TODAY'S POST: An American Coup, Norway, Ratings Agencies, Sanders, Obama Agenda, Austerity v. Prosperity
The Big Picture and Ominous Signs
I’m going to try and refrain from providing too many facts and figures today – though I think those are a critical part of this whole debate. I say this because the New Deal has been subjected to a constant, decades long assault, from the GOP, the media, and corporate interests, and there is a need to re-educate people on the value of these programs and concepts, including how and why they were created, their successes, and so forth…same goes for unions and worker rights. Still, I want to focus on the big picture as much as possible right now.
Essentially what we’re seeing right now is all the progress made in the 20th century, through the struggles and dedication of those before us, is being repealed.
The fact that Senate Democrats are trying to out-cut the cut-obsessed Republicans pretty much sums up the current political debate in Washington. To listen to Obama and Harry Reid actually BRAG about cutting deeper, and causing more death and pain throughout the country than the GOP is mind numbing…and soul stomping.
Somehow, in just a couple of years, the owners, the Matrix let’s say, was able to reward and strengthen itself for the damage and destruction they, or it, caused, from wars, deregulation to Wall Street. Now, using the debt crisis as a distraction, teabaggers are so fucking nuts (and therefore the GOP), we’re actually DEBATING, and passing laws, not to create jobs, but instead to ban the government from buying fluorescent light bulbs, protecting manatees, fighting skin cancer, or researching climate change…while seeking to default on our debts, eviscerate Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, and cut taxes for the rich and corporations (while talking about reducing the deficit?).
We should be clear however; it was President Obama that ACTIVELY shifted the debt debate to the right, both substantively and rhetorically. As David Dayen notes, “Substantively by not insisting on a “clean bill” to raise the debt ceiling at the outset and actively pushing for drastic spending cuts and changes to entitlement programs as part of any deal. And rhetorically by mimicking right-wing arguments about the economy, such as the canard that reducing spending will create jobs (it won’t), or that the government’s budget is like a family’s budget (it isn’t), or that major spending cuts will return confidence to the market and spur the economy recovery we’ve all been waiting for (Paul Krugman calls it “the confidence fairy”). “President Obama has successfully used the bully pulpit to undermine the case for progressive governance.”
The point is that everyone has played a role into backing the country into a corner with no good alternatives. Yoking a massive deficit reduction plan to the debt limit was one of the single dumbest policy moves of the last generation, perhaps as dumb as going into Iraq. Even Tim Geithner could figure out months ago that tying a risky negotiation to a must-pass anchor for the global economy was completely absurd. This should have been handled when the Democrats had leverage, during the Bush tax cut negotiations. The 2011 budget should have been handled then as well.
The point is that everyone has played a role into backing the country into a corner with no good alternatives. Yoking a massive deficit reduction plan to the debt limit was one of the single dumbest policy moves of the last generation, perhaps as dumb as going into Iraq. Even Tim Geithner could figure out months ago that tying a risky negotiation to a must-pass anchor for the global economy was completely absurd. This should have been handled when the Democrats had leverage, during the Bush tax cut negotiations. The 2011 budget should have been handled then as well.
But, again, I don’t consider this a “mistake” by Obama…this IS WHAT HE WANTED. We must confront this dark reality if we are to more clearly see what’s going on.
The fact is, whether Reid or Boehner, whether Obama or the Gang of Six, the debate, and these budgets, represent the furthest right our country has ever moved in the past century…and the people are going to suffer, big time.
I’m not sure what’s the most disturbing aspect of this coup against democracy and reason, Obama moving to the right of Reagan, and putting a softer face on corporatism (and imperialism), or the undue power and influence of a virulent, fascist, extraordinarily ignorant teabagger faction, or, if it’s the media and the “centrist cult” trying to cover this as “equal” and that both sides (as if there is a left involved…outside of the Progressive Caucus…which is ignored) are to blame for not “meeting in the middle”?
As Paul Krugman explains, “Think about what’s happening right now. We have a crisis in which the right is making insane demands, while the president and Democrats in Congress are bending over backward to be accommodating — offering plans that are all spending cuts and no taxes, plans that are far to the right of public opinion.
