[Newsbot]

Filibuster Cartoons
Title: Cut it out, Obama (click to view)
Date: August 2, 2011
Barack Obama may be an enormously relevant figure of history, and may even prove to be one of the more successful US presidents, in terms of his ability to be win election and re-election with minimal effort. He may also be a very good man, and a very moral and thoughtful human being.

But it's becoming increasingly evident that he is neither a very skilled nor wise politician, and a thoroughly inept leader of both his political party and the larger ideological movement which it purports to represent.

As I write this, the President has just inked a bill to raise the US debt celling which can only be regarded as a complete and utter failure for "his side." After weeks of debate, the bill is only a victory for the White House in the narrow sense at it, a) exists at all, and b) delays the next Congressional reexamination of the debt ceiling issue until 2013, after the presidential election. But on every other front, Obama and the Democrats have gained absolutely nothing — neither politically, strategically, or morally — from its passage, and have instead assented to a bill which dramatically shifts the overall American political narrative to the right.

The bill, which GOP leader John Boehner has described as containing "98% of what we wanted," is entirely cuts-based. It trims over $900 billion from the federal budget over the next ten years by reducing allowable discretionary spending to the lowest levels since the Eisenhower administration.

And that's pretty much it. Obama stated repeatedly that he also wanted the deal to contain some revenue increases, via tax hikes for the wealthy, but none actually made it into the final legislation. This, of course, was due to the Republicans' extremist posturing on the matter, portraying any sort of tax increases as an all-or-nothing deal breaker. So Obama caved.

True, some Tea Party types are still upset. The bill does not contain a balanced budget amendment to the US constitution (it merely mandates a separate vote on one later), and the $900 billion cuts are a far cry from the $4 trillion figure that was being thrown around in the early days of the negotiations. All parties have likewise expressed some unease over a weird "Super Congress" provision, which mandates the creation of a six-and-six committee of Republicans and Democrats that will suggest $1.5 trillion in further budget cuts this fall. If its demands are not approved by Normal Congress, in turn, a "default" set of equally large, but more painful and less politically attractive cuts will kick in automatically.

But overall, the conservative narrative that American fiscal solvency can only be obtained by cut, cut, cutting seems pretty much entrenched. At no point did Obama and the Congressional Democrats mount a convincing counter-narrative, and they certainly had no ideological "deal breakers" of their own. Early on, the Republicans declared that they were willing to go to the brink on the debt ceiling issue — their terms would be met, or the country would be pushed into default — and the Democratic response was to gently convince them to put down the gun. When you negotiate like this, starting from the position that your opponent is far more dangerous and serious and powerful than yourself, it's pretty hard to extract concessions.

As I note in the essay below, pretty much every major American liberal pundit has blasted President Obama in the aftermath of (and lead up to) this bill, and a new poll suggests that the majority of Democrats and liberals believe that the Democrats gave up "too much" in their drive to secure its passage. This may or may not have electoral consequences (I'm inclined to think it won't, since liberals have nowhere else to go) but it still signals a distressingly high level of incompetence. Democratic politics, after all, is in large part about delivering the goods. After a while, if a politician repeatedly demonstrates he cannot eke out even minor victories for his side, as Obama has consistently proven unable to do in regard to the wars, taxes, Gitmo, the surveillance state, the public option, and immigration reform, you have to conclude that the man is simply not a very good politician.

That's not an ideological statement, it's simply a functionalist assessment. If I was a liberal, I'd be seriously looking into primary challengers.

[Bruce_the_vii]

Awwwww, zzzzzzzzzzzz. The Republicans got their way, it's clear to the electorate that they want cuts, buts cuts are hard to sell as well. So a Democratic backlash in 2012.

[bootlegga]

The Democrats may not have gotten the tax increase they wanted, but they did get across the board cuts (including to defence) instead of just social programs like the Republicans wanted. And the cuts are not hard immediate spending cuts like the Republicans wanted either, but a promise to reduce future spending. And if you know your history at all, that hasn't worked very well in the US for the past 30 or 40 years.

So while Obama didn't get exactly what he wanted, neither did the Republicans.

Finally, by bumping up the debt ceiling until 2013 - it gives the Democrats a chance to win control of both houses in 2012 - at which time they can then raise taxes.

For Obama and the Democrats, this really was about buying time, so in that essence, Obama was successful.

Still, given the huge sums involved and the lack of will to get their economic house in order, I'd call this a pyrrhic victory for both sides.

[Thanos]

Casting the blame for the entire sickening episode onto Republican/Teaparty instrasigence and malice shouldn't be all that difficult. The Dems should be able to make some pretty good political hay out of this mess for 2012. Add in that it's hard to find a GOP candidate for president right now who isn't either a flip-flopping sell-out kissing Teaparty ass or even an avowed TeaParty kook themselves and I still say that President Obama still holds the upper hand going into next year's campaign.

[martin14]

bootlegga wrote:

Finally, by bumping up the debt ceiling until 2013 - it gives the Democrats a chance to win control of both houses in 2012 - at which time they can then raise taxes.

For Obama and the Democrats, this really was about buying time, so in that essence, Obama was successful.

The Dems had control of everything the first two years, it didnt help them then,
and they won't get it back in 2012.


