Are Fine (0.00 / 0)
but if you don't run folks against them, then you have no real power where it counts.

And this is coming from a life-time issue activist.

"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 just not hopeful about this strategy! (0.00 / 0)
sorry.  I think they will run as independents like Lieberman if they don't win.

I think a third party is a more likely route.  I just think they are too corrupt.

My blog  

[ Parent ]
You Don't THINK (4.00 / 2)
You feel.  Anger.

That's it.

"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 have lived long enough to see that (0.00 / 0)
all attempts to reform the dems are useless!  

My blog  
[ Parent ]
i disagree (4.00 / 1)
i think strikes and protests are HOW you reform the democrats.  part of it anyway.

but it has to be posed in terms of opposition (i.e. not reform), and it has to be with a secure powerbase so that the really crazy rightwing (the noncapitalist one) can't get into power and get us all killed or worse.

and at the end of the day, the democrats will still be a corporate tool, but a better one (for us).

[ Parent ]
I am bored with endless analysis as a form of (4.00 / 1)
political activism.  I hate it that the only time we can act is during primaries and general elections.  I happen to think socalled netroots tactics are actually passive.   It seems to me you are just acting out protests and not doing anything real.  It is like dungeons and dragons activism.

My blog  
[ Parent ]
Well you only know the rest of us from a website (4.00 / 1)
so of course it is going to seem like we don't do shit.  You only see our communicative behavior, and you only see it on one website.  But you don't know what groups the rest of us are a part of.  You don't know what campaigns we have worked in.  If all we did was type little comments on blogs, then sure it would be like dungeons and dragons, but the point is we don't.  And you have no reason to think we limit our activism to that.  
[ Parent ]
Disagree (4.00 / 1)
Strikes and protests can change things without actually involving people from the strikes and protests getting elected.  I think it is pretty clear that Teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson became progressives mainly because of the fear of the agrarian populist movement.  And it was not because of Populist electoral gains.  It was because they were afraid the system was going to fall apart.  Successful radical organization changes things by itself because it convinces elites of the necessity of organization.

On the flip side Dameocrat's call for strikes and protests is a bit pie in the sky.  It takes years and years and years (in the Populists case 30 years if I recall correctly) to build the infrastructure and movement confidence to actually change things via this route.  And I am not clear what group or coalition of groups is anywhere near able to pull that off now.  

The irony is the suggestion of 'Defend Keynesian Economics' as the rally cry for a mass movement.  I don't see this getting people going.  Part of what made the Populist movement as successful as it was, was the fact that their prescriptions for change involved changing things at the ground level, not just (and not even mainly) at the level of federal technocratic policies.  The Populists organized cooperative banks to replace the big banks.  It helped organize efforts to buy back or sometimes just take back farmer's land that had been lost to agribusiness.  So not only do we not have the organization necessary for what Dameocrat is talking about, its not clear we have the comprehensive message.

And I am guessing the response from Dameocrat is 'That is no reason to give up!'  or 'Let's get to work then.'  The problem is that there are a few problems we are facing that are a bit pressing and can't wait 30 years or even 10 years.  If we don't do something about global warming soon millions of people will die.  If we don't do something about limiting corporate power soon then national governments aren't going to be able to do much about their power before too long.  

[ Parent ]
If you think the world can't wait to have global warming (0.00 / 0)
solved why do you think we will solve it with corporate dems?

My blog  
[ Parent ]
I don't think we will (0.00 / 0)
But I think some combination of corporate democrats, progressive democrats and technocratic centrists can get something meaningful done.  

What we will get out of such an ugly alliance will not be what we could reasonably have hoped for, and it will be far less than any reasonable informed person would have said was sufficient, but it might slow the growth of deserts, the rise in sea levels, the rate of increase of famines, etc.  Slow things down and you have a chance to at least plan on how to ameliorate some of these changes.  You have time to figure out new water supplies, where to put people displaced by climate change, how to prevent the coasts from going underwater.  Even the limited goals I am talking about will require the mobilization of huge amounts of resources.  

But if you seriously believe there is an institution or set of institutions outside the democratic party that is capable of moving the country in the direction of mobilizing its resources that way, or you think there is a way to develop such an institution in the matter of a year or two, I think you are being unrealistic.

