How did we get here?
Given that Republican policies and practices led us to the brink of another Great Depression less than 2 years ago, how did we get to a world where the GOP polls ahead in every category dealing with the economy?
How did Democrats go from a clear mandate for change, as evidenced by voters giving them the White House and once-in-a-generation majorities in both Houses of Congress, to the increasingly real prospect of Republicans taking control of the House, and an outside shot at the Senate as well, less than 2 years later?
A few reasons. Timidity, over-willingness to compromise, the futile quest for bi-partisanship, underestimating the opposition, entrenched politicians who were more interested in protecting the status quo that doing everything necessary to fix the problem, running on change and then stocking the administration's economic team with Wall Street insiders and Washington re-treads, and ignoring the advice of anyone outside of those same insiders and re-treads.
A combination of all of the above, and it all started with the economic stimulus package. Economists from Paul Krugman to Joseph Stiglitz to Dean Baker, to name three, were warning that the proposed stimulus wasn't big enough given the size and scope of the economic meltdown. That the package should be in the neighborhood of $1.5-$2 trillion dollars with most, if not all, being spending to create jobs. They were also saying that there would be only one bite at this apple. If the administration went too small and it didn't work, there would be no will for Stimulus Part II. Better to go too big than too small. But the administration wasn't listening.
Of course Republicans balked, insisting that the Republican solution for everything, tax cuts, be included. Republicans, and even some Democrats, wanted to keep the number under one trillion just for the sake of optics, never mind what it would take to actually fix the problem. So the compromising and the search for bi-partisanship began. The result was that both got what they wanted--nearly half of the package was tax cuts, and it came in under $1 trillion.
What if the administration had pushed back against both the R's and the D's instead of capitulating so easily? Could it have shown them that this president would draw a line which he would not cross? We'll never know, but that sign of weakness and willingness to compromise only served as blood in the water for Republicans and so-called moderate Democrats which carried over into the health care debate and beyond.
Now the result is that Krugman, Stiglitz, and Baker were right. The stimulus was just big enough to stave off a complete collapse but not big enough and not stimulative enough in spending to create jobs. Unemployment is stuck at 9.5-10% and the tepid recovery is cooling. They were also right that there is no political will for more stimulus.
So Republicans take advantage of the situation, running on the theme that the stimulus is a failure and didn't do anything to create jobs. They ride voter's discontent back to power where they pass more of their answer for all the ills of the world---tax cuts---which puts the president in a box. He can veto their cuts and get slammed for that 'til the 2012 election, or he can sign them, they won't do anything for the recovery, the economy and unemployment remain stagnant at best, and the GOP runs on a bad economy in '12.
Too late to cry over spilt milk, but it all could have been avoided with a little fortitude, a little foresight, and a little more openness in listening to those who didn't have a hand in creating the mess for advice on how to fix it.
Given that Republican policies and practices led us to the brink of another Great Depression less than 2 years ago, how did we get to a world where the GOP polls ahead in every category dealing with the economy?
How did Democrats go from a clear mandate for change, as evidenced by voters giving them the White House and once-in-a-generation majorities in both Houses of Congress, to the increasingly real prospect of Republicans taking control of the House, and an outside shot at the Senate as well, less than 2 years later?
A few reasons. Timidity, over-willingness to compromise, the futile quest for bi-partisanship, underestimating the opposition, entrenched politicians who were more interested in protecting the status quo that doing everything necessary to fix the problem, running on change and then stocking the administration's economic team with Wall Street insiders and Washington re-treads, and ignoring the advice of anyone outside of those same insiders and re-treads.
A combination of all of the above, and it all started with the economic stimulus package. Economists from Paul Krugman to Joseph Stiglitz to Dean Baker, to name three, were warning that the proposed stimulus wasn't big enough given the size and scope of the economic meltdown. That the package should be in the neighborhood of $1.5-$2 trillion dollars with most, if not all, being spending to create jobs. They were also saying that there would be only one bite at this apple. If the administration went too small and it didn't work, there would be no will for Stimulus Part II. Better to go too big than too small. But the administration wasn't listening.
Of course Republicans balked, insisting that the Republican solution for everything, tax cuts, be included. Republicans, and even some Democrats, wanted to keep the number under one trillion just for the sake of optics, never mind what it would take to actually fix the problem. So the compromising and the search for bi-partisanship began. The result was that both got what they wanted--nearly half of the package was tax cuts, and it came in under $1 trillion.
What if the administration had pushed back against both the R's and the D's instead of capitulating so easily? Could it have shown them that this president would draw a line which he would not cross? We'll never know, but that sign of weakness and willingness to compromise only served as blood in the water for Republicans and so-called moderate Democrats which carried over into the health care debate and beyond.
Now the result is that Krugman, Stiglitz, and Baker were right. The stimulus was just big enough to stave off a complete collapse but not big enough and not stimulative enough in spending to create jobs. Unemployment is stuck at 9.5-10% and the tepid recovery is cooling. They were also right that there is no political will for more stimulus.
So Republicans take advantage of the situation, running on the theme that the stimulus is a failure and didn't do anything to create jobs. They ride voter's discontent back to power where they pass more of their answer for all the ills of the world---tax cuts---which puts the president in a box. He can veto their cuts and get slammed for that 'til the 2012 election, or he can sign them, they won't do anything for the recovery, the economy and unemployment remain stagnant at best, and the GOP runs on a bad economy in '12.
