That might as well be the title of his new column at Truthout, Why Is the White House’s Council of Economic Advisers Helping the Republicans? I mean, come on:
If the President’s strategy is to hold his ground and demand from Republicans tax increases on the wealthy …
Now Hold On There Bob,
What makes you think that is Obama’s strategy? On economic/financial matters — Wall Street and the rich people stuff — has he ever given the impression he’s anything but a Republican? Knowing that the President is a Republican, carrying forward the legacy of his hero, Ronald Reagan, your apparent confusions (I assume you aren’t really confused but are instead engaging in self-thought control in order to keep your ‘mainstream card’) in the following paragraphs are very easy to answer:
If the President’s strategy is to hold his ground and demand from Republicans tax increases on the wealthy, presumably his strongest bargaining position would be to allow the Bush tax cuts to expire on schedule come January – causing taxes to rise automatically, especially on the wealthy.
So you’d think part of that strategy would be reassure the rest of the public that the fiscal cliff isn’t so bad or so steep, and that at the start of January Democrats will introduce in Congress a middle-class tax cut whose effect is to prevent taxes from rising for most people (thereby forcing Republicans to vote for a tax cut for the middle class or hold it hostage to a tax cut for the wealthy as well).
Okay then, here it is, in the unlikely event the great Robert Reich is authentically confused: The President’s goals are to cut Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. He wants to do this with a bare minimum of symbolic and avoidable ‘tax increases’ on his and his party’s main campaign donors, the rich. The best leverage for attaining the preceding expires on January 1, when there would be, as you note, automatic tax increases on the rich (his and his party’s main campaign donors (oh, I mentioned this already)).
In order to achieve his real goals, President Obama and his people are now and always have been on the same team as the Pete Peterson campaign against Social Security, the same team as the debt fearmongers, and the same team as the ‘we love austerity’ folks. And so, as you would reasonably expect, his Council of Right Wing Economic Ideologues is fearmongering the fake fiscal cliff.
You’re a helluva smart guy, your Keynesian/New Deal take is right on, and so I’m sorry for even slightly pretending you don’t understand all of the above. I’m sure it was that impermissible narrative thing that made you sound like a clueless idiot in your latest piece.
Sincerely,
fairleft



32 Comments

Reich finally said something! (What took?)
Isn’t the good cop Democratic Party thoroughly corrupt, just like their bad cop partner in crime, the Republican party?
They both have the same Oligarchical paymasters. So, Obama really is a true reflection of the Impeachment is Off the Table Party
So, I would contend, “I haven’t figured out Obama is a Democrat” is even truer.
OT, the Ed Show was terrific last night, tore the “Grand Bargain,” limb from limb. Peter De Fazio (D-OR) just destroyed Obama and the elites.
Then Rachel and Lawrence reverted to the veal pen talking points: “Grover, roll over……”
Recommended.
Tweeted.
Recommended.
OT, wish Reich would mention more frequently that the MARGINAL tax rates on the 1% were at 94% from 1951 – 1964.
Top Marginal Tax rates 1916 – 2011
Among a lot of other remedies, such as ending our overseas occupations, we should RETURN to those MARGINAL rates on the 1% and CLOSE all the loopholes.
Anyone who needs ask this question either doesn’t pay attention, or suffers from cognitive dissonance. This is what Barry was carrying in the saddlebags of his sparkle pony, this is instant karma and reaping what you sow for the LOTE crowd.
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2012/nov2012/pers-n27.shtml
Reich ‘needs’ to advance the question because it marks him as a good boy, one who’ll play along and advance the most important lie of mainstream ‘reality’: ‘there are two competing parties, one the good guys (but unbelievably inept) and the other the bad guys’. That lie is also the most important one the real left should be attacking.
Off topic, but listening to the mainstream news today about Greece, again I hear Syriza described as “the radical leftist Syriza party,” as in
Googling “radical leftist” and “Syriza” you’ll find that this is a _very_ frequent defining adjective phrase for Syriza. Even though, at its core, it is just a rational, as in Keynesian, political party, espousing the views of Krugman and Reich, that government cutbacks in the midst of a deep recession are INSANE. So, in the new mainstream media post-reality, _that_ former economic orthodoxy — the views and policy of FDR, Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon — _that_ gets you labeled “radical leftists,” while the views of the 1940s to 1970s economic lunatic right is now “mainstream.” And very intolerantly mainstream.