Let me put it this way.  I figure the chances of getting real movement on global warming from the democratic party is around 30%.  Do you really think the probability of the Green party achieving political relevance by 2012 is anywhere near 30%?  Even if all the progressive democrats left the Democratic party and joined the greens, all you would be left with is a republican majority for the next decade or so.

[ Parent ]
I wouldn't be as optimistic (0.00 / 0)
because cap trade has not worked in other countries where it has been tried.  I think the green or progressive party would be relevant before you see meaninful action from you coalition.

My blog  
[ Parent ]
Global warming (4.00 / 1)
The recent Supreme Court decision allowing unlimited political expenditures by Exxon, etc. would seem to have killed US government action on global warming.  They can buy a few senators and do fake filibusters.

The immediate direction of the Supreme Court will be to the right when Stevens finally retires.  The most liberal member of the court is a Republican.  Placed there by Gerald Ford.

The five "injustices" who passed the corporate spending spree  are all basically young and set up for a good long run.  The fact that Roberts, for example, lied to make his confirmation easy means that no Republican without a record should be confirmed by Democrats for the Supreme Court.

[ Parent ]
Actually ... (0.00 / 0)
Scalia is 73 ... believe it or not .. so there is hope yet
[ Parent ]
I don't think this is obvious (0.00 / 0)
For one thing for-profit corporations are not of one mind on the global warming issue.  Global Warming is going to affect different corporations differently.  Some have a real stake in preventing the effects of global warming from being dire.  The tourist industry for example is going to be severely impacted and in a lot of cases have already started lobbying in favor of government action (I think it was last winter that decreased snowfall in some Candadian ski resorts led the parent companies to start lobbying for cap and trade in the US.)

The others oppose action on global warming for the most part because corporations have perverse and irrational incentive and command structures.  The people with the power to make decisions about internal corporate policy and to stear the political activity of the corporations are usually executives without a significant long term investment in the company (because of back-dating stock options and the like).  These executives have incentives for short term profitability, not long term profitability.  This is part of what explains the irrationality of the business sector in reacting to Global Warming.  To take the steps necessary to prevent the horrific long term consequences, short term adjustments and costs have to/had to be accepted.  And given the way that most corporations are structured, and given the absurd way we handle the distribution of investment capital in this country (i.e. private actors make stock trades in an underregulated market), American corporations are unable to deal with long term problems.

So as long as the costs of Global Warming are far off, and the costs of stopping it are nearby, most for profit coporations are going to be against doing anything.  But the sad thing is the costs of global warming are not that far off.  In some cases we have been dealing with them for years already.  Lots of oil companies have already had to absorb huge losses because of hurricanes wiping out their infrastructure in the Gulf of Mexico.  On the assumption that the massive dislocations that Global Warming brings are staring us in the face, I think you will see for profit corporations starting to get behind some kind of regulation and cost sharing here.  They will try to do so in a way that keeps them as profitable as possible, and they will of course not hesitate to switch from carbon based power to other environmentally destructive forms of power, like nuclear power, but once it is a short term problem they are going to shape up.

In a way this is an expression of a deep problem with capitalism.  Given how people actually behave, and not how classical economics assumes they will behave, you get short-sighted irrartional investment decisions and corporate behavior.  That is why a problem that has been apparent to scientists since the 80s has not had any significant attention from the people in power yet.  But once they realize that without government intervention they are going to lose money, they are going to get out of the way, because at that point executives will lose their jobs.

To be clear I don't think there is any realistic prospect of preventing the large scale climatic changes that have been predicted since the 90s.  I assume temperatures are going to go up by a degree or two.  I assume that there is going to be large scale die off in the oceans.  I assume that large parts of Africa are going to become uninhabitable.  I assume that there is going to be a sharp decrease in arable land.  All I am hoping for at this point is planning and investment done by the major governments to reduce the number of people who die from these changes.  Maybe I am being too pessimistic, but if we just let all this happen without figuring out where to move people, how to redirect water supplies and how to make better use of the habitable land we will have left, hundreds of millions of people are going to die.  And I think it is the project of preventing these people from dying that still has a hope, because hundreds of millions of people dying in the near future has got to concern the major coporations, if only becuase it would involve a contraction of important markets.  