Too late to cry over spilt milk, but it all could have been avoided with a little fortitude, a little foresight, and a little more openness in listening to those who didn't have a hand in creating the mess for advice on how to fix it.
People hold the party in power accountable. Rightly or wrongly, and especially the president.
]
Regardless of who may be responsible for the current condition of the economy, the American people feel that the current administrations attempts to improve it have failed, or made things worse.
I see where they are going to take Bush's Heisman Trophy away from him. Maybe they will take Obama's Nobel Peace Prize away from him. It is a tough and cruel world.
Not quite true,
In a college literature class we were discussing 'yellow journalism' or was it blue when I remarked to the professor that a good example would be the local newspapers accounts of the Vietnam war casualties. I got a withering look and an F for the day. Later she castigated me for copying from an encyclopedia a discussion on the classic communism versus democracy argument. Trust me, in those days I didn't even know what a reference was...it didn't matter though!
Let's consider a couple of things. First, which group of people was the group that got energized in the Obama campaign and came out in huge numbers to vote for him? Secondly, which group is the group that makes up the majority of the tea party? You figure that out and you figure out our dilemma.
Every since I went to school to get that poli sci degree, the facts have always been the same. The group that votes the least is always the 18-25 group. They vote less than any other single demographic group. That's the group that got organized for Obama and that is the group that is sitting on its hands right now. 9 times out of 10 they couldn't give a hoot about elections.
I just discussed this on another thread, but think about what we are dealing with in the case of the tea parties. I'm younger than most of them and even when I was growing up, you watched the news and read the newspaper to get your information. We trusted those three entities (counting radio). Furthermore, you could expect that they would be accurate more times than not.
When you include the internet and more focused "news" networks you suddenly get a disconnect with facts and truth. Naturally, some internet news is sound and some television news is sound. Yet, the response of the general public (over a certain age) is to either continue to buy into all of it (which means getting your news from Fox) or even worse: believe none of it. We have a generation of Americans that largely doesn't know how to sift through information to determine what is geniune and what is balderdash. I personally have worked to fix that for our children, but it's a tough go. It's hard work. We won't always be successful, but the key is we have to get people to try. Otherwise, we get people that spew out nonsense because they literally don't know any better.
I can’t help but wonder if overconfidence plated a part. Shortly after the 2008 election there seemed, at least to me, that there was a “The whole country is going blue” attitude. I’m just speculating and I have no facts to back up my theory, but it makes sense that if a lot of the strong Democrat politicians believed that their work was done and that they had convinced the nation to move to the left, evident by the election of President Obama, then maybe they haven’t been working as hard to explain to the public that we still need the change that we needed in 2008.
agreed! Dems need to stand up and fight the Party of No.
"Hellow Mudder, Hellow Fadder. Here I am in, Camp Obama..."
Lack of balls. That's how we got here. Complete and total lack of balls on the Dems part.
y'know Desp, this just shows how the public thinks they can have something for nothing.
they don't believe the richest should have their taxes raised back to the Clinton-era levels, instead believing it's o.k. to finance the wars with the Soc. Sec. trust fund.
this is despite the lowest tax rates on the rich in almost 100 years - since 1916:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax_in_the_United_States
partly, this is fed by the people who still believe (even after the melt-down) that their 401-Ks will make them rich, discounting what happens in a country with no credible debt-reduction and growth plan.
as detailed elsewhere on the blog today, the way to become a rich CEO is to cut pay-roll.
but people who do not have jobs nor discretionary income are not customers, which is why Henry Ford paid double the prevailing wage to his workers.
current CEO practices being diametrically opposed to the advice and experience of the inventor of modern assembly-line production tells us all we need to know about current day corporate management.
Oh, gloves and flashlights. We need gloves and flashlights.
Actually, the Nixon White House had a very effective "department" to handle such things. They were called "The Plumbers". I hate to do, but gotta give credit where credit is due.
Does anybody know what Donald Segretti is doing these days?
I got duct tape. Anybody got a set of walkie-talkies???
Propaganda propaganda propaganda. Say something often enough and it becomes true for at least a significant part of the population. When Obama was campaigning he could debunk this stuff easily. Now that he is governing he has to stop to debunk. In other words, if you are debunking then you aren't governing. If you are governing then you aren't debunking. You almost need another cabinet post titled Secretary of Bullshit. That department would be responsible for immediately debunking any BS coming from Fox.
This is a perfect example of the DISMAL job the Democratic party has done over the past thirty years in getting its message out to the people.
OTOH, the republicans, through their deception, lies, and misinformation campaigns have most of the country totally fooled. Many are scared to death of the democratic party. One has to admit the right-wing conspiracy is damn good at what they do.
Granted, there's a lot of ignorant and stupid people in the USA that get their information in 5 second sound bites and from pretty unreliable sources. But, after the disaster of the Bush administration, the fact that anybody in this country thinks TODAY's GOP can do anything better than the democrats simply reinforces my initial statement.
Acording to the polls I've seen, the more education people have, the more politically and socially informed they are, the more likely they are to be democrats. All right, so the DNC needs to find a way to get their message to the rest of the country. Republicans practically destroyed our 200 year old republic in just 8 years. They are the party of the big corporations and the rich. The rest of us "can eat cake."
Amen brother, history once again repeats itself. Repubtilians are the root of all evil. Really, as shortstuff I'm sure would agree, those people are soulless automatons that will destroy us all and then smile when their job is done. They surveyed their work and said, "It is Good."