Has anyone else noticed how Leon Panetta, once a liberal congressman, has been totally captured by the defense/intelligence establishment? First as CIA Director, now Secretary of Defense, he has become the ultimate cold warrior/neocon. At CIA he seemed to defend and even justify CIA abuses and protected those involved in waterboarding and other crimes. I'm sure that many liberals such as myself had hoped he would change the culture at the CIA and hold to account those who violated laws and policies. While the CIA seems to have backed off on torture, things such as rendition seem to continue. As Secretary of Defense he recently said that Medicare and Social Security should be cut before defense, a truly mind boggling statement by a Democrat. Also, the Defense Department has brought pressure to bear on the Iraqi government to extend the presence of US forces in Iraq beyond the December deadline for withdrawal (negotiated by President Bush). In response, Shiite militia leader Sadr has vowed to attack US forces should they remain beyond the deadline. Panetta seems to also favor extending the time for the reduction of troops in Afghanistan.
Panetta seems emblematic of the Obama Administrations failed policies in defense and intelligence. They have failed to prosecute torturers and have adopted military/defense policies that seem only marginally better than the Bush regime. I have not commented on Afghanistan to any extent previously because I have been somewhat undecided. I am hoping that the President has acted tough in order to protect his political flank from attack for being soft on terrorism and will return to a rational policy after 2012, but there is no guarantee that this will happen. I think it is clear from the "surge" in Afghanistan that no military success is possible, especially with the Karzai government in power. We should draw down our troops as quickly as possible from Iraq this year and Afghanistan next year. Unfortunately, Panetta doesn't seem to be the man for that job. He seems much more hawkish than Gates, who was a traditional Republican Cold Warrior.
Now that the Democrats have failed miserably in the debt ceiling debate, they finally are talking about jobs, jobs, and jobs. Of course all they are doing is talking so far. One exception is Representative Jan Schakowski who has prepared an actual jobs bill, which, of course, will get nowhere in the Republican dominated House. Others are talking about things like an infrastructure bank and people are talking about the need to rebuild infrastructure--bridges, roads, pipelines, water plants, etc. The Republican's recent shutdown of most of the FAA, cutting off funding for about 70,000 construction jobs, is indicative of how much they care about this issue--hardly a whit.
Because of the debt ceiling imbroglio, the FAA shutdown was overlooked by many. There is a 10% tax on airline tickets which goes to fund the FAA. This money pays for FAA employees and airport improvement construction projects. There were two main sticking points between the parties--the method for voting for union representation and subsidies (a whopping $13.5 million) for airlines to service rural areas. The Republicans want to make it more difficult to vote in union representation and wanted to do away with the subsidies. Eventually the Democrats agreed to do away with the subsidies and the Republicans agreed to not make the union issue part of the funding bill. Another interesting aspect is that when the FAA stopped collecting the tax, the airlines raised their prices so that consumers still paid the same amount for their tickets. In effect, the government was indirectly subsidizing the airlines. So what we got during the shutdown was no decrease in fares, a shutdown in construction jobs, and a reduction in airline safety. Way to go, Congress.
To return to the point of infrastructure spending, conservatives seem unlikely to support much of anything. Here is my idea. Speed up withdrawal of forces from Iraq and Afghanistan. It costs about one million per year to keep one soldier in the field. Removing 1,000 soldiers saves $1 billion per year. Removing 50,000 saves $50 billion. Take the savings and spend it on infrastructure on bases here in the United States instead of bases overseas. New barracks, roads, other facilities, and replace worn out military equipment manufactured in the US. How could any conservative oppose this?
In my previous post I discussed Obama's failure as a negotiator. One thing I should have mentioned. Obama always seems eager to make a deal, any deal. He seems to prefer a bad deal to no deal at all. As long as you project that attitude, all you will ever get is a bad deal. Obama needs to show sometime that he is willing to accept no deal ahead of a bad deal. He should walk away from some negotiations. Unless and until he does that, he will come out on the losing end.
Finally, in reviewing my previous post I noticed a bad typo and was unable to correct it. The word processing function at this blog site has not always been the best, so it comes as no surprise that after posting, when I try to go back to edit, I am unable to do so. Anyway, I want to apologize for any typos and misspellings which get past me. As vigilant as you may be, there will always be some unnoticed misteaks that get bbuy.