[ Parent ]
the people who would run against them (0.00 / 0)
the ones we're waiting for...are the ones who would be leading the strikes and protests.  last year, a lot of them ran campaigns for politicians...and still are, before going back to their day jobs in unions.
[ Parent ]
Dameocrat? (0.00 / 0)
Dear Dameocrat: Please explain what your handle means.
[ Parent ]
Please explain why you are troll rating me? (0.00 / 0)
also tell me what openleft means?

My blog  
[ Parent ]
Answer my question. (0.00 / 0)
. What does Dameocrat mean?
[ Parent ]
I was female democrat when I signed up! (4.00 / 2)
!

My blog  
[ Parent ]
Sincere apology (4.00 / 1)
I was out of line.
[ Parent ]
Oops. I always thought it was a greek phrase! (0.00 / 0)
Damn, sometimes it's surprisingly difficult to see the obvious. Thx for providing the explanation!
[ Parent ]
Undid them (4.00 / 2)
Silly of me.
[ Parent ]
Another defense mechanism? (0.00 / 0)
Come on.

Obama's a malicious traitor. Admit it.

[ Parent ]
explain how he's a malicious traitor (0.00 / 0)
particularly when you compare him to other politicians of his era or that just preceding him (al gore, bill clinton, nancy pelosi, etc.)

could it be - just maybe - that when someone puts themselves in charge of the largest war machine and tool of capitalism ever built (the u.s. state), they will be a certain type of person, and believing that they might be any other type of person is foolhardy?

in that sense - he is a malicious traitor - like all the other ones in government and moreso the ones outside.

[ Parent ]
wtf? (0.00 / 0)
I thought you were the guy who was going around telling people they have a "problem" because they think in terms of psychohistory. Now your talking about displacement and defense mechanisms? sheesh...
[ Parent ]
Either the WH is doing the absolute wrong thing (0.00 / 0)
or, they are telling us we need to do the wrong thing without delivering.

I'm not sure which is better.

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.

Don't You Mean (0.00 / 0)
"I'm not sure which is worse"?

"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 ]
Somehow, despite everything (4.00 / 2)
I'm still trying to stay positive.

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 ]
it's not an either/or (4.00 / 1)
they're apparently trying to influence the ways in which decisions are made (ethos) and sending a signal, with the understanding that they have no power to implement it full force.  that's my read based on the quote above in another comment and the recent article abotu the influence of believing behavioural economics on this administration.
[ Parent ]
Even if he doesn't actually do it (4.00 / 9)
(and yeah, I was skeptical that he actually would/could) just talking against government spending instead of for it is counterproductive and harmful to the liberal message that government is the way we collectively take care of our country and each other.

This Democratic anti-government-ism is a step backward, ala Clintonism.  Strange, didn't Obama say he wanted to be a transformational president in a way that Bill Clinton was not?  I'm really amazed - amazed! - that what President Obama is saying and doing doesn't match up with what Senator Obama said as a presidential candidate...

Politicians ALWAYS Lie (4.00 / 1)
It's how they lie, why they lie, and what they lie about that keeps you guessing.

Or not.


"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 lieing here (0.00 / 0)
Obama promised the Blue Dogs he would balance the budget as a part of his campaign to pass the stimulus package.  Like his "bipartisan" mantra in Iowa, this was not fluff but deadly serious.  The long term planning involved (months of actions by government agencies) tells you this.

Obama blatantly lies and lies frequently to House and Senate liberals (he'll fix abortion restrictions in conference).  He doesn't lie to the Blue Dogs.  That says one of two things.  Either Obama is scared of the Blue Dogs or he is actually sympathetic and allied with them.

Obama's statement at the time was that he was a New Democrat.  I don't think he was lying.  If Obama really is a conservative Democrat, and the facts seem to indicate this, Chris's reading that none of this will be implemented seems a tad hopeful.  Obama has consistently pushed around a larger number of progressive and middle of the road Democrats to placate a small number of Blue Dogs and conservadems.  

I believe that the first ten years of adulthood are a critical period for policy development.  Those ten years for Obama coincide pretty much with Reagan.  He really did drink some of the Kool Aid.  The last ten years, an equally critical period, coincides with the age of George W. Bush.  It is an unfortunate coincidence that leaves Obama thinking that Republicans are powerful and that Republican "ideas". particularly tax cuts, "government is not the solution, government is the problem" and military interventionism are completely dominant.

