Tag Archives: Obama

Greenwald: Obama Gutting Core Democratic Principles

22 Friday Jul 2011

Posted by in Democrats, drone strikes, George W. Bush, Libya, Medicare, Obama, Social Security, Wall Street

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , ,

Yet another gem from Glenn Greenwald in today’s Guardian:

“[I]n 2009, clear signs emerged that President Obama was eager to achieve what his right-predecessor could not: cut social security. Before he was even inaugurated, Obama echoed the right’s manipulative rhetorical tactic: that (along with Medicare) the program was in crisis and producing “red ink as far as the eye can see.” President-elect Obama thus vowed that these crown jewels of his party since the New Deal would be, as Politico reported, a “central part” of his efforts to reduce the deficit.

The next month, his top economic adviser, the Wall Street-friendly Larry Summers, also vowed specific benefit cuts to Time magazine. He then stacked his “deficit commission” with long-time advocates of social security cuts.

Many progressives, ebullient over the election of a Democratic president, chose to ignore these preliminary signs, unwilling to believe that their own party’s leader was as devoted as he claimed to attacking the social safety net. But some were more realistic. The popular liberal blogger and economist Duncan “Atrios” Black, who was one of the leaders of the campaign against Bush’s privatization scheme, vowed in response to these early reports:

The left … will create an epic 360-degree shitstorm if Obama and the Dems decide that cutting social security benefits is a good idea.

Fast forward to 2011: it is now beyond dispute that President Obama not only favours, but is the leading force in Washington pushing for, serious benefit cuts to both social security and Medicare.

[…]

The same Democratic president who supported the transfer of $700bn to bail out Wall Street banks, who earlier this year signed an extension of Bush’s massive tax cuts for the wealthy, and who has escalated America’s bankruptcy-inducing posture of Endless War, is now trying to reduce the debt by cutting benefits for America’s most vulnerable – at the exact time that economic insecurity and income inequality are at all-time highs.

Where is the “epic shitstorm” from the left which Black predicted? With a few exceptions – the liberal blog FiredogLake has assembled 50,000 Obama supporters vowing to withhold re-election support if he follows through, and a few other groups have begun organizing as well – it’s nowhere to be found.

Therein lies one of the most enduring attributes of Obama’s legacy: in many crucial areas, he has done more to subvert and weaken the left’s political agenda than a GOP president could have dreamed of achieving. So potent, so overarching, are tribal loyalties in American politics that partisans will support, or at least tolerate, any and all policies their party’s leader endorses – even if those policies are ones they long claimed to loathe.

[…]

He has gone further than his predecessor by waging an unprecedented war on whistleblowers, seizing the power to assassinate U.S. citizens without due process far from any battlefield, massively escalating drone attacks in multiple nations, and asserting the authority to unilaterally prosecute a war (in Libya) even in defiance of a Congressional vote against authorizing the war.

And now he is devoting all of his presidential power to cutting the entitlement programs that have been the defining hallmark of the Democratic party since Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal. The silence from progressive partisans is deafening – and depressing, though sadly predictable.

[…]

Obama is now on the verge of injecting what until recently was the politically toxic and unattainable dream of Wall Street and the American right – attacks on the nation’s social safety net – into the heart and soul of the Democratic party’s platform. Those progressives who are guided more by party loyalty than actual belief will seamlessly transform from virulent opponents of such cuts into their primary defenders.

And thus will Obama succeed – yet again – in gutting not only core Democratic policies, but also the identity and power of the American Left.”

Remember the Public Option

22 Friday Jul 2011

Posted by in budget, Deficit, health care, Obama, Politics

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , ,

Shortly after the New York Times broke the story yesterday that a so-called “grand bargain” (which if reports are accurate is neither grand nor much of a bargain) had been reached between President Obama and Speaker Boehner, White House spokesmen immediately sprang into action. Press Secretary Jay Carney said “there is no deal, we’re not close to a deal” and Dan Pfeiffer tweeted:

“Anyone reporting a $3 trillion deal without revenues is incorrect. POTUS believes we need a balanced approach that includes revenues.”