Yet, how is this covered in the media? They portray it as a situation in which both sides are equally partisan, equally intransigent — because news reports always do that. And we have influential pundits calling out for a new centrist party, a new centrist president, to get us away from the evils of partisanship.
The reality, of course, is that we already have a centrist president — actually a moderate conservative president. Once again, health reform — his only major change to government — was modeled on Republican plans, indeed plans coming from the Heritage Foundation. And everything else — including the wrongheaded emphasis on austerity in the face of high unemployment — is according to the conservative playbook.”
Yet, how is this covered in the media? They portray it as a situation in which both sides are equally partisan, equally intransigent — because news reports always do that. And we have influential pundits calling out for a new centrist party, a new centrist president, to get us away from the evils of partisanship.
The reality, of course, is that we already have a centrist president — actually a moderate conservative president. Once again, health reform — his only major change to government — was modeled on Republican plans, indeed plans coming from the Heritage Foundation. And everything else — including the wrongheaded emphasis on austerity in the face of high unemployment — is according to the conservative playbook.”
This, in a nutshell, is how the media covers the debt ceiling debate, as the Republicans and corporate media have somewhat similar strategies. The GOP can't reach an agreement with the Democrats, because that would be a win for Obama. The media, meanwhile, can't say that the Democrats are doing the right thing, even when they're doing exactly what media pundits demand that they do (compromise and cut) because that would make the media seem like they were on the Democrats' side. Argghh...
Don’t EVER forget that ALL polls that say Democrats are somehow “winning” this debate by appearing slightly more reasonable are meaningless if they cause material harm to the economy and the longterm viability of the programs that are identified with the Democratic Party. Not only have they been extraordinarily successful, they’ve been the primary reason the Democratic party has flourished over the past 70 years.
Even with Obama deftly articulating the right wing argument for austerity, STILL, the public views jobs as more important than the deficit.
But that difference is shrinking, thanks in part to the media’s NON STOP austerity push. It’s a wonder that so many Americans STILL demand tax cuts for the rich/corporations and the protection of public programs in light of the all out assault on our senses, reality, and minds underway.
The fact that Obama dittoheads that can’t come to terms they’ve been duped by a con man are actually crowing about how successful he’s been at showing that the GOP is unreasonable tells the whole story. Even Democrats have become so brainwashed, so enamored with the two party deception, that somehow a Democratic President arguing for cuts in social security, medicare and Medicaid, and the sure adoption of a right of Reagan budget, is a victory just because Obama is viewed by the public as SLIGHTLY better than the GOP??? It’s total fucking madness.
Norway and the Anti-Muslim Bias
Just briefly, the response to the Norway attacks shows that the word "terrorism" itself has no meaning - aside from when it's used to bash Muslims (US, Israel anyone?). The fact that immediately the media jumped at the attack as coming from Muslims, then practically dropped the story when it wasn’t, should send chills down our collective spines. Isn’t it also interesting how when it’s a Christian fundamentalist he’s called “a crazy”, and that his religion and politics have nothing to do with the crime, yet when it’s a Muslim, his religion has everything to do with it, and he IS CALLED A TERRORIST?
WE are being brainwashed on a level never before seen…and with increasing success.
I also find it very, very telling that the reaction of the Norwegian government and people has been the antithesis to our reaction here (i.e. 9/11). IN other words, rather than immediately seeking to strip its citizens of civil liberties and use fear to push unrelated agendas, they only reiterated, STRONGLY, their commitment to openness and democracy. Imagine that...
I also find it very, very telling that the reaction of the Norwegian government and people has been the antithesis to our reaction here (i.e. 9/11). IN other words, rather than immediately seeking to strip its citizens of civil liberties and use fear to push unrelated agendas, they only reiterated, STRONGLY, their commitment to openness and democracy. Imagine that...
Ratings Agency and the Owners Takeover
Just briefly, because this is another demonstration of the owners “going for the kill”: The ratings agencies. Yes, the same agencies that rated subprime mortgages AAA, and a great investment, are now telling us that we MUST massively cut programs or else they will reduce our countries rating (made all the more likely if we default). Ratings agencies, never in our history, have played the role, or had the power, to demand public policy prescriptions.