[ Parent ]
It's A Lie That This Is Good, Much Less Necessary Economics (0.00 / 0)
It's also a lie that people simply reflect the politics of the presidents they grow up or come to power under.

"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 ]
Whoa, you can't be saying that there are no liberals (0.00 / 0)
in that age bracket that became adults during the Reagan years.

Also, I don't know if Obama ever said he was a New Democrat.  He rejected a DLC endorsement back around 2004 and AFAIK has usually avoided labels, in that typical cowardly Democrat way.

Otherwise, I agree with what you said.

[ Parent ]
it's also about whether they admit that they're lying and that they're more or less obligated to (0.00 / 0)
an honest politician comes nowhere near power.  a politician who is honest about the system that forces them to behave dishonestly might.
[ Parent ]
Exactly (4.00 / 2)
The man behind the curtain never had any power. This is one more pathetic attempt...

What a pitiful man Obama has become.

Who Knew? (4.00 / 1)
That David Plouffe came back to stick a "kick me" sign on Obama's backside.

"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 ]
My partner... (4.00 / 4)
...is heartbroken. Like he was with Clinton. We walked together back then, the two of us lovers, door to door, to elect a smart guy president; to elect someone that would do something for us and our friends.

He doesn't talk about it. We don't talk about it. There's not much to say. My heart was broken the first time when Carter lost to Reagan. I chalked that one up to naivete.

So, Clinton. I've got not a dime in my bank account to show for me and my partner working for him. Nada. Then the blow job. That he got it on her dress added insult to injury.

Now Obama. Betrayed again. You can call it reaction formation, or denial. What good does it do? Deadly viruses thrive by the same mechanism. Human beings are held to higher standards.

I'm all for pity. And compassion. But post-modern psychoanalytic diagnoses aren't compassionate. They're idiotic.

It's long past time to understand Obama. It's time to defeat him.

[ Parent ]
You Don't Defeat Someone Without Understanding Them (4.00 / 2)
That's basic Sun Tzu.

And defense mechanisms aren't post-modern.  They're standard Freudian psychology, owing as much to Anna as to Sigmund, but are widely recognized by folks who don't consider themselves Freudians at all.  They're just really basic observational stuff.

One reason I wasn't taken in by either Clinton or Obama was because I had a better idea of who they were before they were elected.  Of course both of them surprised me by being worse than I imagined.  But Clinton also fought back against the GOP with surprising ferocity that also surprised me.  So, in the end, he was pretty much in the ballpark I expected.

Obama is definitely worse.  I thought his bipartisan shtick was based on appealing to rank-and-file Republicans--and independents even moreso--and that the appeal to elected leaders would be conditional in some sense.  I thought that was part of the point of his mass-based campaign mobilization--to build an apparatus that could help pressure the more moderate and more vulnerable Republicans.  In short, I thought he was a minimally competent politician.  I was obviously wrong.  He's akin to an idiot savant.  His specialized talent is not reflective of an overall understanding.

"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 ]
you shouldn't defeat obama (0.00 / 0)
you should replace him with someone better.
[ Parent ]
So he's just setting himself up? (4.00 / 8)
It's just an empty pledge and of course he'll sign larger budgets? It's just an empty sop to the indies and centrists, and there'll be no backlash when he breaks the promise? The GOP and the media puck funnel will just give him a pass on this flip-flop pledge. Riiighttt.

Oh, and of course, there won't be any "Dems divided" or "Dems in disarray" narratives when congressional Dems try to force a larger budgets on Obama? I'm sure congressional Dems are thrilled that they'll have to do all the heavy lifting while the president sells them out too.

Sorry, Chris. Three years. He's consigning himself to doing nothing for the rest of his term.

Self-refuting Christine O'Donnell is proof monkeys are still evolving into humans

So if Congress does the right thing (4.00 / 7)
He gets to run against them.. He gets to triangulate against them...How do you go out in the summer and fall of the 2010 election and say vote for X for Congress.  He didn't vote with me to hold down spending but vote for him anyway.

It is just reenfocing right wing frames about economics, government and that Dems spend too much and that Republicans are responsible stewards.

