Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Debt Ceiling Deal: The Democrats Take a Dive
So the debt deal has finally been reached. As expected, the agreement arrives in a form that right-thinking people everywhere can feel terrible about with great confidence.
The general consensus is that for the second time in three years, a gang of financial terrorists has successfully extorted the congress and the White House, threatening to blow up the planet if they didn't get what they wanted.
Back in 2008, the congress and George Bush rewarded Hank Paulson and Wall Street for pulling the Cleavon-Little-"the-next-man-makes-a-move-the-n---er-gets-it" routine by tossing trillions of bailout dollars at the same people who had wrecked the economy.
Now, Barack Obama has surrendered control of the budget to the Tea Party, whose operatives in congress used the same suicide-bomber tactic, threatening a catastrophic default unless the Democrats committed to a regime of steep spending cuts without any tax increases on the wealthy.
Commentators everywhere are killing the president for his seemingly astonishing level of ball-less-ness. Both the New York Times house editorial and the Nobel prizewinning liberal columnist Paul Krugman are insisting the president should have invoked extreme measures to counter the radicals on the other side, using emergency legal tactics to unilaterally raise the debt limit. Or, at least, he should have threatened to do this, according to Krugman:
And even now, the Obama administration could have resorted to legal maneuvering to sidestep the debt ceiling, using any of several options...
At the very least, Mr. Obama could have used the possibility of a legal end run to strengthen his bargaining position. Instead, however, he ruled all such options out from the beginning.
Is Krugman right? Probably. In a perfect world, where the president was what he is supposed to be, i.e. a representative of that majority of American voters who elected him, that is what a good president would probably have done. No matter what the situation was with the deficit, or what cuts were or were not justified, a real leader would have invoked such powers at the very least to set a precedent that the government is not to be held hostage by irresponsible lunatics bent on invoking a catastrophe for purely political reasons.
But that isn't what happened. What did happen? The popular take is that Obama is a weak leader of a weak party who was pushed around by canny right-wing extremists. Observers like pollster Sydney Greenberg portray Obama and the Democrats as a group of politically tone-deaf bureaucrats who fail because the public associates them with a corrupt government that benefits the rich and connected.
The Democrats, Greenberg argues, could change their situation by showing the public that they genuinely represent the interests of ordinary working people. In his piece, "Why Voters Tune Out Democrats," he offers a list of things Democrats could do to turn things around:
What should Democrats do?
The Democrats have to start detoxifying politics by proposing to severely limit or bar individual and corporate campaign contributions, which would mean a fight with the Supreme Court. They must make the case for public financing of campaigns and force the broadcast and cable networks to provide free time for candidate ads. And they must become the strongest advocates for transparency in campaign donations and in the lobbying of elected officials.
IF they want to win the trust of the public, Democrats should propose taxing lobbyist expenses and excessive chief executive bonuses and put a small fee on the sale of stocks, bonds and other financial instruments. By radically simplifying the tax code to allow only a few deductions, the Democrats would generate new revenue and remove the loopholes that allow special interests to win favorable treatment ...
I think everything Greenberg says is true -- except for the part about it being possible. His list of solutions would make sense as advice to a real political party.
But to a bunch of hired stooges put in office to lend an air of democratic legitimacy to what has essentially become a bureaucratic-oligarchic state, what good does such advice do? Would it have made sense to send the Supreme Soviet under Andropov or Brezhnyev a list of policy ideas for enhancing the civil liberties of Soviet citizens?
The Democrats aren't failing to stand up to Republicans and failing to enact sensible reforms that benefit the middle class because they genuinely believe there's political hay to be made moving to the right. They're doing it because they do not represent any actual voters. I know I've said this before, but they are not a progressive political party, not even secretly, deep inside. They just play one on television.
For evidence, all you have to do is look at this latest fiasco.
The Republicans in this debt debate fought like wolves or alley thugs, biting and scratching and using blades and rocks and shards of glass and every weapon they could reach.
The Democrats, despite sitting in the White House, the most awesome repository of political power on the planet, didn't fight at all. They made a show of a tussle for a good long time -- as fixed fights go, you don't see many that last into the 11th and 12th rounds, like this one did -- but at the final hour, they let out a whimper and took a dive.
