Rep. Heath Shuler has no sense of irony. Joe Scarborough, who I expected would at least register the moment, didn’t get it either. On “Morning Joe” Shuler said, without a trace of self-awareness, that Blue Dog Democrats got creamed in the midterms while progressives did not. The message flew over Scarborough’s head faster than Jon Stewart’s criticisms of cable news shows.
If you listen to the right-wing ideologues on the cable chatter circuit you can quickly discern the conventional Washington wisdom, which is anything but smart. Tax cuts. Tax cuts. Tax cuts, especially for the top 2%, which these Republicans, whether they admit to the political label or not, think will spur job growth (that link the most important article you’ll read on fixing our economy this year). It’s preposterous if you look at history or listen to Reagan’s former budget director David Stockman, though his other prescriptions for the economy are nuts, or Warren Buffet who also doesn’t believe in a tax cut for the upper tier. The simple math should warn people off, but there is an inbred, almost Pavlovian response to tax cuts, because the Right is unapologetic about their delusions, while Democratic self-loathing in the face of Republican self-righteousness makes them cower.
Pres. Obama has led the cower contingent since he came into office, evidently thinking that sucking up to Republicans will make them compromise. All it’s done is reveal to them that he won’t stand on a line for anything. Whatever the Democrats were under Harry S Truman they represent the exact opposite under Barack Obama, particularly on economics. But considering who Obama chose to be his econ team we shouldn’t be surprised that it’s all about Wall Street at the expense of the middle class and main street.
People are talking a lot about Reagan and Clinton’s comeback after a dismal midterm. However, neither of these two presidents saw an exodus of working-class whites, which is particularly true in Clinton’s case. People want to rant racism, with even Michael Moore on Bill Maher’s show last Friday claiming the turn off to Obama is because whites don’t want a black man as president.
This is not only lazy analysis and insulting, but ignorant.
Pres. Obama had an opportunity to institute a foreclosure moratorium before the midterms, as well as take a stand on middle class tax cuts. As usual, he ducked the fight. The midterms turned over the entire rust belt and the industrial Midwest to Republicans, with the former confederacy going further Right, as the political climate became even more inhospitable to Blue Dog Dems simply because a so called Democrat can never out right-wing a Republican. Democratic voters like their candidates, um… well… to be DEMOCRATS.
Rep. Schakowsky, a progressive, has come up with her own Simpson-Bowles-esque proposal. It doesn’t touch Social Security. That’s because Social Security doesn’t have squat to do with the debt.
The Schakowsky plan is based on five key elements:
1) Increased economic stimulus to spur growth in the immediate term
· Provide $200 billion to invest over the next two years in measures to create jobs and spur economic growth, including passing the Local Jobs for America Act; and funding for education and law enforcement; Unemployment Insurance, Federal Medical Assistance Percentages (FMAP) and Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program extensions; and infrastructure.
· Adopt the President’s proposals to eliminate overseas tax havens and incentives for outsourcing
2) Smart, targeted spending cuts
· Non-Defense Discretionary – $7.55 billion in savings through increased efficiency and cuts to programs that benefit large corporations that don’t need assistance.
· Defense Discretionary – $110.7 billion in cuts from the 2015 defense budget, including efficiency savings, reducing our troop levels, cutting weapons systems we don’t need, and scaling back the wartime increases in the size of the military.
4) Reductions in tax expenditures
* Raise $132.2 billion by closing tax subsidies for companies that ship American jobs overseas.
5) Increases in revenues
* Raise $144.6 billion in revenue through progressive reforms to the estate tax, treating capital gains and dividends as regular income, and enacting a cap and trade proposal that includes protections for lower-income people.
* Enact President Obama’s budget proposal to let the Bush tax cuts for the top 2 brackets expire and return to 2009 estate tax levels.
* Non-tax revenue – raise $7 billion by addressing places where the private sector is currently under-paying.
On Social Security
Schakowsky:
“There is a better way than the Simpson-Bowles proposal – which relies heavily on benefit cuts instead of revenue increases.
“Social Security has nothing to do with the deficit. Addressing the Social Security issue as part of the deficit question is like attacking Iraq to retaliate for the 9/11 attacks – there is simply no relationship between the two and attempting to conflate them does a grave disservice to America’s seniors.
“Taking money from Social Security retirees whose average total income is $18,000 per year and average benefit is $14,000 ($12,000 for women) is simply wrong. It places them at fiscal risk and hurts the economy because they will be unable to purchase the goods they need. Americans in poll after poll have indicated their opposition to benefit cuts – particularly at a time when Wall Street bankers are making record bonuses.
The Schakowsky alternative does not contain any cuts to Social Security.
