Contributors

Monday, August 01, 2011

One Giant Shit Show

Our nation's leaders have finally come together and will pass a bill at some point soon to raise the debt ceiling. The last few weeks have been one giant shit show and, now that it's all over, I thought it prudent to devote a post to the various thoughts I've had over the course of all of this. As always, I welcome your summative comments as well:)

To begin with, I am SO fucking tired of the "Washington's Broken' story line. It's not even remotely true and it's just a bunch of media drivel. Government ain't pretty, folks, and it never has been in our history. "Broken" was the Civil War, not an argument over spending and taxes. Let's declare a moratorium on this, shall we?

And while we are on the subject of whining, the professional left can go fuck themselves. They are disappointed in Obama and are "abandoning" him. To go where, exactly? Rather than wasting energy complaining, they should use that energy to go and find the 45 percent of the people in this country that don't vote and light a fire under their collective asses. Don't blame the president for the fact that he has to deal with a large bloc of completely intransigent people. Transform the Tea Party into a massive minority, send them back to their short wave radio set, and then maybe some of your wishes for government will come true. AP News had a good story on this recently.

Here's the truth: The overwhelming majority of senators and House members do what their constituents want them to do. Or, more to the point, they respond to people in their districts who bother to vote. Nothing is dearer to politicians than re-election, and most have a keen sense of when they are straying into dangerous waters.

A McClatchy-Marist poll this year found that 71 percent of registered voters want political leaders in Washington to compromise to get things done. If those voters skip key primaries, however, they may have little say in the matter.

Exactly right. Not only do these complainers have to get out and vote themselves, they have to get 10 other people to vote as well. That's how it fucking works so if you don't like the outcome, do something about it. No one said it would be easy.

Getting back to the media...what a load of shit they were during this debate. Paul Krugman absolutely nailed it perfectly in this recent piece.

News reports portray the parties as equally intransigent; pundits fantasize about some kind of “centrist” uprising, as if the problem was too much partisanship on both sides.

Some of us have long complained about the cult of “balance,” the insistence on portraying both parties as equally wrong and equally at fault on any issue, never mind the facts. I joked long ago that if one party declared that the earth was flat, the headlines would read “Views Differ on Shape of Planet.” But would that cult still rule in a situation as stark as the one we now face, in which one party is clearly engaged in blackmail and the other is dickering over the size of the ransom?

To me, this is essentially what happened. The current form of the GOP basically got everything they wanted. There was no additional revenue at all because of the anti-tax catechism of the right. They wouldn't even allow subsides to in the final plan even though basic economics proves that they too distort markets just like taxes. And what more proof do we need that the Bush Tax Cuts didn't work? We extended the cuts last year. Where are the jobs? In fact, our economy is stalling. That's not what I was told would happen. As Krugman notes in his piece, reality doesn't seem to matter.

From this point forward, we need to decimate the Cult of Balance. As Krugman notes,

For when reporting on political disputes always implies that both sides are to blame, there is no penalty for extremism. Voters won’t punish you for outrageous behavior if all they ever hear is that both sides are at fault.

But making nebulous calls for centrism, like writing news reports that always place equal blame on both parties, is a big cop-out — a cop-out that only encourages more bad behavior. The problem with American politics right now is Republican extremism, and if you’re not willing to say that, you’re helping make that problem worse.

This is what I have been saying for quite some time on here and it is now time for people, and especially the media, to accept this reality. We are spending far too much time managing the fantasies of the right and coddling their paranoia. In trying to be fair and think that "everyone's a winner and correct," we are holding back our country from solving the problems we face.

We can't continue to work with people who are closet fascists. Heck, some of them aren't even in the closet. They want everything exactly their way and are, conveniently, never wrong. Krugman summarizes this well.

As you may know, President Obama initially tried to strike a “Grand Bargain” with Republicans over taxes and spending. To do so, he not only chose not to make an issue of G.O.P. extortion, he offered extraordinary concessions on Democratic priorities: an increase in the age of Medicare eligibility, sharp spending cuts and only small revenue increases. As The Times’s Nate Silver pointed out, Mr. Obama effectively staked out a position that was not only far to the right of the average voter’s preferences, it was if anything a bit to the right of the average Republican voter’s preferences.

Remember, though, he must fail...even if reality is starkly different.

We already have a centrist president. Indeed, Bruce Bartlett, who served as a policy analyst in the Reagan administration, argues that Mr. Obama is in practice a moderate conservative.