The Times account may or may not be true, we shall see in the next few days I suspect, but reading a post at AMERICAblog this morning reminded me of previous occasions when the White House kinda sorta fudged a bit on the truth, to be generous.

Like when the same Dan Pfeiffer said in October of 2009 that the rumors about President Obama abandoning the public option as part of health care reform were “absolutely false” and that:

“In his September 9th address to Congress, President Obama made clear that he supports the public option because it has the potential to play an essential role in holding insurance companies accountable through choice and competition.  That continues to be the President’s position.”  

It was later revealed that in July the president had made a secret deal with hospital lobbyists that a public option would not be included in the final legislation. In March of 2010 Paul Hogarth at Huffington Post wrote:

“In other words, while Obama was still saying in September that he supports the public option (which kept us hopeful) – the President knew all along that it would never make it in the final bill. He never said he’d fight to include the public option, and repeatedly said he was “open” to other ways to achieve the same goal. But little did we know, the fix was in.”

I also recall that there was a similar situation with the pharmaceutical industry. The president continued to voice support for drug importation after another secret deal had already been cut with lobbyists that it wouldn’t be in the final legislation either.

FWIW.

Obama Hearts the “Gang of Six” Plan

20 Wednesday Jul 2011

Posted by in budget, Congress, economy, health care, Medicaid, Medicare, Obama, Politics, Social Security, Taxes, Unemployment

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

President Obama was quick to endorse the latest deficit reduction plan, the one from the so-called “Gang of Six” released yesterday, calling it a “very significant step” and “broadly consistent with the approach he has advocated.” This without knowing the details. But the details weren’t really important, because all the major elements are indeed consistent with what the president wants in this deficit reduction shell game.

* Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security cuts.
* Further cuts in the top marginal income tax rates. (So much for that pledge to let the Bush tax cuts expire).
* Corporate tax cuts.
* The continuation of Reaganomics and Bushonomics. That would be the supply-side, tax cuts equals increased revenue and economic growth nonsense that we all know works so well.

The broad strokes of the “Gang of Six” plan (and just as an aside I wonder why Sen. Sanders is never included in any of these gangs? Not bi-partisany enough, I assume) are as follows:

An immediate $500 billion “down payment” on deficit reduction. All spending cuts, all from unnamed programs. A brilliant idea in a recession. The other $3.2 trillion in savings would be decided by various committees at some later date, enforced by spending caps. Congress would be required to get a 2/3 vote to exceed those caps. IOW, when the next recession hits, anybody looking for any assistance is SOL. David Dayen at Firedoglake:

“Simply put, this is a recipe for depression. When the economy suffered and stimulus would be required to increase aggregate demand, the 2/3 vote needed would simply put a stop to it. The New Deal would have been out of order under this regime. Same with the Recovery Act. Any spending from the federal government would be restricted as much as it is in the states. So there could only be the status quo or contraction in fiscal policy in the event of a recession, which is a perfect way to create a depression.”

Also in the down payment would be the institution of chained CPI, aka a cut in SS benefits, and repeal of the CLASS Act, which was a part of health care reform that the insurance lobby fought tooth and nail. From the New York Times, December of 2009:

“The Class Act, which the late Sen. Ted Kennedy considered his legacy, would allow people to buy long-term care insurance through payroll deductions and to receive cash if they’re later disabled, regardless of their age or of a previous health condition. “This is the best chance the baby boomers have to protect themselves from impoverishment if they need long-term care,” Mr. [Jim] Firman [president of the National Coalition on Aging] said.”

That is Part One. Part Two calls for an additional $200 billion in “healthcare savings,” aka Medicare and Medicaid cuts, and an $80 billion cut in the defense budget. That’s $80 billion over ten years, pocket change for the Pentagon. Gotta love that shared sacrifice.

In Part Two, the Finance Committee…

“…would be required to reduce tax rates to three tax brackets of rates: of 8-12 percent, 14-22 percent and 23-29 percent. The current top marginal rate is 35 percent. The corporate tax rate would be between 23 percent and 29 percent…”

And this little goodie for corporations as well:

“…tax reform would cease taxation of overseas profits.”

