EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
The Battle is Squared, and Why We Need Budget Jujitsu
Technically, the federal government has now reached the limit of its capacity to borrow money.
Raising the debt ceiling used to be a technical adjustment, made almost automatically. Now it’s a political football.
Democrats should never have agreed to linking it to an agreement on the long-term budget deficit.
But now that the debt ceiling is in play, there’s no end to what the radical right will demand. John Boehner is already using the classic “they’re making me” move, seemingly helpless in the face of Tea Party storm troopers who refuse to raise the ceiling unless they get their way. Their way is reactionary and regressive – eviscerating Medicare, cutting Medicaid and programs for the poor, slashing education and infrastructure, and using most of the savings to reduce taxes on the rich.
If the only issue were cutting the federal deficit by four or five trillion dollars over the next ten years, the President and Democrats wouldn’t have to cave in to this extortion. That goal can be achieved by doing exactly the opposite of what radical Republicans are demanding. We can reduce the long-term budget deficit, keep everything Americans truly depend on, and also increase spending on education and infrastructure — by cutting unnecessary military expenditures, ending corporate welfare, and raising taxes on the rich.
I commend to you the “People’s Budget,” a detailed plan for doing exactly this – while reducing the long-term budget deficit more than either the Republican’s or the President’s plan does. When I read through the People’s Budget my first thought was how modest and reasonable it is. It was produced by the House Progressive Caucus but could easily have been generated by Washington centrists – forty years ago.
But of course the coming battle isn’t really over whether to cut the long-term deficit by trillions of dollars. It’s over whether to shrink the government we depend on and to use the savings to give corporations and the super-rich even more tax benefits they don’t need or deserve.
The main reason the “center” has moved so far to the right – and continues to move rightward – is radical conservatives have repeatedly grabbed the agenda and threatened havoc if they don’t get their way. They’re doing it again.
Will the President and congressional Democrats cave in to their extortion? When even Nancy Pelosi says “everything is on the table” you’ve got to worry.
We can fortify the President and congressional Democrats and prevent them from moving further right by doing exactly what the Tea Partiers are doing — but in reverse.
Call it budget Jujitsu.
The message from the “People’s Party” should be unconditional: No cuts in Medicare and Medicaid or Social Security. More spending on education and infrastructure. Pay for it and reduce the long-term budget deficit by cutting military spending and raising taxes on the rich. The People’s Budget is the template.
But what if the President and Dems show signs of caving? This is the heart of the progressive dilemma. Are we prepared to say no to raising the debt ceiling our demands aren’t met? That way, the responsibility for rounding up the necessary Republican votes shifts to Wall Street and big business — arguably more eager to raise the debt ceiling and avoid turmoil in credit markets than anyone else. They’re also better able to push the GOP — whom they fund.
Which leads to a more basic question: Are we ready and willing to mount primary challenges to incumbent Democrats who cave?
Robert Reich, one of the nation’s leading experts on work and the economy, is Chancellor’s Professor of Public Policy at the Goldman School of Public Policy at the University of California at Berkeley. He has served in three national administrations, most recently as secretary of labor under President Bill Clinton. Time Magazine has named him one of the ten most effective cabinet secretaries of the last century. He has written thirteen books, including his latest best-seller, Aftershock: The Next Economy and America’s Future; The Work of Nations; Locked in the Cabinet; Supercapitalism; and his newest, Beyond Outrage. His syndicated columns, television appearances, and public radio commentaries reach millions of people each week. He is also a founding editor of the American Prospect magazine, and Chairman of the citizen’s group Common Cause. His widely-read blog can be found at www.robertreich.org.
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
48 Comments so far
Show AllProf. Reich has a good point: if Pres. Obama and the Cong Dems actually beleived in anything like the People's Budget, they would call the GOP's bluff on raising the debt ceiling by letting the GOP block the law raising the debt ceiling. The GOP would not dare do so because the corporate sector and other elites have more to lose from the financial repercussions than the rest of us. However, the Dems are beholden to approximately the same elite interests. The Dems are the responsible, adult wing of the business party, and as such the Dems will play their goody-goody mommy role as the angry daddy GOP makes harsh demands and gets to implement some of its agenda. (For those who object to my sex role-based analogy, substitute good cop and bad cop for mommy and daddy, respectively.)
Excellent article.
Yeah, yeah, he's a Democrat tool and its all the Democrat's fault, etc., etc.
But we might consider that oligarch paleocons invented dirty tricks. Realizing that unlike their liberal enemy, conservatives can be bought, corporate oligarchs have been busy buying up the Demcons and planting their seeds of destruction while libs and progs fight among ourselves.
