Skip to main content

“Republicans in Congress have two choices here: They can act responsibly, and pay America’s bills; or they can act irresponsibly, and put America through another economic crisis. But they will not collect a ransom in exchange for not crashing the American economy.” - Barack Obama
Obama's failure at negotiating with the GOP fiscal terrorists began with the 2011 Budget battle that gave us the Sequester, arguably long before.

It continued up to the fiscal cliff to start the year, which resulted in far less revenue increases than Obama proposed, and has resulted in hamstringing any more revenue increases in subsequent fiscal battles, and potentially indefinitely.

It continued up to the debt ceiling battle, which Obama putting it off for another 3 months.

All of this was supposed to prevent the eventual Sequester. Look how that has played out.

Now, we have been served with a dish of Obama proposing cuts to Social Security and Medicare. Call them what you want, but in the end they amount to entitlement cuts. These cuts are not only unpopular, but make no sense, and they go against the promises on which Obama campaigned.

Obama's negotiations with the GOP economic hostage-takers have been an utter failure.

A question that keeps coming to my mind is: Why are we negotiating again?

Right now, Democratic economic policy is on the defensive, while Republican economic policy-any spending cut is a good spending cut and any revenue increase is a bad increase-enjoys the privilege of the status quo. Rather than feeding into this-such as when Obama offers the GOP cuts to Social Security and Medicare, cuts that are in fact incredibly unpopular-Obama and the White House should be reframing the discussion so that the Republican policy is the one on the defensive. Obama should have put out a more progressive budget, more in line with the House Progressive Budget and more in line with his own self-professed policies on which he campaigned and on which he was popularly elected. And then the onus would be on the Republicans to attack proposals that are actually more in line with the public opinion.

The Republicans should have to defend every single spending cut that they want, at every step. Spending cuts, after all, imply that the government is providing less services to the country. How is it that we've gotten to the point where government spending on the people its governing has become a bad thing?

The Republicans should have to defend every tax cut for the wealthy. Tax cuts should be considered spending, except unlike any other spending, tax cuts cost the country double-both the taxes that go uncollected and the taxes that have to replace the vacuum created by the cuts.

Obviously fiscal policy is complex and since revenue is not infinite, meaningful discussion is necessary at all times to decide how much to collect and spend and who should get how much. And it is true that in the real world, Democrats and Republicans alike must be able to set aside their ideals for the sake of a better country, even if their ideas of what a better country is are incompatible. But when one side refuses to cooperate to the extent that one side will cave to their demands and then they still refuse to make a deal, they are betraying all the civilization, modernization, illumination, and potential that this country represents. They are saying they want to drag us back to the stone age, and the last thing we should be doing is continuing to listen to their birdbrained demands.

Love it or hate it, the United States is a capitalist country. And the United States has shown that when the economy is running well, accomplishing great things becomes possible. One need only look at what was accomplished during WWII, when the entirety of the country was dedicated to the war effort. But the government, and in extension the people, must always guide the economy to serve the needs of the country, the common good. Otherwise, left to its own devices, the economy becomes a parasite, draining its host-the middle class and workers and consumers and investors-of all its vitality and potential.

A strong, functioning, well-funded government is the backbone of any civilized society, and as human beings, we are living proof that civilized, cooperative society is in everyone's interests. The Republicans and Randians have made their bread selling the idea that people should look only toward their self-interests and any contributions to a common goal are a waste. However, this is at best a short-sighted and simplistic view, and ignores history and reason. If this were the case, people would never have formed large non-blood related coexisting and cooperating communities. We would not have language, or social customs, or bartering and currency. Even our most primitive ancestors recognized that building a whole society where people shared the fruits of their labor was far more beneficial than being isolated. The point is, society is not about denying the human drive to serve our self-interests, society is proof that the best way to serve our self-interests is to combine all the resources and energy that we have available.

By offering spending cuts on programs that are both popular and proven to improve the quality of life for a large percentage of Americans, not only does Obama set a terrible precedent that leaves Democrats at a tactical disadvantage to Republicans, not only does he betray the people who originally supported him while likely failing to sway most of the people who opposed him, but he betrays the very heart of Progressives; that America should always seek to improve as a civilized society.

As horrible as Obama's actions have been up until now, there is still opportunity to repair that damage. Unlike Republicans, who will either blindly follow what their leaders will say and do or whine and pound their chests like crazed toddlers to get their way, we should be more than willing to not only acknowledge Obama's mistakes but also hold him accountable if he refuses to learn from and rectify those mistakes. Some would say this moment has long since passed, but as the more reasonable party, we should always be willing to embrace sincere attempts at redemption, not only redeeming the good graces of his supporters, but redeeming a hopeful future.

