Tweet
(photo by Chase Cheviron, via Flickr.)
There have been a lot of posts here in the past few days about the prospective “grand bargain” being discussed by a bipartisan group of U.S. senators… and, by implied extension, the White House. As writers here have pointed out, the basic Republican idea is to get Democrats — including President Obama — to collaborate in their political suicide by taking the lead in endorsing massive spending cuts (under the concept of “jumping off the cliff together”), rather than standing up for a progressive agenda. Recent comments by Obama about “getting in the boat together so that it doesn’t tip over” have lent unpleasant credence to this theory.
But before readers feel the urge to jump off a more literal cliff, a few caveats are in order. For one thing, the notion that the grand bargain will be swiftly foisted on the American public under the shock doctrine seems a bit overblown, given that it may be months before the small bipartisan working group announces its agreement (if there is one), not to mention that time it would take for any deal to crawl its way through Congress.
Not only that, the Wall Street Journal article that has inspired the most recent round of hand-wringing has been corrected to clarify that the framework under discussion isn’t nearly as slanted toward spending cuts as originally reported (the amount of hoped-for revenue increases is $785 billion, not $180 billion). And that doesn’t include the prospect of the Bush tax cuts expiring in 2012, which is apparently being treated as a separate issue.
Moreover, the WSJ story notes:
Republican aides said Wednesday that for the Senate effort to win GOP support in the House, President Obama would have to publicly embrace it.
But aides involved in the negotiations said it is not clear how firmly the administration will back the effort. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner is encouraging the talks, as is Bruce Reed, Vice President Joe Biden’s chief of staff. But the White House has stayed away from any formal role.
That’s a lot different from endorsing the results in advance. And remember, this is a White House that spent its first two years pathologically avoiding any firm public stance on legislative issues that hadn’t already been blessed by Congress, even with popular support behind them. So now they’re going to charge to the front and pressure legislators to pass something that’s extremely painful?
I grant that based on past evidence, they might be stupid enough. But would they even know how?
53 Comments
Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
I think Wisconsin is making Obama back off any deal right now. Any deal like the GOP wants passing right now would be adding Gas to a fire.
swopa!
Coolest thing I saw today.
This administration sure won’t be featured on profiles in Political Courage, nope.
But Swopa, the beltway has it captured; Entitlements and the Prez “punted.”
I have no cause for optimism, and based on past performance all cause for pessimism.
Swopa!
The first rule of Obama Fight Club: There is no Obama Fight Club.
Spot on. Just like the protests in Madison: It’s very encouraging but I have no reason to be optimistic about the outcome. Especially since that hinges on whether one single Democrat can be bribed or bullied into coming back.
On edit:
That’s two I guess since they need one in the Senate and one in the Assembly.
It’s clear that Tim Geithner is stupid (meaning politically ignorant) enough for anything. The rest of them are too.
Reverse the equation popular anger starts stopping legislative issues that are already blessed by Congress and Obama will start getting pathological about supporting issues?
Or am I being optimistic again?
Best Joke I heard all day:)
Yeah, I liked that, too.
Dayam, EDP…! Ya nailed it…! ;-)
The Very Serious People are certainly effective at getting their views into the media. A lot of people actually believe what they say.
I’d wish he’d shut up once in a while, but every time he opens his mouth he reminds us why he left Haavaad.
Going to go to bed and dream that this all turns out both hunky and dory. Oya!
g’nite margaret
That was wonderful — thanks!
I’ve wondered as Obama’s regime unfolded whether there’s anything to be gotten from reverse psychology: whether the left should publicly support what it doesn’t want and protest what it does want. The tactic actually works when it’s executed correctly, I’ve done it and been amazed at the results. It seems too easy, but done right, it works.
The VSP are the media.
Does anyone but the disciples listen to him anymore? The man is such a bore, and so damn full of himself. Course, he always was and I’ve never been able to take more than a few minutes. God, he grates.
how much do you get paid to do this? just curious.
Emphasis mine.