Corporate oligrachs have not been buying up Democons, they own the whole Democratic Party and tolerate a few "liberal" Democrats staying in Congress just to make it look like there is still something that distinguishes the Democrats from the Republicans.
How can Reich admonish Democrats to "increase spending on education and infrastructure - by cutting unnecessary military expenditures, ending corporate welfare, and raising taxes on the rich", when Obama and his Congressional sheep have created a legacy of expanding unnecessary miiltary expenditures, expanding corporate welfare and reducing taxes on the rich ?
"Corporate oligrachs have not been buying up Democons, they own the whole Democratic Party and tolerate a few "liberal" Democrats staying in Congress just to make it look like there is still something that distinguishes the Democrats from the Republicans."
If you say so, I guess that's all sewed up then
"The message from the “People’s Party” should be unconditional: "
Reich is either just lazy, delusional or a true believer. The days of endless money via the printing press is just about over, Bob. Get used to it. "Peoples Party" as used here is an insult to The People.
I don't think that Dr. Reich ever goes by "Bob".
What printing press? We tax the wealth of the rich, and expropriate their capital assets when required - such as capitalist-held healthcare facilities. If they don't like it, we send them to hard time in prison.
cancel
Sorry pjd412, but the US Army's Northcom battle group has been stationed in the US since 2008 for the express purpose of "quelling domestic disturbances".
If Obama's violent track record is any indication, Northcom will "quell" any attempts to slow the process of transferring wealth from 99% of Americans to the top 1%.
Attempting to take away anything the top 1% has already stolen will result in even more severe "quelling" than interfering with their on-going wealth transfer scheme.
moonpie
I use the familiar Bob for Mr. Reich, too. I use it because of the mental picture of him bobbing up and down helping the Dems to get off, if you will:)
Professor Reich needs to hire a better editor. In this piece the very last sentence, "Which leads to a more basic question: Are we ready and willing to mount primary challenges to incumbent Democrats who cave?" should have been the very first.
Of course the answer to his rhetorical question is a loud and thunderous, "YES!!!"
Until the very last sentence, the entire tone was the typical Democratic party whine, "We HAVE to cave in because the Republicans are so crazy that they would rather explode the entire economy than be reasonable. It's the same good cop, bad cop bullshit they have been spewing for decades.
Another editorial quibble is Reich's use of the nonsensical term "radical conservative".
There is no such thing as a "radical conservative". "Radical" does NOT mean "extremist". "Radical" (same etymology as "radish") means "one who seeks the roots of things". Conservatives seek to understand the roots of nothing! They are are motiviated only by immediate desire to preserve and expand their positions of Power and Privlege. The proper term for them is "reactionary". Real radicals - those who seek the roots of human affairs, starting with Marx in the early 1800's, are all leftists. It is a word that we should use to describe ourselves with pride.
My brother, a theologian, used to rant and rave exactly the same way about the expression "Islamic fundamentalism" when it became popular in the mass media. "Fundamentalism" referred to a specific type of Protestant Christian doctrine, he fumed, and intelligent people had no business hijacking it as a descriptive term for something completely unrelated!
There is NO SUCH THING as "Islamic fundamentalism", he would snap whenever he came across this abuse.
Years later, I asked him if the expression still rubbed him the wrong way. No, he said. He had gotten accustomed to it after it became obvious that the English-speaking world and popular culture had made it a fait accompli. It became a case of wisdom being the better part of valor.
Wrong! The most commonly accepted definition of "radical" in a political discussion is:
a : very different from the usual or traditional : extreme
b : favoring extreme changes in existing views, habits, conditions, or institutions
c : associated with political views, practices, and policies of extreme change
d : advocating extreme measures to retain or restore a political state of affairs
When the radical right got away with killing JFK and RFK, they knew nothing could stop them.
Did you read any comments before yours?
There is no such thing as a "radical right". "Radical" DOES NOT mean "extremist". And yes; words, and ownership of them, matters.
The dictionary says radical can mean extreme also. The Right wants to change fundamental or root things too ... "radical" is not limited to Marx or Leftists and the left does not own words.
Words have meaning because the meaning is understood and how it is used.
There is no Word Police Force here.
You have to admit that "radical" becomes a very negative word when it is used to mean "extremist." Not a good thing!
As for me, if someone calls me a "radical" I'll take it as a complement. Thoreau ("strike the root") was a radical, Debs was a radical; Emma Goldman was a radical, Zinn was a radical, Author Kurt Vonnegut was a radical, Chomsky is a radical; Mumia is a radical. Gingrich is not a "radical", Alito or Scalia are not "radicals" Ryan is not a "radical". There is already a word for them: "reactionary". One cannot win a debate without controlling the usage of words.
