President Obama's Incredible Failure of Leadership

Somehow it's hard for me to (0.00 / 0)

imagine Democrats holding the debt ceiling hostage at some future point in time.  For many reasons.

We have a crisis in governance.  The system is crumbling around us.  

In the immediate aftermath of Since the start of the financial crisis, the Fed/Treasury lent, spent, or guaranteed $28 $29 trillion to save the banking system.

---

by: StraffordDem @ Sat Jul 09, 2011 at 20:03:52 PM UTC

If this act of blackmail works in 2011 (0.00 / 0)

I will work against any Democrat who does NOT retaliate in future years using the same weapon.  For example, demanding restoration of the 2011 cuts to Social Security and Medicare.

---

by: elwood @ Sat Jul 09, 2011 at 22:45:58 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

What do you think (0.00 / 0)

it is about this president that makes the GOP think they can get away with this?  That's the question I wonder about.  Were we not ready for Obama?  Is he weak or is he provoking this terrible behavior by something he does or is?  I don't hear much about how close the GOP comes to approaching treason, wanting the president to fail, apparently willing to destroy the nation's economy and hurt so many people so dreadfully simply to make sure Obama is a one-term president.  The Senate Minority Leader has said that is his goal.  And is anyone in the mainstream fussing much about that?  Before I attack Obama I think I need to know what makes the GOP think they can get away with this?

---

by: Lucy Edwards @ Sat Jul 09, 2011 at 20:18:56 PM UTC

It's not President Obama (0.00 / 0)

What do you think it is about this president that makes the GOP think they can get away with this?

Rather, it's that a good chunk of American voters in their respective districts are angry over the nearly-decade long sluggish economy and wasteful federal spending under both Bush and Obama.

Why can the GOP get away with this? Because, for now, the GOP effectively controls Congress. And Congress makes the law. If Congress does not want to continue borrowing money, the President has no authority to stop it--except to the extent he can convince it otherwise.

...

Have no fear. In the end, the ceiling will be raised, and we'll continue to spend money our children and grandchildren haven't earned yet.

---

by: rossby @ Sat Jul 09, 2011 at 20:53:57 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

They don't, though (0.00 / 0)

Democrats effectively control Congress -- its upper chamber can stop anything it wants.

And hence my thought below, that changing Social Security is what Democrats in Congress want.

---

by: JimC @ Sat Jul 09, 2011 at 22:52:42 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Yes, that's a better description. (0.00 / 0)

I should not have made the statement so broad. That was unintentional. Both chambers can halt congressional action. On the debt issue, we see that happening now.

---

by: rossby @ Sat Jul 09, 2011 at 23:47:34 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Effectively, (3.50 / 2)

Neither party has the power to do anything in the 112th Congress. Both parties have the power to do nothing.

--
Twitter: @DougLindner

---

by: Douglas E. Lindner @ Sat Jul 09, 2011 at 23:33:45 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Issue Polling Shows (0.00 / 0)

that Americans don't want any screwing around with SS or Medicare, and strongly support increases in income taxation, especially for the wealthy.  This allegedly Democratic President refuses to lead and refuses to use his bully pulpit for anything his opponents or their house pets in the mass media might call partisan, despite the fact that they call him partisan anyway.

I will probably, almost certainly wind up voting for him as opposed to anyone the truly insane Republicans nominate, but I will do so with no enthusiasm at all.  In the primary, I expect to write in some national Democrat who has shown some spine.  Our Jeannie or Sheldon Whitehouse, perhaps.

Sure, I voted for less government and less government spending...just NOT the parts that I benefit from!

---

by: Ref @ Sat Jul 09, 2011 at 23:49:17 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

In my opinion - and this is the realm (4.00 / 1)

of unprovable speculation - Obama is eager to cut Social Security. He wants to make major changes relying on 80% of the Republicans in Congress and 30% of the Democrats.

But by allowing this particular game of brinksmanship to occur, he has poisoned the well for future administrations of both parties.

---

by: elwood @ Sat Jul 09, 2011 at 22:50:27 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I think you're right (0.00 / 0)

Which, if true, sort of negates your debt ceiling point. If the deficit is reduced considerably, then there won't be debt ceiling negotiations.

So there's that cold comfort.

---

by: JimC @ Sat Jul 09, 2011 at 22:57:18 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Not really - (4.00 / 1)

As we have learned, if the deficit is eliminated, Republicans will immediately reduce taxes on the wealthiest, until a new debt ceiling is needed.

---

by: elwood @ Sat Jul 09, 2011 at 23:06:35 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Seen this movie before. Know how it ends. (3.00 / 1)

What is debt?  People keep referring to this abstract imbalance between federal spending and revenues as debt, forgetting that we have a sovereign, fiat currency, of which we are the only providers.  We hold no debt in a foreign currency (unlike Greece, Portugal, Spain) and have paid in full every obligation in US dollars.

This concept of debt is being used, as we are all witnessing, to reduce social spending.  If the true believers of debt as danger were honest, they would be raising revenues and cutting spending where we spend it the most - the Pentagon and related security institutions.  


In the immediate aftermath of Since the start of the financial crisis, the Fed/Treasury lent, spent, or guaranteed $28 $29 trillion to save the banking system.

