TODAY'S TOPICS: Obama's Betrayal, Austerity, Israel/Us, Phone Hacking, Greenwald, Pitt, Olbermann, Carlin
The Manchurian Candidate: Obama’s Final Betrayal?
First, it is true; no final deal has been agreed upon, so perhaps all signs and indicators will be wrong and the President won’t lead the effort to begin the end of Medicare, Social Security and Medicaid (and the whole premise of the New Deal). But, EVERYTHING I have now come to understand about this President, and those in his administration, tell me this is where we’re headed – and have been all along.
I of course am not using the term Manchurian Candidate literally, but in practical terms, that is absolutely what he has become. He's little more than, as Cornel West described, a “black mascot for Wall Street.” I am going to refrain from going down the LONG, LONG list of specific examples of how he has sold out every Democratic Party principle (yes, they once existed) there is, both through words and deeds.
But that is exactly what he has done…exactly the opposite of nearly everything he promised on the campaign trail as a candidate for President. I’m not talking about him being what I warned, a cautious corporate centrist that seeks compromise above all else. I’m talking about a deliberate fraudster that is DRASTICALLY moving this country to the right, and leading what could be seen a few years from now the death knell for core New Deal/Great Society programs.
I’m of course referring to the latest news that the Administration is offering the GOP MORE CUTS than they EVER could have asked for…and these are cuts directly to Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid…three programs that LITERALLY are preventing our country from near total collapse and widespread poverty.
Now, many are asking how he could do this? Why give them more? Why sacrifice programs that nearly 80% of Americans don’t want to see cut? Similarly, about 80% of Americans want taxes increased on the top 1%. Yet, the Administration is pursuing a “grand bargain” that will actually stab a sword through our “recovery”, by cutting the very spending and programs that are BENEFITING OUR ECONOMY and people, while refusing to tax those that have it all (yes, there are some closing of loopholes in the deal…but NO tax increases).
As I mentioned last post, the Obama proposal asks for nearly 4 dollars in spending cuts for every 1 dollar in new revenue…yet, for the GOP terrorist Party that’s still not enough (By the way, Medicaid works. We now have irrefutable proof thanks to a study in Oregon.)
So what is the explanation for a Democratic President seeking to do more damage to the New Deal than any Republican could have ever dreamed of? Remember, it takes a corporate Democratic insider, like Clinton, or now Obama (and even Carter to an extent…he’s since become a far better “former President), to truly destroy the legacy of the Democratic Party because they can get just enough Democrats to go along which is assuredly overwhelming GOP support. Clinton did it on welfare, “free trade”, and deregulation of Wall Street.
Now, Obama is seeking to do it by cutting Medicare, Social Security, and Medicaid…while reinforcing the FALSE GOP frame that deficits and spending are the crises we really face.
Perhaps the Administration actually sees no path to a deal, and are seeking to look “reasonable” in comparison to the GOP (though as I said, they’re offering MORE cuts than the GOP asked), in hopes of pinning blame on them when everything does indeed collapse. Of course, just look at the OUTRAGE he has created in the progressive base. At some point that outrage turns into lost votes, less volunteers, and fewer contributors (though the fact that he got more money from Wall Street than any candidate in history now makes a WHOLE LOT of sense)…so if this is the strategy, it’s backfiring.
The other explanation is that they really believe the deficit is THE problem, and that they want a “balanced” solution that adds a little revenue, cuts entitlements, and puts the country on a more sustainable fiscal path. I for one am tired of excusing or trying to rationalize this Administration’s actions. I think what is now clear is that they know what they’re doing, are not “weak”, but in fact, WANT to do the things they’re doing…from bailing out banks to expanding the Patriot Act to cutting spending on core programs.
I think the President MEANT to extend Bush tax cuts, while refusing to include the debt ceiling in that agreement back when he had the chance. I think by doing that, he now can say “see, I HAVE to cut programs or else the GOP will jettison the economy”…once again, in an attempt to LOOK reasonable and centrist.
Let’s remember, it was this President that created that shame of a fiscal responsibility summit before he was even inaugurated, which he then used to pivot to the GOP deficit frame…by then agreeing to discretionary spending freeze and the federal employee pay freeze, to the focus in the health care debate on bending the cost curve, and on and on. They have convinced themselves that the deficit means more to people than the jobless rate and that government budgets and family budgets are equal. Insane, but clear when you look at the record.