Mr. Bartlett has a point. The president, as we’ve seen, was willing, even eager, to strike a budget deal that strongly favored conservative priorities. His health reform was very similar to the reform Mitt Romney installed in Massachusetts. Romneycare, in turn, closely followed the outlines of a plan originally proposed by the right-wing Heritage Foundation. And returning tax rates on high-income Americans to their level during the Roaring Nineties is hardly a socialist proposal.

While I'm not happy with the way things turned out, I'm not going to blame the president. At the end of the day, he has to govern. And when you are dealing with a large, immovable object that the American people (the ones that could be arsed to vote, that is) put into office, you have to do the best you can. He did.

This entire affair should serve as an excellent example of what the GOP is all about these days. If you don't like it, do something about it.

25 comments:

Jaxson said...

From http://cboblog.cbo.gov/

"As requested by the House and Senate leadership, CBO also calculated the net budgetary impact of the plans if the discretionary savings are measured relative to CBO’s January baseline projections."

What does that mean?
Bush tax cuts (and the FICA holiday) go away at the end of 2012. Who will be President at the end of 2012? The guy who will veto any effort to continue the Bush tax cuts. Especially if he is a lame duck.

Obama clearly got what he needed. Come January 2013, the new (?) president will have 400 billion new $ to work with.

It'll be interesting to see how the spending cuts promised will be implemented.

I'll go out on a limb and say that US debt will go up.

Historically, that is a pretty thick limb.

Jaxson said...

""Broken" was the Civil War, not an argument over spending and taxes."

For your wikipedia pleasure:

Ordinance of Nullification (1832)
Tariff of Abominations (1833)
Panic of 1837
Panic of 1857

A complete list of the myriad reasons for the War Between the States would include taxes and spending as contributors.

Haplo9 said...

>an increase in the age of Medicare eligibility, sharp spending cuts and only small revenue increases.

Did Obama actually put any of these things down in writing? As in which spending cuts? How much of an increase in Medicare eligibility? If there is one thing Democrats don't have much credibility on, it's cutting the size of government. So I find myself pretty unsympathetic to these calls that R's are meanies.

The funny part about this though? This was all political theater. None of the solutions proffered are remotely serious. They don't get us even close to a balanced budget, they just make the debt grow a bit slower. If Mark is playing the "fascist" card already, what's he going to do when we really have to cut something? The "genocide" card, maybe?

Juris Imprudent said...

Blame the Repubs all you like, but some people recognize that Obama never put forth an honest to god plan on deficit reduction. We do know that he disowned the output of the Commission he put in place to tackle the problem. Not that any of that will deter your hero worship (which makes all comments about contemporary conservatives and Reagan pale in comparison).

The only thing that can give Dems hope about Obama's re-election prospects - he will run against an actual Repub and not the "generic Repub" he trails in the current polls.

Juris Imprudent said...

BTW, since Krugnuts (the pundit) is such an extremist himself, I don't fear his criticism of anything to his right.

Mark Ward said...

Obama never put forth an honest to god plan

do know that he disowned the output of the Commission

See, this is what cracks me up, juris. You say you aren't conservative or Republican or whatever and yet here you are repeating their talking points. Both of these points aren't entirely accurate. Besides, isn't it the job of Congress to legislate?

he will run against an actual Repub and not the "generic Repub" he trails in the current polls

I thought you hated polls. I stopped referring to them as much largely because of your complaints. If it's OK to use them again, I'm going to do it more often because I do think they are a valid indicator of moods and trends.

Larry said...

Sure, Mark, but if Obama didn't disown his own commission, then why did he propose such a dead rotten turkey of a budget that nobody in his OWN party could stomach it.

You blew one chance to refute Juris with links to actual, you know, specific, detailed proposals by Obama. Instead, you simply assert that he has with Administration talking points. If you actually grade papers by students, how would you rate your response on accuracy, completeness of answer, and references?

Mark Ward said...

You blew one chance to refute Juris with links to actual, you know, specific, detailed proposals by Obama.

Like many people on the right, Larry, you operate under the assumption that when you make a declarative statement like this, then it is true. It's an opinion and nothing more than that.

What's even more hilarious is that no matter what Obama does, it's wrong. He comes out with a detailed plan, he's a fascist who is over stepping his authority. He defers to Congress, then he's weak and where is his plan? Adolescent game playing just like you guys do with me all the time. It's all you have, I guess.

juris imprudent said...