So, the people that helped cause the crash, Wall Street insiders on the corporate dole, are now threatening to lower our rating unless core public programs are cut…programs NEEDED by people more than ever BECAUSE of the damage caused, in part, by these very ratings agencies. The mind reels…do you see what is happening…we are in the midst of a coup…nothing less.
As we discuss the deficit, and what must be done to address it, remember, all we have to do is nothing…and the Bush tax cuts will expire next year…and save $4 trillion. In other words, ALL OF THIS is one big ‘show’ to confuse and distract us…from the default dance to the deficit hysteria and on down the line. What is so disturbing is Obama and Reid are part of the this show…and they even, finally, got Nancy Pelosi to fall in line, who said the other day “we are in the age of austerity now.” She was broken by someone…little to stop it now.
ACTUAL Cause of Deficit: Republicans
Perhaps most mind numbing of all, and never mentioned by reporters, is the same Republican leadership trying to take down our government unless their demands are met, voted for the three biggest debt drivers: the Bush tax cuts, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and President Bush’s Medicare prescription drug plan. They also voted for the Troubled Asset Relief Program, or TARP, that rescued financial institutions and the auto industry. In other words, THEY are the cause of the problem they are whining about.
A Bloomberg News analysis shows, these initiatives added $3.4 trillion to the nation’s accumulated debt and to its current annual budget deficit of $1.5 trillion.
GOP Terrorists Strike Again
Meanwhile, as Daily Kos explains: “As anticipated, the Federal Aviation Administration's operating authority expired at midnight Friday and the agency partially shut down. While air traffic controllers are still on the job and air travel continues more or less normally, nearly 4,000 other FAA employees are currently furloughed without pay. Additionally, nearly 87,000 construction jobs are affected as FAA-funded airport construction projects are forced to shut down. This includes projects from $10,000 to tens of millions of dollars, scattered across the country.
All of which is probably fine with House Republicans, since the whole purpose of this exercise was to make things more difficult for workers, anyway. By trying to make union representation elections operate by undemocratic rules, they put people out of work instead—maybe that's a job well done in their eyes.
Tax Fairness and Economic Justice
Based on Tax Foundation figures, the richest 1% has TRIPLED its share of America's income over the past 30 years. Much of the gain came from tax cuts and minimally taxed financial instruments. If their income had increased only at the pace of American productivity (80%), they would be taking about a TRILLION DOLLARS LESS out of our economy.
And a question was posed:
In what way do the richest 1% deserve these extraordinary gains?
But based on 1980 dollars and IRS data, this is how U.S. income has been redistributed since that time:
Incomes for the top 1% have gone from $148,000 to $450,000
Incomes for the next 9% have gone from $46,000 to $50,000
Incomes for the next 40% have gone from $17,500 to $15,000
Incomes for the bottom 50% have gone from $5,400 to $3,750
Still, people GENERALLY get it. A new study which included eight focus groups nationwide, along with a random national survey of 1,202 likely voters, finds that across the partisan spectrum, Democratic and Republican voters ranked job creation and rebuilding the nation’s manufacturing base at the top of their list of priorities.
In fact, when asked to select the most important task for Congress and the President, “creating new manufacturing jobs,” which ranked just below creating jobs more generally, saw a bigger gain from 2010 (up 9%) than any other option, including deficit reduction, lower government spending, immigration reform, or addressing healthcare. Indeed, by a more than two-to-one margin (67% to 29%), voters prefer that Washington focus on job creation rather than deficit reduction.
Here are some of the key findings from this poll:
- When given an “either/or” choice, just 29% want Washington to focus on deficit reduction while 67% want job creation.
- “Creating manufacturing jobs in the U.S.” and “strengthening manufacturing in this country” are the top voter priorities for the President.
- Only 50% of voters believe that the President is working to create manufacturing jobs – an 11% drop from 2010.
- Congress fares even worse – 41% say Democrats in Congress are working to create jobs, and 32% see the GOP working to create jobs.
- 90% have a favorable view of American manufacturing companies – up 22 points from 2010.