The problem has never been Obama’s public stance, it’s all the backstabbing he does behind closed doors. O would lie to your face. In fact, he makes quite a habit of it.
How does the WH avoid “a formal role” while both the CoS to the Prez and Veep support the effort, and the Treasury Secretary is encouraging the talks? Show me what a formal role looks like, then.
Why not? They’re a small group who have consistently stood up against seemingly overwhelming forces to protect their ideals and their kind.
That their kind is the oligarchy and the administration’s battle has been against the hopes and dreams of the American people is merely a detail that will be ignored.
After all, history is simply the self-image and self-justifications of the victors. And right now the O-ligarchy is winning.
Stop making sense.
Indeed. Plus there’s the thing of timing. Who cares if it takes weeks, months or 1 year to come to this “Grand Bargain.”
The Beltway class WANTS to do it. So they will.
Give an example of where you think this can best work and how I’m curious.
OT: I don’t care what the content of the story is, the headline is worth it
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-02-18/jpmorgan-says-it-was-tricked-into-keeping-lehman-s-goat-poo-collateral.html?t=TOP-OK&pos=3
Are you saying the fickle finger of fate is not in play here. It would be disingenuous other wise.
What?
The first rule of Obama
Fight Clubspine: There is no ObamaFight Clubspine.Here is the Act Blue page to support the Democratic Wisconsin State Senators who are in exile:
http://www.actblue.com/entity/fundraisers/16403
Compromise and then capitulate to the opposition. Looks like Benedict Arnold going over to the other side on all important issues. Torture, rendition, food for children and the poor and homeless. The man has no man in him. he has no moral compass. It is always expediency based on some delusional extenuating circumstances as to why one cannot make a moral stand.
If they take the Reagan route of raising taxes on workers, won’t that be almost as big a disaster as cutting benefits?
It was bad enough putting the burden on the backs of the relatively healthy workforce of the 1980′s. But today? Further burdens on the average worker spell absolute economic disaster.
Capital versus Labor since civilizations began. A world map of the oppressed labor forces might tell the story. http://www.ucw-project.org/cgi-bin/ucw/Survey/Main.sql?come=Ucw_Tables.sql This is just child labor in today’s world.
They’ve been planning it for months, but Egypt and Wisconsin sceered them. They had to walk back the article. I think these people see themselves losing what little control they have, they really, really want to avoid having the American people’s full attention right now.
Cockroaches.
I wish!
No matter what way you care to look at everything, we are screwed. The Supreme Court, DOJ, Congress, the Whitehouse, the media, the financial system, the Fed, the military, the CIA, the FBI, energy, water, food they own it or control it. We are going down shit creek without a paddle.
obama managed to pressure the house and senate into doing a lot of things during the health care bill debacle.
Z
B I N G O
Z
I gave this some thought during the health insurance bill lash-up but I couldn’t formulate a believable misdirection script; however, it was painfully obvious that the regime was pushing off of the “left” to win PR points for an already agreed on corporate med deal. I do believe the various liberal and progressive talking heads had no coherent strategy, never pulled themselves together and constructed an overall plan and supporting tactics, and played right into the hands of the opposition. Indignation isn’t a strategy. You really need organization and careful planning. And discipline.
Everybody knows you can’t win if you’re afraid to lose. Say what you will, the baggies are effective in large part because they repeat a few simple statements, often, and they’re willing to take losses to make their points. No lesser of two evils wishy washy for them. They make it abundantly clear that they’ll bend every effort to punish office holders who defy them. They made that point when they defeated Mike Castle in DE and I’ll bet the Republicans in DE will keep that very much in mind in future. (I was in DE recently and let me tell you, those small area 12 pager news sheets you pick up for free in restaurant vestibules take her seriously. Scoff away, but Christine is regarded and treated as a VSP in DE. Methinks Christine embraces the scorn of sites like this, it enhances her credibility and gives her something to push off of.)
Yves Smith has a great post up on why liberals are lame: http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2011/02/why-liberals-are-lame.html. Read it and consider. I agree with every cringe-worthy point she makes.