---

by: StraffordDem @ Sat Jul 09, 2011 at 23:29:18 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

No matter /who/ makes the money. (0.00 / 0)

The government doesn't own all that money or assets. Most money rests in private hands.

By increasing the amount of debt, we're borrowing money from future taxpayers--and giving it to debt holders (who are usually wealthy individuals and large corporations who could lend money in the first place).

---

by: rossby @ Sat Jul 09, 2011 at 23:55:11 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

The money to buy US Treasuries (4.00 / 1)

and pay taxes must first come from government spending.  Not the other way around.  A balanced federal budget is an outdated gold-standard concept.    

This view of federal debt is simply wrong. The folks who own US bonds are parking their money - whether that's private investors or sovereign nations.  It's not a loan.  If they wanted to cash in their bonds tomorrow, the Fed would be delighted to give them non-interest bearing greenbacks.  Silly really, to think of this as debt.

In the immediate aftermath of Since the start of the financial crisis, the Fed/Treasury lent, spent, or guaranteed $28 $29 trillion to save the banking system.

---

by: StraffordDem @ Sun Jul 10, 2011 at 00:15:11 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Eh? (0.00 / 0)

the money to buy US Treasuries and pay taxes must first come from government spending.  Not the other way around.

Huh? ... ... because the government printed money? Now you're talking about money in two different senses. The actual physical creation of, and the value that it holds.

Regardless, this has no real bearing on the debt.

folks who own US bonds are parking their money - whether that's private investors or sovereign nations.

Correct: they're parking cash with the U.S. government.

It's not a loan. If they wanted to cash in their bonds tomorrow, the Fed would be delighted to give them non-interest bearing greenbacks. Silly really, to think of this as debt.

Money was given in exchange for the securities. At some future date, the securities can be trade back for more "non-interest bearing greenbacks". That is a loan!

---

by: rossby @ Sun Jul 10, 2011 at 02:44:35 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

We're pushing at the limits of this diary - (3.00 / 1)

but I'll leave this thread with this:

The US government is not operationally constrained by revenue.  As long as our federal spending is done in US dollars, there is no operational solvency risk - only voluntary limits imposed by political bodies.  Bernanke has said this repeatedly over the past years, most recently on a 60 Minutes interview.  

It's not a loan.  The US Government is not a bank, it is more of a scorekeeper.  Where does the football stadium get its points to award for touchdowns?

When we talk about value, that is different than operational constraints.  There are limits to federal spending, which we could discuss in detail in another thread.  In our specific conversation here, about (what appears to be) the consensus view on debt, there are only political constraints on federal spending.

Our children and grandchildren (will see my first in October) are no more constrained by our federal spending, then we are today by the massive deficits built up during WW II.

Time for a new diary, imho, if this is to continue.

   

In the immediate aftermath of Since the start of the financial crisis, the Fed/Treasury lent, spent, or guaranteed $28 $29 trillion to save the banking system.

---

by: StraffordDem @ Sun Jul 10, 2011 at 12:21:53 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Final thought (0.00 / 0)

The US government is not operationally constrained by revenue. As long as our federal spending is done in US dollars, there is no operational solvency risk - only voluntary limits imposed by political bodies.

When it comes to financing, the U.S. can only raise money to the extent of its credit. When it comes to increasing the money supply, it is limited by how fast it can out-run inflation. If it needs to raise taxes, it is limited by how much taxes the people will support or bear. (It could sell assets, but that's pretty unlikely..)

The U.S. doesn't have infinite power to conjure up money to buy whatever it wants. It is not special and is governed by the same general economic rules as everyone else.

(Please note that I do not say it can't get away with a lot; but that its powers are not unlimited.)

It's not a loan.  The US Government is not a bank, it is more of a scorekeeper.  Where does the football stadium get its points to award for touchdowns?

It is a loan. And the U.S. is not a bank (did I say it was?): it's the debtor.

The analogy to a scoreboard is inaccurate. Though it does demonstrate one of the very reasons that is destroying the middle class.

When you start creating new money (beyond the rate of economic growth), price of goods and services generally increase. New money enters the economy from the top, and the effects trickle downward. This creates net winners and losers. And the losers of this game are always waged and salaried workings and low-income individuals.

Now, we've been doing this for about 40 years. Not surprisingly, wages have been stagnant during that time period.

Our children and grandchildren (will see my first in October) are no more constrained by our federal spending, then we are today by the massive deficits built up during WW II

On the federal balance sheet, one of the biggest categories of federal spending is interest on debt. That means higher tax revenues to pay that interest. This constrains future generations' abilities to spend their earnings for what they want.

---

by: rossby @ Sun Jul 10, 2011 at 16:56:52 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I agree with you on there being limits to what can be done vis a vis printing money (0.00 / 0)

and value. But your statement that "Now we've been doing this for about 40 years..." regarding printing new money requires some serious support. Interest rates and inflation have been trending steadily lower for almost 30 years. We are currently looking at historically low interest rates for T-bills. Whatever causes there may be for the decline of wage growth, inflation/high interest rates is not one of them.

