Obviously, Democrats lost the budget showdown
Both political parties are trumpeting their success — their common sense, their centrism, and even to a certain extent their bipartisanship — in averting a government shut down.
Superficially, both sides gave a little to get the deal done.
Republicans accepted fewer cuts in Federal spending (the final number hovers around $40 billion) and gave up their ideological attack on Planned Parenthood, public broadcasting and the EPA.
Democrats? Well, Democrats accepted $40 billion worth of cuts to domestic and foreign spending. Sounds like a reasonable compromise, right?
Maybe. But it was also a major defeat for Democrats. Here’s why.
In commenting on the deal late Friday night, President Barack Obama essentially conceded, accepting the GOP’s overarching philosophy about government.
Rather than simply saying, Look, I had to give up stuff I hated to give up in order to get a deal done, Mr. Obama actually boasted about the cuts, describing them as “the largest annual spending cut in our history.”
He went on to make an argument about the role and function of government that is, essentially, Republican:
“Some of the cuts we agreed to will be painful. Programs people rely on will be cut back. Needed infrastructure projects will be delayed. I would not have made these cuts in better circumstances. But beginning to live within our means is the only way to protect those investments that will help America to compete for new jobs.”
Before wrapping up, Mr. Obama went on to boast yet again about having implemented tax cuts last year.
In describing the dangers of a government shut down, the President highlighted only one specific story. He said he had received a letter from a mom whose child’s field trip to Washington DC might be canceled.
Really?
If that’s the worst we can expect if our Federal government ceases to operate, then perhaps libertarians are correct. Maybe America would be better off with a radically smaller government.
And if this deal represented Americans “living within our means,” then why were Democrats fighting against cuts? We don’t know.
That’s because nowhere in his statement was any argument, call to arms or philosophical explanation about the broad importance of the Federal government.
Missing was any mention of the fact that a mountainous chunk of our deficit is caused by the fact that we have the lowest levels of taxation at any time since World War 2 — well below historic norms.
Absent was any mention of the Bush era tax cuts, which primarily benefit the very wealthy, which Mr. Obama once promised to eliminate.
The president also failed to mention the fact that many American corporations pay no taxes whatsoever.
I suspect that Mr. Obama’s tone wasn’t just a product of his party’s drubbing in the 2010 midterms.
His comments reflect an ideological problem which has plagued Democrats since 1996, when then President Bill Clinton declared that the “era of big government is over.”
Of course, that was blarney. Government has remained essentially the same size as a percentage of GDP over the last forty years, under Republican and Democratic leadership.
But the modern Democratic Party doesn’t know what to do about this issue.
It was built specifically around a vision of the Federal government as a powerful force for good, from Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal to Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society to Mr. Obama’s own Federal stimulus plan.
But the idea of continuing to embrace government, arguing deliberately for its strengths and virtues, gives Democrats the willies.
Which leaves them with no clear identity, or political philosophy, certainly none that they are conveying to the public and to voters.
It has also left Americans almost entirely ignorant about what exactly it is that the Federal government does, or why it costs so much.
There is, of course, one more reason for this identity crisis.
Democrats have abjectly failed to find their own strategies for bringing the budget into balance, without simply adopting the GOP’s talking points.
Mr. Obama appears to still want a lot of government spending, but he has offered no coherent plan to pay for it over the long term. On the contrary, he continues to talk up tax cuts.
Conservatives have filled that void brilliantly and they now dominate this part of the nation’s political discussion.
So score this one to John Boehner and the Republicans. They may not have got all the dollars, and killed all the programs, that they were targeting.
But they have the Democrats playing by the GOP’s rulebook. And that bodes very well for conservatives as we head into 2012.
Tags: politics
.png)
Obama promised to “cut the deficit in half” during his first term.
How? By proposing a budget that changes the RATE OF INCREASE of the deficit by 1/2 over a 5-year period.
Hehe. Shows you how smart he thinks people in this country are.
Ok, maybe I had better explain it.
Changing the rate of increase by 1/2 is not the same as reducing the principle by 1/2.
Obama’s biggest problem is that he wants to be reasonable and bi-partizan. He does not stand up in the ‘bully pulpit’ and present an inspiring vision of where he wants the country to go. Instead he issues generalized concepts which he leaves to a dysfunctional congress to hash out. In short he’s trying to manage the country when he should be leading it.
Taxes are an issue they should not be lowered. The problem is government spending is a LOT higher than it was 2 years ago. Regardless of tax policy without the ability to even incrementally cut future spending increases we are doomed. I think Obama handled this about right.
It looks like it gets a lot worse before it gets better. Next up is the debt ceiling and more extortion.
A pity that Obama doesn’t have a Democratic primary challenger (extending tax cuts for the rich, attacking Libya, extending the Patriot Act, bank bailouts).
And that 40 billion represents less than 2% of federal spending.
I’m a little wary when the media praises Boehner, so it may not be a good thing that is being considered the “winner” in this exchange.
Secondly, what’s with this?
The deal also guarantees a debate and vote in the Senate on legislation that would repeal the president’s signature on the domestic initiative that Republicans derisively call “Obamacare.”
Since when is the media trying to distance the nomenclature from the President’s name?
