Obama’s ‘Deal of the Century’ for Republicans is Bad for Democrats
WASHINGTON – If you want one reason why Barack Obama doesn’t deserve reelection this is it.
If the Republican Party were a normal party, it would take advantage of this amazing moment. It is being offered the deal of the century: trillions of dollars in spending cuts in exchange for a few hundred million dollars of revenue increases. – The Mother of All No-Brainers
Whether he deserves to be reelected by Democrats, progressives and liberals is, of course, quite different from whether he will be. As I’ve written innumerable times, rank and file Democrats continue to support Pres. Obama in huge numbers, with the majority of voters more practical than ideologically rigid. The best news for Obama is that Democrats come home once they see the alternative, which in 2012 don’t even have Republicans excited.
The bookend to David Brooks is Frank Rich, who evidently has finally awakened to the actual Barack Obama, 3 years too late. This was after appalling political analysis that should not only have gotten him laughed out of the opinion racket, but rendered his views worthless. Rich preferred to play games in the primaries rather than learn, then help readers understand Barack Obama’s political philosophy:
But as long as the likely Democratic nominee keeps partying like it’s 2008 while everyone else refights the battles of yesteryear, he will continue to be underestimated every step of the way.
One of the people who underestimated Barack Obama was Frank Rich, but not in the manner he meant. It’s because he chose to play what I call fan politics.
Mr. Rich could have looked at Obama’s Illinois record, his statements about being non-ideological, about being more of a mediator between two opposing views, but he chose fan politics instead, ignorantly blinded by what the outcome could eventually be.
Paul Krugman laid out the economics for Rich and his ilk, but there were many clues, the most important coming from candidate Obama himself:
“I think that I have the capacity to get people to recognize themselves in each other. I think that I have the ability to make people get beyond some of the divisions that plague our society and to focus on common sense and reason and that’s been in short supply over the last several years. I’m not an ideologue, never have been. Even during my younger days when I was tempted by, you know, sort of more radical or left wing politics, there was a part of me that always was a little bit conservative in that sense; that believes that you make progress by sitting down listening to people, recognizing everybody’s concerns, seeing other people’s points of views and then making decisions.” – Barack Obama, 5.14.07 (on ABC’s “This Week”)
Pres. Obama adopting the Republican economic model has set the Democratic Party back, how far and for how long it’s hard to tell. A paltry stimulus, ignoring his mandate for a real jobs moon shot (perhaps on energy), buying into a deficit commission in the first place, negotiating away real health care reform to private insurance and Big Pharma, which rendered important health care legislation toxic, allowing too big to fail to rise and flourish, as well as choosing to duck the tax debate in the 2010 midterms, then caving to Bush tax cut extensions, all of which was by design and during a Democratic Congress. The list is endless, culminating in spending cuts that far exceed what Republicans are willing to do on their side, thereby negotiating with his own Democratic Party ideals, which long ago we knew would never be Pres. Obama’s driving force.
Obama’s position, which he orchestrated carefully, is now where Republicans have placed the new center, which will dog any Democratic candidate and president who believes progressive philosophy is not only more sound, but imperative to save the middle class.
Any Democrat not starting by offering tax cuts and even targeting the safety net will now be considered “extreme” or “far left” by the new center, you know, because Barack Obama did it. Progressive politics then becomes a harder sell. Where that leaves the “professional Left” is anyone’s guess, but it’s nowhere good.
That is unless Obama’s economic Republicanism is abandoned wholesale, which is unlikely when you look at the behavior of elite Democrats today, politicians who don’t understand that by “winning” the Democratic Party is actually losing their identity. Though there are some signs of life in small quarters of Congress, with a few Democrats recognizing that the small differences that used to exist between the parties, Pres. Obama has obliterated, not only on economics, but including on matters of war and peace.
There’s something even more chilling about Pres. Obama’s economic Republicanism. If he’s doing this now, what will he do if he’s reelected, facing no other elections in his future, able to carve the path as he sees it?
It’s not Republicans who should start worrying about Obama’s reelection, it’s Democrats.
Taylor Marsh is a Washington based political analyst, writer and commentator on national politics, foreign policy, and women in power. A veteran national politics writer, Taylor’s been writing on the web since 1996. She has reported from the White House, been profiled in the Washington Post, The New Republic, and has been seen on C-SPAN’s Washington Journal, CNN, MSNBC, Al Jazeera English and Al Jazeera Arabic, as well as on radio across the dial and on satellite, including the BBC. Marsh lives in the Washington, D.C. area. This column is cross posted from her blog.
11 Responses to “Obama’s ‘Deal of the Century’ for Republicans is Bad for Democrats”
Are the farther left people really so upset that Obama and other Democrats, dislike it as they will, may concede to reality sometime?
The problem the federal and other governments have is with spending, and that’s obviously where most if not all reform must lie.