Fortunately, Obama still has one of those opportunities. Even after hearing the decision from Obama to include these cuts, House Republicans have decided to still reject those proposals. Obama now has the chance to introduce a new budget, one that's more Progressive and removes the cuts to Social Security and Medicare. Since the Republicans rejected that deal, it gives Obama the leverage to say those cuts are clearly unrelated to a Republican deal. Republicans would then have the unenviable task of arguing why Obama should include those cuts in the first place. Some would argue that now that these cuts have been offered, it makes it far more difficult for Obama to take them off the table. To this I say: since when does negotiating mean something on the table is never subject to being pulled from the table? And also: if I had to choose between the GOP taking a deal that included these cuts, or the GOP continuing to refuse to make any deal because these cuts were removed from negotiation, I think the latter is far easier for Obama to defend and far harder for the GOP to defend.

If Obama does do this, maybe it will finally send the message that America refuses to negotiate with fiscal terrorists.

Edit: Removed second to last paragraph which I think takes away from the larger argument. See Comment section.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  I liked overall thr first half or so (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    pierre9045, FG

    of your argument, but I think you got lost in "holding Obama accountable."  Pressuring Dems in Congress would be more effective.  As for your thoughts about 2016, to my knowledge, none of those listed are running.  

    Better to be here now.  And that requires pressure on Dems in Congress to kill chained cpi.

    Join us on the Black Kos front porch to review news and views written from a black pov—everyone is welcome.

    by TomP on Tue Apr 09, 2013 at 07:55:44 AM PDT

    •  You are right of course (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      The call to lobby Congressional Democrats is so ubiquitous here at Daily kos that I often forget to mention it. Obviously, that should play an integral part.

      However, I think it also downplays the role Obama has in framing the larger discussions on fiscal policy. The intent of this diary was to highlight that aspect, and to make the argument that Obama and the White House have the most power to shift the debate from one of Democrat defensiveness to Republican defensiveness, or vice versa in the case of cutting Social Security and Medicare.

      I would agree that the 2016 thoughts may not be the best solution for pressuring the White House on this, but I also don't think relying on Congressional Dems to kill chained cpi serves that purpose, and after those two I am admittedly out of good ideas.

    •  I ended up taking out that paragraph (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      Removed paragraph:

      If Obama doesn't do this and still attempts to make a Grand Bargain that literally includes these cuts and symbolically cuts the Democratic Party out at knees, I think it is time to stop talking about replacing him with a candidate who follows in his footsteps, such as Hillary Clinton, popular as she may be, and replace him with a candidate more in line with the likes of Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, and the House Progressive Caucus.
      As you mentioned, it does not seem like the most appropriate response, and I think the larger message of the diary is better without it.
  •  The problem is that unlike actual terrorists... (0+ / 0-)

    ...there's really nothing the Obama administration can do about the Republican economic terrorists except negotiate with them. That's where the "hostage/terrorist" metaphor breaks down.

    The Republicans control the House; if they refuse to negotiate and don't respond to political pressure to compromise, there's really no other way out of the dilemma until November 2014.

    Unlike with actual terrorists, the President can't send a SWAT or SEAL team in to the Capitol when negotiations break down.

    I don't like the chained CPI proposal either because I think it's bad negotiating, but there really isn't any way out of this except to get the Republicans to agree to something, even if it's only temporary until the November 2014 election. To keep things going until then, negotiating with the terrorists is, unfortunately, the only way we're going to get through this.

    "When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist." --Dom Helder Camara, archbishop of Recife

    by JamesGG on Tue Apr 09, 2013 at 08:51:21 AM PDT

  •  Obama wants the Grand Bargain. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Grabber by the Heel, PhilK

    He wants the cuts.

    That's why he appears to be such a horrible negotiator.

    What's the point of letting neoliberals into the tent when neoliberalism is burning down the campground?
    Since elections will never change the ownership of government, why does our strategy rely entirely upon them?

    by Words In Action on Tue Apr 09, 2013 at 09:28:13 AM PDT

    •  He keeps trying to tell the repugs he's on their (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Words In Action

      side. And they keep telling him he's not. The repugs hated Bill Clinton for delivering the trade deals and financial de-regs the 1% wanted. That was their job and Bill underbid them for the work. The repugs seem determined not to be passed over again. They helped Bill pass the neo-liberal agenda in the 90s and Clinton got all the credit with the 1% paymasters. Obama is not going to be given the same chance.

      But Obama is trying to draw them into helping him push Wall Sts goals by offering up some SS cuts and austerity. This will only hurt the Democratic Party and real Democrats. The pugs are just going to run out the clock and hope for wins in 2014 and 16 so they can reclaim their rightful place as the 1%s go to muscle.

      Until we have real Democrats, loyal to the Democratic legacy
      and goals in leadership positions again the working and middle class will never win an economic battle again.

  •  Hmm (0+ / 0-)
    A question that keeps coming to my mind is: Why are we negotiating again?
    Obviously, we're negotiating with Republicans because they control the House of Representatives. Without getting some  Republican votes, no bill can become law.

    A more progressive budget proposal would simply get Republicans completely off the hook politically with their constituents. I don't see how that helps anyone.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site