We probably need to start wondering why this keeps happening. Also, this: if the Democrats suck so bad at political combat, then how come they continue to be rewarded with such massive quantities of campaign contributions? When the final tally comes in for the 2012 presidential race, who among us wouldn't bet that Barack Obama is going to beat his Republican opponent in the fundraising column very handily? At the very least, he won't be out-funded, I can almost guarantee that.
And what does that mean? Who spends hundreds of millions of dollars for what looks, on the outside, like rank incompetence?
It strains the imagination to think that the country's smartest businessmen keep paying top dollar for such lousy performance. Is it possible that by "surrendering" at the 11th hour and signing off on a deal that presages deep cuts in spending for the middle class, but avoids tax increases for the rich, Obama is doing exactly what was expected of him?
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...
97 Comments so far
Show AllIT'S NOT A SECRET!!! Have you seen the 9/11 movie put out by the families? There is a factual time line of events and deals at the end that is incredible. Someone was circulating pictures of the hole in the side of the Pentagon and they have all been pulled from Face Book and everywhere. Look up what room was demolished. Now you can't find that picture. Why was Building # 7 imploded? I went on line and found the list of companies in THAT building. Who died in that building? Look up newspapers from the day before and see Donald Rumsfeld declaring "we 'lost' 2 trillion dollars". Where's the followup to that?
You don't have to be a genius to see sontin' aint right.
If the Republicans choose Obama as their favorite son candidate, who are the Democrats likely to put up as their candidate for Presidelnt?
The Republicans have already chosen Obama as their favorite son candidate.
But like their choice of Liberman in CT, they just won't admit it.
And what better way to ensure that Obama gets another term than to run someone like Palin or Bachman as your "official" candidate?
That was precisely the game plan the Republicans followed in CT, by the way.
How many independents do you suppose would actually vote for Bachman or Palin?
The beauty of it all is that the Republicans who are actually calling the shots don't even have to manipulate things to get what they want. As useful idiots, the tea partiers set up the favorable conditions (for an Obama second term) for them.
Jimbojangles,
"...How many independents do you suppose would actually vote for Bachman or Palin?..."
You might be surprise that I will be one, which will vote for sister Palin or brother Bolton. You will loath me for it. Not that like any Repugs, but better Obama or any Dims. My vote and many others will counter the 71% “FR” Liberals.
Your political opinion is as pathetic as your grammar. You are a glaring example of why the founding fathers didn't want everyone having the right to vote.
BProgress
Still the struggle to vote,
By LAUGHLIN MCDONALD & LAURA W. MURPHY | 8/6/11 7:12 AM EDT
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0811/60787.html
"...The Voting Rights Act was born from the premise that all Americans have the right to vote — regardless of race or language proficiency..."
Wow. Rosetta Stone offers Yodaspeak software?
Who knew.
No, I do not buy your first sentence at all. The repubulicans want very low taxes on the rich and near anarchy for corporate rules. I believe Obama really would like to see the rich pay higher taxes in at least a token amount, simply to show that they care and want to help. Obama is a go-along, get-along guy. A few bucks from the rich would help tamp down resentment. It only makes sense (cents, really). I also think Obama is amongst the faction that sees a few minor rules governing corporations as a good thing. The tea bagger/Koch bunch are fanaticals who have temporary control of the republicans. Until their power has waned, I will stick with the pragmatic Obama choice. (sigh)
Greg R,
"....Until their power has waned, I will stick with the pragmatic Obama choice. (sigh)"
Good for you and you are not alone, 71% "FR" think like you. Rahm and Obama knew all along. Good luck and you'll be back again whining and bitching come 2013. See ya!
"Obama is a go-along, get-along guy."
Only with Rethugs and other members of the kleptocracy. With the folks on his left, it's pretty much my-way-or-the-highway, all with his trademark Miss Pissypants face.
Greg R, You will "stick with the pragmatic Obama choice."
I think that you, Greg R, are a mass murderer of innocent Muslim children, women, and men. I think you, Greg R, are responsible for the war for Libya's oil. I think you, Greg R, are responsible for the massive give away to the rich and theft from the rest of us that this budget deal represents.
Those who support mass murdering war criminals are war criminals. Unfortunately, I have seen many people who have died violent deaths, including many children. Killed by soldiers, paid for by tax payers. Every child killed in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, Libya, etc. is a victim of MURDER. You Greg R are responsible for their deaths because you, Greg R, support their murderer, Barack H. Obama, president of Amerika, the worst war mongering state the world ever has seen.