* It ensures long-term solvency to Social Security by eliminating the wage cap on the employer side and raising it to 90% on the employee side, applying FICA to all wage income below the cap, and establishing a modest legacy tax on wealthier Americans.
* Surplus funding that can be used to improve the extremely-modest benefits that are now provided.
The tax cut nonsense, along with the idiocy of believing that the upper 2% cuts will do anything to spur job growth is a right-wing mantra that is as stupid as the austerity kick and “balanced budget” fantasy, which could never have been done during Obama’s tenure. Bush made that impossible. At a time of American shrinkage when our trade policy only makes matters worse, the conventional right-wing wisdom being spouted on cable TV right now is part of the reason we’re in this mess. Unlike during Reagan and Clinton, along with new media, but most especially Fox News channel, the people are being berated far more with the Right’s prescriptions than with the Left’s.
The cacophony of ideological right-wingers, some of whom claim to be Democrats, represent the degree to which Democrats got their asses handed to them in the midterms, while progressives won. That’s because most of the cable talking heads are Blue Dog Dems at best or ignorant shills for Wall Street at worst.
So, people continue to swallow the malarkey that tax cuts are the way and the Debt Commission has to be followed, with entitlement adjustments the only way to get there.
Pres. Obama has aided this debilitating cycle of anti Democratic political insanity. In fact, it was the Democratic president who set his own side up.
The “tax cuts” mantra doesn’t work in terms of good policy or results, but obviously it works politically. Still.
Never let reality interfere with politics.
Democrats are drowned out, because too many Dems are beholden to Wall Street, so biting the hand that feeds can be costly.
Progressives understand that this is THE BATTLE for Democratic relevance.
They need to get noisy FAST.
(Please “Digg” this post)
It is THE BATTLE. Unfortunately I don’t expect a change in the game plan.
Dug.
Maher and Moore think the election was about Obama’s race??? How out of touch are liberal elites these days. I guess they are doing so well, they don’t know that Obama’s policies failed to improve the economy out here on Main Street. The “voters are moronic racists” thing is getting really old, particularly given that this racist country just elected an african american President.
Hey masslib, Moore’s comment was really stunning to me.
I guess they are doing so well, they don’t know that Obama’s policies failed to improve the economy out here on Main Street.
Think about that for a second…
It would have been possible, I think, if Bush and his predecessors hadn’t simultaneously cut taxes and trashed the economy. As Dean Baker pointed out yesterday and today, the “recession” is a big part of the reason for the budget deficit. It has both diminished revenue and increased the budget, thanks to greater need for unemployment insurance, aid to the poor, and other needs that increase during an economic slowdown.
That’s why the very next sentence I wrote after the one you mentioned above was “Bush made that impossible.”
Dean Baker is *always* a must read.
Congresswoman Schakowsky is right-Social Security has nothing to do with the deficit. But I will bet anything she will vote to extend the Bush tax cuts for the upper 2%. She is one of those the tough talking Liberal Dems in words only with no intention to fight. Witness her vote against the Stupak Amendment, but the final vote for HCR w/the Stupak language in it. She was unwilling to fight to kill the deal because it was wrong, but rather was willing too accept crumbs.On a play on words She was against it before she was for it.weak.
George Carlin was right-they are coming for our Social Security. That is the real battleground-everything else is a distraction.
I disagree to some extent with the board on the issue of race. I do belive their is a significant portion of the electorate , especially in the Tea Party/Republican Party that is opposed to Pres Obama on the sole basis of his race. Just look at all the demaning racial photographs, caricitures and viral jokes on his race and the sterotyping of it. He has been called everything demaeaning but the n word-and guys like Limbaugh and Beck are right at the edge.He is barely acknowledged as a child of God. To ignore that is to not live in the real world.
Those attacks on the President started shortly after his Administration started and before any legislation was being moved forward. The failure of the Dems was to not push back hard against those demeaning insults, and the MSM is guilty of not doing their job in showing the bankruptcy of these attacks. They all but refused to acknowldge the strong racial element that exists in the opposition to Pres Obama. Bill Maher was right a few weeks ago when he said it perfectly-Conservative white men are fighting both woman and people of color ro preserve their power.
However, I will agree that those attacks would have been mitigated and neutralized to a large extent if the Dems and Pres Obama had passed an agenda that was pro working-middle class and not one that protected corporate interests at every turn (Lilly ledbetter and the Student Loan Program reform two notable exceptions). They brought their defeat on themselves.
If you think Democrats lost the midterms because Obama is black, I have a bridge to sell you. They lost because the stimulus was too small and tax cut heavy to improve the economy. Period. End of story. That doesn’t mean there are not racist in the US, but the argument that Dems lost the midterms because of the racists is unsupported by fact.
No, that is not what I said.
