Robert Reich is none too happy with the President or Dems in Congress

From Robert Reich:

The radical right has now won a huge tactical and strategic victory. Democrats and the White House have proven they have little by way of tactics or strategy.

By putting Medicare and Social Security on the block, they have made it more difficult for Democrats in the upcoming 2012 election cycle to blame Republicans for doing so.

By embracing deficit reduction as their apparent goal – claiming only that they’d seek to do it differently than the GOP – Democrats and the White House now seemingly agree with the GOP that the budget deficit is the biggest obstacle to the nation’s future prosperity.

The budget deficit is not the biggest obstacle to our prosperity. Lack of jobs and growth is. And the largest threat to our democracy is the emergence of a radical right capable of getting most of the ransom it demands.

Read the rest of this post...

American Prospect: Five things Obama could have done differently

David Dayen, writing in The American Prospect, has a nice look-back at what Obama did, and what he could have done differently to bring us to a different place.

(Note that this assumes the frame that Obama wants to bring us to a different place. Not that I disagree, but I want to make the frame explicit and not covert: i.e., a given.)

Dayen:

The debt-ceiling fight did not have to go down like this. Along the way, any number of political actors, from the president to congressional Democrats, had the ability to defuse the bomb with which Republicans held the nation’s creditworthiness hostage. Here are five missed chances to change the dynamic.

I'll list the five chances; the article makes interesting reading on all counts:

■ Obama and Democrats could have fixed the economy.
■ They could have included the debt limit in the 2010 tax deal.
■ They could have refused to agree with the premise [that America has a massive debt crisis that will burden our children and crush us].
■ They could have made credible threats.
■ They could have involved the public earlier.

As Dayen says, none of these would have guaranteed a different outcome, but you never know until you try. His point, and I agree, is that Obama didn't try, at least in these ways.

Do click through; it's a nice piece of analysis.

GP Read the rest of this post...

House just passed debt bill, thanks to votes of House Democrats

The final tally was 269 - 161. 174 Republicans voted yes, while 66 voted no. 95 Democrats voted yes, while 95 voted no. Three Democrats didn't vote.

Watching CSPAN, shortly before the vote, I heard Nancy Pelosi say that Republicans were claiming they got 98% of what they wanted in this bill. So, Democrats just gave them a big win. It would not have passed without the votes of Democrats.

Rep. Gabrielle Giffords returned to vote for the bill. That set off massive applause in the House.

Over to the Senate where the Senate Democrats can insure this GOP victory. Read the rest of this post...

Pelosi supports debt deal. Progressive political groups tell Democrats: Vote No.

The House should begin voting on the debt deal around 6:30 PM ET.

The Minority Leader is supporting the deal, but isn't whipping it:

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said Monday afternoon that she will "absolutely" vote for the debt-limit compromise but isn't urging other Democrats to take her lead.

Pelosi told told ABC's Diane Sawyer that while the deal is probably a "satan sandwich with satan fries on the side" she'll vote for the deal with Tuesday's default deadline looming.

During a long meeting with House Democrats earlier Monday, several lawmakers said Pelosi told them to vote their conscience while reminding them about the what could happen if the United States defaults on its debt obligations.

So, Pelosi isn't whipping her members to support the bill. But, the progressive entities that actually do the work to elect Democrats are saying vote NO.

Adam Green, co-founder, Progressive Change Campaign Committee:

"This deal will kill our economy and is an attack on middle-class families. It asks nothing of the rich, will reduce middle-class jobs, and lines up Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid for cuts. Today, we're putting in thousands of calls to Congress urging Democrats to keep their promise and oppose this awful bill. The 14th Amendment is unambiguous, and President Obama should invoke it to pay our nation's debt. Then Democrats should focus on jobs -- not cuts -- in order to grow our economy."

Justin Ruben, Executive Director of MoveOn.org:

“This is a bad deal for our fragile economic recovery, a bad deal for the middle class and a bad deal for tackling our real long-term budget problems. It forces deep cuts to important programs that protect the middle class, but asks nothing of big corporations and millionaires. And though it does not require cuts to Medicare, Social Security and Medicaid benefits, it opens the door for these down the road via an unaccountable Congressional committee. We surveyed our 5 million members and the vast majority oppose the deal because it unfairly asks seniors and the middle class to bear the burden of the debt deal. Congress should do what it should have done long ago and what it has done dozens of times before – pass a clean debt ceiling bill.”