Friday, August 12, 2011
Tuesday, August 2, 2011
THE DEBT CEILING BILL
Framing The Debate And Campaigning As Policy
There are several different things we can learn from this fiasco. One, which should have been obvious by now to the Democrats, is that you should never let you opponent frame the debate. From the beginning it has been the Republicans, especially the Tea Party Republicans, who have set the parameters and the agenda for the debate. Most everyone seems to have forgotten that the Republicans ran on a jobs program in 2010; specifically how the Democrats hadn't created any. As usual with Republicans these days, that was a lie. No matter, thanks to that, an energized base and low turnout among previous Obama voters, the GOP took over the House decisively. Once in office, the GOP has completely ignored jobs, focusing on such things as Planned Parenthood, abortion, funding for NPR, and other such "vital" issues of the day. First with the threatened government shutdown in April, as the continuing budget resolution was expiring, now with the debt ceiling issue, the Republicans have managed to stay on message and completely driven the debate. The Republicans are very good at constantly repeating the same refrain, using the same buzz words over and over again, and attacking the Democratic positions with fervor. Facts and logic need not apply. The Republicans have a very smart adiviser named Frank Luntz, who is very good at using focus groups to find the right words and phrases which resonate with voters. These words/phrases are constantly repeated over and over again by Republicans of all stripes until they become adopted by the media and even the Democrats themselves.
The Democrats, on the other hand, usually ignore Republican words and actions, especially in the early phase of the debate, and rarely, if ever, prepare a counter message or do anything to attack the errors in the Republican message. The lesson the Democrats keep ignoring time and time again is that you cannot let such things go unchallenged, yet they continually do just that. Polls after the 2010 election showed that jobs was the number one issue for Americans, but the Republicans ignored that and acted as if the deficit was number one. The Democrats never really challenged that. Once the narrative gets established, it is very hard to dislodge.
The media today, outside of those ideologically driven, see their job as to present both sides of a story, regardless of whether one side is true and the other side is untrue. They are not interested in finding out the truth, but presenting the two sides and then telling us who is doing well with their position and who isn't. Rarely do we ever see a clear analysis of the accuracy of each side's position or the likely outcome of the various positions being promoted. Numerous examples abound. It wasn't until well after the health care bill was established that I saw an article pointing out that it was nearly identical to the bill adopted by Massachusetts while Romney was governor. And even then it only came about when Romney's opponents attacked him for adopting such an approach. The fact that the individual mandate was originally a conservative Republican idea, I discovered doing research on my own; I never saw anything on that during the time the bill was being considered. During this whole debt ceiling issue, did anyone in the mnedia ask any economists what the likely outcome would be if there was a substantial cut in government spending? Only today, after its adoption, did I see an estimate of over 1 million jobs lost in the next 18 months as a result of this abomination of a bill.
The Republicans have been in full campaign mode since last December and their campaign has become their policy. The have employed campaign rhetoric and the result is a bill which is based on nothing but rhetoric. It has no real rationale, a very fuzzy goal, and a poorly constructed mechanism for implementation. It is, in short, a travesty. Representative Emmanuel Cleaver, leader of the Black Caucus, called it "a sugar-coated Satan sandwich."
Today in a speech the President began talking about the need to address the jobs problem. He should have been doing this for the last year or more. Once again we see how this administration has missed the boat. It seems as if the administration is doing a lot of navel gazing and ignored the basic issues which are critical for both policy and electoral success.
The Tea Party As A Revolutionary Movement
Please bear with me as I go political scientist here. When we look at revolutionary and/or anti-colonial movements, they share many similarities. They are united behind a narrow, simply defined goal--the overthrow of the established order. The movement is made up of "true believers" who have a religious fervor about the righteousness of their cause. Things are seen in terms of armed struggle. As a result, they see everything in black and white terms and as a zero sum game--any loss for one side is a gain for the other and any gain for one is a loss for the other. No quarter is given and none is expected in return. Compromise is generally shunned, except as a tactic to achieve the over arching goal. In fact, compromise is seen as weakness, something to be exploited when shown by the opposition. Because the true believers share the same goals and beliefs, dissent is usually not tolerated once a decision is made. This is heightened by the frequent presence of a charismatic leader heading the revolution. The leader of the opposition is objectified and vilified.
Once these groups achieve power, they are usually failures at governing, especially in a democratic setting. Many begin democratic, but turn autocratic quickly. What they find is that overthrowing a government is much easier than running a government. Before you had only one main goal, now you have many important goals. Before you didn't have to compromise or take into account the needs of other groups, now you have to in order to have effective government. It is much easier to tell your followers to attack a bridge and see it carried out than to tell your followers to build a bridge and see it carried out. Followers become distracted by other issues such as money, prestige, or the quest for power. Once the original foe is vanquished, you no longer have the same thing to rally your supporters against. It is much easier to rally people against something than to rally them for something. Governments tend to be much larger and more complex than revolutionary armies. Outcomes before were clearly defined and easily measured. You win or lose a battle, take a position or not, etc. With government, outcomes are not so easily defined or achievable. Unexpected consequences are the norm, not the exception. It is harder to tell if an outcome as a victory or a defeat; outcomes are often mixtures of both.
This is just a brief rundown, but you can see how the Tea Party Movement shares many of the attributes of a revolutionary movement. Like a revolutionary movement, they take no prisoners, are not interesting in compromise, and have no idea how to govern. They show real signs of autocracy. There main goals are to defeat Obama and shrink government down to a few core programs such as defense. One of the big failures of Obama is his failure to understand the nature of his opposition. The Tea Party was driving the GOP in the House and he should not have expected that a fair deal could be reached with them.