---

by: nhdemocrat @ Sun Jul 10, 2011 at 23:20:20 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Misunderstanding (0.00 / 0)

I did not say the decline in wage growth is caused by inflation. Ceteris parabus, if wages are "at equilibrium" and there is inflation, wages must eventually rise too. And that's pretty much what we see: after adjusting for inflation, wages have been rather stationary. (Of course there is not one simple explanation; many different forces are at work.)

Rather, I said wage-earners are losers in the inflation game. Not only do people "at the top" reap the benefits leaving nothing for the average Joe, inflation erodes the savings that wage-earners can manage to squirrel away. And that is the biggest way that workers are harmed.

Indeed, inflation has generally been decreasing in that period, it is nonetheless a positive annual increase, averaging about 4.5% per year over the past 4 decades. In that period, average prices have increased by nearly 600%. That's a savings-rate killer right there. And this completely disregards how the Bureau of Labor Statistics changed its methodology for measuring inflation in the 90s. (If you look at CPI data rate now, we've got 2-4% annualized inflation month-to-month. If you use the old methodology, it's closer to 10%.)

To some extent, because of the Fed's fears of inflation and resulting negotiations in Washington D.C., we've seen fewer increases in the money supply and more financing with government debt since the mid-late Volcker period. However, financing spending only delays the inevitable: higher taxes, higher inflation, or reduced "services". Either way, workers lose. And I assure you, sadly, few people in Washington D.C. really care.

---

by: rossby @ Mon Jul 11, 2011 at 06:16:38 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Inflation was far higher (4.00 / 1)

In the 1960s and 70s, but was also accompanied by wage growth and a much more level distribution of income. Again, there is little evidence that this is what is driving income disparity.

Inflation also has benefits for the poor/middle class. Those individuals are far more likely to be net debtors than to have loaned money, meaning they benefit from a reduction in the overall value of the dollar. Things like student loans, home mortgages and emergency medical bills can become less daunting when matched by slightly higher inflation, assuming wage growth matches productivity. I'll concede that wage growth hasn't matched productivity, but I believe that has more to do with the decline of unions and the age of outsourcing.

---

by: nhdemocrat @ Mon Jul 11, 2011 at 12:18:17 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Excellent nhdem. (0.00 / 0)

Middle class workers are not under attack from inflation - although we could make the case that the boogeyman of inflation is used to attack these workers.

Rather, middle class workers are under attack by policy and policy drift that supports productivity gains to go disproportionately to capital.  In other words, labor is getting the short end of the stick when it comes to sharing the economic surplus value of labor.  The data supports this positive link very well, and Steven Greenhouse wrote an excellent book on this a few years ago called The Big Squeeze.  

Let's use a couple of examples to refute the inflation boogeyman.  Let's go back the 45 or so years and look at realities.  This is particularly useful because it is pre-break with gold standard.

1966
Average hourly wage:  $2.73  (Source BLS)
Average cost doz eggs:  $0.60  (22% of wage)j
Avg cost of gal milk:  $0.99  (36% of wage)

Now let's compare to last year's data:

2010
Avg hourly wage:  $19.07  (Source BLS)
Avg cost of doz eggs:  $2  (14% of wage)
Avg cost of gal milk:  $3.60  (19% of wage)

What we see is actually a lowering of costs mostly as a result of productivity gains through technology and efficiencies.  There are products that have increased in cost, but many of these are either 1)natural resources subject to costs related to extraction (as the natural resource becomes more difficult to extract, the cost of extraction increases - in no way related to monetary policy) or 2)there is speculative pressure on the commodity.  Sometimes there is both.

In the immediate aftermath of Since the start of the financial crisis, the Fed/Treasury lent, spent, or guaranteed $28 $29 trillion to save the banking system.

---

by: StraffordDem @ Tue Jul 12, 2011 at 13:00:55 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Congratulations on your expected grandchild! (0.00 / 0)

--
Twitter: @DougLindner

---

by: Douglas E. Lindner @ Sun Jul 10, 2011 at 17:18:46 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Thanks, Doug, we're very excited. n/t (4.00 / 3)

In the immediate aftermath of Since the start of the financial crisis, the Fed/Treasury lent, spent, or guaranteed $28 $29 trillion to save the banking system.

---

by: StraffordDem @ Sun Jul 10, 2011 at 19:19:34 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Right. Money is a figment of the imagination. An icon. (4.00 / 1)

It's value lies in its recognition by many people and the trustworthiness of those who use it.  Think of it as similar to the alphabets in common usage to represent speech.

---

by: hannah @ Sun Jul 10, 2011 at 11:16:21 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

The best predictor of future behavior, Lucy, (0.00 / 0)

is past behavior.  Obama has consistently shifted to the right to make deals - why would they expect him to stop now?

Don't buy the malarkey about large percentages of the population upset at federal spending.  When framed broadly, anyone can provide poll results to fit their ideology.  But when it gets to policy level, folks like their government policies just fine.  I have an excellent book on the subject called Constructing Public Opinion, which I'd be delighted to share with you.  There's also a documentary based on this book that can be found here (ok, so you can watch a "full length preview" version of the complete documentary if you can get used to the words on the screen:>): http://www.mediaed.org/cgi-bin...

We also don't "owe" anyone a single red cent.  Any individual, business, or country that has provided the US with a service or product has been paid in full with US dollars.  Our grandchildren will not owe anyone a dime.  