He thinks of as the art of the deal. Which means we could as well have voted for The Hair.
Are you assuming they care? Hasn’t made trouble for them yet.
That’s the bottom line.
From the WSJ:
The plan would break the task of deficit reduction into four pieces: a tax code overhaul; discretionary spending cuts; changes to Medicare, Medicaid and other entitlements; and changes to Social Security
What’s wrong with that? Seems like a good idea to look at all options.
My reading of “The Shock Doctrine” is that it rarely is “swiftly foisted” although the PTB try. Milton Friedman tried to get Nixon to jump on board, but he deferred. I think there was a trial run in NYC in 1975. With NYC “broke”, they cut basic services but nobody took to the streets. That proved to one neo lib “that the poor have a great capacity for pain”. Then Reagan started the attack in earnest and the python began to swallow the middle class.
I wrote a diary here in December 2009 We are all Bolivians Now
with great comments on the Shock Doctrine and the president’s neo liberal bent. The 1985 coup in Bolivia (helped by Reagan’s assault on coca farmers) resembled our coup of 2000. Soon after came 9/11 and the Dept of Homeland Disaster Capitalism.
It took the Bolivians 21 years to finally overturn the privatization spree. I hope it doesn’t take us ten more years. The protests in Wisconsin give me a little hope. I’m trying to get an initiative movement going to establish a state bank like North Dakota has to fund our human and physical infrastructure. We have to attack from many fronts. And yes, read Yves Smith on Lame Liberals.
Yves is right, that’s why I’m here at FDL. I’m getting suspicious of the “We’re screwed it’s hopeless” posts from names I’m not familiar with, though.
Not buying that, at all.
: )
Ending these stupid wars doesn’t seem to be on your little list of ‘all the options’. Neither is ending the practice of backstopping rich bankers and their bonuses. Welshing on people’s social security is not an ‘option’. That’s people’s money they contributed, and we’ll be wanting that back in full. It is after all, solvent for another 25 YEARS.
You speak as if the people advocating these things represent you. They don’t, none of them.
“Why liberals are lame.”
My wife and I will lose 65% of our monthly income in one fell swoop if these alleged “leaders” shut down the government. Still, it won’t be as bad as when we first moved to New Mexico…
You seem to know a lot about me from one re-post of a WSJ article. But let me clarify:
1. I consider reducing defense expenditures, and the attendant reduction in operations in Iraq/Afghanistan, to be included under the “discretionary spending cuts” banner.
2. I have not advocated taking away the money from people in or close to retirement. But unless we acknowledge that the SS program cant continue indefinitely with the same mechanism, we will just get deeper into debt. Obama’s commission had some good ideas, though they did not go far enough, and no one has the stones to even put those limited recommendations on the table.
Yes, SSN may be solvent for another 25 years (though that number has gone down from 35 years in just the last 5). What about those people under 40? Do they continue paying into a system that will be insolvent when they finally retire?
What’s your solution – soak the rich?
Well, by doing nothing to social security at all, it will still pay out 75% of benefits, even after the 25 years.
How about just raising the cap on earnings paid from the current $106K? At that point, there would be no need to raise the SS retirement age at all nor to cut benefits.
And yes, since the rich are the ones who have been ripping us off over the past 30 plus years, soaking them might be quite beneficial.
The whole “ZOMG! Social Security is in crisis and broke” meme is because the rich who got their tax breaks over the last 30 plus years because of the SS surplus, don’t want to pay it back.
Hey, can I borrow trillions that I don’t have to pay back? Can I, can I? C’mon, some people can!
I do know a lot about you, Captain. And yes, let’s soak the rich as quickly as possible. ~~~EDITED IN MODERATION~~~
~~~ModNote: Best not to go there, please.~~~
The rich seemed to get along just fine under the taxation of the Ike era. So yes absolutely! Bring back truely progressive taxation.
The rich should want a return to the New Deal era even more than the rest of us!