What Brown can do for Dems

 I've been running around with my hair on fire about Obama not fighting for the issues he ostensibly cares  about.  Now, it seems, so are some Senate Democrats: 

...Senate Dems privately lit into Obama yesterday (Thursday) at a tense caucus meeting, complaining that he was not showing enough passion and was being overly compromising in the face of Republicans who are determined to destroy him.

(Sherrod) Brown didn't comment directly on what happened at caucus, but he confirmed that the general sense among Senate Dems is that Obama needs to be more confrontational towards Republicans, in order to make the difference between the parties clearer. "The caucus broadly wants to see the president stand up and fight and make the distinction clearer than any of us have so far," Brown said.

Brown warned that reaching a compromise on extending the Bush tax cuts temporarily would only further set back Dem efforts to draw a sharp contrast with the GOP. "He needs to articulate every day that he's fighting for the broad middle class, while Republicans are for the rich," he said.

Brown also suggested it would be a setback to such efforts if Obama and Dems embrace cuts to Social Security and Medicare, as Obama's fiscal commission leaders have suggested.
"The president has to make clear whose side we're on," Brown said. "The Republicans want to privatize Social Security and cut Medicare. Democrats are on the other side, advocating for the middle class. We need to affirmatively and strongly make that contrast."

We'll see.  These are more than just words to senators like Sherrod Brown and Al Franken, who aren't afraid to make noise and break furniture to bring about progressive change, even if it means jeopardizing their careers.  As for Obama and his former colleagues in the caucus meeting? Let's hope they have similar fire to stand up against the rightward assault of the GOP and the beltway punditry.  Otherwise, we're goners.

Of cojones and ponies

As usual, Paul Krugman says it like no one else can:

The fact is that one of our two great political parties has made it clear that it has no interest in making America governable, unless it’s doing the governing. And that party now controls one house of Congress, which means that the country will not, in fact, be governable without that party’s cooperation — cooperation that won’t be forthcoming.

Elite opinion has been slow to recognize this reality. Thus on the same day that Mr. Simpson rejoiced in the prospect of chaos, Ben Bernanke, the Federal Reserve chairman, appealed for help in confronting mass unemployment. He asked for “a fiscal program that combines near-term measures to enhance growth with strong, confidence-inducing steps to reduce longer-term structural deficits.”

My immediate thought was, why not ask for a pony, too? After all, the G.O.P. isn’t interested in helping the economy as long as a Democrat is in the White House. Indeed, far from being willing to help Mr. Bernanke’s efforts, Republicans are trying to bully the Fed itself into giving up completely on trying to reduce unemployment.

He quotes Alan Simpson gleefully imagining a debt-ceiling lift in exchange for harsh spending cuts. "And boy, the blood bath will be extraordinary," said the "moderate" former senator, blood dripping from his lips like Edward Cullen feasting on a mountain lion.  Yes, this is the "center" David Gergen and his ilk want Obama to move towards.   What they don't say is who lives in this mythical center -- Far-right Republicans passing as centrists; Fox Democrats charading as progressives; Rubinesque figures fattening the administration; and Gergen himself, hoping for a tax cut on helium, for media gasbags everywhere.

Buffett: The rich want more money, because they want more money

Obama won't listen to us, but maybe he'll listen to billionaire friends like Warren Buffett:

"...I think that people at the high end -- people like myself -- should be paying a lot more in taxes. We have it better than we've ever had it."

...The billionaire brushed aside Republican arguments that letting tax cuts expire for the wealthy would hurt economic grow

"They say you have to keep those tax cuts, even on the very wealthy, because that is what energizes business and capitalism," anchor Amanpour said.

"The rich are always going to say that, you know, just give us more money and we'll go out and spend more and then it will all trickle down to the rest of you. But that has not worked the last 10 years, and I hope the American public is catching on," Buffett explained.

I would say it hasn't work for closer to -- ever, but that's just me.