- 97% have a favorable view of U.S.-made goods – up 5 points from 2010.
- 94% of voters say creating manufacturing jobs is either “one of the most important” things government can do or “very important.”
- 90% support Buy American policies “to ensure that taxpayer funded government projects use only U.S.-made goods and supplies wherever possible.”
- 95% favor keeping “America’s trade laws strong and strictly enforced to provide a level playing field for our workers and businesses.”
Yet somehow, raising taxes on the wealthy, raising taxes on oil and gas companies, increasing the payroll tax cap, raising taxes on hedge fund managers, a transaction tax, are all off the table. As I said, we're in the midst of a coup...and its against democracy itself, and the people of this country.
VIDEO SECTION
In the first video, Jon Stewart destroys Bill O'Reillys lame arguments that Anders Breivik wasn't a Christian, even though he printed a 1,500-page Christian manifesto, but the Ft Hood killer was a Muslim because he printed up cards. In the second video, Stewart captures how many times FOX News guests attack liberals with vicious rhetoric and false smears while claiming they are the ones being victimized.
http://crooksandliars.com/john-amato/tds-destroys-oreillys-arguments-anders-
http://crooksandliars.com/john-amato/tds-destroys-oreillys-arguments-anders-
Sen. Bernie Sanders expressed how a lot of us feel about how these debt ceiling negotiations look to be shaping up with balancing the budget on the backs of the poor, the sick and the elderly.
The extraordinary, and growing, wealth gap…particularly between whites and minorities (yet the right wing thinks its they that are disenfranchised…incredible):
Olbermann and Keith Ellison on him being denied the right to speak at the McCarthy like anti-Muslim hearings being held by the GOP…and he’s the Committee co-chair (but he’s Muslim)!
Ed Schultz Talks With Laura Flanders and Dean Baker on the Debt Ceiling
ARTICLE SECTION
The Utterly Wrong Beltway Myth Driving the Debt Ceiling Insanity, Joshua Holland
A FEW CLIPS:
The surreal dance over raising the debt ceiling is not only a result of Republican intransigence. It is also the result of a bipartisan embrace of a fundamentally flawed reading of the current political climate -- an abiding belief that, rather than being confused about how we came to run today's high deficits, there exists a "silent majority" of Americans who hate government, who want nothing more than an opportunity to support politicians who favor deep cuts to the public sector, and who are appalled at the lack of "bipartisan cooperation" standing in the way. Unfortunately, Republicans stand to gain the most from that misunderstanding.
Obama gave the speech after the GOP's refusal to release the economy they hold hostage even after the Democrats capitulated entirely to all their demands for cuts. Over the weekend, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid offered a package that would decrease spending by $2.7 trillion over the next decade, without any revenues increases, in exchange for raising the debt ceiling and avoiding default through the 2012 elections.
SNIP
But the larger context in which this fight is playing out is important to understand. On the same day that Republicans rejected Reid's offer, New York Times columnist Tom Friedman penned his 1000th homage to a mythic creature: the centrist “swing voter” whose views line up remarkably well with those of the Washington establishment. Friedman calls them the “radical center,” and has long pined for a third party that would fight hard for their values – perhaps the most over-represented interests in Washington today.
The mythic swing voter is concerned about deficits, wants to see less spending and rejects the partisanship inherent in politics. Both parties have embraced the narrative that voters want to see public spending drastically reduced, despite the fact that the polls all show that while “cutting spending” is popular in the abstract, voters don't want to see any specific programs cut; the only roads toward reducing the deficit that voters favor are raising taxes on the wealthiest and reducing military spending significantly – two things that aren't on the table in the current debate.
The mythic swing voter is concerned about deficits, wants to see less spending and rejects the partisanship inherent in politics. Both parties have embraced the narrative that voters want to see public spending drastically reduced, despite the fact that the polls all show that while “cutting spending” is popular in the abstract, voters don't want to see any specific programs cut; the only roads toward reducing the deficit that voters favor are raising taxes on the wealthiest and reducing military spending significantly – two things that aren't on the table in the current debate.