The corporate behemoths had been lobbying to get the tax on overseas profits reduced, allegedly under the guise of returning these profits for use in job creation, but that’s not how it worked before:

“Congress and the Bush administration gave companies a similar tax incentive, in 2005, in hopes of spurring domestic hiring and investment.

While the tax break lured 800 companies into bringing $312 billion back to the United States, 92 percent of that was used for dividends and stock buybacks, according to the nonpartisan National Bureau of Economic Research. The study concluded the program “did not increase domestic investment, employment or research and development.”

Indeed, 60 percent of the benefits went to 15 of the largest U.S. multinational companies — many of which laid off domestic workers, closed plants and shifted even more profits and resources abroad in hopes of cashing in on the next repatriation holiday.”

So let’s just eliminate the tax entirely. Nice.

More on the tax “reform” aspects of this plan:

“Coburn said the plan would reduce the deficit by $3.7 trillion over the next 10 years and increase tax revenues by $1 trillion by closing a variety of special tax breaks and havens. He also noted, however, that the Congressional Budget Office would score the plan as a $1.5 trillion tax cut because it would eliminate the Alternative Minimum Tax.”

I’m not sure how that works. How is $1 trillion in revenue increases scored as a $1.5 trillion tax cut? But I know for sure how this works, it doesn’t:

“It would generate a significant amount of revenue out of tax reform and reduction of tax rates, which authors believe would spur economic growth.”

And I believe in the Tooth Fairy and the Easter Bunny.

Confidence, Schmonfidence

18 Monday Jul 2011

Posted by in economy, Unemployment

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Whenever I see a discussion about the real crisis this country faces—that would be unemployment, not the manufactured one over the deficit– a couple of words keep coming up from the alleged smartest guys in the room, confidence and certainty. Businesses would hire, so it’s said, if they had either or both.

President Obama referred to it in a recent press conference:

“What we need to do is to restore business confidence and the confidence of the American people that we’re on track — that we’re not going to get there right away, that this is a tough slog, but that we still are moving forward.”

It came up again yesterday in a roundtable discussion about jobs on Meet the Press. Just as an aside, two members of this roundtable were Ohio Governor John Kasich and Honeywell CEO David Cote. It has been estimated that Kasich’s budget cuts in Ohio could lead to over 50, 000 layoffs. Mr. Cote’s history at Honeywell, where his 2010 compensation topped $20 million, has been one of outsourcing and union-busting. Just the two opinions you want on what to do about unemployment, right?

Mr. Kasich and Mr. Cote, who also sits on the board at JP Morgan Chase, spoke about the need for businesses to have certainty. Certainty about taxes and regulation. Certainty meaning lower taxes and less regulation, naturally.

In August of 1934, President Franklin Roosevelt addressed the same issues we face today. Here’s what FDR had to say about confidence:

“In one year and five months, the people of the United States have received at least a partial answer to their demands for action; and neither the demand nor the action has reached the end of the road.

But, my friends, action may be delayed by two types of individuals. Let me cite examples: First, there is the man whose objectives are wholly right and wholly progressive but who declines to cooperate or even to discuss methods of arriving at the objectives because he insists on his own methods and nobody’s else.

The other type to which I refer is the kind of individual who demands some message to the people of the United States that will restore what he calls “confidence.” When I hear this I cannot help but remember the pleas that were made by government and certain types of so-called “big business” all through the years 1930, 1931 and 1932, that the only thing lacking in the United States was confidence.

Before I left on my trip on the first of July, I received two letters from important men, both of them pleading that I say something to restore confidence. To both of them I wrote identical answers: “What would you like to have me say?” From one of them I have received no reply at all in six weeks. I take it that he is still wondering how to answer. The other man wrote me frankly that in his judgment the way to restore confidence was for me to tell the people of the United States that all supervision by all forms of Government, Federal and State, over all forms of human activity called business should be forthwith abolished.