And certainly if you think we are spending too much, what kind of compelling argument can you make about needing a jobs bill.

It is saying Keynesian is just a false economic analysis.  And that Gilder and all those idiotic Republican ideas that giving money to everyday people is waste while giving money to rich people is going to make the economy better.

How many differnt ways can he either throw in the towel or throw it into the face of the base of his party and the poor and middle class who vote for the Democratic party.


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

The message is nearly as bad as the goal (0.00 / 0)
Agreed debcoop.  Even if Chris is right that it all amounts to empty rhetoric, Obama is reinforcing the conservative narrative about government's role, which does long term damage to the progressive movement. It may be time to stop thinking of how to push Obama left, and more how to push him out.
[ Parent ]
and this is just a start... (4.00 / 1)
But one administration official said that limiting the much smaller discretionary domestic budget would have symbolic value. That spending includes lawmakers' earmarks for parochial projects, and only when the public believes such perceived waste is being wrung out will they be willing to consider reductions in popular entitlement programs, the official said.

"By helping to create a new atmosphere of fiscal discipline, it can actually also feed into debates over other components of the budget," the official said, briefing reporters on the condition of anonymity.




New Jersey politics at Blue Jersey.
Where did you find this? (0.00 / 0)

[ Parent ]
oops! (4.00 / 2)
My apologies, it's the NYT article

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01...


New Jersey politics at Blue Jersey.

[ Parent ]
It's a gimmick... to try and chase independent voters... (4.00 / 3)
Of course chasing independent voters is like a dog chasing its tail... pointless and unproductive... accomplishments mean a lot more to indies than anything else.

This whole thing isn't new, BTW... they've been planning this since the fall when they started full stomp on the hippies, but it won't work.  Even if Obama managed to balance the budget in one year, he'd still be viewed as a "tax and spend liberal" for no other reason than he's a Democrat and a black one at that.

It's really a risky bet, and one not worth making...

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!

It's not a surprise, Chris (4.00 / 1)
But it's no less an outrage.  Cities and poor people, and the unemployed and everyone else in the slightest bit of need are all being thrown under the bus.  It didn't need to be this way except it's clear now that Obama doesn't really have a progressive bone in his body and was uncomfortable all along acting like he did.  He could never articulate the progressive case for governance because a) he didn't believe in one and b) the backers he really feels comfortable with are from Wall Street.  It's just horrible and it will take a generation or more for the Democratic Party to recover.  Whether democracy as we know it will survive that long is the main uncertainty going forward.
Late breaking news would be easier to take if it broke earlier (4.00 / 4)
Maybe I'll wake up tomorrow morning and understand this. Then again, maybe I won't. The message it's sending to me at this late hour, especially after the disgusting spectacle which has gone on and on and on in the Senate, is not that President Obama is an idiot, but that the country is ungovernable. Really, truly ungovernable. The president may not know what to do about that, but I'm not convinced that anyone else does either.

I'm reminded of Lincoln's A house divided against itself cannot stand. It doesn't help much to get angry. At this point, there's already more than enough anger to go around. Also fear and loathing.

This isn't going to end well, I think. It may not even end, since even the angriest people can't seem to imagine themselves indulging in the kind of catharsis which the country went through in 1860-65. That would require sacrifice, maybe even their own, and then they wouldn't be around to see who'll win next season's American Idol.

A banana republic, in other words, seems more likely to me at this point than a revolution. If so, I'm not sure I give a rat's ass whether President Obama or President Palin presides over it. Check with me again in the morning.

Why wake up... (0.00 / 0)
...in the morning?

I'm ready to die in a fight to change this. Anyone else?

[ Parent ]
Why? (0.00 / 0)
It's a habit. Also, I like to make myself useful. Even if the country is going to hell in a handbasket, there's lots of ways to do that.
[ Parent ]
It sounded like you were saying it's all hopeless (0.00 / 0)
I guess that's not what you meant.

Why do you like to make yourself useful, even when the country is going to hell in a handbasket?

[ Parent ]
Not an easy question (4.00 / 1)
If pressed, I'd say that I think life is more important than politics. I view politics as necessary, but not sufficient -- kinda like work.
[ Parent ]
It could end up being about family and friends (0.00 / 0)
There is still hope (and belief) that as things get worse for the nation - and the world - we can make the lives in our own mini-universes better than they would be absent our action therein.

