The big news on Sunday was the announcement, from senior White House adviser David Plouffe, that President Obama plans to make a major policy speech about how to reduce the deficit. And I am worried--not about the substantive position Obama will stake out, but how that positioning will affect the rest of the debate about federal spending.
The speech will be Obama’s formal response to House Budget Chairman Paul Ryan, who last week put forward a Republican blueprint for balancing the government’s books. And Plouffe made clear on several Sunday shows that Obama is no fan of Ryan’s proposed scheme, which would transform Medicare into a voucher program, dramatically reduce the federal commitment to Medicaid, and extend the Bush tax cuts.
Here's what Plouffe said on "Meet the Press":
Exactly right. But then Plouffe said something else:
Uh oh. It's true we have divided government. And it's true that, at some point, Democrats and Republicans will have to compromise in order to agree on legislation to keep the government running. But does that mean Obama and his surrogates need to preach the virtues of compromise right now?
Ryan has proposed something truly radical. He wants to end to Medicare and Medicaid as we know it, while taking health insurance away from more than 30 million people. And, by simultaneously calling for tax cuts that benefit the wealthy, Ryan has made his proposal politically vulnerable. It's no stretch to say that Ryan is squeezing seniors instead of squeezing health care costs--and that he is taking from the poor in order to give to the rich. Even relatively conservative Democrats see the plan as a non-starter, with none other than Senate Finance Chairman Max Baucus vowing "not on my watch."
I realize that merely calling for bipartisan cooperation, as Plouffe did on Sunday and Obama presumably will on Wednesday, isn't tantamount to giving ground. It's the kind of thing politicians say all the time, whether or not they mean it. And, on Sunday evening, a senior administration official assured TNR that Obama wouldn't be negotiating with himself or making a detailed, pre-emptive offer to the Republicans. Instead, the official suggested, Obama will be establishing some principles that should guide deficit reduction efforts as the discussion moves forward. (Hopefully they'll look like this.)
But I feel like I've seen this play before. Obama starts off with a flexible, center-left position. The Republicans start off with a rigid, far-right position. Obama's commitment to bringing people together seems absolutely sincere; the Republicans' interest in shredding the welfare state seems absolutely sincere. The two go back and forth, eventually reaching a compromise that is somewhere between the two ideological starting points--which is somewhere on the right.
There is a time to bring opposing parties together. And there is a time to choose sides. I hope Obama realizes this is one of the latter.
Update: With some additions and edits shortly after posting.
Read this along with Chait's post on hostage negotiation strategy - very complementary, and between the two of them, they explain a lot about the abysmal failure that this administration's approach to politics has been. Can you imagine a Bushie going on TV and saying what Plouffe said?
Obama will probably win reelection, and hopefully will change his approach in his second term when he won't have to care about the next term.
Read this along with Chait's post on hostage negotiation strategy - very complementary, and between the two of them, they explain a lot about the abysmal failure that this administration's approach to politics has been. Can you imagine a Bushie going on TV and saying what Plouffe said?
Obama will probably win reelection, and hopefully will change his approach in his second term when he won't have to care about the next term.
Sorry, NR, I one for one have very little hope. Obama is who he is. When he had overwhelming majorities in the House and Senate he was a poor public leader. He certainlhy is one today. What makes anyone think he should change.
He simply is not up to the task. Unfortunately there is no alternative at this point.
Sorry, NR, I one for one have very little hope. Obama is who he is. When he had overwhelming majorities in the House and Senate he was a poor public leader. He certainlhy is one today. What makes anyone think he should change.
He simply is not up to the task. Unfortunately there is no alternative at this point.
Agree with PeteBeck, sadly.
People keep hoping for The Real Obama to Stand Up.
Well, I think he has stood up. When he let the GOP roll us with the Bush Tax Cut extension, and just as bad cutting into SS revenues, I think that emboldened the worst elements of the right. It has certainly disheartened the Left, even moderate Dems have to be hurt and confused.
Meanwhile, the circus in Washington does nothing to address the concerns of people who can't find solid, meaningful work or realize their dreams. Those of us facing old age and/or illness are flat out frightened.
Agree with PeteBeck, sadly.
People keep hoping for The Real Obama to Stand Up.
Well, I think he has stood up. When he let the GOP roll us with the Bush Tax Cut extension, and just as bad cutting into SS revenues, I think that emboldened the worst elements of the right. It has certainly disheartened the Left, even moderate Dems have to be hurt and confused.
Meanwhile, the circus in Washington does nothing to address the concerns of people who can't find solid, meaningful work or realize their dreams. Those of us facing old age and/or illness are flat out frightened.
BTW, I am a staunch supporter and think he's achieved a lot. Just wonder why he has so much trouble articulating it, which is a prerequisite for having the credibility to negotiate from a position of strength. If Clinton had achieved even close to what Obama has, he would have won reelection with 70% of the vote.
BTW, I am a staunch supporter and think he's achieved a lot. Just wonder why he has so much trouble articulating it, which is a prerequisite for having the credibility to negotiate from a position of strength. If Clinton had achieved even close to what Obama has, he would have won reelection with 70% of the vote.
First Name
Last Name
Address 1
City
State
Zip