(In short, btw, the above is why I predict a Japan-style lost decade or two for this sorry world, at least.)
Thanks for stating the obvious, Fairleft. Recc’d. Now I’m wondering where the usual Obamapologists are today.
Are Obamapologist necessary after his winning reelection?
As in, does he or the party need to pay any attention whatsoever to those of us who are on the left?
No and no.
Also, Obama was very careful in the campaign to never actually say he would protect SocSec and Medicare as they are. He always talked about “tweaks” and “changes,” occasionally “improvements.”
He always meant to fuck us over, Big Time (as Cheney was wont to say).
“Radical far leftist…” Which is what we here are considered by the MCM and Obama et al.
First, why do “left” and “leftist” always seem to have an adjective?
The Democratic Party currently is made up of leftists and so-called centrists, or Democrats and New Democrats. Nothing about being a Democrat is radical, even remotely.
In fact, nothing much about being Green is radical, inasmuch as the Greens seem to be FDR/LBJ Democrats plus a heightened environmental consciousness.
The radical left are Socialists, Communists, left-leaning anarchists, etc. They are not Democrats.
The Through the Looking Glass political lexicon is silly.
“Obama was very careful in the campaign to never actually say he would protect SocSec …”
I believe he promised to “strengthen” SS which made me want to barf everytime I heard it. This is 1984 speak at its purest.
I guess since he is getting canned big Ed decided to grow a pair.
ok here we go..DICK Durbin is saying keep SS off the table for the Debt deal..note he did not say no cuts for another deal…maybe DICK is feeling a little bad for arresting the clergy!
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/27/dick-durbin-social-security-fiscal-cliff_n_2199224.html
Agreed
Did you say that socialists are not Democrats?
Historically, it is the establishment and defense of liberal-socialism that makes us Democrats. True, that socialized medicine has been slow in developing, but it is in his contribution, Obamacare, that makes Obama a liberal-socialist as well. There have been Republicans who have contributed (T. Roosevelt, progressive income tax, estate tax; Nixon, food stamp program; Bush I, American with Disabilities Act), but it has primarily been Democrats who have formed the basis of our liberal-socialist system (FDR, Social Security; Johnson, Medicare/Medicaid; and others associated with Workman’s Compensation and Unemployment Insurance).
It is socialism that distinguishes Democrats from Republicans. If you are not a socialist, you are not a Democrat.
Happy to see that you’re writing again, Fairleft. Have a good holiday season. I suspect that Obama has been having a lot of talks with Bill Clinton, the Republican Lite president, and we will likely see a lot more compromising with the Right that we could ever condone. Still, Social Security and Medicare must be kept off the table.
You’ve got “privatizing the profits and socializing the losses” confused with socialism.
There are other terms for “privatizing the profits and socializing the losses”.
To clarify:
Obamacare: “privatizing the profits and socializing the losses”
Banksta bailouts are another example of this.
Some of the orges call it “private/public partnerships” (of course, with the public getting the short end of the stick).
Obama is a “Republicrat”. That’s another name for a “judas goat”. He’s the one who leads all the other goats to slaughter, while he stays healthy and very well fed.
If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck …
Yes it is.
There is a simple political explanation for the Democrats’ current behavior relative to the end of the Bush tax cuts on the wealthy. It’s the fact that the tax cuts for everyone else also expire at the end of the year. Yeah, yeah. But those don’t amount to anything measureable; I remember the $300 ($600) I got back then and the pennies I’ve saved every paycheck. And yes, that’s right. But what the Democratic pol is thinking about is the political ad in 2014 that blares “x…raised your taxes by 8%” or 10% or whatever the percentage works out to be. And the pattern of the Republicans, who still control the House is to tie the two tax cuts together to keep the tax cuts for the rich. Most Democrats want to see the tax cuts on the rich expire, and if there is linkage for the blame for the expiration of tax cuts on the middle class to fall totally on Republican intransigence. So until it actually happens December 31, 2012, Democrats have to keep making conciliatory noises and run out the clock.