SNIP
This is a belief that is more or less ubiquitous within the Washington Beltway, but it's entirely wrong. The data show that while the number of Americans who identify themselves as “independents” has grown significantly over the past two decades, all but a handful are in fact loyal to one party or another. And, as political scientist Alan Abromowitz notes, “these independent partisans are virtually indistinguishable from regular partisans in political outlook or behavior.”
It's true that the polls find “independents” swinging back and forth between the parties, but that's rarely a result of voters' loyalties shifting. Rather, it's a question of which independents are more likely to turn out and vote in any given election. The “lesson” that the administration appears to have learned from the 2010 midterms is wrong: voters didn't move to the right between 2008 and 2010; the Democratic base simply didn't turn out in the same numbers as did highly motivated Republican voters and Republican-leaning independents.
And while GOP over-reach has led to a backlash among much of the electorate that may well cost them in 2012, that reality represents a particular hazard for the Democrats. In a highly polarized environment, motivating the party's base is the key to winning elections, and while the Right broadly approves of the Republicans' intractable stance on the debt ceiling negotiations, a good chunk of the Democratic base is outraged by Obama's willingness not only to concede to Republican demands on spending generally, but specifically to put cuts to Social Security and Medicare on the table. The most recent CNN poll found a sharp drop in support for the president among self-identified liberals – the people most likely to man phone-banks, canvas and send money to Democratic candidates.
So, in their belief that there is some large “radical center” within the electorate who are ready to line up behind a candidate who will slash their retirement benefits in order to finance tax breaks for the wealthy, it's conceivable that Obama could win against a weak GOP candidate while dooming dozens of Democrats in down-ballot races.
Debt Madness Was Always About Killing Social Security, by Robert Scheer
A FEW CLIPS:
This phony debt crisis has now passed through the looking glass into the realm where madness reigns. What should have been an uneventful moment in which lawmakers make good on the nation’s contractual obligations has instead been seized upon by Republican hypocrites as a moment to settle ideological scores that have nothing to do with the debt.
Hypocrites, because their radical free market ideology, and the resulting total deregulation of the financial markets, is what caused the debt to spiral out of control this last decade. That and the wars George W. Bush launched but didn’t have the integrity to responsibly finance. The consequence was a banking bubble and crash leading to a 50 percent run-up of the debt that has nothing to do with the “entitlements” that those same Republicans have always wanted to destroy.
Hypocrites, because their radical free market ideology, and the resulting total deregulation of the financial markets, is what caused the debt to spiral out of control this last decade. That and the wars George W. Bush launched but didn’t have the integrity to responsibly finance. The consequence was a banking bubble and crash leading to a 50 percent run-up of the debt that has nothing to do with the “entitlements” that those same Republicans have always wanted to destroy.
SNIP
Boehner’s slogan, “I’ve always believed, the bigger government, the smaller the people,” is downright bizarre coming from someone who supported the Bush tax cuts for the rich, the banking bailout and the highest war spending since World War II, all of which is what caused government to get this big. Was it job stimulus spending that kept GM jobs in this country that made people smaller, or the loss of their homes and jobs as a result of the policies that are at the core of the Republican program?
What is at stake is a radical Republican agenda to totally reverse the progress in economic justice that began with the great reforms of Franklin Roosevelt and his New Deal. Consider the direct consequence of the economic crisis that unfettered Wall Street greed has wrought, particularly in reversing the gains made by the most underprivileged sectors of the population.
What is at stake is a radical Republican agenda to totally reverse the progress in economic justice that began with the great reforms of Franklin Roosevelt and his New Deal. Consider the direct consequence of the economic crisis that unfettered Wall Street greed has wrought, particularly in reversing the gains made by the most underprivileged sectors of the population.
Obama and the Left: A Problem for the WH?, by Glenn Greenwald
A FEW CLIPS:
At this point, the only factor that can lead someone to deny the significance of this trend (Obama's loss of support on the left) is willful blindness. And it's hard to imagine those numbers going anywhere but down as the realization sets in that it is the President who, now by his own admission, has been working hard to cut Social Security and Medicare benefits, and as the President increasingly pursues what is clearly his 2012 strategy: casting himself as a trans-partisan centrist (his doing so vindicates, in my view, those of us who have long argued that there was nothing "new" about Obama's politics; it was just slightly re-branded Clintonian, Third Way triangulation).