At this point I'm hoping that the GOP continues to refuse to go along with ANY
Economic Reality vs. Austerity and the Real Obama
As I’ve discussed over and over on this blog, no credible economists advocate cuts in public spending during recession (or mild recovery from one).
As David Dayen notes, “What is the urgent need to cut the deficit right now when millions of people are out of work, demand is below trend and interest rate are at near-historical low points? The answer is there’s none. Administration hacks can say that government budgets are like family budgets all they want, it doesn’t make it any more true. We can all be cheered by a “shared sacrifice” budget with equal splits of spending cut and revenue increases, but that doesn’t make it particularly desirable either…families and governments aren’t exactly the same, but they both need to live within their means…Families who have a mortgage take out loans with long time horizons at well above their average GDP. Individuals have credit cards and take out student loans and car loans. They borrow all the time. That borrowing enables smart investment in the future. And governments can do the same at a far cheaper interest rate…
Because we have a governing elite that doesn’t understand basic economic theory, the horrific jobs report will probably not change the mindset of the next 72 hours, which is to cement a deal to massively reduce the deficit, mostly through cutting spending. The White House has convinced themselves that this would increase confidence from the business community and lead to hiring. In fact, the President is so convinced this is a good idea that he, not the Republicans, is using the debt limit as a hostage.
I think Matt Taibbi has been right all along about Obama (as I have been for a long time too):
Throughout 2008, it was hard to shake the feeling that this was a politician whose legacy could still go either way. There were an awful lot of troubling signs on the horizon in Obama’s campaign, not the least of which being the enthusiastic support he was receiving from Wall Street.
Obama in part ran a very slightly economically populist campaign, but the tens of millions pouring into his campaign coffers from the very rich (and specifically from hedge funds) told all of us that we probably shouldn’t expect those promises to come off. For a piece I wrote that summer, I asked people in Washington why Wall Street would be throwing money at a guy who was out there on the stump pledging to reach into their pockets:
"Sadly, the answer to that question increasingly appears to be that Obama is, well, full of shit. . . . These populist pledges sound good, but many business moguls appear to be betting that the tax policies, like Obama himself, are only that: something that sounds good. 'I think we don't want to make too much of his promises on taxes,' says Robert Pollin, professor of economics at the University of Massachusetts. 'Not all of these things will happen.' Noting the overwhelming amount of Wall Street money pouring into Obama's campaign, even elitist fuckwad David Brooks was recently moved to write, "Once the Republicans are vanquished, I wouldn't hold your breath waiting for that capital-gains tax hike."
Obama in part ran a very slightly economically populist campaign, but the tens of millions pouring into his campaign coffers from the very rich (and specifically from hedge funds) told all of us that we probably shouldn’t expect those promises to come off. For a piece I wrote that summer, I asked people in Washington why Wall Street would be throwing money at a guy who was out there on the stump pledging to reach into their pockets:
"Sadly, the answer to that question increasingly appears to be that Obama is, well, full of shit. . . . These populist pledges sound good, but many business moguls appear to be betting that the tax policies, like Obama himself, are only that: something that sounds good. 'I think we don't want to make too much of his promises on taxes,' says Robert Pollin, professor of economics at the University of Massachusetts. 'Not all of these things will happen.' Noting the overwhelming amount of Wall Street money pouring into Obama's campaign, even elitist fuckwad David Brooks was recently moved to write, "Once the Republicans are vanquished, I wouldn't hold your breath waiting for that capital-gains tax hike."
Before I get to Glenn Greenwald’s take on this crushing news from the White House, let me share Will Pitt’s thoughts, as they too reflect mine:
My reaction to this news, along with most everyone else aligned with the left side of politics, was predictable. I was aghast, dumbfounded, sickened, and enraged. The Republican Party has been working hammer and tong to eliminate these vital programs since the day they were first conceived. Sometimes their efforts were out in the big wide open, such as George W. Bush's doomed privatization proposal. If it wasn't their hood ornament, it was at least always on the dashboard, right out front, a core element of their philosophy, and always somewhere in their platform. In all those years, however, the GOP had only managed to nibble at the edges of these programs, having never summoned either sufficient muscle or sufficient will to kill them off entirely.