In the immediate aftermath of Since the start of the financial crisis, the Fed/Treasury lent, spent, or guaranteed $28 $29 trillion to save the banking system.

---

by: StraffordDem @ Sat Jul 09, 2011 at 23:20:18 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

No man is an island. Everyone owes somebody something. (0.00 / 0)

However, that's a reality that's unacceptable to self-centered people, who don't recognize their social connectedness or obligations.  It's a deficit.  Some people have no circumstantial awareness.  Indeed, while they are self-centered, it's possible they have no self-awareness, either.  That is, they do not reflect on themselves and, as a result, have no basis for comparison to recognize others as similar or different from themselves.

---

by: hannah @ Sun Jul 10, 2011 at 11:10:41 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Good historical look at this: (0.00 / 0)

They are ever good enough.

---

by: Lucy Edwards @ Mon Jul 11, 2011 at 16:38:11 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

The Cake never looks good during the baking (4.00 / 2)

If you want Obama to look better----don't send him a majority GOP house

---

by: tchair @ Sat Jul 09, 2011 at 22:16:58 PM UTC

We didn't, initially. Large majorities in both chambers. n/t (4.00 / 1)

In the immediate aftermath of Since the start of the financial crisis, the Fed/Treasury lent, spent, or guaranteed $28 $29 trillion to save the banking system.

---

by: StraffordDem @ Sat Jul 09, 2011 at 22:55:54 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

And the tea party poisoned the Potomac, (0.00 / 0)

And the President did not get his base fired up for 2010.

Therefore, O'Brien, Boehner, Walker...

--
Twitter: @DougLindner

---

by: Douglas E. Lindner @ Sat Jul 09, 2011 at 23:45:12 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

It Seemed (1.00 / 1)

like the President was purposefully suppressing his own base in 2010, and he appears to be doing it again for 2012.

Sure, I voted for less government and less government spending...just NOT the parts that I benefit from!

---

by: Ref @ Sat Jul 09, 2011 at 23:50:55 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

That's craft, WADR n/t (0.00 / 0)

"When you get to the end of your rope, tie a knot and hang on."  Franklin D. Roosevelt    

---

by: Kathy Sullivan 2 @ Sun Jul 10, 2011 at 01:25:29 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Argh (4.00 / 2)

Meant to say, that's crazy, WADR



"When you get to the end of your rope, tie a knot and hang on."  Franklin D. Roosevelt    

---

by: Kathy Sullivan 2 @ Sun Jul 10, 2011 at 01:26:12 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Typed on a smartphone? (1.00 / 1)

--
Twitter: @DougLindner

---

by: Douglas E. Lindner @ Sun Jul 10, 2011 at 03:51:17 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Okay, (0.00 / 0)

maybe it would be more accurate to say that he and his advisers don't seem to care about / take for granted the Democratic base, or do you really think that there are enough "centrist" voters out there to make this kind of constant pandering to the Republicans seem worthwhile?  We're all going to vote for him over the crazy Republican nominee, but who're going to carry the signs, ring the doorbells, and man the phone banks?  There'll be no enthusiasm behind my vote.

Sure, I voted for less government and less government spending...just NOT the parts that I benefit from!

---

by: Ref @ Sun Jul 10, 2011 at 13:25:50 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Snarky Retorts (0.00 / 0)

don't get us anywhere.  Convince me I'm wrong.

Sure, I voted for less government and less government spending...just NOT the parts that I benefit from!

---

by: Ref @ Sun Jul 10, 2011 at 13:31:19 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Expanding on elwood's point (4.00 / 2)

regarding the "community organizer" paradigm, here's another view from Rules for Radicals: (quoted section from the book, not link.)

Compromise is another word that carries shades of weakness, vacillation, betrayal of ideals, surrender of moral principles. In the old culture, when virginity was a virtue, one referred to a woman's being "compromised." The word is generally regarded as ethically unsavory and ugly.

But to the organizer, compromise is a key and beautiful word. It is always present in the pragmatics of operation It is making the deal, getting that vital breather, usually the victory. If you start with nothing, demand 100 percent, then compromise for 30 percent, you're 30 percent ahead.

A free and open society is an on-going conflict, interrupted periodically by compromises--which then become the start for the continuation of conflict, compromise, and on ad infinitum. Control of power is based on compromise in our Congress and among the executive, legislative, and judicial branches. A society devoid of compromise is totalitarian. If I had to define a free and open society in one word, the word would be compromise."

More potential answers to perplexing questions about the president's methods can be found in this book.  I continue to disagree with some of the president's tactics and positions, but I do think he sincerely holds these beliefs as being in the best interest of the country.

In the immediate aftermath of Since the start of the financial crisis, the Fed/Treasury lent, spent, or guaranteed $28 $29 trillion to save the banking system.

---

by: StraffordDem @ Sun Jul 10, 2011 at 16:06:47 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

The thing about Presidents is, (0.00 / 0)

They like it when people re-elect them.

--
Twitter: @DougLindner

---

by: Douglas E. Lindner @ Sun Jul 10, 2011 at 17:20:20 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Nothing is forever (0.00 / 0)

That said, I strongly suspect the President wants to change Social Security.

I also suspect the Democratic caucus does.

We'll see.