Now, my friends, in other words, that man was frank enough to imply that he would repeal all laws, State or national, which regulate business—that a utility could henceforth charge any rate, unreasonable or otherwise; that the railroads could go back to rebates and other secret agreements; that the processors of food stuffs could disregard all rules of health and of good faith; that the unregulated wild-cat banking of a century ago could be restored; that fraudulent securities and watered stock could be palmed off on the public; that stock manipulation which caused panics and enriched insiders could go unchecked. In fact, my friends, if we were to listen to him and his type, the old law of the tooth and the claw would reign in our Nation once more.

The people of the United States will not restore that ancient order. There is no lack of confidence on the part of those business men, farmers and workers who clearly read the signs of the times. Sound economic improvement comes from the improved conditions of the whole population and not a small fraction thereof.

Those who would measure confidence in this country in the future must look first to the average citizen.”

Confidence, schmonfidence. Businesses don’t need either confidence or certainty, they need customers. Those would-be customers need jobs. We’ve had 30+ years of low taxes and less regulation. If those were the engines of job creation we’d have more jobs than we do people.

Unemployment Numbers Don’t Matter? Wanna Bet?

12 Tuesday Jul 2011

Posted by in economy, Obama, Politics, Unemployment

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , ,

What was that again, Mr. Plouffe? People won’t vote based on the unemployment rate?

“A slipping economy has Floridians moving away from President Barack Obama and warming up to Republican Mitt Romney, a Sunshine State News Poll shows.

The survey of 1,000 likely voters shows that 54 percent disapprove of the job Obama is doing while just 38 percent approve. That result tracks with Florida voters’ sour view of the economy, with 56 percent saying it has worsened in the past year.

“Clearly, the bleak economic landscape is not good news for Obama. This is quite sobering when you consider that the recession technically ended in summer of 2009, which really shows that people don’t believe we are out of the woods by any stretch,” said Jim Lee, president of Harrisburg, Pa.-based Voter Survey Service, which conducted the poll for Sunshine State News.

Today’s numbers may be even worse for Obama, considering that the July 5-7 survey concluded a day before the latest jobless figures were released last Friday. The national unemployment rate rose again to 9.2 percent as the economy added just 18,000 jobs in June.

“Obama’s negative job approval shows there is a major opening for the GOP to win the state in 2012, particularly when you consider that Obama only won by a close 51-48 margin last time,” Lee said. “No president since FDR has won re-election when the unemployment rate on Election Day topped 7.2 percent.”

Economists calculate that the economy would have to add a whopping 250,000 jobs every month for the next year to drive the unemployment rate below 7.5 percent.”

You might want to re-think that re-election strategery, Fluffy.

Army’s $2.7 Billion Computing System Doesn’t Work

06 Wednesday Jul 2011

Posted by in Afghanistan, budget, Iraq, Pentagon

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , ,

By all means, let’s keep increasing the Defense budget, especially when it’s spent so wisely and effectively:

“The Army’s $2.7 billion computing system designed to share real-time intelligence with troops fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq has hurt, rather than helped, efforts to fight insurgents because it doesn’t work properly, several analysts who have used the system say.

The analysts’ comments mirror concerns raised by the top military intelligence officer in Afghanistan and members of Congress over the past two years in an unsuccessful bid to get the Army to consider alternatives to its portion of the military’s Distributed Common Ground System, according to documents obtained by POLITICO.

…[A]nalysts say DCGS-A was unable to perform simple analytical tasks. The system’s search tool made finding the reports difficult, and the software used to map the information was not compatible with the search software.

“You couldn’t share the data,” said one former Army intelligence officer who worked in Afghanistan and Iraq.

There were also problems with the hardware, with the system being prone to crashes and frequently going off-line, he and another former Army intelligence officer now working as a contractor in Afghanistan said.

“The laptops are turned on, but it doesn’t work,” the second former officer said. “There’s a lot of bugs in the workflow.”

What happened to this?

“President Barack Obama asked Congress to approve a record $708 billion in defense spending for fiscal 2011, but vowed to continue his drive to eliminate unnecessary, wasteful weapons programs.”