It's typical, and sad, that the hoary rules of journalism -- a homonym could have worked as well -- require that Amanpour give the obligatory "other side":  "But they say they really need it and they say it really works and I know they're lying and I could check it, but this is easier" -- when the evidence, and the man directly in front of her, prove otherwise.  If the Republican "argument" -- and that's giving it way more credence than it deserves -- is pure bullshit, it should be treated as such, and not accorded the respect of a valid, sincere position.  In his insightful piece on the Senate last summer, George Packer quoted Democratic Sen. Michael Bennet on an anecdote he heard after he was appointed to fill the Colorado Senate seat of Ken Salazar: 

Bennet repeated a story he had heard about a new congressman giving his maiden speech: “And then some more veteran guy came over and said, ‘Son, you’re talking like this place is on the level. It’s not on the level.’ As the fifteen months or so have gone by that I’ve been here, the less on the level it seems.”

If it's not on the level, and everyone knows it, why can't journalists adapt to this realization, and report the distilled truth of a story, and not the propaganda one side in particular keeps slinging? It's not like journalists aren't cynical or aren't afraid to say what they think is really going on, despite what some politician is saying.  They have no trouble reading eyes or minds or cod pieces to derive what they perceive to be true, beyond mere words.  And that's not even based on anything real, just some novel they think they're writing,  like mini Maureen Dowds colorizing their gray worlds. So why can't they use the brains god gave them for a higher purpose? Yes, yes, I know: because that would be hard.

Taibbi triggers Gergen F-bomb. Sort of.

Matt Taibbi really ruffled David Gergen's feathers in this Rolling Stone post-election Q&A that also included Democratic pollster Peter Hart. This part is too, too, too, too funny:

Gergen:  ...(T)here's a tendency in today's Democratic Party to turn away from someone like Bob Rubin because of his time at Citigroup. I served with him during the Clinton administration, when the country added 22 million new jobs, and Bob Rubin was right at the center of that. He was an invaluable adviser to the president, and he is now arguing that one of the reasons this economy is not coming back is that the business community is sitting on money because of the hostility they feel coming from Washington.

Taibbi: I'm sorry, but Bob Rubin is exactly what I'm talking about. Under Clinton, he pushed this enormous remaking of the rules for Wall Street specifically so the Citigroup merger could go through, then he went to work for Citigroup and made $120 million over the next 10 years. He helped push through the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000, which deregulated the derivatives market and created the mortgage bubble. Then Obama brings him back into the government during the transition and surrounds himself with people who are close to Bob Rubin. That's exactly the wrong message to be sending to ordinary voters: that we're bringing back this same crew of Wall Street-friendly guys who screwed up and got us in this mess in the first place.

Gergen: That sentiment is exactly what the business community objects to.

Taibbi: Fuck the business community!

Gergen: Fuck the business community? That's what you said? That's the very attitude the business community feels is coming from many Democrats in Washington, including some in the White House. There's a good reason why they feel many Democrats are hostile — because they are.

Taibbi: It's hard to see how this administration is hostile to business when the guy it turns to for economic advice is the same guy who pushed through a merger and then went right off and made $120 million from a decision that helped wreck the entire economy.

Quite an achievement to get David Gergen to say "fuck." Saying "Fuck the business commuity?" is better yet, even if intoned with proper incredulity.  It could be a Drudgeworthy lie wrapped in a headline, if only that other Matt cared to smear him.

I thought Gergen was just an overpaid candyass with a squishy caramel center. Who knew he had such fire in him?  It reminded me of election night when Gergen snapped at Eliot Spitzer on CNN for supposedly hogging the limelight.  Gergen is so used to his clique of millionaire milquetoasts -- blathering on endlessly about deficits and uncertainty -- that he always seems stunned to hear a different point of view.

Gergen's "pivoting back to the center" shit usually earns nods and grave looks on CNN.  But Taibbi was having none of it:

Gergen: If Obama is going to govern as well as prosper politically, he has to pivot back toward the center. He must embrace some sort of Social Security reform, just as Clinton did with NAFTA, even though his base will scream about it. He must also enlarge his inner circle by bringing in people who have the trust of the business community. One of the surprises for me has been that even though Obama rescued the banks, the alienation of the business community has reached a point that is threatening the recovery. Business people are sitting on a lot of money and not investing it because there is so much uncertainty about taxes, health care, financial regulations and energy. Obama's got to be more of a partner with the business community.