Isn’t this HIS bid victory. Isn’t this the answer to the question, “what has the President accomplished since taken office”??
Well, golly. Must be President Obama wants the media to jettison him from this sinking ship.
Ain’t gonna happen. It’s Obamacare now, it will Obamacare in the history books. It will be Obamacare on his political tombstone. Hehe.
Should read, “Isn’t thisHIS big victory?”
JDM, is right, Obamacare will be his legacy, at least to this point, and the problem with it is that it is a sellout to the American people. Just as with this budget bill Obama didn’t have the guts to take the fight to the Republicans.
If he were a real liberal Obama might have proposed massive cuts in the Pentagon (what is improperly called the Defense Department) including closure of at least 100 military bases overseas, repeal of the Bush tax giveaway to the wealthy, an increase on inheritance tax, and a fee of .1 cent per share for each trade on any stock exchange. He would create a personal savings account system that allowed each individual American one bank savings account that guaranteed a rate of interest 1% higher than inflation (to a maximum of 6 or 7%), and allow individuals to withdraw money from IRA’s to place in bank or credit union savings accounts without penalty.
Say it Knuck! I’m so frustrated with this president, I wonder if I’m still a democrat. They can’t seem to figure out who they are anymore, nor what they believe in. The Republicans are somewhat more competent, but can’t overcome the tendency to corruption, and can’t select a candidate who doesn’t have serious lunacy issues.
Maybe we really do need a third…and a fourth party. Imagine how interesting the elections would be if the Greens went up against the Teabaggers. For that matter, maybe the Republican party will falter under the pressure from the Tea Party, and the next election will be between the Dems and the Teas.
The “loss’ was the election last november. This is just a consequence.
To me this is meaningless. $40B is a lot of money, but as was noted, it’s less than 2% of the budget. So in essence they did nothing about our problems. The people on the left don’t have the guts to stand up and say they want to establish a socialist economy and the guys on the right don;t have the guts to stand up and tell people that they can’t go on on handing out “free” money. Meanwhile they do nothing about rising prices, devalued dollars, jobs, etc.
The heck with it. They’re going to spend us into bankruptcy and a collapse. I’ve got yard work to do, at least that’s something I can control.
Democrats lost? Republicans won?
No, no, no! Everyone loses when our elected officials continue to have good jobs that pay well, great health insurance and all the perks of “being in charge.”
Republicans=Tea Party.
Big money funds it. Big money gets tax breaks. Big money attacks liberal social issues and media boodgeymen. No defense cuts. Deficit grows bigger, since the only cuts go to poor (Medicare) and middle class (trickle-down attacks on Bret’s pension).
It’s what we voted for in November. It’s what victory smells like.
Wrong OA! Most Republicans do no more than pay lip service to tea Party ideals. And there’s no more big money in the Tea Party than on the left. It’s said Obama will be the first candidate with a billion dollar campaign chest. How does that equal the right being the “big money” party? Open your eyes- the left is awash in big money/corporate funding.
I guess at this point I have to root for the Republicans/TEA party. It seems things have to get much, much, worse before lower/middle class citizens realize what government should be doing to insure a strong middle class. Let the punishment (and revenge begin).
Let’s gut Medicare. I’ll laugh in the face of any of the elderly that complain about it because that is what they voted for.
As for the poor, go to the emergency room. It will save us lots of money.
Let’s privatize social security. All those government IOU’s in West Virginia are worthless because we are broke (although we can afford to pay China interest). Anyway, I don’t really care, I’ve saved enough for retirement. It’s called personal responsibility by some.
Let’s drastically cut taxes on the rich. It will create jobs. Bush II proved that. While were at it, let’s increase taxes on the poor. They’ve been feeding off the rich and government long enough.
Oh yeah, let’s not forget the corporations. They need less regulation and lower tax rates. Paying zero taxes is too high. And, let’s make unionism illegal. What have unions ever done for the average working stiff.
Finally, let’s continue to allow corporations to buy congressmen. Maybe congressmen can start dressing like NASCAR drivers, with patches of their corporate sponsors on their suits. Then, at least we will know who they actually work for.
Bret,
I agree with you. Obama is a big-money candidate. He is not on the left. He is Goldman Sachs and GE and not raising taxes on the wealthiest and cutting benefits for the middle class and poor. Just like the Republicans. And except for social issues, which he doesn’t bother to defend very well, just like the big-money-worshipping-Koch-underwritten Tea Party.
Thanks for the laughs, PNElba!
Yes, we must protect our endangered betters. We must learn to bow to them and say, “Yes, master. Whatever the master wants, master.”
Three days later and it’s obvious why the media was praising Boehner.
The deal includes budget tricks by Obama that add to the amount of dollars “cut”.
Of course, the media wants this to pass. It doesn’t cut anything.
any links, jdm?
well thanks to kevin drum it appears that jdm is correct, about the existence of the cuts, at least. some links are here and here. drum notes that of the topline $38 billion in cuts, only $11 billion are hard cuts.
however i can’t help but also point out the latest instance of jdm’s ridiculous perception of the media. boehner was widely hailed as the winner of the negotiations immediately after the deal was struck, before the details of the cuts became public. people genuinely thought he got the better end of the deal, not that he was pulling a fast one on the tea partiers.