…”Even though the Department of Defense is exempt from the budget freeze, it’s not exempt from budget common sense,” Obama told reporters at the White House.”

R.I.P. Social Security

05 Tuesday Jul 2011

Posted by in Congress, Democrats, Obama, Social Security

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , ,

FDR didn’t foresee what would become of his party:

“We put those payroll contributions there so as to give the contributors a legal, moral, and political right to collect their pensions and their unemployment benefits. With those taxes in there, no damn politician can ever scrap my social security program.'”

Which is what’s happening now. Social Security is being de-funded:

“Despite warnings it will undermine Social Security, House Democratic leaders are lining up behind a White House proposal to extend a payroll-tax cut beyond this year.

Reps. James Clyburn (D-S.C.) and John Larson (D-Conn.) both announced Friday that they’ll throw their weight behind the extended payroll-tax holiday, which President Obama and some leading Senate Democrats are prescribing as an economic stimulant.

[…]

A number of liberal Democrats had fought the initial tax cut, noting that the payroll tax is the sole funding stream for Social Security, which is already paying out more than it’s taking in. Behind Rep. Lloyd Doggett (D-Texas), the lawmakers are now continuing that campaign in the face of a proposed extension.

Earlier this month, Doggett, Ted Deutch (Fla.) and Mark Critz (Pa.) urged their Democratic colleagues to oppose any additional payroll-tax breaks. The lawmakers warned that such measures threaten Social Security’s ability to pay future benefits and defy the initial design of the program.”

But there’s no sense in just eliminating part of the funding mechanism for Social Security. If you’re gonna do it, might as well do it right:

“The existing tax holiday applies only to workers, but Obama has also floated the idea of extending it to employers as well.”

“Grand Delusion” in Afghanistan

04 Monday Jul 2011

Posted by in Afghanistan

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , ,

From phillyBurbs.com:

“President Obama has announced the long-awaited drawdown of U.S. troops from Afghanistan will begin next month. The president told a national TV audience last week that 10,000 troops will be brought home by the end of the year, and that by next summer, 33,000 personnel will have been withdrawn.

Obama told the nation: “The tide of war is receding.”

Apparently, Afghan insurgents haven’t gotten the message.

No less than the luxury Inter-Continental Hotel in Kabul, the capital of Afghanistan, came under siege by militants this week, and by the time the siege ended a day later, 20 people were dead. Among the slain were nine suicide attackers and 11 civilians.

This latest slaughter didn’t take place in some rural area of the country where security has never been demonstrated. These killings occurred in the capital city, supposedly a safe haven. The truth is, there’s no such thing as a safe haven in this landlocked piece of treacherous real estate, even after nearly 10 years of U.S. involvement.

It is here that the Afghan army and police are expected to gradually assume responsibility for securing people and property as the U.S. reduces its military presence over the next three years.

That’s a grand delusion.

This was hardly what the United States bargained for when this adventure began a decade ago. The war was launched in response to the attacks of Sept. 11. The objectives then were to get Osama bin Laden, destroy his al-Qaida terrorist network and replace the hated Taliban with a democratic form of government. Bin Laden just recently was neutralized … in neighboring Pakistan. Al-Qaida apparently has shifted its base of operations elsewhere, probably Yemen. The Taliban, meanwhile, remain a formidable force in a country that historically has defied stable, central government. Great Britain and the former Soviet Union learned only too well the folly of military involvement here. It’s curious how the United States government ever concluded that it could effect a different outcome.

We believe withdrawal of U.S. forces from Afghanistan is the correct strategy going forward. It should be accelerated beyond what the president has outlined, because even after the withdrawals over the next year, some 70,000 U.S. troops will remain. The bleeding must be stopped and quickly, because it is bleeding without a purpose. Nothing short of a miracle — not more casualties, not more billions — will produce a lasting, positive outcome in Afghanistan.

The evidence suggests no other conclusion.”

Amen.