And now here is a Democratic president, after all those years of struggle to defend and protect the social contract created by these policies, offering them up for destruction because he can't seem to stop himself from agreeing with Republicans. Here is a Democratic president who happily accepts the premise of their devious arguments, and who appears unwilling to summon enough spine to rebuff the debt-ceiling-default tactic being deployed by the GOP in an act of national hostage-taking. Instead, hey, why not, let's rip these programs to shreds and fulfill the deepest, darkest fantasies of the far right.
SNIP
There is no deal on paper as of yet, and the whole world is watching. Many people I spoke to on this were blunt: if the Democrats consent to any deal that damages or denudes Social Security and Medicare, then that's it, hats over the windmill, and turn out the lights when you leave. Obama and his people can hope and change their way across the campaign trail until they are blue in the face. They will not be getting the votes of these people. This administration has made it clear on more than one occasion that they do not think too highly of their own base, and by acting like Republicans, perhaps they believe they will earn the votes of enough independents to offset the damage.
Maybe they will, and maybe they won't, but that is not the point. This is a matter of honor, plain and simple. An ocean of blood, sweat and tears has been spent bringing these all-important programs to life, and even more has been spent protecting and defending them. If this president consents to throw all that over in an act of political triangulation, he will be marked in my book for all time as a failure, a betrayer, and a disgrace.
Reports: Obama Pushing for Cuts to Social Security, Medicare, by Glenn Greenwald
A FEW CLIPS:
…the President who is demanding an even larger "deficit reduction" package than has previously been discussed. Headlined "Obama to Push for Wider Deal With G.O.P. on Deficit Cuts," the article reports that "President Obama has raised his sights and wants to strike a far-reaching agreement on cutting the federal deficit" and that he "wants to move well beyond the $2 trillion in savings sought in earlier negotiations and seek perhaps twice as much over the next decade." This is all in pursuit of "an agreement that ma[kes] substantial spending cuts, including in such social programs as Medicare and Medicaid and Social Security -- programs that had been off the table." The President, as part of the package, is reportedly seeking some elimination of modest tax "loopholes" that benefit wealthy Americans to claim, absurdly, that there is "balanced" sacrifice.
It's been bleedingly obvious for some time that the bipartisan D.C. political class and the economic factions that own it have been intent on massive cuts to Social Security and Medicare...but the combination of deficit hysteria (repeatedly bolstered by Obama) and the manufactured debt ceiling deadline has, by design, created the perfect pretext to enable this now. As one "Democratic official" told the Post: "These moments come along at most once a decade. And it would be a real mistake if we let it pass us by." Naomi Klein's Shock Doctrine is not a GOP-exclusive dynamic.
SNIP
In the context of foreign policy and civil liberties, the public-private National Security State (the "Fourth Branch" of Government) is his Wall Street; military and intelligence officials and defense contractors are his Geithner/Summers/Dimon; and endless embrace of the Bush/Cheney Terrorism template of militarism and civil liberties assaults is his cutting of Social Security and Medicare. This is who Barack Obama is; it's what drives his presidency in every realm, not just in economic policy.
What's particularly revealing in the Social Security/Medicare assault is the political calculation. The President obviously believes that being able to run by having made his own party angry -- I cut entitlement programs long cherished by liberals -- will increase his appeal to independents and restore his image of trans-partisan conciliator that he so covets. But how could it possibly be politically advantageous for a Democratic President to lead the way in slashing programs that have long been the crown jewels of his party, defense of which is the central litmus test for whether someone is even a Democrat?
What's particularly revealing in the Social Security/Medicare assault is the political calculation. The President obviously believes that being able to run by having made his own party angry -- I cut entitlement programs long cherished by liberals -- will increase his appeal to independents and restore his image of trans-partisan conciliator that he so covets. But how could it possibly be politically advantageous for a Democratic President to lead the way in slashing programs that have long been the crown jewels of his party, defense of which is the central litmus test for whether someone is even a Democrat?