[If that makes any sense...]

Stockpile wine.

Learn to pay acoustic instruments.

Stay close.

[ Parent ]
"play" (0.00 / 0)
Sorry.
[ Parent ]
you should give a rats ass (0.00 / 0)
because of the difference between bothering to mount an argument for war and just willy nilly invading and nuking whoever you so damn please.  it might not make a difference here, except that we pay for the blood of people elsewhere.  and THAT is a big difference.

that said, i think it is time to build a strong progressive alternative to the democratic party as long as the democratic party behaves as such - this is not democracy.  but defense is still defense while it has to be undertaken.

[ Parent ]
Bush made an argument for war, did he not? (0.00 / 0)
As Paul often says, it's not about justifications or motivations, its about the deeds themselves. Working folks get beggared, and Afghan wedding parties get bombed either way -- that's a reductio which is good to keep in mind, even as we argue the reasons.

I'm not against politics, but I am against bullshit. Your second paragraph states the solution well, but as always, the Devil is in the details, and even American political thinkers have to concede the possibility that we'll lose. It always exists, even for the best, the brightest, and the most noble.

[ Parent ]
the devil is indeed in the details (0.00 / 0)
bush i - limited-aim war as a response
clinton - low level war / sanctions / air control / signed regime change into law as policy
bush ii - completely inexplicable expansion and destabilisation of situation, wasted a ton of money, and loads of instability for everyone, among many other consequences
obama - continuing too much of the same problems, but not initiating new ones at the same rate as his predecessor / reducing troop levels / expansion of new war

i wouldn't pick any of them - they ARE american presidents after all - and they all murdered people, but in this one example (which shouldn't be taken in isolation but considered as part of a broader set of actions), i would take 1,2, and 4 over #3.  Foreign policy has most often been bipartisan and deadly, but there is a difference between the usual levels of malignance (shared by most democrats and republicans) and what bush did (and i have no doubt sarah palin would do - shared by fox news).

[ Parent ]
He hasn't given the speech yet. (0.00 / 0)
and already no one believes it.
Who do you believe, your illusions about "change"... (4.00 / 1)
...or the damning evidence in front of your own lying eyes?
:-/

Really, there has to be a time when even die hard Obama fans like you start to acknoledge that the guy really is a liar and pretender. All th atrocities, all tis anti-change, can't simply be explained away by the president simply having "bad" advicers. And who appoints all those advicers and officials anyway? A rebel who wanted change wouldn't have stuffed the WH with all those Village and Wallstreet insiders!  

[ Parent ]
In Germany, Obama would be impeached now. (4.00 / 3)
Not really "impeached", actually, but he would be kicked out of office after a House vote about the loss of confidence. One of the big advantages of a parliamentary democracy: No prime minister can survive sabotaging his own party, going against the interests of the House in this way. Of course, this only works because the House can simply vote for a new prime minister...
Too timid, (4.00 / 2)
We are in real trouble (or were all those global warming posts BS?)

Forget "primarying" Obama. Won't work. The only person with the clout to win, Hillary Clinton, is the same thing as Obama, only more so.

Forget burying your head in the sand and using apologetic walk back terms like "unlikely". That's more of the same "another outlier" shit that cost us an entire year.

You can hold your ground (actually you can only marginally slow the crisis) by adhering to the two-party system, how shall you spend the time gained from that holding action?

1. Pushing for needed Constitutional reform (the sine qua non)

2. Gathering forces for needed change - in other words a left-right alliance that can seriously fuck with the Corporatocracy's divide and rule strategy.

What are you doing? Figuring how to drag the rotten corpse of the Democratic Party ove the 2010 finish line. Damn, we are screwed!

Bottom line: The Forces of Darkness are playing 11th dimensional chess, while populist leftists are playing tiddlywinks. Throw them a curve! Help the Ron Paul types evict the Corporate GOP in Red State primaries in exchange for their help evicting Corporate Dems in Blue state primaries. Articulate a platform that includes multi-party Constitutional reform etc. that can unify the left-libertarian political nucleus in America!

Get hardcore, or get off the field.