See, this is what cracks me up, juris. You say you aren't conservative or Republican or whatever and yet here you are repeating their talking points.

You see M, that's what is funny about you - you only see the world in terms of partisan talking points. You just can't think for yourself - you can only parrot the Dems and howl at the Repubs respective "talking points".

No, I'm not big on polls - particularly when it involves a real person against a "generic" other. I noted it because it amused me and because I have faith that the Repubs will manage to nominate someone likely to lose.

But I must be some kind of conservative/Republican because I just don't love the taste of Donkey d*** like you do. Man, I sure do love that nuanced view, that ability to see beyond black and white, that you liberal/progs so loudly and proudly boast about.

Haplo9 said...

>He comes out with a detailed plan, he's a fascist who is over stepping his authority.

Did anyone actually say "you're a fascist for coming out with a plan", or is that a VIYH? I think the quite fair criticism here is that Obama has spouted out a bunch of ambiguous principles like "shared sacrifice" and "fairness", but doesn't want to get specific about what that means. It's a lot like trying to pin you down on what exactly you mean by "welfare capitalism" or what exactly tax rates should be if you don't think they are high enough. You like the pretty sounding words, less so having to put something concrete out there for it to be critiqued.

Larry said...

So where's his detailed plan, Mark? Tell me some of the details. And what the fuck did, "He comes out with a detailed plan, he's a fascist who is over stepping his authority" come from? I mean, other than from your fertile imagination? Where did I say that?

I honestly want to know, what was Mr. Obama's detailed plan? Who saw it? Where is it? Personally, I think that's another figment of your imagination.

Larry said...

And you stupid ninny, you're the one who made the positive assertion without evidence. And then you have the sheer unmitigated gall to complain when I call you on it???

A speech outlining general principles is not a detailed plan or proposal. You said he had a detailed plan. So what the fuck was it? I've Googled for it and all I can find is a speech of talking points, and as the Congressional Budget Office saying, "We can't score a speech."

Jaxson said...

If anyone has never ACTUALLY read the preamble to that commission's report, I think it might make you stop and go, huh. It'll take you five minutes and it's a .gov website. Go ahead and read the rest, if you are 'at-work surfers'.

http://www.fiscalcommission.gov/sites/fiscalcommission.gov/files/documents/TheMomentofTruth12_1_2010.pdf

www.fiscalcommission.gov

I'm not saying you haven't read it Mark. I just don't see how our views can be so far apart on the debt issue if you have.

Mark Ward said...

Stupid ninny, Larry? Good grief are you missing the point.

First of all, it's not the president's job to write legislation. That's the job of Congress. The right wing talking point "Where was his plan?" makes about as much sense as bitching about Sonia Sotomayor's plan for Iraq troop withdrawals...although, with her, I'm sure the right would find a way to bitch about that:) So, it's silly to even make the statement in the first place.

In addition, his "talking points" were essentially the Bowles Simpson plan that he commissioned. This was the "Grand Bargain" that was torpedoed because it eliminated subsidies. That's on your side, not mine. So, it's wrong to say that he threw BS under the bus. We all know who did, though, and here we see yet another example of attacking an opponent with what is, in fact, their fault!

All of this doesn't even include the Biden talks which also produced detailed plans and came about under the orders of the president.

So, I guess what I am saying to you is make up your fucking mind. You bitch about him not having a plan and yet you accuse him of growing government power. How can that be with no plan?

Did anyone actually say "you're a fascist for coming out with a plan", or is that a VIYH?

Seriously...really? One word, dude. "Obamacare."

Mark Ward said...

Jaxon, I read it when it first came out and just re-read it. I've also looked into the finer points of the plan and find it largely to be worthwhile. What are your thoughts on it?

Haplo9 said...

>Seriously...really? One word, dude. "Obamacare."

Heh. Nice hand waving and goalpost moving.

1. So we're talking about the debt, and the politics around it, and suddenly.. Obamacare? What does that have to do.. with anything debt related? Or are you just going with the "one time someone said fascist towards Obama, so, like, that means they said it towards everything, and that gives me free license to argue like a 5 year old!"
2. Even though Obamacare is irrelevant here, I will grant that the language was likely more strident with respect to Obamacare. But, were people actually calling Obama fascist because of it? Socialist, yes, but fascist is usually a perjorative used by folks on your side. In fact, by certain halfwits like yourself, as a matter of fact. So do you have a link to it, or are you just trying to say that some people say mean things to your dear leader?