Taibbi: I have to disagree. The notion that the business community is disappointed with Obama because of what he's done in the past two years, I just don't see that. They're sitting on a lot of money, but they're sitting on it because he gave it to them.

Gergen: You don't think they're disappointed?

Taibbi: I'm sure they would have preferred the Republican agenda, where they would get 100 percent of what they want. Under Obama, they only got 90 percent. He bailed out the banks and didn't put anybody in jail. He gave $13 billion to Goldman Sachs under the AIG bailout alone and then did nothing when Goldman turned around and gave themselves $16 billion in bonuses. He passed a financial-reform bill that contains no significant reforms and doesn't really address the issue of "too big to fail." FDR, in the same position, passed radical reforms that really put Wall Street and the business community under his heel.

Gergen: If you talk to many CEOs, you'll find that they're very hostile toward Obama.

Taibbi: Who cares what these CEOs think? I don't care — they're 1/1,000th of a percent of the electorate. They're the problem. Obama needs to get other people's votes, not their votes.

 I'm not sure if there's a video of this, but I'd love to see it, if only to see Gergen blasted out of his comfort zone.  "Fuck" did seem to trickle readily off his tongue, though, so maybe in his off hours he's a mad cusser.

Presidencies, big and small

Greg Sargent keeps asking, OK, tough guys, if you're tired of Obama's wuss-laden rhetoric of concilation and compromise, what, exactly, do you propose he do instead?  What can the guy do in the face of Republican resistance and defiance? He is, after all, only one man (albeit the most powerful man in the world). The Congress could take the lead on issues like enacting middle class tax cuts and repealing Don't Ask, Don't Tell, so why is he alone expected to lead on these issues?  (Uh, because he's the leader of the free world?) Whaddaya think the guy is, Superman?

Turns out, yes, he is Superman, if only he'd flick the kryptonite:

First, go full throttle where he can on his own -- executive orders, rulemaking powers, and so forth. And second, lay down a clear vision and agenda in the full expectation that Republicans will oppose it, and use the presidential bully pulpit to wage a massive communications offensive hammering them relentlessly for their opposition and intransigence.

Armando at Talk Left has repeatedly challenged the insistence among progressives that Obama can't be expected on his own to move mountains and part seas, although I do vaguely remember promises of that sort from '08.  But, to diminish the power of the presidency is not only short-sighted, but foolhardy and self-flagellating, like monks batting themselves with planks.  As Armando wrote in a post titled "Obama's still big, it's the presidency that got small":

...Folks are again trotting out the poor Obama, "if only people had President Obama's back" line. Earlier this week, it was about Obama's powerlessness regarding the Bush tax cuts. Today, Balloon Juice argues the Obama Administration can't try Khalid Sheikh Mohammad in a federal court in New York...

These "defenses" of Obama are not helpful, to the discourse or to Obama. As I previously wrote:

...But suppose it is true [--] Then why should we care much if he is reelected? Shouldn't we then just focus all our attention on the Congress?

Of course, it is not true. In fact, the very reason many of these same Obama apologists hated the bad Clinton Triangulation so much is it is not true. Bill Clinton was able to "triangulate" because the Presidency is in fact the most powerful political office. Stupid to act as if the Presidency became small when Obama became President.

It's also not historically accurate.  As Eugene Robinson says:

We don't define periods in American history by who held the majority in Congress. It was the Reagan Era, not the Tip O'Neill Era - just as we're now living in the Obama Era, no matter what John Boehner or Mitch McConnell might hope. 

Or what the Obama apologia-sphere may tell itself.

There are many levers of power Obama can pull even without Congress' help, says Robinson

 ,,,Obama has the power to help jump-start the real estate market by issuing orders that could speed the untangling of the foreclosure mess - and also begin to move the vast inventory of foreclosed properties that weighs so heavily on home prices.

He can shape the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and the implementation of health-care reform in ways that will produce the quickest and greatest benefits for working families... This wouldn't just be good policy, it would be good politics as well. Demonizing "Obamacare" and financial reform as abstract concepts worked well for the Republicans in the midterm campaign, but it won't be a viable strategy if people see - and like - the concrete results.