---

by: JimC @ Sat Jul 09, 2011 at 22:45:36 PM UTC

The odd thing is that we have to use words like "suspect." (3.00 / 3)

To me, the single biggest failure of this Presidency is the failure to strike clear, bold, definite positions on anything.  One almost gets the sense that Obama believes that he won a 'prize' by winning the Presidency, and can now sit back and let Congress run things.  I just dont see proactive, staked-out positions on ANYTHING in this white house.  Even when they try to strike a chord of leadership, is rings a hollow thump of inconclusive compromise (Anyone like to explain how our Afghanistan policy is ANY different?)

---

by: Tully Fitzsimmons @ Sat Jul 09, 2011 at 23:16:31 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Speculation again - (4.00 / 1)

In some cases that may be the "community organizer" ethic / worldview. "Don't expect the President to make the world accept gay marriage - that starts at the grassroots."

But Afghanistan policy doesn't start at the grassroots. Maybe he wants it to; maybe he wants to see such an uprising for withdrawal that he cannot possibly be accused of "losing Afghanistan" (or more significantly, Pakistan).

That sort of uprising DOES happen. It happened to Lyndon Johnson.

---

by: elwood @ Sat Jul 09, 2011 at 23:28:13 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

This, really (3.67 / 3)

... is pretty absurd. The president hasn't always been as assertive as I'd like, but he has always pointed toward what he wanted. I think he respects Congress too much, and thinks his job is to get debates started.

---

by: JimC @ Sun Jul 10, 2011 at 00:25:19 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

he gave the house away (4.00 / 1)

on health insurance reform before the negotiations even began. His negotiations on the tax cuts were utterly inept. This is proving to be no better. He's not a leader. He's a compromiser.

As General JC Christian tweeted recently, "If the GOP or some other terrorist organization kidnaps me, don't send Obama in to negotiate for my release."  

---

by: susanthe @ Sun Jul 10, 2011 at 00:57:23 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

The executive is tasked with executing the policies set by the (0.00 / 0)

legislature. That's how it's supposed to work.  The legislature is also supposed to regulate the currency -- i.e. manage our money and hold the purse strings.  That responsibility for the latter was foisted off on the Federal Reserve, a private corporation, a long time ago, merely demonstrates that getting rid of direct obligations is a long-standing congressional habit.  Why do they do it?  Why privatize congressional functions? Because working in the back-ground, pulling strings and doing favors for special interests promotes both power and longevity in office. Power without responsibility is better than having something to account for. The name change for the Government Accounting Office to the Accountability Office was telling. Being able to make an account of oneself is different from actually providing an account. It's like saying, "I can, but I don't want to.  So, make me."
Being accountable to the electorate is the last thing the Capitol Hill Gang wants. Whose power is threatened by the great unwashed streaming to the ballot box? Only the people who get reviewed every two years.
I think the Tea Bag people have identified the problem correctly.  Congress is corrupt.  Where they've gone wrong is in thinking the Congress was corrupted by private corporations and in not noticing that they themselves were co-opted by the latter. In fact, it's the congresscritters who utilize private corporations to do their dirty work, to insure they keep their official positions by doling out bribes and penalties as needed. And, at present, it's penalties that are on the agenda for the simple reason that in 2006 and 2008 and even 2010 the elections did not follow the desired path.

In 2010, 59 incumbents were removed or retired.  37 retired voluntarily, presumably because they couldn't extort sufficient support. 16 had been in office longer than ten years. We don't hear much about that turn-over, even though the conventional wisdom used to be that incumbents are almost impossible to remove. They were, as long as the system for extorting votes worked -- i.e. corporate employers "reminded" their employees on which side their bread was buttered.

One more thing--we keep forgetting that conservatives are very literal people.  When they say "control spending," that's exactly what they mean.  They want to be in control of federal spending because that's their ticket to getting elected.  "Control" doesn't mean reduce or stop.  It's our mistake to think it does.  It's a mistake we should have learned to recognize from our experience with "pollution control" and "environmental regulation," neither of which were aimed at reducing, much less eliminating, pollution.  "Pollution control" means to make pollution regular and predictable and that's what history tells us. Charging conservatives with hypocrisy because their policies didn't achieve what we expected is fruitless.
Of course, people living in northern climes, where freezing temperatures regularly eliminate pests, aren't likely to be familiar with what pest control, a staple source of income in the southlands, means. We don't even realize that "exterminators" promise something they can't deliver; that "guaranteed pest control" means that they'll come back yearly to spray more poison at a lesser fee than the initial cost.

"Control spending" merely means that conservatives will decide where money is spent and, btw, the only power the executive has is not to spend what's been allocated by Congress.  Which is why many of the programs a Democratic Congress funded didn't get done under Bush/Cheney. Conservatives perceive the power of the purse as being designed to manage the population.  Progressives want our assets to be used to manage our natural environment.  Conservatives perceive no benefit in managing the environment because, even if they knew how and achieved success, they'd get no credit.  There are no medals for preventing flood, drought, fire storms or pestilential invasions.

---

by: hannah @ Sun Jul 10, 2011 at 11:01:23 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

This diary (3.67 / 3)

is a little over the top, sort of a definitive condemnation in advance of the result. Sorry but it just doesn't have that kind of inevitability, it is inflammatory and does more damage than help. I don't mean that playing with Social Security is worthwhile, sensible or intelligent. However this diary is fearmongering to the max. Go ahead and sling your venom at me if you like.

