Pretty good!
Just came from five plus hours talking to Democrats (and some Independents and Republicans) and thought I’d do a brief recap for Smartypants.
No one I spoke to was upset by the budget deal. That’s a true statement.
The details of timing escaped most (the November 23, 2011 deadline for Super Congress’ recommendation for legislation) (which is great public relations, the day before Thanksgiving, think of the conversations!) and Congress’ vote on the legislation on December 23, 2011 (the day before Christmas Eve, think of the conversations!), but the fact that there will be no cuts to Social Security, Medicare Beneficiaries and to Pell Grants seeped through the noise. The Peoria I talked to got it. The budget wasn’t balanced on their backs, their parent’s backs, their college kid’s back.
One woman said she didn’t care if she watched a big screen tv the next time she was in the hospital. 'Tell the providers that,' she said. 'They can cut their costs right there.'
There was no sense that Democrats’ “caved.” There was a sense that someone finally stood up to the crazies (people I talk to, ranging to upper 80’s, routinely use the word ‘crazy’ to describe the current Republican Party). Oh yeah, one woman wanted to know if we could support Olympia Snow, because she wasn’t one of “them,” but i digress. :-)
One gent put it well, here’s what he said (as close as I can remember), “We didn’t get the Bush Tax Cuts this time, but we will, and it will happen automatically.” Bravo, gent. “Automatically” is the word.
The Bush Tax Cuts are now separated from the pack, one stand-alone, vulnerable frame, no longer protected by the brilliant frames-within-frames messaging the Republicans have spent decades honing. We watched those frames splintered and used for toothpicks via President Obama’s press conferences. Who is going to stand up for the Bush Tax Cuts now that somewhere around 80% of Americans want to see a balanced (revenues plus spending cuts) approach to their country’s budget? One or two percent of Americans and the Republican Tea Party, who, by the way, won’t have a vote on whether the Bush Tax Cuts expire on 1.1.2013. They are going to expire. Automatically.
I hope the revenue from the Bush Tax Cuts fund Stimulus II.
This is going to be a dicey campaign season? Oh yeah. The ultimate gamble: we vote President Obama for another term or all-but guarantee those tax cuts will continue; we vote for a Democratic House, or waste another two years dithering with the Tea Party; we vote for a Democrat Senate, or we lose our firewall around the President; we help the Democrats who are running for Governor, or we see more state take-overs by the Tea Party.
I talked to one woman whose business relied on government contracts. She was really happy today.
That’s it. No links, no science, no math and just a broad percentage in the above. But I ain’t making this up. I’m talking to the base.
I talked to one woman whose business relied on government contracts. She was really happy today.
That’s it. No links, no science, no math and just a broad percentage in the above. But I ain’t making this up. I’m talking to the base.
GOTV
EGGSELENT!!!!!!!!
ReplyDeleteI just love hearing from Peoria. LOL
We have our good points. ;-)
ReplyDeleteA lot depends on the Super Committee and if it puts out anything like the Gang of Six tax plan than that means lower tax rates, completely eliminating the AMT, revenue-neutral corporate tax reform (could potentially lead to less with territorial tax system, although I'm not sure), and revenue in the form of reducing some tax expenditures.
ReplyDeleteI believe Senator Mike Crapo called it "pro-growth tax reform"
Cuts to social programs are likely to come out of the Super Committee.
Additionally, I don't believe the automatic cuts kick in until 2013, so if Congress does not pass the plan the GOP will have time to pull more political stunts.
I also want to point out that Obama and many Dems in Congress did not play this particularly weel to say the least by letting the GOP set the terms of the debate. Even Jon Chait, one of Obama's stanuchest defenders, thinks he played this poorly.
Anonymous
ReplyDeleteAnd if the committee doesn't adequately come up with revenue to reduce the deficit, Obama will veto any attempt to extend the Bush tax cuts.
Most progressive economists have supported the idea of reducing corporate tax rates and getting rid of loopholes - think GE - thus, raising more revenue.
You're right that the cuts don't kick in until 2013 - to protect the recovery. If we work to have a Democratic Congress by then, we won't have to worry about the lunatics.
President Obama played this as well as it could have been done. Some might have done it differently, but I have yet to hear anyone propose a way this could have ended any better.
there will be more political stunts by the Republican Tea Party. like children they thrive on the attention their antics encourage.
ReplyDeleteand what will they say to $$ coming out of the defense budget v ending subsidies to oil and gas companies?
it will be an interesting ride. and the American public is engaged. and that is a win.
we'll be talking cuts v revenues for the next four months, until the day before Thanksgiving. and then again until the day before Christmas Eve. i like those dates because it's the holiday season for many American families. think of all the chances to talk the American Budget with family members of different political persuasions. :-d
but then, i'm all about conversations.
Who is to say the economy will have recovered by then? It would have made more sense to link these cuts to unemployment falling to a certain percentage.
ReplyDeleteI'm fine with that, but the Gang of Six called for revenue-neutral corporate tax reform and a territorial tax system wherein profits overeseas wouldn't be taxed. I also never saw the revenues there as the only specifics were the reductions in some tax expenditures, while tax rates were cut and the AMT was completely eliminated. This is a plan Obama called a "significant step" in the right direction, so I am skeptical regarding how adamant he is about truly raising taxes.
