Obama & Dems Capitulate to Repubs on Taxes, Set Stage for 2012 Defeat

Palin Says She Could Beat Obama in 2012 Presidential Election

From: Malcolm Calder
Date: 7 December 2010 17:52
Subject: Re: Palin Says She Could Beat Obama in 2012 Presidential Election

As horribly as Obama is screwing up -- handing the Republicans plenty of guns & ammo, then letting them blame him when he gets shot -- she might be right.

In agreeing the recent capitulation (calling it a "compromise") with Republicans, Obama said:

“I know there’s some people in my own party, and in the other party, who would rather prolong this battle. But I am not willing to let working families become collateral damage for Washington’s political warfare; it would be the wrong thing to do. The American people didn't send us here to wage symbolic battles or win symbolic victories. …We cannot play politics at a time when the American people are looking to us to solve problems.”

First, a straw-man argument (something Obama is adept at): why would anyone want to prolong the battle? It's a bogus point. The real point is to win it. The battle lines are drawn over the question of whose immediate economic interests it should be won in favor of

Second, his phrasing gives full permission to the interpretation (which the Republicans will undoubtedly seize with gusto) that the Republicans are not fighting or playing politics, and it would be wrong for me to yield to the temptation to do so. Predictably, he skips on the chance to point out that, in declining to "play politics", he's distinguishing himself from the Republican opposition, to point out that they are doing nothing but playing politics (e.g. via their threat to block all lame-duck legislation such as renewing the START treaty for mutual nuke verification with Russia).

Obama assures us that he reached a compromise, containing elements that everybody could dislike. Yes, the Republicans might dislike the particular flavor of expensive wine they are served, while the "Left" dislikes the battery acid poured in its eyes.

Obama assures us that the tax breaks for the rich will expire in 2 years, but gives no reason whatsoever to believe it. I haven't seen any evidence that the White House made even the slightest effort to decouple the "middle class" breaks from those for the rich -- for example, by establishing that "everyone" agrees that the middle class breaks should be made permanent, and that the only controversy is over the breaks for the rich, so let's now make permanent what everyone agrees should be permanent, and review cuts for the rich in 2 years.

A top priority for the Republicans was to avoid a decoupling, and they got that without a fight -- without even acknowledgement from the White House that it was a potential bargaining point, something they could use for leverage, and to call the Republicans' bluff (exposing them, if they resisted, as *not* committed to the well-being of the middle class, but fiercely committed to the privileges of the rich).

The House vote provided such an opportunity, in a limited way, but the Dems generally have no message machine at all, only a few disconnected parts (voices), while the Republicans maintain their message machine to a high level, well-oiled. (This is, again, related to the vital need for corporate servants in a "democratic" system to lie, to hide, to avoid serious debate, to make noise, to loudly and hypocritically accuse honest opposition of their own most glaring crimes, and to leave nothing in the public interpretation of their actions to chance -- all to sustain the Grand Public Illusion that they're not doing exactly what they are doing.)

Recall that in November 2008 I warned against over-exuberance about Obama's election, warned that Obama would disappoint his most fervent supporters. I could say "I told you so", but he has been so much worse than I expected, I can't take full credit.

From: Malcolm Calder

Date: 7 December 2010 18:23
Subject: Re: Palin Says She Could Beat Obama in 2012 Presidential Election

On 7 December 2010 17:52, Malcolm Calder calder.malcolm@gmail.com> wrote:

Obama assures us that the tax breaks for the rich will expire in 2 years, but gives no reason whatsoever to believe it. I haven't seen any evidence that the White House made even the slightest effort to decouple the "middle class" breaks from those for the rich -- for example, but establishing that "everyone" agrees that the middle class breaks should be made permanent, and that the only controversy is over the breaks for the rich, so let's now make permanent what everyone agrees should be permanent, and review cuts for the rich in 2 years.