Hillary Isn't Moreso (4.00 / 1)
Hillary promised to fight the GOP.

Of course her husband only did so fitfully.  But he did it far more than Obama does.

I had hoped that Obama would be better, because he wasn't 25+ years embedded in the network of failed GOP-lite operatives that the Clintons were surrounded with.  And I somewhat shared Mike Lux's view that the financial meltdown would force Obama to the left, because the center had so obviously failed.  So I misjudged how ideologically rigid Obama was--although I did see the signs of that ideology, and can link to my diaries where I talked about it.  The thing is, there was simply no way to tell how rigid he would be.  He hadn't been on the scene long enough for us to see that coming with any sort of certainty.

"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 ]
two things (0.00 / 0)
1. don't completely judge what hillary clinton would do by what her husband did do.  i'm sure there would be some similarities, but a lot of differences as well (e.g. I don't think she would engage in sexual relationships that would get most employees fired or brazenly lie to the public or cut women off of welfare rolls wtih the same gusto or sacrifice her entire party and what it stood for for personal power to the same extreme extent).

2. all of the things that you were concerned about before (being embedded for 25 years etc.) are still true about most senior democratic leaders including hillary clinton- which supports paul goodman's point.  you still had to move past those 25+ years - and still hurry up and wait for a new generation that is far more partisan and honest even if they may not have a greater sense of social justice for the most part (just a guess, being part of that generation).

[ Parent ]
Yes, ok, we don't know that much ebout what Hillary would do... (0.00 / 0)
..and we have to be careful to simply equate her politics with those of Bill. Valid point. But if we look at Hillary's resume, it's obvious that she always was more progressive than Obama. Really, especially his conduct at the Harvard Law Review, bing the big uniter with the right wingers, should have raised alarm bells!

Well, actually, many of us raised that alarm, but most on th other side won't listen, didn't even want to acknoledge this was reason for concern. Yes, I'm still sour about that.

[ Parent ]
really? (0.00 / 0)
it was more progrsesive to sit on the board of walmart?  please let's not rehash this.  they both suck.  agreed?
[ Parent ]
Obama sucks more. (0.00 / 0)
Ok?
:D
[ Parent ]
while I agree with you (0.00 / 0)
that we keep getting these silly posts after the goal posts have been moved downfield and we can see how terrible and scummy Obama really is, it is also important that we understand where we are and what we can do. Unfortunately in terms of affecting where this country is going, it is not a great deal. But we can PREPARE to affect it down the road. Focusing on electoral politics, even "better Dems" is to my mind a clear waste of time. Vote for them if you wish but it is not sufficiently promising to waste a lot of time joining such campaigns. If you win the progressive voice is just swallowed up by the corporate controllers of Congress; no real organization is left behind. We are too small now to bring about positive change in this way; third parties seem positive but they also a) won't win and b) can leave us without an organizational residue. I would hope we segregate ourselves (certainly mentally) from this dysfunctional system and try to organize ourselves as a national protest movement that is explicitly opposed to both major parties their corporate control and in support of jobs, housing, climate change and peace. That puts forward a view of the world and our country that is entirely dismissed, marginalized, by the parties and MSM today. If we put enough energy into our efforts then maybe these ideas will at least be part of the national discussion; if we make the Dems the enemy as well then they have to respond to the left narrative. This is a modest and possibly do-able goal, and it may build long term for the future. The "Mike Lux approach" of reading every fart of Obama and the Democratic Party as a possible change in the wind seems fruitless.  
[ Parent ]
Electing "Better Democrats" IS worthwhile (4.00 / 1)
because even if they get sucked into the "corporate controllers"; they still have good intentions, and that matters because when the environment does shift and become favorable towards progressive change those intentions can be expressed as actions.

Believe me, if we didn't have the CPC the public option would've been dead long ago.

In any case, we don't need to have a debate between electing good people and having outside activism.  We need BOTH to be successful.

[ Parent ]
Depends how serious he is (0.00 / 0)
The House can appropriate all they want. It is completely in the executives hands to actually spend the money. If he orders a freeze there isn't much the House can do about it even if they pass legislation to increase spending. He simply sits on it.

So... we'll see what happens with this particularly piece of historically proven stupidity.

It is unlikely that spending will actually be frozen or cut | 92 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