FireDogLake is doing a whip count, noting:

A deal between President Obama and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell calls for the creation of an elite "Super Congress" to cut Social Security and Medicare benefits behind closed doors. Whatever they decide will then be fast-tracked through both chambers, where it can't be amended by simple, regular lawmakers.

This is the "Catfood Commission" on steroids.

The "Super Congress" is how Congress intends to insulate themselves from taking unpopular votes to cut Social Security and Medicare benefits -- by investing a small group of elites with extraordinary powers, and then tying their own hands from stopping them.

You won't find many progressives who will say this is a good deal for Democrats -- unless they're getting paid to say it (or want to keep their access and their invitations to Common Purpose and other "insider" events.) Read the rest of this post...

Afghanistan’s Romeo and Juliet

This is what happens when a boy and girl hang out together in Afghanistan without mom and dad officially setting up the date:

This month, a group of men spotted the couple riding together in a car, yanked them into the road and began to interrogate the boy and girl. Why were they together? What right had they? An angry crowd of 300 surged around them, calling them adulterers and demanding that they be stoned to death or hanged.

The riot, which lasted for hours, ended with one man dead, a police station charred and the two teenagers, Halima Mohammedi and her boyfriend, Rafi Mohammed, confined to juvenile prison. Officially, their fates lie in the hands of an unsteady legal system. But they face harsher judgments of family and community.

Ms. Mohammedi’s uncle visited her in jail to say she had shamed the family, and promised that they would kill her once she was released. Her father, an illiterate laborer who works in Iran, sorrowfully concurred. He cried during two visits to the jail, saying almost nothing to his daughter. Blood, he said, was perhaps the only way out.

“What we would ask is that the government should kill both of them,” said the father, Kher Mohammed.

And we wonder why democracy isn't sticking. Read the rest of this post...

A conservative takes umbrage at GOP budget approach

It's an excellent piece. Worth reading the entire thing. David Frum, on CNN.com:

I see some things I don't believe in:

Forcing the United States to the verge of default.

Shrugging off the needs and concerns of millions of unemployed.

Protecting every single loophole, giveaway and boondoggle in the tax code as a matter of fundamental conservative principle.

Massive government budget cuts in the midst of the worst recession since World War II.

I am not alone.

Only about one-third of Republicans agree that cutting government spending should be the country's top priority. Only about one-quarter of Republicans insist the budget be balanced without any tax increases.

Yet that one-third and that one-quarter have come to dominate my party. That one-third and that one-quarter forced a debt standoff that could have ended in default and a second Great Recession. That one-third and that one-quarter have effectively written the "no new taxes pledge" into national law.

Read the rest of this post...

Cavey or cagey? I guess it depends on whether you want the president focusing on substance or theater

The Washington Post (via their email summary):

Did Obama capitulate — or is this a cagey move?— It was President Obama’s bottom line, a position he repeated in every recent public utterance on his debt-ceiling talks with Congress: Any deal must be “balanced” with spending cuts and tax increases. But in his eleventh-hour stare-down with tea party-infused Republicans, with a possible government default on the line, Obama blinked. The deal to trim the federal deficit by more than $2 trillion and increase the government’s borrowing limit contains no guarantee that tax increases will be part of the equation. After weeks of presidential demands for sacrifice by corporate jet owners and hedge-fund managers, those taxpayers and others can rest easy — at least for now. Liberals were furious as the terms of the agreement came into focus Sunday, and yet another capitulation by Obama on economic policy threatened to further dampen enthusiasm among the core Democratic voters he will need to win reelection next year. But for a White House eager to improve its standing with centrist independents who have been fleeing Obama, even a losing deal can be a winning strategy.

First off, the President has proven once and for all that his word is the proverbial boy who cried wolf. Regardless of what the President "demands," he doesn't mean it, won't push for it, and will gladly settle for less. It's hard to believe how this is now cause for celebration. The man has ruined his word.

Second, not only does the President not mean what he says, but he will cave, period. The message he sent last night is that if you want something from him, just get in his face and he'll back down. I shudder at the implications of that for US foreign policy.