Juris Imprudent said...

First of all, it's not the president's job to write legislation.

No, but it is his job to prepare and present a budget proposal. Clinton had no problem with this, even when the Repubs controlled both sides of Congress. After that, it is up to the House to build that into appropriations legislation. Remind me again - you teach American govt, right?

In addition, his "talking points" were essentially the Bowles Simpson plan that he commissioned.

Seriously? Ezra Klein disagrees... I think it’s clear that the Obama administration made a mistake when it let the fiscal commission fizzle. They didn’t need to make the Simpson-Bowles recommendations their own. In fact, it would have been a mistake to do so. But they could have used the document as a way to start the negotiations on the 50-yard line.

Juris Imprudent said...

Oh, and just for fun, here's some additional comments on the President and the budget and deficit reduction...

http://www.tnr.com/article/the-vital-center/93034/obama-administration-debt-ceiling
http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/08/obama-tactics-liberal-anger
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111903341404576484124282885188.html

Yeah, sure the last one is partisan opposition. But the other two are criticism from the left. Seems that all have a degree of agreement about the Administration - and you are the one that doesn't.

Anonymous said...

That's because all those people are extremists, and he, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and Barack Obama are moderates.

Jaxson said...

Mark:

No need to quibble about any of the commitee recommendations. The preamble has phrases like:

The problem is real. The solution will be painful.

...if left unchecked, will see our children and grandchildren living in a poorer, weaker nation.

If the U.S. does not put its house in order, the reckoning will be sure and the devastation severe.

We were willing to put our differences aside to forge a plan because our nation will certainly be lost without one.

------------

You and I can assume they meant what they said. The only question then becomes - are they right?

If they are, and remember that IS what the President told this commission to try and figure out, then the country should probably do something about it.

If they are not then we are very lucky, because we haven't done anything to stop it.

I've done the math. I think they are correct in their warnings.
All we need is math. Not R vs D. Not rich vs poor. Not black vs white. 1+1=2 no matter how you slice it. Math doesn't have many gray areas.

So my opinion on any or all of the fixes they throw out there is meaningless.

Were they right or wrong?
Do we need to do something?

I think they were right, therefore we need to do something. Since "we, the people" seem incapable of doing anything, I am not optimistic for the country.

I, however, am doing better than ever. If silver hits $55 by the end of the year, drinks are on me. For approximately forever.

Larry said...

His "talking points" were exactly that -- talking points. And we were talking about about the debt limit and then you suddenly jump to Obamacare? WTF? Desperate squid-inking in action? If Obama's talking points were essentially B-S (rather than merely BS), then why in hell did he propose a budget that ignored B-S and was so incredibly out-of-touch with fiscal and political reality that even his own party was united in disgust with it (and him). But I guess they must've all been mindlessly repeating Republican mantras. Poor Marky.

Mark Ward said...

Jaxon, it really is a pleasure to have you on this blog. I find your comments to be insightful, intelligent and thought provoking. I hope you stick around!

are they right?

Yes, they are right. Everyone is going to have to sacrifice and that certainly includes Democrats. I see more give on that side of the aisle than I do on the other. Right now, you have Democrats talking about massive cuts to entitlements and reform. Is there an equal amount of talk on the right regarding revenue? No. Both have to happen.

Math doesn't have many gray areas.

That's right and that's why I say it has to be a combination. Cuts and reform to entitlements. Cuts to defense. Eliminate all subsidies and loopholes. Eliminate Bush Tax Cuts.

I am not optimistic for the country.

I agree. But I do disagree with the part about ignoring Ds and Rs. The Rs need to compromise. Can they? I don't think they can.

Jaxson said...

are they right?

Yes, they are right.
===
Math doesn't have many gray areas.

That's right...
===
I am not optimistic for the country.

I agree.
===

This blog just lost all tension. You know all you need to know. The rest is fluff. Nothing is being done, because nothing can be done.

Rather than the excellent 60's slogan, "The next war will be televised!", they could have shouted: "The economic collapse will be well announced!"

Anonymous said...

Right now, you have Democrats talking about massive cuts to entitlements and reform.

Do we? The D side of the aisle just spent the last 3 weeks bursting a blood vessel at the idea of slowing the rate of growth.

No one has actually had the cojones to talk about actual cuts, have they?

juris imprudent said...

But I do disagree with the part about ignoring Ds and Rs.

Of course you do. You can't abandon Team Blue. Nice of you to acknowledge that.