Why Obama Needs a Primary Challenge from the 'Left'

bdzz for Daily Kos    Tue Jun 28, 2011

The president's strategy for reelection is pretty clear: defer to the main conservative obsession (currently the debt 'crisis'), defend the most popular liberal programs (Social Security, Medicare), and continue to 'embrace' compromise.  I.e. Obama is positioning himself as the 'sensible centrist' and it's a familiar stance.  Bill Clinton was the master of this sort of thing, but it's been the mainstay of the Democratic party since way back in the 1980s, when conservatives became the dominant force in U.S. politics.  (All of Obama's serious opponents in the 2008 primaries fit this mold.)

Now I admit that this kind of politics doesn't make me dance and sing, but it is a reasonable strategy, and it's consistent with the politician that Obama has, in fact, always been - a practical centrist (not a true liberal, and certainly not the 'leftist' of conservative rants). Unfortunately, the strategy has a potential flaw. And that, of course, is the economy.

At least so far, Obama's position has been that the economy is basically on the right track.  He has recently proposed a little innocuous industrial policy to help things along, but otherwise the message is 'stay the course'.  This is pretty non-threatening stuff and fits well with the sensible centrist stance (And I suspect it's what Obama genuinely believes).  It's a safe and viable strategy if unemployment actually declines over the next year.  Unfortunately,  there is good reason to think that it won't, and it's quite possible that the economy will get actually get worse.

If so, voters will be left with a nasty and dangerous choice: vote for Obama and the economic status quo or try a 'change' to the GOP's neo-libertarian 'vision'.  With the unemployment rate close to 10%, the status quo is not terribly appealing. There will a great temptation, especially among 'independent' voters, to support any promise of economic change, no matter how dubious.  Democrats will have a very hard sell.  Even if Obama manages to get reelected (possible given the Republican field), we could end up with Republicans in control of the House and the Senate.

Now one could argue that given the Republicans' strength in Congress (especially after the 2010 election), there isn't really much the president can do to lower unemployment.  That's true, but it isn't an argument Obama has made to the public.  One could also argue that GOP's proposed budget cuts will be terrible for economy.  But again, the president has not made that case.  One could easily argue that conservatives are pushing the country over the cliff and only a big Democratic victory can avert disaster.  But that's not the president's position - it's not the sensible centrist way.

One problem is that Obama's economic policy is a compromise between conservatism and a hypothetical progressive policy that most Americans never hear.  Oh, it's out there if you look for it, but isn't part of the mainstream news cycle.  The U.S. news media reports most issues as two sided battles: the White House vs the party that's out of power.  With a centrist president, the 'left-wing' of the Democratic party is barely heard. 

To prevent the GOP from exploiting our economic woes in the next election, someone needs to articulate a real economic alternative.  That will require challenging the nonsensical paranoia about the federal debt. It will probably require confronting conservatives about the utter failure of their policies - during that quarter of a century when they held sway over American politics. These are not things that we can expect of Obama - his repertoire is based on compromise, not confrontation.

The majority of Americans may not be ready for the kind of policies that could actually lower unemployment (such as substantial, sustained public works projects,  or a redistribution of income through serious tax reform).  But putting them on the table would help if only to clarify things.  In particular it would help clarify the president's place in the political spectrum. If voters aren't quite ready for a real solution to unemployment, Obama is a viable compromise, if people understand that he really is a compromise, between the neo-libertarian right and a progressive alternative. The question is, how to get a non-conservative alternative into the light of day?

Some Democrats in Congress are trying - there has recently been some talk about a fiscal stimulus (albeit a modest one). Unfortunately, these efforts probably won't get much attention. With a Republican majority in the House, there is almost no chance of a fiscal stimulus passing. And that means it won't be much of story in the eyes of the media.   U.S. news organizations like big stories, and for the next year the big political story will be the fight for the Republican presidential nomination.

To get the media's attention, we'll need a story that's bigger than the GOP circus.  It's a tall order, but perhaps a challenge to the president from the 'left' would do the trick.  (By 'left', of course I mean liberals.  With the exception of Bernie Sanders, there's no one in U.S. politics who can properly be called 'left wing').

Let me hasten to say that a third-party challenge is pointless.  The last thing the we need is repeat of the 2000 election, when Ralph Nader helped put Bush II in office.  Like it or not, in our political system third party campaigns are at best spoilers. No third party has ever gotten anywhere in U.S. politics.

No, what we really need is for some liberal Democrat to take on the thankless task of running against Obama in the primaries. That would be a story the media could get its teeth into.  An underdog, a dark horse, idealistic supporters ... reporters would eat it up.  It might even supplant the Tea Party as the media's obsession. 

Voters, in particular 'swing' voters, need to be shown that there is way out of our economic malaise.  They need to undestand that a Republican victory will move us further from real economic recovery.  And it needs to be clear that despite their excessive moderation, Obama and the Democrats could move us closer.  A liberal opponent for Obama may be the best way to make the point.