SNIP
Obama knows full well that he can slash Medicare, Medicaid and even Social Security -- just like he could sign an extension of Bush tax cuts, escalate multiple wars, and embrace the Bush/Cheney Terrorism template recently known in Democratic circles as "shredding the Constitution" -- and have most Democrats and progressives continue to support him anyway. Unconditional support ensures political impotence, and rightly so. He's attending to the constituencies that matter: mostly, Wall Street tycoons who funded his 2008 campaign and whom he hopes will fund his re-election bid, and independent whose support is in question. And he's doing that both because it's in his perceived interest and because, to the extent he believes in anything, those are the constituencies with which he feels most comfortable.
Yes, that famous clip of George Carlin towards the end of his life talking about what the owners were after next (pensions and social security) has now come to full, and total fruition…all with the leadership of a “Democratic” President. Watch it again…
And watch this new ad from left wing groups showing all the lies Obama told during the campaign for President about social security…he is a master…
Nobel Laureates on the Economy
Paul Krugman has some interesting thoughts on our chameleon and chief too:
Watching Mr. Obama and listening to his recent statements, it’s hard not to get the impression that he is now turning for advice to people who really believe that the deficit, not unemployment, is the top issue facing America right now, and who also believe that the great bulk of deficit reduction should come from spending cuts. It’s worth noting that even Republicans weren’t suggesting cuts to Social Security; this is something Mr. Obama and those he listens to apparently want for its own sake.
Which raises the big question: If a debt deal does emerge, and it overwhelmingly reflects conservative priorities and ideology, should Democrats in Congress vote for it? Mr. Obama’s people will no doubt argue that their fellow party members should trust him, that whatever deal emerges was the best he could get. But it’s hard to see why a president who has gone out of his way to echo Republican rhetoric and endorse false conservative views deserves that kind of trust.
Which raises the big question: If a debt deal does emerge, and it overwhelmingly reflects conservative priorities and ideology, should Democrats in Congress vote for it? Mr. Obama’s people will no doubt argue that their fellow party members should trust him, that whatever deal emerges was the best he could get. But it’s hard to see why a president who has gone out of his way to echo Republican rhetoric and endorse false conservative views deserves that kind of trust.
Joseph Stiglitz, nobel laureate in economics, once again pleads for sanity, stating:
The remedies to the U.S. deficit follow immediately from this diagnosis: Put America back to work by stimulating the economy; end the mindless wars; rein in military and drug costs; and raise taxes, at least on the very rich. But the right will have none of this, and instead is pushing for even more tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy, together with expenditure cuts in investments and social protection that put the future of the U.S. economy in peril and that shred what remains of the social contract. Meanwhile, the U.S. financial sector has been lobbying hard to free itself of regulations, so that it can return to its previous, disastrously carefree, ways [...]
Do we really need another costly experiment with ideas that have repeatedly failed? We shouldn’t, but increasingly it appears that we will have to endure another one nonetheless. A failure of either Europe or the United States to return to robust growth would be bad for the global economy. The failure of both would be disastrous—even if the major emerging-market countries have attained self-sustaining growth. Unfortunately, unless wiser heads prevail, that is the way the world is heading.
Do we really need another costly experiment with ideas that have repeatedly failed? We shouldn’t, but increasingly it appears that we will have to endure another one nonetheless. A failure of either Europe or the United States to return to robust growth would be bad for the global economy. The failure of both would be disastrous—even if the major emerging-market countries have attained self-sustaining growth. Unfortunately, unless wiser heads prevail, that is the way the world is heading.
VIDEO SECTION
Olbermann interviews one of the reporters that has been following the UNBELIEVABLE phone hacking story out of Britain by none other than James Bond villain imitator Rupert Murdoch’s media empire:
Economist David Cay Johnston about the upcoming meetings between Republicans and the White House which is about to take place, and if anything positive for average Americans might come out of it.
Some great analysis of Michele Bachmann's radical right-wing religious belief from a former member of that movement:
Tom Tomorrow…good stuff as always….
ARTICLE SECTION
The Tea Partiers Are Dead-Set on Driving the Deficit Through the Roof and They Don't Even Know It, Joshua Holland
A FEW CLIPS:
The two parties may strike a last-minute deal with cuts deep enough for Boehner to present it to his caucus but sufficiently “balanced” for him to pick off enough Democrats to push it over the top (and for the Democratically controlled Senate to pass it). That would take money out of people's pockets, further depressing demand – lack of consumer spending is the core problem in the economy – and slowing the already anemic recovery.