Considering I doubt the US economy will be really any better next year,

Obama will bomb out in 2012.

Quote:

After a while, if a politician repeatedly demonstrates he cannot eke out even minor victories for his side, as Obama has consistently proven unable to do in regard to the wars, taxes, Gitmo, the surveillance state, the public option, and immigration reform, you have to conclude that the man is simply not a very good politician.

Gitmo is still open ?


Oh, wait


But, this makes me crazy...

Quote:

delays the next Congressional reexamination of the debt ceiling issue until 2013, after the presidential election.

Raising the debt ceiling like this is akin to raising the blood alcohol level
in order to cure drunk driving.

[Kjorteo]

The final roll call on the House vote is particularly telling when it comes to proving just how little room there is in the middle anymore. Rabid progressives and Tea Partiers alike absolutely loathed this agreement. At this point, I'm beginning to suspect that rabid progressives and Tea Partiers alike just loathe the word "agreement." When the same bill gets "yea" votes from John Boehener and Nancy Pelosi and "nay" votes from Michelle Bachmann and Dennis Kucinich, something very bizarre has happened.

My state has three House congressional districts--a liberal stronghold, a conservative stronghold, and Albuquerque and its surrounding area, which is currently held by a Democrat but is usually a notorious swing district. The guy from Albuquerque voted for the bill, and the other two voted against. What a world.

I will say that, even though clearly the far left had its mutineers as well, popular perception is that this really isn't going to help the Tea Party's image as a bunch of crazies incapable of listening to reason.

[CommanderSock]

Terrified liberals will not stay home in 2012 as they did in 2010.

[Bruce_the_vii]

I don't get the Tea Party thing, that cuts are all the Americans will have to do. The deficit is $1.6 trillion and wikipedia tells us most the spending is on entitlement programs like Medicare. What are they thinking, there's $1.6 trillion in soft cuts.

[GreenTiger]

Kjorteo wrote:

The final roll call on the House vote is particularly telling when it comes to proving just how little room there is in the middle anymore. Rabid progressives and Tea Partiers alike absolutely loathed this agreement. At this point, I'm beginning to suspect that rabid progressives and Tea Partiers alike just loathe the word "agreement." When the same bill gets "yea" votes from John Boehener and Nancy Pelosi and "nay" votes from Michelle Bachmann and Dennis Kucinich, something very bizarre has happened.

My state has three House congressional districts--a liberal stronghold, a conservative stronghold, and Albuquerque and its surrounding area, which is currently held by a Democrat but is usually a notorious swing district. The guy from Albuquerque voted for the bill, and the other two voted against. What a world.

I will say that, even though clearly the far left had its mutineers as well, popular perception is that this really isn't going to help the Tea Party's image as a bunch of crazies incapable of listening to reason.

Yes, The Tea Baggers are very ideologically based. They look more at some "other" influence leaving very little room in the middle.

[Psudo]

If this issue is a case of the outsides against the middle, I want to side with the outsides at least each in part. The far left properly insists on tax revenue increases, and the far right properly insists on more spending cuts. Each side only has half of the right answer, but the middle and it's lousy deal doesn't have almost any of it. When specifically addressing worry about the USA's credit rating, the middle has only managed to pass a bill that specifically fails to alleviate that worry.

Regardless of ideology, I'd love some competence in Washington.

[Bruce_the_vii]

Psudo wrote:

Regardless of ideology, I'd love some competence in Washington.

Amen

[Gunnair]

Psudo wrote:

If this issue is a case of the outsides against the middle, I want to side with the outsides at least each in part. The far left properly insists on tax revenue increases, and the far right properly insists on more spending cuts. Each side only has half of the right answer, but the middle and it's lousy deal doesn't have almost any of it. When specifically addressing worry about the USA's credit rating, the middle has only managed to pass a bill that specifically fails to alleviate that worry.

Regardless of ideology, I'd love some competence in Washington.

Bang on.

[Lemmy]

martin14 wrote:

The Dems had control of everything the first two years, it didnt help them then,
and they won't get it back in 2012.

Obama will bomb out in 2012.

Care to wager on those points?

[ID_Fox]

Psudo wrote:

If this issue is a case of the outsides against the middle, I want to side with the outsides at least each in part. The far left properly insists on tax revenue increases, and the far right properly insists on more spending cuts. Each side only has half of the right answer, but the middle and it's lousy deal doesn't have almost any of it. When specifically addressing worry about the USA's credit rating, the middle has only managed to pass a bill that specifically fails to alleviate that worry.

Regardless of ideology, I'd love some competence in Washington.

At least on my end I do not trust politicians enough to allow for tax increases when discussing politics. Mainly because it's too easy for congress to first raise taxes and then conveniently forget about or water down the spending cuts. Washington is rewarded with extra monies and then doesn't have to suffer any political flak from cuts.

Spending cuts must be first set in stone and then we can talk about allowing the Bush tax rates to expire (which I think is going to happen anyway).

[BartSimpson]

Hey kids, I hate to upset you. But there are no actual cuts in this budget deal.

There are reductions in increases, but in no way, shape, or form will government spend less money on anything next week than they spent last week.