According to Harry Reid, the Senate majority leader, Mr. Obama has told Democrats not to draw any “line in the sand” in debt negotiations. Well, count me among those who find this strategy completely baffling. At some point — and sooner rather than later — the president has to draw a line. Otherwise, he might as well move out of the White House, and hand the keys over to the Tea Party.
That is the final paragraph of Krugman's NY Times op ed today, America Held Hostage.
Lest anyone doubt the accuracy of this statement, let me point you at the first paragraph of the same op ed:
Six months ago President Obama faced a hostage situation. Republicans threatened to block an extension of middle-class tax cuts unless Mr. Obama gave in and extended tax cuts for the rich too. And the president essentially folded, giving the G.O.P. everything it wanted.
It should not have happened 6 months ago. In fact, that issue should have been confronted well before the election. Either the Republicans would have folded, knowing that if they shut down the government it could destroy them in the election, or they would have drawn line that at a minimum would have given the American people a clear choice between a party that was willing to destroy the economy on behalf of the wealthy and a President and a party willing to stand clearly for something. I would have loved to have seen the election contested along those lines.
And now? Why is the President unwilling to force the Republicans to make a choice between their rhetoric and their political future? Why isn't he willing to force every single Republican aspirant to be the nominee against him to have to make a choice for the record, so the American people can know once and for all what the intentions of the other party really are?
You can and should read the Krugman.
I have a few thoughts of my own.
In one week I turn 65. At that point I am eligible for Medicare hospitalization. My card is already in my wallet. I will not file for Social Security for at least one more year. I suspect that I will not have to worry about my benefits - there are too many of us baby boomers reaching that point - when you add our numbers to those already receiving those benefits, we are too large a political force to mess with. So my concerns about the finances of this nation do not immediately directly affect me.
Except of course that my wife is a federal employee, and should the debt limit be reached she is likely to be one of the casualties, meaning we might lose our house if we cannot pay the mortgage.
The economy of the DC area would be devastated should large numbers of federal employees suddenly lose their flow of income.
Maryland and Virginia would not be the only states with large federal workforces that would see loss of income from sales tax revenue, and possible loss of income from income taxes.
Local governments would be further devastated as the value of real estate dipped even more with a possible increase in foreclosures - although that would take time before such impact was felt, and perhaps after 1-2 weeks of rising anger some reasonable deal would be reached to reopen the full government.
Why then am I willing to risk such consequences? For the same reason I was willing to risk a government shutdown absent a Continuing Resolution. Because at some point the American people need to be brought to their senses about what is at stake.
We have one party willing to destroy the nation. It is not merely a threat. They are already attacking at the state level - break the unions, defund public institutions, turn them over to the Koch brothers and others of similar ilk. Continue to shift wealth and thus power to the already wealthy and to corporations that are not held to account - Goldman Sachs, anyone?
We have a set of tax cuts passed during the previous administration that are unsustainable and are destroying the financial stability of this nation. I agree that in the short term those on people making less may need to remain in place so that there is sufficient spending that the economy does not completely crater. There is NO JUSTIFICATION for those at the upper end of income, who do not productively spend what they thereby keep, but instead simply accumulate more wealth and more power to the detriment of the rest of us.
The American people need a real education in Economics.
We start with this - most Americans already would rather raise taxes on the wealthy than cut benefits for the rest of them. Politically the arguments are entirely in favor of drawing a line.
If the American people learn that we do not in fact have a free market economy, but rather a mixed economy where government intervention for and lack of regulation of things like hedge funds and other aspects of the financial sector very much means that the kinds of abuses by corporate interests and the financial sector that created the crisis at the end of the last administration are still not only possible but likely, then they will scream bloody murder and demand appropriate regulation that is long overdue.
Of course, that will not happen if those interests are free to spend their resources to tilt the political playing field in their favor.
But what if they are given a clear choice? Krugman points out that even the noxious US Chamber of Commerce is opposed to the Republican willingness to refuse to raise the debt ceiling. What if some of those interests begin to realize that the Republicans are a greater to risk to their ultimate well-being than is some meaningful regulation from the Democrats? What is the impact of that upon the political processes of the forthcoming federal cycle?
Money should NOT equal speech. The only way that will change is with Democrats in sufficient control to insure that the balance on the Supreme Court changes - that will mean a Democratic President and a Democratic Senate when one of the Republican seats - either Scalia or Kennedy - goes vacant, as well as the ability to replace Ginsburg (probably the next to leave) and Breyer with appropriately minded justices.
It is not just Citizen's United. It is also the establishment of that principal in Buckley v Valeo, more than 3 decades ago.
If an opponent is willing to blow himself up if he does not get his way, at some point the only thing one can do is minimize that damage and let him. Once he succeeds with such terroristic threats, he has no reason to take any other approach in future negotiations.
Some Democratic House Members understood this in the early summer of 2009. Unfortunately the Democratic Senators were unwilling to call the Republicans and force them to decide about filibustering - what if the American people had seen the Republicans clearly being at fault for the people's business not being done? How much less damaging would be our situation now, both politically and economically?
If this President does not want to neuter himself, he will let the Democrats draw a line that says this - refusing to raise the debt ceiling is not negotiable. So long as the Republicans want to have that as a negotiating tactic, there is nothing to negotiate.
Right now the President is seen as strong and forceful. He should use that increased approval to do the right thing.
In this case the right thing is to demand the Republicans act more responsibly.
Otherwise, as Krugman says in his op ed, he might as well move out of the White House, and hand the keys over to the Tea Party.
Which will it be, Mr. President?