This is probably the best-case scenario at this point. It's also the likeliest. As the drop-dead date approaches (either July 22 or August 3, depending on what you're reading) , the idea of defaulting is going to look less appealing to legislators. But if the Tea Partiers have their way, there will be no deal – the debt ceiling won't be raised. What will happen if that should come to pass? It would drive up interest rates dramatically, making it harder for businesses to secure financing and individuals to get loans, and ultimately derailing this woefully inadequate “recovery.”
This is probably the best-case scenario at this point. It's also the likeliest. As the drop-dead date approaches (either July 22 or August 3, depending on what you're reading) , the idea of defaulting is going to look less appealing to legislators. But if the Tea Partiers have their way, there will be no deal – the debt ceiling won't be raised. What will happen if that should come to pass? It would drive up interest rates dramatically, making it harder for businesses to secure financing and individuals to get loans, and ultimately derailing this woefully inadequate “recovery.”
SNIP
So, we'd be looking at another serious decrease in demand – in an economy fueled by consumer spending -- and with it yet more unemployment and more people missing their mortgage payments. More public sector workers would be laid off. The number of people in desperate need of public services in order to get by would increase dramatically just as the cuts hit. State governments would be squeezed very hard – harder than they have been already – leading to yet more cuts. It would be an utter disaster.
And, what the Tea Party caucus misses: tax revenues would decline, significantly, once again. So, we would get cuts – forced, painful cuts – which might be more than offset by tanking revenues, which in turn would drive the deficit even higher. It's the worst of all worlds.
Washington – both parties to varying degrees – has embraced a fundamental misunderstanding of the root cause of our economic woes. As long as we have an excess of unused capacity and a slump in private sector demand, cutting spending is fighting fire with gasoline. The only question that remains is, how badly the American economy is going to get burned.
In Israel, a Tsunami Warning, By Noam Chomsky
A FEW CLIPS:
In February 2006, the U.S. and Israel imposed a siege in Gaza after the "wrong side" – Hamas – won elections in Palestine, recognized as free and fair. The siege became much harsher in June 2007 after the failure of a U.S.-backed military coup to overthrow the elected government. In June 2010, the siege of Gaza was condemned by the International Committee of the Red Cross – which rarely issues such reports – as "collective punishment imposed in clear violation" of international humanitarian law. The BBC reported that the ICRC "paints a bleak picture of conditions in Gaza: hospitals short of equipment, power cuts lasting hours each day, drinking water unfit for consumption," and the population of course imprisoned.
The criminal siege extends the U.S.-Israeli policy since 1991 of separating Gaza from the West Bank, thus ensuring that any eventual Palestinian state would be effectively contained within hostile powers – Israel and the Jordanian dictatorship. The Oslo Accords, signed by Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization in 1993, proscribe separating Gaza from the West Bank.
The criminal siege extends the U.S.-Israeli policy since 1991 of separating Gaza from the West Bank, thus ensuring that any eventual Palestinian state would be effectively contained within hostile powers – Israel and the Jordanian dictatorship. The Oslo Accords, signed by Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization in 1993, proscribe separating Gaza from the West Bank.
SNIP
Asked whether the flotilla is a "provocation," Chris Gunness, the spokesperson for the U.N. Relief and Works Agency, the major aid agency for Gaza, described the situation as desperate: "If there were no humanitarian crisis, if there weren't a crisis in almost every aspect of life in Gaza there would be no need for the flotilla รข(euro) [ 95 percent of all water in Gaza is undrinkable, 40 percent of all disease is water-borne ... 45.2 percent of the labor force is unemployed, 80 percent aid dependency, a tripling of the abject poor since the start of the blockade. Let's get rid of this blockade and there would be no need for a flotilla."
Diplomatic initiatives such as the Palestinian state strategy, and nonviolent actions generally, threaten those who hold a virtual monopoly on violence. The U.S. and Israel are trying to sustain indefensible positions: the occupation and its subversion of the overwhelming, long-standing consensus on a diplomatic settlement.
Diplomatic initiatives such as the Palestinian state strategy, and nonviolent actions generally, threaten those who hold a virtual monopoly on violence. The U.S. and Israel are trying to sustain indefensible positions: the occupation and its subversion of the overwhelming, long-standing consensus on a diplomatic settlement.
0 comments:
Post a Comment