Yes, the radical right has a radical plan: to replace government altogether with the market.
"Radical" incidentally simply has the etymological significance of "grasping by the root."
You got that right
My radical view is that the Republicans are bluffing just like they did on the "government shutdown" because no more borrowing would give and even force Obama to exercise power the Republicans would fear most... Emergency Power to do just about anything.
We'll See
Interesting
"Are we ready and willing to mount primary challenges to incumbent Democrats who cave?"
I assume "incumbent Democrats" include the president himself. I think it's important to have a third party attack on the president in the general election, to make that a genuine three-person contest. This means not opposing primary challenges, but not waiting to see what happens in primaries. The Progressive Caucus could be a source of viable candidates, and the People's Budget would logically be set forth in such a campaign. Breaking with the Democrats in this way would send a powerful message.
That sounds to me like a proposition the GPO would like. What about nominating someone else within DP if you do not like BO policies? Anybody who is qualified can stand for presidency but not everyone can win. Instead of whining we should hold fire to DEMS' feet just like TP is doing.
Something that is curiously missing from this important site.
It's called a Search box.
Many of us like to search through current and archived articles, but Commondreams provides no way to do so. Or, am I missing something?
That costs money they don't have. Give more, may be it will happen.
The dedicated Google site search formerly available on-site can be replicated, or approximated, with this URL:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=&q=site%3Acommondreams.org
This brings up a Google search page with "site:commondreams.org" displayed in the search field box at the top of the page. It does on my computer, anyway. Just add a space and your search term(s) after ".org".
It brings up CommonDreams pages only. Bookmark the above URL, or save it as a "favorite" on your browser of choice, and it's just as handy as the integrated site search.
I know some users dislike Google, but IIRC the lost feature was powered by Google. I assume other search engines have a comparable function, and that this approach can be tweaked to use with non-Google engines.
Hope this helps.
I don't give a rats ass about Democrats. Give some real political choice with third parties.
The clamor for a "third party" is tiresome and reflects ignorance. Qualified for the 2012 California election we have: the Peace and Freedom Party; the American Independent Party; the Green Party; the Libertarian Party; and the Peace and Freedom Party, in addition to the big two, and what has that gotten us? (used to be more as well)
Well, in California in 2008 that got you Barack Obama, and in 2010 it got you Jerry Brown. Your point?
"The main reason the “center” has moved so far to the right – and continues to move rightward – is radical conservatives have repeatedly grabbed the agenda and threatened havoc if they don’t get their way. They’re doing it again."
False. Reich is repeating partisan propaganda. The "center," as used here, is the line between the major parties. It moves right when when the DEMOCRATS move to the right, as they have for at least 30 years. If the Republicans alone moved to the right, the center would move very little, and they would be even more obviously nutty than they are now. The center is controlled by the Dems.
And what do primary challenges accomplish? For one thing, they're rarely successful - I think Donna Edwards is the only recent example (although the Dems did manage to remove Cynthia McKinney in the primary, for being too damn progressive. That's why she's a Green now.). And in running as a Democrat, you've effectively promised to support the winner - even if they're a warmonger and Wall St. puppet. At best, you've only strengthened a right-wing party.
If you're going to put in that much effort, you might as well do it in the actual election that determines office-holders. Then, at least, you give the Dems something to worry about.
charlesthegreen, I'm not so sure about the Democrats moving right. The old Democrats (30-40 years ago) got us in Vietnam, failed to do anything about health care, and acted on civil rights only in response to the movement. However, I do agree with you about the primary challenge. I think we need to have some discussion about whether the Green Party can carry the ball this time. To me, "Green" sounds a bit narrow.
In all fairness, 60 years ago, Harry Truman (in spite of his red-baiting, bomb-loving, foreign policy) pushed for a national single payer plan fairly vigorously. But the AMA and Republican pushed back quite hard as well.
pjd412, yes, but the "red-baiting, bomb-loving, foreign policy," including firebombing and atomic bombing that many progressives consider atrocities, support my point about Democrats from decades ago hardly being models for liberalism.
