Washington Fails Us Again

Since when did the president become a dictator? And, politically speaking, what's the point of Obama calling Congress anymore? Clearly, the Republicans won't bother listening to him, and have already made it plain they are going to do anything, damn the country, to ensure Obama's not re-elected, so why waste the time? And what is up with Matthews saying Obama hasn't told us how he would take care of Medicare and Medicaid? Did Matthews sleep through the first two years of Obama's term and the whole health reform thing?

What Matthews also doesn't get is that the public opinion of Congress is so low, and the Republican clowns in the presidential primary so prominent, that Obama just needs to stay out of the way to look good. Plus, what Obama needs is not to make grand pronouncements, but for the electorate to send in a Congress that can either a) work together or b) is friendlier to Obama's policies. Otherwise, we're going to be stuck in neutral for a long time.

Boom, to your point about Matthews and Tip O'Neill, Matthews' bias is having seen Jimmy Carter come in and try to do things his own way and try to institute some real reform, rather than stroke O'Neill and the party hacks who had to make sure their palms were greased first before doing anything. Maybe that's what Matthews is so upset about, that Obama isn't the Fluffer-in-Chief.

 

Chris Matthews cannot come to terms with the fact that the Democratic party is no longer a bunch of beered-up Irish guys hashing things over at the VFW Hall. Also, he's kind of an idiot.

 

I agree that there is no way anything was getting done. It's not like there existed 12 magical members of Congress, representing both parties, who could come up with a plan everyone loved. It was a sham from the start.

Plus, it's getting to be more apparent the best thing for Democrats to do to advance their own agenda is... nothing. A good story here:

http://www.salon.com/2011/11/18/the_favor_george_w_bush_did_for_democrats/singleton/

Basically, let the automatic cuts (which are mostly from traditionally Republican-supported departments, like defense) take effect, let the Bush tax cuts expire, and presuming Obama is re-elected, all of this can happen without a single vote. Plus, the Democrats are in a stronger position because polls generally blame Republicans for Congressional gridlock.

For a while, it was Republicans who benefited politically when nothing was done -- now it's Democrats. The Salon story makes a good point that Republicans' negotiating position isn't so strong, or else why would it have offered $250 billion in new revenue as part of the supercommittee negotiations (it was offered in exchange for keeping the Bush tax cuts, but still).

 

I think one could find 12 members from both parties/houses, who would have come up with something. I'm certain they couldn't have come up with something everyone loved. That would be an impossibility. But they could have come up with something. But nobody of that sort was on that committee.

As soon as I saw Patty Murray and Jeb Hensarling were the co-chairs of the supercommittee, I knew this was nothing more than a device to provide cover for anyone who needed it re: the summer deal. As you rightly point out, it was a sham from the start.

 

Maybe so, but they would have been politically inconvenient to both Obama and members of Congress. And as we both know, politicians care first and foremost about winning their next election.

 

The difference is that Republicans actually have some political spine. Democrats, particularly Obama, don't.

 

Is that politicians' fault -- or the fault of the voters? Given the Democratic sweep in 2008, then the Tea Party election a mere two years later, it's hard to any politician to get a sense of the where the electorate wants to go. So when that happens, the default is relying on who directly elects you. And in the highly gerrymandered districts we have, where the vast, vast majority of Congresspeople win in a walk, you're rewarded for NOT compromising with those evil bastards on the other side.

As for spine, I think Democrats appear to be growing one. Last year, Obama would have pushed Democrats on the supercommittee to accept the best compromise possible. That's not happening anymore.

 

You're assuming that the President didn't do that this time. I am beginning to think that the political interests of Harry Reid and Barack Obama aren't as neatly lined up as they once were.

 

If he did, Chris Matthews never heard about it.

 

Inept people is part of the explanation, but the underlying source of these budget impasses is always the same goddamn thing: one side absolutely refusing to even entertain the notion that the wealthy should pay so much as one penny more to the government that protects and supports them (and bails them out when necessary). Despite the fact that all empirical evidence overwhelmingly shows that i) it's absolutely necessary for our govt to have any hope of ever returning to a state of fiscal health; and ii) the Bush upper income tax cuts were an unmitigated disaster for the nation as a whole.

It's utterly inexcusable that Obama capitulated on this issue during his first two years when he was holding all the political muscle, his biggest failure by far. If we could ever get past that one gigantic clusterfuck issue and return our tax rates to something resembling what they were during the Reagan/Clinton years then perhaps we could finally move on to some grown-up dialogue about resolving our debt crisis.

 

This would require the reduction of the Republican party and its allied Democrats (the real issue) in Congress to a small minority. Which could happen, but probably not for another two-three election cycles. If Romney wins next year, the process will be accelerated. If Obama wins, it will be extended for a couple of cycles.

 

Obama capitualated in part because the GOP held up unemployment extensions unless they got the Bush tax cut extensions. He didn't want to risk having more unemployed people thrown out on the streets, which would have made him look worse.

But if he's re-elected, and the tax cuts are due to expire, then he doesn't have to worry about keeping his job. He can stand up and say, "You've had these tax cuts, and there's still people out of work. If you're not going to hire them, then you will be supporting them through your taxes. Take your pick."

Now will he do that, is another matter.