Bush didn't act like his powers were limited, by any means, and progressives didn't run around with their hair ablaze and eyes agape because Bush didn't pour every drop of power from his waterboarding jug. And don't tell me there wasn't a small, still part of yourself that didn't admire him for it, not the policies or practices or full-on thuggery, but his day to day ability to get his way -- or at least look like he did.  As Armando says:

I always return to the George W. Bush example in 2001, where Bush LOST the popular vote, faced a 50-50 Senate and still got his agenda through the Congress. That the agenda was disastrous is not the point. The point is what people like Yglesias are saying is that in terms of dealing with Congress, George W. Bush was much more effective than Barack Obama can possibly be. And that is just sad.

At this point, excusing Obama's possible failures on health care reform seems the most important goal for many. If that is the new focus of progressive blogging, that speaks volumes about Obama . . . and progressive bloggers.

 Being bold and wrong is nothing to aspire to. We lived through eight years of that.  The higher power progressives seek pairs good policy with audacity, something we thought we were getting in Obama, but so far has been just a very good sales job.

Cocktail Party pulls Tea Party strings

Here's a great new ad by Americans United for Change, an organization that promotes progressive ideas in the media, arguing against extending the Bush tax cuts for the rich.  It shows two prosperous bankers toasting their success in duping the Tea Party into doing their work for them.  It is the latest illustration of FDR's famous line from 1936, "It is an old strategy of tyrants to delude their victims into fighting their battles for them."

Debt: When usual rules no longer apply

Paul Krugman has been talking about  this since the economic crisis began.  But now, with Gauti Eggertsson of the New York Fed, he has created a new model that, he says, bears out his view that the old rules no longer apply to today's crisis of debt and deleveraging:

(L)arge deleveraging shocks land the economy in a world of topsy-turvy, where many of the usual rules no longer apply. The traditional but long-neglected paradox of thrift – in which attempts to save more end up reducing aggregate savings – is joined by the “paradox of toil” – in which increased potential output reduces actual output, and the “paradox of flexibility” – in which a greater willingness of workers to accept wage cuts actually increases unemployment.

Where our approach really seems to offer clarification, however, is in the analysis of fiscal policy.

...In the current policy debate, debt is often invoked as a reason to dismiss calls for expansionary fiscal policy as a response to unemployment; you can’t solve a problem created by debt by running up even more debt, say the critics. Households borrowed too much, say many people; now you want the government to borrow even more?

What's wrong with that argument? It assumes, implicitly, that debt is debt – that it doesn't matter who owes the money. Yet that can't be right; if it were, debt wouldn't be a problem in the first place. After all, to a first approximation debt is money we owe to ourselves – yes, the US has debt to China etc., but that's not at the heart of the problem. Ignoring the foreign component, or looking at the world as a whole, the overall level of debt makes no difference to aggregate net worth – one person's liability is another person's asset.

It follows that the level of debt matters only because the distribution of that debt matters, because highly indebted players face different constraints from players with low debt. And this means that all debt isn't created equal – which is why borrowing by some actors now can help cure problems created by excess borrowing by other actors in the past. This becomes very clear in our analysis. In the model, deficit-financed government spending can, at least in principle, allow the economy to avoid unemployment and deflation while highly indebted private-sector agents repair their balance sheets, and the government can pay down its debts once the deleveraging crisis is past.

In short, one gains a much clearer view of the problems now facing the world, and their potential solutions, if one takes the role of debt and the constraints faced by debtors seriously. And yes, this analysis does suggest that the current conventional wisdom about what policymakers should be doing is almost completely wrong.

Krugman uses his blog as a mental scratch pad for his columns, so I bet he'll have more on this tomorrow.

In a letter delivered to Pelosi on Tuesday, Boehner identified the tactic Pelosi might use. "Using the suspension process - which requires a two-third vote in the House to pass legislation instead of a simple majority vote - as the vehicle for a vote on legislation that would stop President Obama's tax hike on all tax-paying Americans would be an obvious attempt to circumvent the will of the House by denying Republican and many Democratic members their right to offer an alternative proposal," Boehner wrote.