I said there is a strong racial element to the opposition of Pres Obama. which does/did play a role in driving out the vote in the mid-terms.To believe otherwise is naive and you weren’t paying attention to all the racial animosity and baiting the Repubs and Tea party did from day One of his Presidency.
But also, to state that because he wasn’t on any ballot, and thus not a factor in the midterms for either sides’ get out the vote is naive at best. He was a factor in the midterms via the legislation that was passed, his leadership, and his race and all the other intangibles that affect the electorate,all are part of the mix.George W Bush was a factor in every election mid-term and Presidential during his Presidency simply by the fact that it was his agenda, personna, philosphy that drove the vote for and against him and the Repubs. Same with Pres Obama and the Dems.
I also said that that racial element would have been mitigated and neutralized if the Dems had passed legislation favorable to the middle class and thus energized the base to come out and vote for the Dems.
So I don’t think I’ll buy your bridge.
I didn’t state any such thing. Indeed, the midterms were about Obama’s failed stimulus policy. But you concede the point already when you argue the Democrats could have “mitigated” the effects of racism by governing effectively. Well, doh. If they had governed effectively, they would not have lost the midterms. Thus, arguments that midterm loses were due to race fall way short of reason. That’s not to say the GOP doesn’t use race to bait voters, as I said, but the wasn’t the driving force of the election. The driving force of the election was that the stimulus failed to significantly boost the economy. It’s that simple.
look, I never said race was the reason why the Dems lost the midterms. Where you get that in any of my posts is beyond me. I said it was a factor in GOTV. I said that had the Dems passed legislation favorable to the working class that would have mitigated and neutralized any racialized factor.
No its not that simple on the stimulus. Its a failure of the total legislative agenda. If repeal of DADT passes, or an executive order halting it is signed, maybe the LGBT vote is energized, If the Health Care Reform Bill had a Single Payer or Public Option maybe the base gets energized,if there is no Stupak, maybe woman Dems don’t feel betrayed and thus go vote Dem, If The Wars were wound down faster , maybe the base gets energized. If a real concerted effort to pass EFCA was made maybe the unions would would have been more energized. Its the total agenda.
I will even go so far as to say that if the stimulus passed as is, and the other legislative agenda items passed in a more progressive manner as I outlined, that the Dems would have lost seats-yes but would have kept the majorities in both houses. The base and the electorate would have bought into the need for patience and time because their would have been evidence that the Dems and The Administration were working on behalf of the working class.The Pres would have earned some political capital to the benefit of the Dems during the mid terms.
I’m done. its been nice talking to you. we agree to disagree. but I’m done.
No, if Democrats had passed the same stimulus with a slightly more progressive agenda, they still would have lost.
You are so correct. However, this non stop emphasis on race will have consequences because it brings up the issue of affirmative action programs and the right or wrong way to address past discrimination now. The bottom line is a meritocracy…does every body have the same opportunity….Obama had all the opportunities…But his policies are not fostering more opportunity for the middle class. And that is the bottom line. The majority of the voting public is white and they are sick and tired of hearing about racism when they are hurting themselves. And when employed by Obama’s people, it is used as a distraction.
This is why I thought from the beginning that the fact that Obama was black was an added complication we could not as a nation afford in these times. This country’s ability to deal with race has a long way to go. Even having a honest discussion about it is practically impossible.
Of course having a black president was going to bring all the racists climbing out from under the rocks,where they had been pretty successfully driven, since civil rights was enacted.That being said,it does not account for the large swath of people he has alienated.
Race has become a big complication,it takes hours of dicussion time on political shows and blogs and in written articles. It takes everyone’s eyes off the ball. The oliarchs are winning.They have captured the country. That should be the focus becuse it hurts us all of every hue.
Professional liberals love this topic because it makes them feel superior and professional conservatives love it because they can pretend to be outraged at the very idea and use it to demonstrate what liars liberals are. They win and we are forgotten.
I was one of those who felt that the Obama campaign used race in a cynical way to their benefit. Now that particular chicken has come home to roust.
The vast majority of american people do not care what color their president is, they care about what he can do to help them out of this very scary time. Or at least reassure them that he knows they are out there struggling.
“I was one of those who felt that the Obama campaign used race in a cynical way to their benefit. Now that particular chicken has come home to roust.
The vast majority of american people do not care what color their president is, they care about what he can do to help them out of this very scary time. Or at least reassure them that he knows they are out there struggling.:
Well stated, Lake Lady. I could care less if the Pres. was green! As long as he is competent.