Technorati Tags: Barack Obama,2012 Elections,The Economy,Current Events,Politics

We have a revenue problem, not a spending problem

Joan McCarter    Tue Jul 05, 2011

The refrain that's won the day, apparently, for budget negotiators racing to see who can get the most praise from the Very Serious People for making the most Americans suffer under austerity, is "we having a spending problem." Not to put too fine a point on it: Bullshit.

That's a chart from the Senate Appropriations Committee, making a key point.

Our deficit and debts can be traced to the fact that spending on entitlement programs and defense has shot up, and tax revenues have plummeted to their lowest level in decades. But spending on domestic discretionary programs has grown much more slowly. And, if you correct for inflation, and for growing population, it turns out we're spending exactly the same amount on these programs as we were a full decade ago....

"Although non-defense discretionary spending in nominal dollars has increased, when taking inflation and population growth into account the amount contained in the [2011 budget] represents no increase over what we spent in 2001, a year in which we generated a surplus of $128 billion," said chairman Daniel Inouye (D-HI) in a prepared statement. "So the right question to ask is: Are we really spending too much on non-defense programs? The answer is clearly no."

...In the wake of the Bush tax cuts, and the Great Recession, tax revenue has fallen through the floor to near-historic lows. As a percentage of GDP, it's fallen 24 percent since 2001, and if you correct for inflation, the government is collecting nearly 20 percent less per person than it was a decade ago. At the same time, the population-adjusted costs of mandatory spending programs—driven by Medicare, including its new prescription drug benefit, and Medicaid—have increased by over 30 percent. And, of course, defense spending has skyrocketed. But if you isolate domestic discretionary programs, a decade later we're spending no more on a per-person basis than we were back then.

What has increased? Health care spending, but at a rate that would have nearly been covered by massive loss of revenue in the past decade. TPM took the numbers from the Committee and "put them in a slightly different context, so you can see by what percentage spending and revenues have risen and fallen on a population adjusted basis over the last decade."

As they say, it clearly shows "what is and is not the culprit of deficits and our supposedly out-of-control spending."

 

Technorati Tags: Budget Cuts,Taxes,Debt Ceiling,Republicans,Current Events,Politics

Obama Turns Republican?

  Well yes, if you look at the “ compromise “ that he and the American Taliban have been working on in order to get a budget. What a freakin joke! Once again, the rich/wealthy get to keep their tax cuts and the middle class and the poor get to bend over and take it up the ass. There is really no need to vote for a Republican since we pretty much already have one in the White House. At the rate that Obama and the Democrats keep doing these ludicrous compromises with the American Taliban, sitting out the election will be what I do. I’ll just have to work on the state level elections. In Florida, that is a lot of work.

We Cannot Afford this Kind of Compromise

   By Ellinorianne  on Sat Jul 02, 2011          Original Article

Not caving?  This is not the kind of compromise our Country can afford!  I don't care anyway you slice this, it's still a stale loaf of bread and it still shows that Democrats have folded like a bunch of cheap party chairs.

Deficit battle shaping up as GOP victory

It's not the headline that bothers me, the narrative that the mainstream media is what they want it to be, but the reality is, this compromise will hurt all the wrong people.  It's just that simple.

But even if Obama were to gain all the tax-law changes he wants, new revenue would make up only about 15 cents of each dollar in deficit reduction in the package.

I don't care if Republicans go against their no new taxes pledge or how it gets spun as a victory for the Administration or Democrats.  It's still a huge loss for all those people who are hanging on by a thread.

But substantively, budget experts note, the plan would still be dominated by cuts to government programs, many of them longtime Democratic priorities, such as Medicaid and federal employee pensions.

And yes, I get that we started out this way, it's a "balanced" approach.  Sure, we may call this a victory, but I can't.

"This is not just a numbers debate," Obama said Thursday in Philadelphia. "This is a values debate."

Yes it is, and as I stated in a diary earlier, my values are going down the drain when it comes to leaving the 25% of children who are living in poverty to go to bed hungry.

How is this acceptable? 

The White House is seeking about $300 billion in new revenue over the decade, less than half the amount it sought when Obama first outlined his goals last spring, based on the proposals in negotiations.

Obama once targeted the wealthiest Americans, the top 2% who earn beyond $200,000 a year, proposing to cap their income tax deductions.

But weeks of closed-door talks have diminished that goal. Now, even a deduction cap on those Americans earning beyond $500,000 a year — just 1.3 million Americans, fewer than 1% of all taxpayers — has been dashed. The latest offer on the table would be a more limited cap, to generate an additional $130 billion.

With just a few weeks remaining to reach an agreement, Democrats now are fighting mainly for the most populist tax reforms: ending tax subsidies for oil and gas companies, eliminating a tax break for hedge fund managers, closing an ethanol loophole and changing the way businesses write off inventory, according to those familiar with the talks.