Dude, if you think bowing to the GOP is conceding to reality, then I’ve got some land on the moon to sell you.
I would be careful about progressives selling you land on the moon, DLS, because they would certainly tax the hell out of it after you bought it. (As long as they still own it, of course, it would be subject to a special tax exemption.)
The truth may grate on some Usual Suspect nerves, but oh, well.
As for lunar-real-estate game, do the Usual Suspects know where that is? Many of them can’t even find the USA on the map, along with other nations. Maybe they need an Al Gore film to show them.
Are we likely to see tax increases or new taxes? Yes, of course; that is the price to be paid for securing Democratic approval to any deal. However, the truth is the truth, and most if not all elements of any deal should be spending reductions or controls (and serious ones, not playtime largely “symbolic” or trivial ones) and next to no or no tax increases. That’s the moral as well as the logical, incontrovertible observation of reality as well as related stance on proportions (tax increases vs. spending cuts).
Incidentally, readers like Zephyr should be told again(!) that I’ve even (unlike so many liberals) provided an excellent example of a tax increase that also finally gets through the self-imposed encumbrances and obstacles inhibiting entitlement reform. The FICA taxes obviously should be the first or only tax increased, before the income tax (subject and object of envy and economic ignorance of the Left). The FICA (payroll) tax reduction that is now temporary was a measure chosen in an attempt to revive or to stimulate the economy, and really hasn’t amounted to much. It also was a deliberate choice to make failed Social Security and Medicare have even worse fiscal attributes than they had before(!). Along with restoring old FICA rates or raising FICA taxes above the previous rates*, perhaps now is the time for the Democrats (if they ever get their heads out of their asses) to propose the lifting or abolition of the FICA income cap liberals have longed to see. Ending the cap will only postpone the serious failure of Social Security for 6-7 years depending on any benefit changes also included (which would increase expenses). But it’s at least a trophy that the Dems can claim and if they had any sense, could claim credit for entitlement reform pioneering, too. (They were mindless in 2005 when they had the chance of an era and stupidly resisted all reform, denied there were problems.)
Raising FICA tax rates and raising or ending the FICA cap on income subject to FICA taxes (with no increase in benefits to those affected by new and higher taxes — so many want means testing in the future, anyway, so why throw money away before means testing happens?) would be an example of intelligent Democrat tax-increase strategy or tactics. Don’t count on it.
* As I’ve also noted before, FICA taxes would have to be raised to 25 per cent or close to that figure to make Social Security and Medicare truly solvent (sustainable indefinitely, paying for all future expenditure obligations). Are people ready to face this, or will they be satisfied or delighted if Dems simply change the law to make all of S.S. and Medicare mandatorily financed out of general revenues. Many will believe that that “saves” the programs “forever.” Poof, just like magic, and lib-Dem heroes.
[...] post by CBS and software by Elliott Back No Comments [...]
Gentlemen, as a one time avid astronomer it turns out I am actually familiar with the location of our earth’s moon. As a longtime poster I’m familiar with many of your tribal affiliations and beliefs as well. Therefore you may want to approach this talk of “reality” a little more cautiously.
zephyr says:
July 6, 2011 at 11:37 am
Point to zephyr!
I have to agree – Obama and Congressional Dems have really dropped the ball on this.
It really goes back to accepting the ridiculous premise the Republicans have put forth that tax increases should be off the table. After a decade of spending, the very same representatives who helped create this deficit don’t want to pay for it! They’ve turned the Republican Party into the ultimate free-lunchers. Run up the credit card then refuse to pay it – it’s insane.
The Dems have been perfectly happy to go along with it too – and now it’s turned into a hostage situation. I think the Dems often have the more rational ideas, but they are so spineless it really doesn’t matter.
The rational solution is a mix of spending cuts and tax increases which doesn’t put the whole burden on the elderly, the disabled, and the poor. But the rational solution will be the one option that’s really off the table.
Can anyone here provide an affirmative justification for transfer payments from the less wealthy to the more wealthy?
In general, situations where both the far left and far right are unhappy are either amazingly bad or pretty good. In this case I hope it’s the latter.
I’m gradually considering the idea that Obama, like Clinton, might be as good as a Democratic president as the GOP is going to get and it would be smart for them to take what he’s giving them. With Clinton he seemed to truly value fiscal responsibility. with Obama I think it’s more of a general willingness to compromise.
Now that Obama is hinting at initial entitlement reform, the Usual Suspects are aghast. It was really “entertaining” hearing the pathetic whimpering by Bill Press this morning on the radio. “Since FDR, since LBJ — the Democratic Party has been known for these programs…” Stuck numerous decades in the past insofar as trying (without success) to defend refraining from entitlement reform, but of course also revealing, too. (Adds perversity to the entertainment)