Obama Takes Tax Rate Increases Off the Table

28 Tuesday Jun 2011

Posted by in budget, Congress, economy, Obama, Politics, special interests, Taxes, Wall Street

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , ,

From The Hill yesterday:

“The White House, seeking an agreement to raise the nation’s $14.3 trillion debt ceiling by Aug. 2, on Monday said it would not insist that any deal include an end to former President George W. Bush’s controversial tax rates on the wealthy…The White House said the president is pushing the GOP to agree to eliminate some tax breaks for businesses and loopholes for wealthier taxpayers, but is not seeking to eliminate the across-the-board rates introduced by President Bush. That means taxpayers who earn more than $250,000 annually have gotten a reprieve.

Obama still wants to scrap the Bush-era rates, but with time running out on the debt-ceiling talks, he made clear Monday that he has a new range of targets.“

Translation: He’s being “forced” into it—again. Do you get it yet, Democrats? Is it starting to sink in? President Obama doesn’t want to end the Bush Obama tax rates. This makes two–count ‘em two–opportunities he’s had to make good on the smoke he blew during the 2008 campaign about ending the tax cuts. Both times he’s passed. In short, he’s just not that into you. On the other hand, he’s very much into these guys. Wake up and smell the coffee.

Oh sure, there will be some “revenue increases” included in what Dylan Ratigan appropriately calls the “pro wrestling” debt limit negotiations. Appropriate because the outcome is pre-determined, what we see now is just the preliminary theatrics. But like with so many other things the president says—like his creative interpretation of what constitutes “hostilities” for example— you have to carefully parse his words.

There will be “revenue increases” in the form of a few tax breaks ended, a few loopholes closed, and a few fees raised, but nothing that amounts to much in the big picture. Piddling amounts like this:

“Obama’s budget wants $85 billion in new user fees over 10 years, including raising the airline passenger security fee from a maximum of $5 per one-way trip to $11. Other proposals range from Food and Drug Administration food inspection fees to duck hunting fees. The $85 billion also includes federal auction of parts of the broadcast spectrum and the sale of surplus federal property.”

This is also being floated:

“The administration also would tax private equity or hedge fund managers at higher income tax rates instead of lower capital gains rates..”

Yeah, right. President Obama is going to raise taxes on the same guys he sucks up to at $35,000 a plate fundraisers. The same guys he plays kissy-face with to get contributions for his re-election campaign. That’ll be the day.

If you need further evidence of how seriously this whole song and dance is being taken by the powers that be, despite the screams about the alleged financial catastrophe that will happen if an agreement isn’t reached by August 2:

“Complicating matters is the congressional schedule. While the Senate is in session, the House is off this week ahead of the July 4 holiday. The House is scheduled to return next week when the Senate will be away.”

Pro wrestling indeed. The Hulkster would be proud.

Just a Man of the People

25 Saturday Jun 2011

Posted by in Obama, Wall Street

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , ,

FDR: I welcome their hatred. Obama: Let’s kiss and make up.

“Last night Obama headed to the Upper East Side to wine and dine Wall Street. The DNC fundraiser at tony restaurant Daniel cost attendees $35,800 each, and a source told Ben White at Morning Money that the event netted $2.4 million. So his calculations were that at least 67 financiers had come to the party.

“Wall Street may hate Washington but sources tell M.M. that last night’s $35,800 per-head event… was a boffo success packed with hedge fund and private equity types.”

[…]

The dinner was part of Obama’s plan to win back the group of financiers that helped him cruise past McCain in 2008, many of whom were turned off by the President’s labeling of them as “fat cats” near the beginning of his term.

Obama is hoping to win over hedge fund titans who were previously bundlers for the Clintons, as well as a much more challenging task — winning Republicans. Though Democrats won’t be so easily wooed this time around, apparently…

“One Democratic financier invited to this month’s dinner… said it was ironic that the same president who once criticized bankers as “fat cats” would now invite them to dine at Daniel…”

Here’s a little tip that might help the fat cats (oops, sorry) and their hurt fee-fees. Something I learned a while back. Don’t listen to what this president says, watch what he does. Those two streets seldom intersect.