I appreciate your passionate determination to go for the jugular with this scathing "Little Eichmann" denunciation, Tom.
But you could've rebutted this form of lesser-evil pragmatism by instead writing, "That's like saying, 'Until my wife's yeast infection clears up, I'm going to have to stick to the sheep.'"
Bernie Saunders for president!!!!
THOMAS R ARNOLD,
What can Bernie Saunders do, if he is elected to the WH? You can expect both the Repugs and the Dims will united against him.
Every day and in every way it is clear that the needs and opinions of the vast majority of the U.S. means nothing to our national government compared to the needs and right-wing ideology of neo-liberals, corporations, and their lackeys in Congress.
http://texshelters.wordpress.com/2011/08/03/defending-the-power-elite-in-america-against-the-interests-of-the-people-the-case-of-the-united-states-government/
Peace,
Tex Shelters
Excellent article by Matt and many very on-target comments. I disagree, though, with the "master plan" suggestion that the Rs actually are fine with Obama in the White House. They are still the party bereft of actual ideas, except for lowering taxes anywhere and everywhere and damn the consequences, and the quality of their current presidential field demonstrates that.
The real problem is that America is in deep trouble, and Obama is a creature of the status quo who is part of the problem and needs to be replaced. Whether that is actually possible to do is another issue, given current realities of campaign finance and the two-party duopoly.
Bernie Sanders certainly recognizes the problems we face and possible solutions, but he needs a lot more friends. He, and we, must build a movement incorporating current left/progressives plus a whole bunch of other folks who aren't with us yet. A tall order, for sure, but what choice do we have?
"The real problem is that America is in deep trouble, and Obama is a creature of the status quo who is part of the problem and needs to be replaced."
Indeed ...
Lyndon Johnson would have wiped the floor with both the tea party and the timid shit eaters in his own party. George Bush would have done whatever he damn well pleased and told anybody who didn't like it to support the troops. Mr. Obama, no more power for you. ----PLEASE.
Its high time for the "progressives" to dump Obama and every weak willed Democrat that has yet to grow a set of balls. Its time to get a fighter, a real street fighter in the White House, one who is willing to bring fire to Congress, to fight dirty tricks with dirty tricks....to undermine the opposition and members who "claim" to uphold Democratic principles. Stop saying, "well....Obama could be better...but what other choices do we have....its better to have a Democrat in the White House than a Republican." Not this President, not the majority of the Democrat's we currently see running past the cameras on MSNBC. We need an asshole in Office...but our "asshole".
Yes, "it's high time for the "progressives" to dump Obama" but it is not just Obama, it is the Democratic Party machine. A real progressive candidate will never be allowed to get close to wielding power in the US. That is part of Taibbi's point. Corporate cash runs our political system. Except for a tiny slice of rich Americans the American people HAVE NO POLITICAL REPRESENTATION in Congress or the White House. Progressive change will not come via the ballet box. It is "high time" to wake up!
Strange isn't it an upstart of a radical party, the "teaparty" now is better represented in our government then the Democrats. Democrats go out of their way to curry favor with them, while ignoring the very voters that elected democrats, espousing and promoting "teaparty" views and positions. But we're told we shouldn't abandon the party. Hasn't the party already abandoned us?
RE: "The Democrats aren't failing to stand up to Republicans and failing to enact sensible reforms that benefit the middle class because they genuinely believe there's political hay to be made moving to the right. They're doing it because they do not represent any actual voters [and] Obama is doing exactly what was expected of him."
This is radical stuff, but when will the Democratic base - that is getting so screwed (along with the rest of us) - figure it out?
No matter how disillusioned, all it will take is the name Michelle Bachmann on the 2012 Republican ticket, and sad little Dems will tuck-tail and run home to DaddyO.
All is lost.
"All is lost"
Ha! Don'tcha think that 14 months before the Election is a BIT early to say that?
At least wait until a mere YEAR in advance to declare us losers,...please. ;)
There's only one Daffy Duck and we've already lived through his rule. Think about it.
1. Taibbi has also been hammering away relentlessly at Obummer and his wall street economic goons for several years now. Not good enough for you?