In this conflict over tax breaks, the Dems had tremendous leverage, but acted as if utterly oblivious to that fact. In policy terms, the Republicans' arguments simply had no credibility, and the Democrats could very easily have exposed them on that point, simply by engaging them in sustained, high-visibility public debate, forcing them to defend their indefensible and transparently dishonest arguments in a public forum -- a debate which they could not have lost either on rational-empirical grounds, or on grounds of public opinion (which was already strongly in their favor and stood to become even more so).

One tool they could have used: the nonpartisan CBO's analysis of 11 policy options for stimulating the economy, which listed extension of unemployment as the #1 most effective, and extending the Bush tax cuts as #11, least effective -- dead last.

Likewise the Republicans' argument that the reason they were absolutely inflexible on extending the tax cutsspecifically for the rich (having voted against them for the under-$250k "middle class" when above $250k wasn't included) was what?

Why did Republicans formally promise to prevent any vital congressional business (such as renewing the START treaty for mutual US-USSR nuke verification) until the rich got their tax cuts extended?

Why? Jobs, jobs, jobs. Workers and jobs. Small businesses and jobs. It would be counter-productive to a recovering economy to increase taxes on the businesses that hire workers, that could increase jobs.

That could so easily have been smacked down, and the Republican publicly shamed for clinging to that argument in all its transparent dishonesty. For example, it could be demanded of them to explain why they were being so militantly intransigent in insisting upon the last-place worst option for creating jobs at a cost of about $75 Billion/year that would not be paid for (increasing the Debt), while dismissing the #1 option as ok, sorta, if and only if it's paid for.

Or the Dems could have called their bluff simply by negotiating an exception for small businesses (something the IRS can perfectly well handle). Simply by this tactic, the Dems could have exposed the Republicans, forcing them onto a very weak footing from which it would be embarrassingly difficult to continue with their intransigence -- and serving notice that we are not going to allow the minority Party to push us around, to run things for the remainder of this Congress -- at least.

But the Dems, with Obama leading the way, have been extremely shy to fight against the Republicans, who have explicitly declared the intention to destroy Obama as a President, and have not been shy in declaring war against Dems and their policy priorities generally. Obama invests heavily on the hope that "a way can be found" to "cut through the noise", but he doesn't understand that he cannot possibly succeed. Why? Because "noise" (along with lies, hypocrisy, misdirection, etc.) is an essential of their strategy. Whose strategy? Those who are determined to destroy him, and with whom he is committed to cooperating in a bipartisan manner.

Whether it's called suicide or homicide doesn't much matter; there will be the corpse.

From: Malcolm Calder
Date: 7 December 2010 18:38
Subject: Re: Palin Says She Could Beat Obama in 2012 Presidential Election

On 7 December 2010 18:23, Malcolm Calder calder.malcolm@gmail.com> wrote:

Whether it's called suicide or homicide doesn't much matter; there will be the body.

General pattern:

Republicans get Obama to promote bad policy, for which Obama triumphantly (if sometimes somewhat reluctantly) claims "bipartisan" credit. As a result of such bad policy the economy flounders, the masses remain restless and easily demagogued, and the Republicans' high-power message machine successfully maneuvers blame (no credit, just blame) onto Obama, which he barely resists.

Come election time, Obama's supporters are deeply disappointed and discouraged, and stay home. On the Right, however, fervor is high, and the knives are sharp.

In subsequent months and years, Obama ruminates on what he might have done differently. Too late.

P.S. And with the corporate post-Citizens United campaign machinery well developed and legally protected, sensible Americans fondly remember George W. Bush as a pretty moderate guy after all, in retrospect.

From: Malcolm Calder
Date: 7 December 2010 18:44
Subject: Re: Palin Says She Could Beat Obama in 2012 Presidential Election

For the sake of clarity, it's worth keeping in mind the difference between complaining and going to war. It's like the difference between lashing out blindly or spasmodically, on the one hand, and having a focused stragegy and the organizational machinery to effectuate it, on the other.

The Dems make some good complaints here and there. The Republicans have a war machine.