Remember how the President demanded that the cuts had to be balanced with tax increases? Yeah, never mind that. There are no tax increases at all in the deal. It's all cuts. In other words, the Republicans got everything they wanted. And what did we get? We stopped the hostage takers from killing the hostages, as the President likes to say. Of course, the President is wrong. He empowered the hostage takes one too many times, and now they're high on their own success. In a very real way, he is responsible for enabling the hostage takers. And now, there will be lots more hostages in the future, and lots more people hurt, thanks to this President's definition of victory.

And finally, let's all jointly kiss the economy good bye. It's over. We're already teetering on the brink of another recession, and because it might help his re-election, the President is enacting policies that will very likely depress GDP and kill jobs. Why? Because he thinks independents will like him more, and thus vote for his re-election. (Ignore that looming double dip recession behind the curtain.)

And finally, a word about this "brilliant" re-election ploy. The increasing perception of the President over the past three years is that he's a pushover. And this deal only further cements that notion in the public's mind. It's not entirely clear how the President ever lives that reputation down - and weakeness is not something people tolerate in a leader.

Second, if the economy doesn't do a 180 by the time November of 2012 comes, I have a hard time believing any voters are going to look kindly on anyone in power. And in any case, just wait until the Republicans have 15 months to spin this deal in a way that makes them the heroes and Obama a Socialist Kenyan muslim.

It's sad how predictable all of this is. Read the rest of this post...

Just stop already

Where have we heard this one before:

“Is this the deal I would have preferred? No,” Mr. Obama said from the White House. “This process has been messy; it’s taken far too long.”

The President is a lousy negotiator and doesn't have the stomach for any fight, to be sure, but he's also getting what he wants. It's the President who kept trying to one up the Republicans by adding more cuts to the deal (remember, he's the one who put Social Security and Medicare on the table), so spare us the "I would have preferred something better." No he wouldn't. The President is interested in one thing: not making waves. And whatever he can do to ensure that he makes no waves, he'll do it.

And now there's a second thing motivating the President. No, not the national interest. His own political self-interest. Somehow he's got it in his head that the only way he can win re-election is to massive cut spending in the middle of an anemic quasi-recovery on life support. He's not doing it because he thinks it's the right thing. He's doing it because he thinks it will get him re-elected. And even there, he's wrong.

Joe and I predicted this day.  We saw it coming on how the President handled gay issues, how he handled the stimulus, and how he handled health care reform.  Joe and I begged all the apologists to wake up and realize that the way the President handled HCR - not fighting for anything - was exactly what he'd done before, and would do in the future. But we were told by the smarty pants lobby that this was incremental politics at its best, and we were just silly idealists.  Yeah, not so silly now. Read the rest of this post...

Syrian government continues assault on its citizens, 142 dead so far

The government of Bashir al-Assad launched a pre-Ramadan attack on the country's citizens yesterday. It's brutal. From Al Jazeera English:

Syrian forces have killed nearly 142 people, including at least 100 when the army attacked the flashpoint protest city of Hama to crush dissent on the eve of Ramadan, political activists say.

A witness in Deir ez-Zor told Al Jazeera that government forces launched fresh attacks on the town early on Monday morning.

"Military forces stormed the city from the west side and 25 people are killed and more than 65 injured," the witness said.

"Artillery and anti-aircraft weapons are being used. The situation in the city is very bad, and medical and food supplies are low."

Brutal. Assad has no legitimacy. How many more of his citizens will he kill in cold blood?

Last night, the President issued a statement on the latest round of violence:

I am appalled by the Syrian government’s use of violence and brutality against its own people. The reports out of Hama are horrifying and demonstrate the true character of the Syrian regime. Once again, President Assad has shown that he is completely incapable and unwilling to respond to the legitimate grievances of the Syrian people. His use of torture, corruption and terror puts him on the wrong side of history and his people. Through his own actions, Bashar al-Assad is ensuring that he and his regime will be left in the past, and that the courageous Syrian people who have demonstrated in the streets will determine its future. Syria will be a better place when a democratic transition goes forward. In the days ahead, the United States will continue to increase our pressure on the Syrian regime, and work with others around the world to isolate the Assad government and stand with the Syrian people.