I think we all deserve better, I want better!  And unfortunately, during a recession such as this, the last thing we should be cutting is anything that is helping people in need.  This is what we will face no matter how it turns out.

Regardless of any tax concessions President Obama achieves, the end result would favor Republican goals of cutting spending and government services.

This is what the mainstream media will push.  We need to push back, we need to push for LESS cuts.

It is not enough to merely support The President!

We must support the values we say we so deeply hold close out us.  That we do not let our children go to bed hungry, that we don't let our middle class drown in mortgage and student loan debt (damn the national debt, it should be our last concern right now, if the middle class grows, that debt will shrink!).

The Republicans fear the Tea Party?

It's time the Democrats listened to us!  It's time we did what was important to more people than Corporate Jet Owners and Hedge Fund Managers.

Read More...

Technorati Tags: Barack Obama,Democrats,American Taliban,Republicans,Taxes,Corporate Welfare,Debt Ceiling,2012,Elections,Current Events,Politics,News

Senator Schumer:Democrats Jobs Plan

  Sen. Schumer gave a lecture on the economy and jobs at the Economic  Policy Institute on Thursday, which contained a draft of a  jobs plan including a Highway Bill, and a few other goodies. He also had a few choice words about the Republicans and their tax cut vision for creating new jobs.

   You can watch Schumer’s speech here.

     Prepared Remarks

The evidence is clear: the Republican approach of 'cut, cut, cut' over the last six months has undermined our economic recovery.

Toward the end of last year, the recovery was gaining momentum – GDP grew 2.6% in the third quarter and 3.1% in the fourth quarter. But in the first half of 2011, as the federal government increasingly withdrew support from the economy and Republicans continually blocked us from doing anything to create jobs, growth has fallen to less than 2%.

(snip)

The Republicans can say all they want that we can cut our way to prosperity, but is at odds with all the empirical evidence we have. We know from history, as well as from what we are seeing in other parts of the world right now, that cuts on the scale they have proposed in the middle of a recession will lead to lower economic growth and less job creation, not more.

We have now been playing entirely on the Republicans‘ field for six months and the recovery has only slowed. We have seen enough to know that their approach is not working.

  Then, he went where President Obama should have gone.

And we need to start asking ourselves an uncomfortable question – are Republicans slowing down the recovery on purpose for political gain in 2012? It's one thing for them to block programs they have always opposed. But when they start to contradict themselves by opposing programs they have supported—such as pro-business tax cuts—we are left to wonder.

    I’m just sayin..

Technorati Tags: Chuck Schumer,The Economy,Jobs,Republicans,Current Events,Politics

Friday Funnies: Holiday Edition

   America celebrates another birthday this July 4th weekend so all of you stay safe out on the roadways, and be careful with those fireworks.

Bill Maher: "Newt Gingrich said Republicans shouldn’t be afraid to go into black neighborhoods and tell them Obama failed them. To which every Republican replied 'You first.'"

"New Rule: Stop asking Miss USA contestants if they believe in evolution. It's not their field. It's like asking Stephen Hawking if he believes in hair scrunchies. Here's what they know about: spray tans, fake boobs and baton twirling. Here's what they don't know about: everything else. If I cared about the uninformed opinions of some ditsy beauty queen, I'd join the Tea Party."

Jimmy Kimmel: "Michele Bachmann is kind of like Sarah Palin but without the charisma — or marksmanship. You know, maybe we should stop telling kids that anyone can grow up to be president of the United States."

"Sarah Palin says she should be ready to make a decision on running for president by December 2012."

Conan O'Brien: "Sarah and Bristol Palin made an appearance at a book store. Apparently, it was 'Bring Your Daughter to a Place You Never Go Day.'"

"Yesterday Sarah Palin said that she read Bristol Palin's new book and she found it 'shocking.' When asked what was shocking, Palin said 'the fact I read a book.'"

Michele Bachmann said her hometown of Waterloo, Iowa, is the birthplace of John Wayne, when it is actually the birthplace of serial killer John Wayne Gacy. She then said her favorite sitcom from the 80s is 'Charles Manson in Charge.'"

David Letterman: "Chris Wallace at Fox News asked Michele Bachmann if she is a flake. I think that's an insult to the fine folks at Kellogg's."

"Blagojevich said he was stunned by the verdict. Apparently, he wasn't paying attention during the trial."

Stephen Colbert: "She announced her presidency from Waterloo -- a name synonymous with victory."

“It is no secret that our economy is in the dumpster, because our economy knows the dumpster is where you can sometimes find old muffins.”

Craig Ferguson: "Whitey Bulger's brother was a politician. So one brother was operating in a world with no morals, dealing with the lowest of the low, and the other one was a mobster."

 

Technorati Tags: Political Humor,Late Night Talk,Conan O'Brian,David Letterman,Politics,Michele Bachmann,Sarah Palin,Current Events