2. What "many" wars has Bernie ever supported? That's a complete joke. You puritans like to resort to making things up and then whine "Matt's not pure enough, Bernie's a war monger, Amy supports Obama, Ralph's a capitalist tool...." Seriously tho, how many of you guys are really provocateurs anyway?
3. Bill D. Cat from Bloom County.
Before the election in 2008 Taibbi called Obummer's road show a "saccharine" and "hackneyed act" ..... and this, "I know I’m listening to the Same Old Shit, delivered by a candidate who could cross the Atlantic on a bridge constructed entirely from Wall Street cash culled for him by party hacks and insiders." .... He said that against his better judgement he was "seduced" by Obama. Now after 3 years of his "better judgement" being proven right I think Obama's powers of seduction have been greately diminished.
.
You said Bernie supported "many" wars. Name a single one. That's a complete fabrication. And I really couldn't care less what god Bernie does or doesn't worship ... or professes to worship in public. Is he a a foaming at the mouth fundamentalist? Nope. Next.
.
Maybe you don't need deities ... but apparently you cling to dogma like a libertarian worships at the altar of the free market. Ideological fundamentalism .... puritanism. You require all others to reach an uattainable standard that no one could ever hope to meet. Perfection.
.
Well said. You especially echoed my thoughts with your previous statement:
'Seriously tho, how many of you guys are really provocateurs anyway?' ... As if Sanders would be no different from Obama, or Tiabbi is just another Hartmann!
The Democrats Take a Dive and still lose our credit rating. China: "The Dagong Global Credit Rating Company, which lowered the United States to A+ last November after the U.S. Federal Reserve decided to continue loosening its monetary policy, announced a further downgrade to A, indicating heightened doubts over Washington's long-term ability to repay its debts."
Ugh... I got this back in 5th grade. What are you people, morons?
Great! So now you have plenty of time to work on empathy, solidarity, and sharing your extensive knowledge with others.
Barry Zero as "shoe shine" boy for his rich sponsors? But he gives such great speeches?
"Is it possible that by "surrendering" at the 11th hour and signing off on a deal that presages deep cuts in spending for the middle class, but avoids tax increases for the rich, Obama is doing exactly what was expected of him?"
Yup! I don't have copies of all the posts I have made to CD over the past 2 years, but I know that many of us (myself included) have been pointing this out on CD for some time. It is nice to see the obvious start to appear in a much larger forum like Rolling Stone.
It's not just about unmasking Obama to reveal who he really is and where his loyalties really lie. It's about unmasking the entire two-party system as a duplicitious con-game that makes fools of the American people by cynically convincing them they actually have a voice in our political process--when their champions (the Democratic Party) are really the designated losers in a fixed game.
"It strains the imagination to think that the country's smartest businessmen keep paying top dollar for such lousy performance. Is it possible that by "surrendering" at the 11th hour and signing off on a deal that presages deep cuts in spending for the middle class, but avoids tax increases for the rich, Obama is doing exactly what was expected of him?"
Precisely, as many of us have been saying since Day One of the "debate" over the debt ceiling. Staged theater, nothing more. Nice to see a main-stream journalist put the truth right out there for once (and I have always respected Matt Taibbi's work): The Dims and Obomba and the Rethugs are playing for the same team, which is the Plutocracy. That's the truth, whether the Obama-bots and the Dim-diehards want to face it or not. And you and I are not members of the Plutocracy, nor is 99% of the rest of Amereichans. And, thus, we matter not at all in Washington.
Aren't the rest of us judged on job performance? Why should we re-elect someone for four more years that has failed to perform. Someone that told us we should force him to perform, and that he would be happy serving just one term. In this time of high unemployment I find it strange we can't find someone more qualified. Perhaps the job should be outsourced.
There is no chance whatsoever that real change will ever come to America through the democratic party. It has been obvious to me that ever since the break-up of the Soviet Union the United States has become more and more like the old communist regime with its own distinctive theocratic touch. Nothing short of a serious revolt will bring change to America.
This deal is great for politicians on both sides of the isle. Debt ceiling will not need to be increased again until after the 2012 election and any so called cuts kick in after the 2012 election. This clearly helps the chances of Obama being reelected and that was his priority. The Tea Party looks good in their voter's eyes for now, and will be reelected also. They all did what they needed to do to keep their jobs. Why do you expect more from them than they are capable of?