---

by: robert @ Sat Jul 09, 2011 at 23:26:11 PM UTC

Please re-read. (4.00 / 4)

This isn't condemnation in advance. The point of the diary is that the result is already here: regardless of where the debt ceiling negotiations end up, Obama has legitimized the practice of holding such negotiations.

That's on a par with negotiating with a child on: "If you triple my allowance I won't set the cat on fire."  You can't really claim victory if you only raise the allowance 30%, and the cat is unsinged.

(Yes, I am here comparing Congressional leaders to spoiled little children. No, I don't find that over the top.)

---

by: elwood @ Sat Jul 09, 2011 at 23:32:53 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

You realize no doubt (0.00 / 0)

the teabaggers are alive and very healthy. I spoke to one today who said much the same thing the diary says from the point of view of the value of the negotiations and his "great wish" is to elect a whole lot more teabaggers to congress and reset the country to zero (his term). I believe the president may be facing spoiled children who already have soaked the cat in gas and have a track record lighting animals on fire. It is already far too late for tradition. I do agree this situation is promising little good for anyone but I don't want to do the teabagger's work for them.

---

by: robert @ Sat Jul 09, 2011 at 23:52:47 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Supporting Obama today, is doing the teabaggers' work. (3.00 / 3)

It means giving a Democratic stamp of approval to crap the country hates.  

---

by: elwood @ Sun Jul 10, 2011 at 00:09:51 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

But, there has to be a negotiation on the debt ceiling (0.00 / 0)

To raise the ceiling requires an act of Congress.  

whp

---

by: whp @ Fri Jul 15, 2011 at 00:46:23 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Boehner blinked (4.00 / 1)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

---

by: JimC @ Sun Jul 10, 2011 at 00:22:45 AM UTC

One-sided (0.00 / 0)

It basically boils down to this: Democrats want government to function and to function well. Republicans want to destroy government. Threatening to destroy the functionality of the government via the debt ceiling (or via shutdowns) is a tool only Republicans will employ because they want to see that end outcome anyhow. The only reason they hesitate to employ it more often is that when they do force government shutdowns, they are extremely obviously the instigators and people like having a functional government, which rebounds against Republicans.

Only the left protects anyone's rights.

---

by: RealNRH @ Sun Jul 10, 2011 at 00:54:15 AM UTC

Well, really, anyone who's into power, and that could be anyone, (4.00 / 2)

regardless of party, is going to destroy for the simple reason that power is manifest by injury and hurt.  People who do good are not perceived as powerful.

The creative destructionists even came up with a justification -- i.e. that something new and better will arise, like the phoenix, from the ashes. I suppose that's consistent with their over-all preference for indirect action or triangulation.  Something or someone else, unknown, will act, always acts, perhaps because triangulators have no awareness of cause and effect. That is, they attribute agency falsely because they do not see the direct connection between agent and effect. And perhaps they don't see it because the action and the result are sequential and they have no sense of time.

Perhaps the destruction wrecked by people with no sense of time is wanton and the explanation that they expect something better to be created (by some other agency) is just an excuse that's offered when it's demanded.  Imagine a small child snapping all the heads off the flowers in the garden.

---

by: hannah @ Sun Jul 10, 2011 at 09:58:22 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

"allowing this to happen"? (4.00 / 3)

I think this diary and some of the comments are overly harsh.

The debt  ceiling needs to be increased. Doing nothing was not an option.

There's a lot of paranoia being expressed here.

I will now return to wading my way though Mark Twain's autobiography which I hope to finish sometime this decade.



"When you get to the end of your rope, tie a knot and hang on."  Franklin D. Roosevelt    

---

by: Kathy Sullivan 2 @ Sun Jul 10, 2011 at 01:36:13 AM UTC

Good luck.. (0.00 / 0)

I'm taking a break from it although I did enjoy the stories about Gen. Grant and China.

"My name is Ozymandias, king of kings:
Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!"

---

by: Elin Phinizy @ Sun Jul 10, 2011 at 02:13:50 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Hm. Was thinking of reading that (0.00 / 0)

on my upcoming vacation, but since I only have two weeks, looks like I'd better think again!

They. Don't. Care.
We do.
Rinse, repeat.

---

by: GreyMike @ Sun Jul 10, 2011 at 04:00:33 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Admiring your perseverence. (0.00 / 0)

I tried listening to the Twain autobiography in the car, and after 20 minutes, was not yet through the credits.  I gave up, fearing i would fall asleep and run off the road.

The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane. --Marcus Aurelius, courtesy of Paul Berch

---

by: Lucy Weber @ Mon Jul 11, 2011 at 18:30:09 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Twain (0.00 / 0)

It isn't very user friendly. Has a ridiculously long introduction (like 100 pages) before youi get to actual Mark Twain writing. Then there are informational notes in the back of the book, which take up another 150 or so pages, so you either flip back and forth to read those, or skip them in their entirety.  The notes conatin interesting information, but it does interupt the flow if you keep referring back to them.  I wish they had just issued the autobiography without all the rest of the material!  Not sure Mr. Clemons would be pleased. But, I am determinined to wade through it. I will confess that I have stopped couple of times to read other books, including one of the Game of Throne series, simply because I needed a break!!!    