Then in January, it will be the Republican House that will have to come up with a tax cut bill for the middle class (and identify the cuts to meet their “pay-go” requirements).
Reich’s comment about the fiscal cliff is correct except saying that it’s not so bad sets you up for further cuts in the FY2014 budget that the President releases in February.
But Reich is not an impartial observer. His articles are part of the kabuki and the signal here to the “serious people” is that there are some Democratic folks of significance (labor, maybe?) who are expecting better. That signal is likely to be ignored by the White House.
We have only 34 days to wait to find out the end of this thrilling saga.
IMO, the “grand bargain” waits until January. So the 8% across the board cuts from the “fiscal cliff” sequester start in January and run until September 30 at the latest. Exempted from the cuts are entitlements including veterans benefits, and military pay. Even Congressional offices get an 8% cut under the President’s plan.
Socialism is socialism.
As far as Obamacare is concerned, it is far from the government run programs seen in Canada or Britain or any other EU country, but it is government regulated, a first step. Perhaps it all can, one day, be transformed into a universal Medicare program for everyone. It would save big bundles of money.
I got suckered. Tonight he was back to the elites’ talking points, tailored for Dems and libs.
I haven’t seem any indication that Obama is not a conservative Republican. We got conned in 2008.
Try these;
http://www.nomiprins.com/thoughts
http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2012/11/i-have-seen-the -future-of-your-health-insurance-and-it-sucks.html
“Obombacare” was written by those who want to enhance the status quo and keep any semblance of non-usury healthcare from ever happening.
What we got was the poke, not the pig.
thanks, thanx, sankyu
I think it’s just semantics, how you define socialism. If you think taking care of society in general, ‘the people’, is your first and main duty as a citizen or ruler, then all the causes you cite could be defined as ‘socialist’ and therefore those politicians, on those issues, were being socialist (you forgot another big one, Nixon establishing the EPA). But if you define socialist as most of the time being in favor of government-run or government-owned business or services, then most of those politicians and issues weren’t ‘socialist’.
@fairleft,
For someone so astute regarding the political realities of Obama and the “fiscal cliff” sophistry…
“The President’s goals are to cut Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. He wants to do this with a bare minimum of symbolic and avoidable ‘tax increases’ on his and his party’s main campaign donors, the rich. The best leverage for attaining the preceding expires on January 1, when there would be, as you note, automatic tax increases on the rich…”
I have to say that you seem completely ignorant when it comes to understanding rhetorical technique.
When Robert Reich says:
“If the President’s strategy is to hold his ground and demand from Republicans tax increases on the wealthy, presumably his strongest bargaining position would be to allow the Bush tax cuts to expire on schedule come January – causing taxes to rise automatically, especially on the wealthy.”
Sure he could spell out the logical conclusion: “But (he’s a smart guy with smart advisers) and he’s not doing that, so obviously that’s not what his goal is.” But in this case, and in particular with his audience, I think his argument is actually stronger the way it is – leaving his readers to come to that conclusion themselves.
And he comes right out in the title and says that the White House is helping the Republicans. I mean how much more explicit do you really need him to get?
Myself I was quite favorably impressed that someone like Reich, with the sort of following he has among mainstream liberals/”progressives” would come out so strongly against Obama’s BS.
Oh, and BTW, the title of the article where I read it was “Fiscal cliff: Why is the White House helping Republicans?” which is pretty direct. http://goo.gl/tI1b5 (Nothing in the title about the Council of Economic Advisers.)
I disagree. Reich’s conforming to the decades-old-meme that the Dems have their hearts in the right place but, darn it, they’re just so incompetent in advancing their cause. And so, gosh darn it, they just happen to allow those evil but smart Republicans to get everything they want.
It would be potentially powerful (if the mainstream media allowed significant numbers to hear him) if Reich simply stated what he may permit himself to believe, that the whole ‘opposing parties’ narrative is a corporate-controlled-government scam. He’d then be punished, of course, but taking the courageous route potentially could give permission to many others of Reich’s status and connections to spread an important truth widely.