Independently, and more to the point, approval ratings is only one of many barometers of a President's standing with his base -- and, at least in Obama's case, almost certainly not the most important one. It's completely unsurprising that the vast majority of Democrats and even "liberals" -- when presented with the dichotomous approve/disapprove choice by a pollster regarding their own party's President -- will choose "approve"; that, in essenceost certainly not the most important one. It's completely unsurprising that the vast majority of Democrats and even "liberals" -- when presented with the dichotomous approve/disapprove choice by a pollster regarding their own party's President -- will choose "approve"; that, in essence, is little more than a proxy for declaring one's tribal identity (which of the two sides are you on?). But what propelled the Obama campaign in 2008 was not merely the number of people willing to vote for him but, rather, the intensity of his support.
Independently, and more to the point, approval ratings is only one of many barometers of a President's standing with his base -- and, at least in Obama's case, almost certainly not the most important one. It's completely unsurprising that the vast majority of Democrats and even "liberals" -- when presented with the dichotomous approve/disapprove choice by a pollster regarding their own party's President -- will choose "approve"; that, in essenceost certainly not the most important one. It's completely unsurprising that the vast majority of Democrats and even "liberals" -- when presented with the dichotomous approve/disapprove choice by a pollster regarding their own party's President -- will choose "approve"; that, in essence, is little more than a proxy for declaring one's tribal identity (which of the two sides are you on?). But what propelled the Obama campaign in 2008 was not merely the number of people willing to vote for him but, rather, the intensity of his support.
SNIP
Perhaps the most unconvincing part of Kilgore's argument is the notion that the White House cares about the views of its liberal base but it is not worried only because there is not pervasive anger among the average base voter. For more persuasive is the amply-supported argument from this blogger that Obama wants to be attacked by liberals because of the perception that it politically benefits him by making him look centrist, non-partisan and independent; it also endears him to the D.C. media class, which -- in its classic anti-democratic style -- swoons for any politician who scorns their own voters. With this strategy, the angrier liberals are with Obama, the better off he is; hence, openly boasting about aggressive efforts to cut Social Security and Medicare benefits, just like publicly chiding liberals for not being more appreciative of him as he repeatedly did before the 2010 election, is designed to highlight this schism. It's not merely that he lacks a fear of liberal dissatisfaction; it's that he affirmatively craves it.
But that's a dangerous strategy. U.S. presidential elections are very closely decided affairs, and alienating the Left even to some degree can be lethal for a national Democratic campaign; shouldn't the 2000 election, along with 2010, have cemented that lesson forever? Kilgore (and the White House) are almost certainly right that most dissatisfied progressives will end up voting for Obama no matter what. The 2000 experience has soured many to the notion of supporting a third-party candidate, and the fear-mongering that will undoubtedly replace "hope" as Obama's re-election strategy will be, like most fear-based campaigns, effective. The stunning silence in the face of Obama's efforts to cut Social Security and Medicare benefits (along with his pursuit of a whole slew of other policies ostensibly anathema to liberals) should put to rest any notion that there will be mass defection of liberal voters in 2012 to the GOP or a third party.
But that's a dangerous strategy. U.S. presidential elections are very closely decided affairs, and alienating the Left even to some degree can be lethal for a national Democratic campaign; shouldn't the 2000 election, along with 2010, have cemented that lesson forever? Kilgore (and the White House) are almost certainly right that most dissatisfied progressives will end up voting for Obama no matter what. The 2000 experience has soured many to the notion of supporting a third-party candidate, and the fear-mongering that will undoubtedly replace "hope" as Obama's re-election strategy will be, like most fear-based campaigns, effective. The stunning silence in the face of Obama's efforts to cut Social Security and Medicare benefits (along with his pursuit of a whole slew of other policies ostensibly anathema to liberals) should put to rest any notion that there will be mass defection of liberal voters in 2012 to the GOP or a third party.
0 comments:
Post a Comment