"When you get to the end of your rope, tie a knot and hang on."  Franklin D. Roosevelt    

---

by: Kathy Sullivan 2 @ Mon Jul 11, 2011 at 20:17:16 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Yes, "allowed to happen." (4.00 / 1)

The alternative was to say:

The debt ceiling bill simply enables the government to pay for the commitments already made by Congress. It is a formality, and I will not let it become a bargaining chip or hostage. Congress must send me a debt ceiling bill with no strings attached; I will veto anything else.

I have instructed the Director of the Budget to prepare a list of government commitments that will not be met, without a debt ceiling hike. We are Constitutionally required to pay our debts, whether the debtholder is a big bank, a foreign nation, or the Social Security fund. So the immediate cuts will come elsewhere.

Pay for all federal workers, from the President to the border patrol agent, from the congressional aide to the Speaker of the House, is cut off on day one. The Budget Office will report on additional effects.

In other words: have this fight NOW, rather than concede this awful precedent.

---

by: elwood @ Sun Jul 10, 2011 at 09:42:48 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

What a popular topic failure is. Just look how many comments (0.00 / 0)

it gets.
Failure holds out the promise of change.  Success is terminal.  All it does is raise the question of what will we do next.

---

by: hannah @ Sun Jul 10, 2011 at 09:41:01 AM UTC

Obama is following thru on his promises (4.00 / 4)

His participation in these negotiations should come at no surprise.  During the election he continuously insisted that social security was "in crisis."  After the election he proposed tackling the entitlement issue during his watch.  Social Security and Medicare were on the table from Day One.

http://voices.washingtonpost.c...

---

by: gradysdad @ Sun Jul 10, 2011 at 11:05:27 AM UTC

I'm late to the party on this, but bottom line (0.00 / 0)

I agree with Elwood completely. Obama's decision to use the debt ceiling deadline as his opportunity to strike the "grand deal" is a catastrophic miscalculation. There is no incentive for the GOP to agree to anything other than the best deal they can extract from him with the gun pointed to his head.

This was totally unnecessary. He should have insisted on a clean bill on the debt while he promised to tackle the budget deficits in some other forum.

This is a disaster for Democrats that has really just begun. Imagine what he will be forced to give away at the last minute when the fingers of the GOP are on the trigger.

I shudder!

 "The future is not something to be predicted, it's something to be achieved,"  unattributed aphorism

---

by: susaninrindge @ Sun Jul 10, 2011 at 22:22:05 PM UTC

this is not respectable, community-organizing -style compromise... (4.00 / 1)

this is unilateral disarming.

 "The future is not something to be predicted, it's something to be achieved,"  unattributed aphorism

---

by: susaninrindge @ Sun Jul 10, 2011 at 23:07:34 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I couldn't disagree more (4.00 / 1)

with both posts. You say potato . . . However I'd like to see it play out without the hysteria of this diary and the dreaded "shudder." Which does no good.

---

by: robert @ Mon Jul 11, 2011 at 00:49:54 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

May I interrupt this thread to respectfully remind folks... (4.00 / 6)

that Blue Hampshire is not a project of the New Hampshire Democratic Party. Neither I, nor any member of the Democratic State Committee or member of the party staff have any role in the monitoring or controlling of the site in any way. I do not now, nor ever have had any role with Blue Hampshire other than to post and comment here.

For those Democrats furious with Elwood and some of the others who have posted their opinions here you have two choices; either post a response to them or don't read their comments.

Thank you so much.

Have you told a stranger today about Bill O'Brien and his Tea Party agenda? The people of NH deserve to hear about O'Brien  and his majority committed to destroying New Hampshire and remaking it into a armed survivalist preserve.  

---

by: Ray Buckley @ Sun Jul 10, 2011 at 23:14:38 PM UTC

Noted (0.00 / 0)

Will NHDP have a statement on the deficit reduction talks?

---

by: JimC @ Sun Jul 10, 2011 at 23:20:18 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

oops! (4.00 / 4)

Meant to say: "So stop calling and emailing me demanding I do something about Elwood and his supporters."

Have you told a stranger today about Bill O'Brien and his Tea Party agenda? The people of NH deserve to hear about O'Brien  and his majority committed to destroying New Hampshire and remaking it into a armed survivalist preserve.  

---

by: Ray Buckley @ Mon Jul 11, 2011 at 00:01:01 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Sorry to cause you any hassle over this - (4.00 / 5)

Ray's right - my opinion is my own. It isn't the result of any consultation with the state Democratic Party - and in this case, it isn't the result of any confab with other front-pagers.

I thought about side-paging the diary, because a) it isn't specifically about New Hampshire politics, and b) it speaks more starkly than my colleagues may choose.

But I didn't, because this really is a big deal. The Democratic President is setting (IMO) terrible procedural precedents in service of undermining the great accomplishments of the Party over four generations.

This I also say without Ray's concurrence: Whatever Democrat says "Hush!" in this matter, Shame on you.