Read the rest of this post...

Krugman: "The President Surrenders"

We could pretend, or we could tell the truth. (Or we could tell the other truth, that it's entirely possible that Obama is getting just what he wants, like he usually does.)

Paul Krugman this morning:

[T]he deal itself, given the available information, is a disaster, and not just for President Obama and his party. It will damage an already depressed economy; it will probably make America’s long-run deficit problem worse, not better; and most important, by demonstrating that raw extortion works and carries no political cost, it will take America a long way down the road to banana-republic status.

But wait, there's more:

[T]hen there are the reported terms of the deal, which amount to an abject surrender on the part of the president. First, there will be big spending cuts, with no increase in revenue. Then a panel will make recommendations for further deficit reduction — and if these recommendations aren’t accepted, there will be more spending cuts.

Republicans will supposedly have an incentive to make concessions the next time around, because defense spending will be among the areas cut. But the G.O.P. has just demonstrated its willingness to risk financial collapse unless it gets everything its most extreme members want. Why expect it to be more reasonable in the next round?

Krugman then talks about all the options Obama had, which he didn't take. Why not? Krugman nicely doesn't answer. (But pick me...I know. He does it because he wants to, says my inner Occam's Switchblade.)

Krugman sees nothing but losers:

It is, of course, a political catastrophe for Democrats, who just a few weeks ago seemed to have Republicans on the run over their plan to dismantle Medicare; now Mr. Obama has thrown all that away. And the damage isn’t over: there will be more choke points where Republicans can threaten to create a crisis unless the president surrenders[.] ... [And] [w]hat Republicans have just gotten away with calls our whole system of government into question. After all, how can American democracy work if whichever party is most prepared to be ruthless, to threaten the nation’s economic security, gets to dictate policy? And the answer is, maybe it can’t.

A clean sweep. The death of the Dem party, should the over-under in next year's headline unemployment be, say, 12% or so; and the death of the Republic (though the jury is out whether Republicans would see that as a loss).

I know I'll see that as a loss, but I've been suffering that loss since Reagan Days — so no news there. Sigh.

GP Read the rest of this post...

A note about Twitter

John wrote earlier about Twitter feeds for the various aspects of the site. I'd like to add a different note.

My own Twitter use has gone from occasional reader (and Tweeter) to fully engaged, both on the receiver side and the sender side. I'm shocked at how important Twitter has become to me.

As a reader of tweets, I'm finding that I get news first from Twitter. I have a set of people I follow who use Twitter pretty heavily, and who send stuff they see faster than they put it into a blog post or a news item. These include the full range of writers, from blog posters to news professionals. It's a hand-crafted set, and I love what I get from it.

As a sender of tweets, I'm finding that the discussions in my mini (and self-defined) community of tweeters is lively, smart, thoughtful, and engaging. For example, I "follow" all the blog posters I regularly read, interact with several, and for the same reason I read their posts, I learn from their tweets. And lot of very readable people are heavy Twitter users, and quite responsive to comments.

Just to name a few, digby (@Digby56) is very active, as are Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald), John Aravosis (@aravosis), Joan Walsh (@joanwalsh), Chris Hayes (@chrislhayes), and someone who writes far too rarely these days except on Twitter, Matt Stoller (@matthewstoller).

This just cracks the surface; there are literally thousands of valuable Twitter users that readers can benefit from.

Twitter is a far livelier, and more active, part of the Internet that I realized at first. I strongly recommend that at the very least, consider "following" everyone you read regularly (@NYTimesKrugman? @ChuckTodd? @KeithOlbermann? @markos?). You won't be sorry.

For those who read this site, the main accounts are:

@aravosis
@joesudbay
@Gaius_Publius

@Americablog
@AmericablogGay
@AblogElections

By the way, Twitter names are not case-sensitive. @gaius_publius = @Gaius_Publius, @aravosis = @Aravosis, etc.

And there are many useful Twitter apps; you might start with Tweetdeck to get a fuller view of your personal Twitter world. (If you have other Twitter tools to recommend, please add them in the comments, along with pros and cons. That would be a help to all of us. Thanks!)

GP Read the rest of this post...