Obama and many dems in Congress never really fought against the idea that debt reduction/austerity is necessary and in some cases provided bipartisan credence to the idea. He appointed the debt commission, has said he would reduce the deficit by half by the end of his first term (I believe he said this early on during his Presideny, but still makes no sense during a recession), and compared the federal budget to a household budget among other things.
It's ridiculous that we had to endure this politically-manufactured crisis for months, while millions are unemployed and our economy is in real danger of slipping back into recession. I realize it is mostly the GOP's fault, but as has been discussed the Dems weren't particularly aggressive in response. We face a number of tremendous challenges and this phony crisis did absolutely nothing to help. The plan could actually end being counterproductive in terms of growth and thus defcit reduction.
He talks about "entitelment reform", but we know how to solve the issues relating to Medicare and Medicaid: All-payer rate setting or single-payer to start.
Also, the talks of "shared sacrifice" ring hollow at least right now imo. Why not promote policies like a financial transactions tax?
From what I can gather they failed to use options to avoid default like the 14th amendment (a legally murky one) or coin seigniorage (say what you will, but clearly legal) as bargaining chips.
OK, now I see that you live in a la-la land where fighting back gets the tea party to cower and single payer health care is politically viable.
ReplyDeleteJust so you know, we talk pragmatic politics here so if you're interested in actually engaging folks, a bit more reality will be in order.
i'm more than happy to link unemployment/job creation to the upcoming conversations in these next four/five months. with no doubt, and i think that will happen. in the main piece, i said i hoped the GWB's tax cuts would be used for Stimulus II when they expire in 1.1.13, not that we had to wait until then to make that parallel. that's why i'm talking about it now. :-)
ReplyDeletere: your second paragraph, you are speaking past my ken. i'm just not knowledgeable about the ins and out of the tax/revenue particulars. not that i wouldn't welcome the education. my stage is the common. the broad strokes. learning particulars and reducing them to common language is what i do. so feel free to educate.
paragraph three: we agree, we disagree. i don't know what you mean by more aggressive approach. i think the Tea Party representatives aren't given to reason. i don't know where the Democrats could have been more aggressive without setting of more chaos. i would want to see our aggression channeled into dismantling the Tea Party frames with our families and neighbors. and doing every single thing we can do to get them out of our government. i want them marginalized out of power.
medicare... i'm with you.
the Gipper Coin, i would have loved that bit of theatre. ;-)
typos, grammar, apologies. sigh. it's late for this soul. and i'm multi-tasking, too. ;-)
ReplyDelete"He talks about "entitelment reform", but we know how to solve the issues relating to Medicare and Medicaid: All-payer rate setting or single-payer to start."
ReplyDeletePray tell, I don't recall you ever pointing to how to get something, which progressive hero Bernie Sanders, stated only had 5 votes in the senate. So does PBO wave his magic wand and presto, Single Payer? Ditto for your other suggestions of how to 'fight'. You really need to take your 'fighting' to the ring
No, I realize only a few Senators (at least according to Bernie Sanders) would support single-payer despite the support it has gotten in public opinion polls, but I still believe single-payer or all-payer rate setting would be a great start to getting healthcare costs down substantially, which is what ultimately matters.
ReplyDeleteI do believe that being pro-active can certainly help in certain situations and I'd argue that along with the corporate money it has done a lot to move the political center (at least what is considered to be the center in DC)further to the right over the last 30 years. I think Obama could have done this early in 2009, but he made concessions on the stimulus essentially from the get go and hired a failure like Larry Summers to guide him. It was a great opportunity to establish a strong economic narrative staunchly opposed to Reagonomics, but I believe it was largely bungled.
Does it hurt to ask people to put pressure on Congress as Obama did recently? I could be wrong, but this is the first time I remember Obama doing this.
"Does it hurt to ask people to put pressure on Congress as Obama did recently? I could be wrong, but this is the first time I remember Obama doing this."
ReplyDeleteit was exactly what needed to be said. hey, this is going to be very, very messy. and for all the "i want to fight the tea party" voters, the ones who want an absolute line in the sand ala the tea party stand, it's coming.
democracy is messy. what we've seen to-date with the Tea Party is just the beginning.
and Americans are going to have a clear choice.
i welcome it happening in the open. i welcome the details. i welcome this fight.
compassion v insanity.
I was glad Obama asked people to contact their representatives as well. It gets them engaged in the process. But the truth is - I doubt it moved a single vote.
ReplyDeleteI am convinced now more than ever that the goal is and has always been to oppose anything he wants to do and take him down. All this talk about how we could get concessions from the Republicans through pressure or use of the bully pulpit is just not reasonable given those circumstances. You need leverage with these folks. And because we're not the kind of party to take hostages, we are limited in that arena.
"I think Obama could have done this early in 2009, but he made concessions on the stimulus essentially from the get go"
This is that same tired stuff about how politicians should never compromise. The Democrats (not just Obama) made compromises to get a stimulus bill passed. The more votes you need to get something like that passed - the more concessions you have to make. That's the way the system works.
When you concede matters though. He committed himself to the tax cuts befeore he was even in office (I had a link, but it wouldn't allow me to post), which many economists believe aren't as effective as direct spending in terms of stimulating the economy. I'm not opposed to compromise, but the question is are you comrpromising from a position of strength or weakness. Also, the point about establishing a strong economic narrative is important as well at least imo. I believe he largely failed to do that and missed a great opportunity.
ReplyDelete