Yeah the Obama brigade is great at using race. Lose an election-its those tens of millions of white working class voters who are kkk lovin fools! The Obama brigade will look for anything to give cover to their beloved. Trash FDR, Go after Truman. Attack their neighbors.Their moms. Ive seen it all. Obama did not deliver big or bold for white working class America. Period. Like Masslib says the stim bill killed the dems. It was not big enough- every economists said so even Zandi i think. So now Obama is in a straightjacket he created- the economy either improves on its own re emplyment or it doesnt. He is hostage to it something his fool advisors never got.
Fact: Obama got the msot white vote for a dem- rivaling clinton and carrying IN, VA and NC in 08. He carried WI,Pa,Oh- the keys to the WH. These keys run through white working class voters. You dont win the WH without enough of them. So in 08 voters were wonderful a nd not racist but in 10 now these voters are racists? This country is full of some dumbasses who think calling the voting block you must have to win racists. That is a real winner for 12.
So well argued! You make my point better than me.
michale moore from freakin flint mi called his own people racists? it wont work in a general election. they better shut up. not the best get out the vote tool and obama will lose no doubt if his defenders use that crap for sure. people say he has a whole 2 yrs to turn things around. i think its way less. opinions on him have formed and obama daily shifts to the right and away for the working class voters he needs. so with every day of this dumbass strategy he is putting in another nail in his political coffin.
Obama will lose. The dye is cast. It’s who he will take with him. He is a joke for a President.
It was a terrible presentation that radiated weakness, whatever its merits. Schumer had a good idea. Tax cuts for those earning over 1 million. It wouldn’t change the numbers very much…and it would make the message persuasive…since it would really mean millionaires…and not small business or two wage earners. But infrastructure spending has been what business has been calling for…and it is precisely what Pelosi and Dem leadership and Obama didn’t provide. Good reading is All the Devils are Here by Bethany McLean. Obama must be dumped…or the vacuum will persist…to our detriment. He is completely useless…in fact, he aids the GOP. Manchurian….
I meant tax increases over 1 million as the compromise. But knowing Obama, he’ll just cave to whatever the GOP wants.
And your point of the liberals and progressives talking the talk but not walking the walk is the real issue. When push comes to shove, these liberals spout talking points only, always compromising away their principles. The Stupak amendment is a prime point. And underlying that is the reluctance to fight for anything…as though every thing can be negotiated in a reasonable way. The fact that Soros abandoned the Dems says a lot..Peter de Fazio was very articulate about what Pelosi and the leadership failed to do. And ultimately, one must say the Dem leadership just lacks common sense.
Well said LakeLady!!! Kudos to LiberalJoe as well. Texan4Hillary, I would agree that the white vote Obama won in 2008, unprecedented, stayed at home not because of his race but because his policies are not pro-Main Street.
MassLib, I can’t speak for other states, but the Tea Parties here in Indiana are DEFINITELY RACIST. I am white so they don’t hide their racism from me. They popped up immediately not because a Democrat was in the White House but because he was black. These whites in the Tea Party see black people as the boogeyman coming back to punish them for slavery. They are freaking paranoid, hence the gun displays.
They don’t identify with Obama because of his Ivy League pedigree. He speaks intelligently like Bill and Hillary Clinton, unlike Dubya’s cornpone BS. However, they do identify with blacks like Clarence Thomas and Alan West whom both act and speak *tough guy* STUPIDITY, just like the Tea Partiers (and their beloved George W. and Darth Cheney!). They truly are an emotionally immature bunch. Dealt with them my entire life. Ugh.
BTW, when I was in Boston, I met lots of white racists and not all were Republican, either. Tea Partiers have common cause against Obama being black, because they voted for Bush thinking he was an average *white* cowboy to share a beer. He was never. Obama’s political ideology is the same as that of the Tea Partiers. They will never see or hear it because of Fox News, hate radio and Drudge, which means they’ll never get past his race.
Tea Partiers won because they were against Obama’s race. Had Obama been a change agent as promised instead of status quo as he governed, Democrats would STILL be the majority in both Houses.
If you don’t believe that, then you are lucky. You live in a bubble!
“Tea Partiers won because they were against Obama’s race. Had Obama been a change agent as promised instead of status quo as he governed, Democrats would STILL be the majority in both Houses.”
These two statements contradict each other. No one is arguing that there isn’t racism on behalf of the Tea Party or frankly, the GOP. But that is not why Democrats lost the House. They lost the House because of the economy, and they blew their chance on the economy when they passed an inadequate stimulus. They didn’t even lose because Obama wasn’t the proper change agent. They lost first and foremost, because of the economy. If he had gotten the stimulus right little else would have mattered. Remember, the GE swung to Obama when the economy fell. People put their faith in Democrats to fix the economy, and they failed. It’s really not more complicated than that. But look if it helps you sleep at night to blame the Democrats failure on racism, have at it. It’s not going to help much in the next election cycle, though.