---

by: elwood @ Mon Jul 11, 2011 at 00:11:40 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

It is a very, very big deal. (3.67 / 3)

But you're oversimplifying the issue and using that oversimplification as a basis to attack the President with more than a little hyperbole.

Your (justified) anger at the fact that there are now debt ceiling negotiations should be focused on the Republicans who would hold our livelihood, our economy, our credibility, and our position of leadership in the world hostage in order to extract partisan concessions that they have not earned the leverage to achieve.

Your anger should not be focused on the President, whose role in the economy is to make sure the earth continues to rotate on its axis.  There are big things I'd do very differently, but I respect that he's trying to take responsibility; the only thing Obama's opponents are trying to take is his job.

Like Ray, I have no role in the governing of this site. I'm not telling you to hush, Elwood. I'm just saying you're wrong.

--
Twitter: @DougLindner

---

by: Douglas E. Lindner @ Mon Jul 11, 2011 at 00:24:26 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I don't say hush (4.00 / 3)

I say it would be irresponsible not to negotiate. I may not like the result, but I think it is way harsh to call it an incredible failure of leadership for talking to Republicans. It would be a failure of leadership not to talk.

And keep in mind I have been sounding the alarm on social security for several months.

And no, not shame on anyone who doesn't think you should be saying these things on BH. Just as you are entitled to have your opinion, so are they.  



"When you get to the end of your rope, tie a knot and hang on."  Franklin D. Roosevelt    

---

by: Kathy Sullivan 2 @ Mon Jul 11, 2011 at 00:27:22 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I see. (0.00 / 0)

It's just, I'm not allowed to VOICE my opinion.

Very democratic.

---

by: elwood @ Mon Jul 11, 2011 at 00:29:42 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

ALLOWED? (0.00 / 0)

Until somebody stops you, nobody is stopping you.

--
Twitter: @DougLindner

---

by: Douglas E. Lindner @ Mon Jul 11, 2011 at 00:31:57 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Reread. (0.00 / 0)

And no, not shame on anyone who doesn't think you should be saying these things on BH.

---

by: elwood @ Mon Jul 11, 2011 at 00:33:41 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

As you recently asked me to look up the definition of "excellent," (0.00 / 0)

I'll ask you to look up the definition of "allow."

--
Twitter: @DougLindner

---

by: Douglas E. Lindner @ Mon Jul 11, 2011 at 00:35:21 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

You never did. (2.50 / 2)

You claimed it was irrelevant, that like Humpty-Dumpty you could ignore what the ratings definitions were.

And yes, when people go beyond opining that I should shut up, to calling Ray to ask him to intervene, "allow" is the verb in question.

---

by: elwood @ Mon Jul 11, 2011 at 00:39:05 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

On both points, (0.00 / 0)

I side with the reality of the situation over the theory.

--
Twitter: @DougLindner

---

by: Douglas E. Lindner @ Mon Jul 11, 2011 at 01:32:38 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Where did that come from? (4.00 / 1)

I said, just as you are entitled to your opinion, so are they.

Or maybe I'm not allowed to VOICE my disagreement?




"When you get to the end of your rope, tie a knot and hang on."  Franklin D. Roosevelt    

---

by: Kathy Sullivan 2 @ Mon Jul 11, 2011 at 01:41:43 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

What happened (0.00 / 0)

I thought that the standard response to stuff like this is that if you don't like it move to some other state. I am pretty sure that this is what I was told. Has the story changed or just the sides of the complainers?

---

by: xteeth @ Mon Jul 11, 2011 at 19:25:16 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Oh, xteeth (0.00 / 0)

No, you are the only person I suggested should move out of New Hampshire, since you don't seem to care for the residents very much.  



"When you get to the end of your rope, tie a knot and hang on."  Franklin D. Roosevelt    

---

by: Kathy Sullivan 2 @ Mon Jul 11, 2011 at 20:22:40 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

And once again I say (0.00 / 0)

How Republican of you.

---

by: xteeth @ Tue Jul 12, 2011 at 21:39:29 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

And once again I say... (0.00 / 0)

LOL :)



"When you get to the end of your rope, tie a knot and hang on."  Franklin D. Roosevelt    

---

by: Kathy Sullivan 2 @ Tue Jul 12, 2011 at 21:48:43 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

True, but (4.00 / 2)

People telling the party chair to act to silence a party member? (Or silence anyone, really.) Not cool.

---

by: JimC @ Mon Jul 11, 2011 at 00:35:52 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Can you say who's calling? (0.00 / 0)

I know you can't name names, but is it elected officials? Rank and file Dems? Both?

---

by: JimC @ Mon Jul 11, 2011 at 00:17:51 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

thanks, Ray (4.00 / 2)

I'm usually the one posting that reminder.  This thread illustrates the  point pretty well - BH is not a mouthpiece for the NH Democratic Party.

BH is just an "obscure" blog that gets quoted a lot by the right wing state media, who always make the point that this is an "obscure" blog.  

---

by: susanthe @ Mon Jul 11, 2011 at 01:11:35 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

LOL (4.00 / 2)

Breathless twitters from nhfauxjournal to follow!



"When you get to the end of your rope, tie a knot and hang on."  Franklin D. Roosevelt    

---

by: Kathy Sullivan 2 @ Mon Jul 11, 2011 at 01:44:13 AM UTC

[ Parent ]