There won't be any cuts in actual spending (the Tea Party Republicans won nothing ), the debt ceiling was increased and when the right time comes the government will mark up the projected baseline that much more, then remove the additional mark up and call it a devastating but necessary cut. I will be quite surprised if our deficits don't continue to grow by a trillion plus a year for quite some time or if the size of government as a % of GDP goes down even 1%. (The only hope of either happening is if the economy improves and we grow the improvements).
The US credit will be downgraded sometime in the near future and the people will be the real losers, especially those that went with ARMs for mortgages. But look on the bright side; Politicians on the left will convincingly say to their constituents, "things would have been much worse without us", and politicians on the right will convincingly say to their constituents, "things would have been much worse without us". The result being enough of the constituents on both sides will continue to vote the same way. This was a huge win for the political class!
Most CD readers voted for Obama and nearly the same amount will hold their nose and vote for him again when the time comes. Why, because they prefer him to the only other viable option. Nearly 100% of CD readers will vote Obama if the race is especially close! Only if there is going to be a land slide either way will the lefties vote their conscience, the same is true on the right.
Campaign finance and the likes won't make a whit of difference either way, because the 2 major political parties already set up the rules so that all third party candidates are thoroughly marginalized, (and Dems/Repubs will never ever vote to open the gates).
Why do we constantly talk about our elections like they are a sporting event or race? They aren't they affect us all. Why are we constantly interested in mitigating the risk for those that do view them as some sort of contest that can be betted on and profitted from?
These people rule us and make the laws that govern our lives. Why don't we hold them accountable and demand transparency? It's not a race or a sporting event...it's our lives. They have no problem throwing us out of our homes and jobs. Why do we continue to protect them?
Hello gardenernorcal,
I think you answered your own question.
The truth is, we can't hold them accountable and demand transparency because they rule us and make the laws that govern our lives!
We don't protect them at all, they are just very good at protecting themselves. That is why Campaign finance and the likes won't make a whit of difference either way. If it passed the result would be the same 2 parties controlling both the rules and who gets what money.
While each would try to destroy the other, keeping all others out would be an even more important job to both.
Obama And The Democrats is a lame rock band name.
And they're living up to it.
I do agree with Taibbi's take that the Dems only play an opposition party on TV . . . . . when both Parties feed from the same corporate trough totem animal mascots no longer have relevance.
I will support Bernie Sanders and Dennis Kucinich should they choose to run as a team in '12.
Gladly. And I will campaign on their behalf should they throw their headgear.
But my fear is that the Empire is teetering on economic collapse from excess war spending as Chalmers Johnson posits.....no matter who holds the reins, the lead pair is already over the cliff and the rest of the team and wagon are helpless to stop the forward momentum.
Besides, the axles are worm-eaten and the harnesses are rotting.
Very poor driving instructions and failure to do routine maintenance take a toll.
Bernie doesn't want to and won't run. And Dennis bought into Obama's version of the democrat party when he caved on 'single payer". Someone new has to emerge.
This is the least incisive thing I've every read by Matt Taibbi. First, he presumes that congressional Democrats are monolithic, which they are definitely not. (e.g. a large contingent of left-leaning Democrats voted against the debt ceiling/domestic austerity deal.) Then, he conflates Democrats with "the White House," as if Obama (probably the most right-wing Democratic president ever) and his policies are reflective of typical Democrats. Wrong again.
Perhaps Taibbi should stick to writing about economics, where he is knowledgeable.
Greg F, You wrote, "Until their power has waned, I will stick with the pragmatic Obama choice. (sigh)"
I am going to dog you on your support for the war monger, baby killer, Barack Obama. You can pragmatically slaughter Muslim children, but I will not. You can pragmatically attack Libya for its oil, but I protest. You can pragmatically give trillions of dollars to the rich, but I object. You can pragmatically cut social security and Medicare, but I won't join you.
You, like your pragmatic leader, are a cold blooded murderer of innocent Muslim children, women, and men. You are just like the good citizens of Prague who stood by while the Nazis took my mother off to be a slave laborer and many of my family members to concentration camps. After all, in only one day Hitler had changed the traffic lights and street cars so everyone drove on the right. Things would get better. Only a few would have to suffer and they wouldn't have to watch it.
You can close your eyes to the death and suffering of millions of innocent Muslims. But I stand in solidarity with them.