right
Charles: You identified the chief line that tweaked my buttons. As to this idea of the center moving to the right, the following supported--to the point of feeding--that trend:
1. The growth of fundamentalist Christianity and its control of TV stations, radio stations, publishing houses, and millions of directed-to-become-conservative minds
2. The loss of unions and good jobs, forcing a lot of people into employ directly or peripherally with the MIC
3. The investment in right wing/conservative "Think Tanks," and their influence in getting their agendas and favored frames into media
4. The capture of media by a handful of corporations, each with its own corporate, if not uber: conservative agenda
5. The emphasis on standard education and the forfeiture of children's capacity for critical, independent thought
6. The saturation of faux food fillers that also help to dumb-down a population
7. The domination of radio by right wing voices of hate... perfect for dividing and conquering the masses
8. The Orwellian measure of fear to convince a population that its enemies lie outside its borders, that each must remain vigilant, on guard, and watch what s/he says, does, and thinks
9. The exposure of The Surveillance State and its arrogated right to spy on citizens, marginalize protest, render dissent invisible, and ruin careers of principled whistle-blowers
10. A Supreme Court that never met a case that didn't call for a pro-big business ruling
11. The hypnotic allure of sports, team-branding, and conformity to one's elected tribe
Between control of major religious arenas, education, publishing, media, and pay-per-view politics.. big money (which tends to be conservative) has taken hold of just about every institution and living artery of collective culture. This is why Republican tantrums are not laughed off and away. A lot of people have been taught to respect the bogus nature of these messengers along with their messaging systems. (The air-waves should NEVER have been given away to the pre-existing broadcast corporations.)
Oh, yeah: what "People's Party?" Do they have a ballot line? Candidates? Are they even trying to get those (a major effort)?
I don't see no "People's Party," except in Reich's fever-dream. There really is a Green Party, though: www.gp.org.
Reich is just showing his age. Back when he was a kid, the Rethugs were GOP (Grand Old Party) and the Dims, in pallid imitation, called themselves POP (Party of the People).
Only the former abbreviation caught on, which is just as well, because the Dims certainly aren't the Party of the People.
Sorry - double post.
"When even Nancy Pelosi says “everything is on the table” you’ve got to worry."
Robert Reich, you need to hike the 10 blocks in Pacific Heights between Nancy Pelosi's house and Diane Feinstien's house to understand how utterly irresponsible your statement. We've never had leadership from these fellow 1 percenters.
Every time Obama concedes to the fringe right, the Overton Window is pushed to the right even more. Obama governs like a Republican that leans to the right. He is not far right yet. We need to push the Overton Window towards the left by electing real Democrats, not bought and paid for assholes.
I don't believe that "elections" really count votes. Working to bring about meaningful change has to occur outside of this rigged system.
The Debt Ceiling game being played out in Washington is another what happens when the wrong people wind up in Washington. The GOP is proving that they cannot run this country in reality. This is the ugliest game now being played out and needs to stop now. Once again the citizens of this country are the hostages and threats of another shutdown and Federal Workers will not be paid or Social Security Benefits paid.
Last night I watched the Civil Rights Freedom Bus Riders Documentary. Now like 1961 we are being assaulted and the new Freedom Bus needs to roll.
I think its time for the American Workers to declare a workers holiday for three days at minimum. This will send a clear message to those in Washington that using us as pawns is not going to work anymore.
In 2012 I will vote to throw out of office every member of Congress or the Senate that does not side with its citizens.
Obviously in these times we need a New Peace Train and its literally to throw out the message that our counties working class citizens are redressing Congress.
Just remember what party and what President got rid of Osama Bin Laden and it was not the GOP/Tea Party.
Remember we go to the Polls in 2012 & remember what the GOP/Tea Party really want. NOTHING POSITIVE FOR THE U.S.A.
"When even Nancy Pelosi says “everything is on the table” you’ve got to worry."
____________________
Pelosi said that?
Woo-hoo! It's the best news I've heard in months!
When do they start the impeachment proceedings?
has anyone else actually bothered to click on the link to the people's budget, and bothered to read the two pdfs at that link ?
I have.
And my conclusion is that the socalled people's budget is described in such opaque terms that it is not clear what the heck it is.
The congressional progressive caucus, which is responsible for the people's budget, should be ashamed of the poor quality of their documentation, and they should be chastized by voters for their lazyness.
ezra abrams, you're quite right as to everything but your last sentence. I saved the People's Budget to my computer for future reference, but for now, I can only rely upon the people who are promoting it. Same as is done with other budgets or plans, such as what Paul Ryan developed. I take exception to your last sentence because evidently this is complicated stuff not intended for casual reading by lay persons.
I remain convinced that the huge tax breaks and other funneling of assets to the rich, such as our bloated military spending, account for our budgetary problems. It doesn't take a lot of thought to reach that conclusion. So the parts of the PB that make that point don't leave me confused and disappointed.
Check out the People's Budget via Democracy Now / April 15, 2011 :
http://26dems.blogspot.com/2011/04/democracy-now-rep-grijalva-unveils.html