Obama's Failure As A Negotiator
Here is an analogy for the way I see how the President treated the negotiations. Obama is having an argument with an opponent and the opponent calls out the President, demanding that they have a showdown at such and such a place and time. The President agrees, telling his opponent that he will not be armed and will ignore what his supporters are telling him to do. Upon arriving for the showdown, Obama's opponent demands the President to give him A,B,C, and D by tomorrow morning. The President replies that he can give only A and B. The opponent then pulls out a gun and holds it to the President's head. The President says, if you shoot me, you could be arrested for murder, so I will give you A,B,C, and D but I cannot give it all to you until a week from tomorrow. The opponent agrees and then leaves. The next day the President tells everyone what a good deal he got because his opponent will have to wait a while to get what he wants, and his opponent did not shoot the President.
What to me seems inexplicable, is how President Obama, over and over, will give up bargaining chips at the start of negotiations without getting anything in return. Another thing he frequently does is to tell his opponent what his final position is and it actually is his final position. In negotiations you should never start out with your final position.
In the instance of the debt ceiling, while a number of Democrats were mulling over the possibility of the possibility of the President utilizing the 14th Amendment to avoid default, almost immediately the President took it off the table. In doing so he lost one of his biggest bargaining chips. He should have said I want a clean bill that only deals with raising the debt ceiling for the
next two years. If you give me anything else, I will veto it and invoke the 14th Amendment in order to avoid default. Why he went from a clean bill as originally stated, to his idea of a grand design is incomprehensible. By doing so, he was playing on the Republicans fields, and making the issue cutting the deficit instead of raising the debt ceiling and avoiding default. He should have painted Republicans as out to ruin the economy while ignoring jobs. He should have said over and over again that their efforts would cost jobs, not create them. Even in his idea of a grand design, he bungled it badly. He said it should be $1 dollar in revenues for every $3 dollars in cuts. That is 75% cuts, 25% revenues. The Republicans began at 85% to 15%, cuts to revenues. The President should have started at 50/50, at the very least, and threatened to veto anything less. We ended up with a bill of all cuts and no revenues.
Another major error he made was to state that Medicare and Social Security were "on the table". By putting those two issues in play he alienated his own party and gave up a major issue that favors the Democrats. Not even Tea Partiers want to have cuts in Medicare benefits. By offering to put Medicare and Social Security in play in the negotiation, President Obama was throwing away one of the greatest political advantages the Democrats have over the Republicans. Almost every Republican voted for the Ryan Budget which would replace Medicare with a voucher system that will cost seniors an estimated $6000 more per year in medical expenses. This idea is opposed by about 70% of the public. By offering to negotiate Medicare/Social Security, the President will find it hard to present himself as a defender of those programs.
This is one of the worst examples of negotiation I have ever been aware of. It is horrendously bad and it ensures that the Republicans will continue this tactic with every major issue. Personally, I find it hard to do anything for the Presidnet's re-election other than to vote for him.
There are several different things we can learn from this fiasco. One, which should have been obvious by now to the Democrats, is that you should never let you opponent frame the debate. From the beginning it has been the Republicans, especially the Tea Party Republicans, who have set the parameters and the agenda for the debate. Most everyone seems to have forgotten that the Republicans ran on a jobs program in 2010; specifically how the Democrats hadn't created any. As usual with Republicans these days, that was a lie. No matter, thanks to that, an energized base and low turnout among previous Obama voters, the GOP took over the House decisively. Once in office, the GOP has completely ignored jobs, focusing on such things as Planned Parenthood, abortion, funding for NPR, and other such "vital" issues of the day. First with the threatened government shutdown in April, as the continuing budget resolution was expiring, now with the debt ceiling issue, the Republicans have managed to stay on message and completely driven the debate. The Republicans are very good at constantly repeating the same refrain, using the same buzz words over and over again, and attacking the Democratic positions with fervor. Facts and logic need not apply. The Republicans have a very smart adiviser named Frank Luntz, who is very good at using focus groups to find the right words and phrases which resonate with voters. These words/phrases are constantly repeated over and over again by Republicans of all stripes until they become adopted by the media and even the Democrats themselves.
The Democrats, on the other hand, usually ignore Republican words and actions, especially in the early phase of the debate, and rarely, if ever, prepare a counter message or do anything to attack the errors in the Republican message. The lesson the Democrats keep ignoring time and time again is that you cannot let such things go unchallenged, yet they continually do just that. Polls after the 2010 election showed that jobs was the number one issue for Americans, but the Republicans ignored that and acted as if the deficit was number one. The Democrats never really challenged that. Once the narrative gets established, it is very hard to dislodge.
The media today, outside of those ideologically driven, see their job as to present both sides of a story, regardless of whether one side is true and the other side is untrue. They are not interested in finding out the truth, but presenting the two sides and then telling us who is doing well with their position and who isn't. Rarely do we ever see a clear analysis of the accuracy of each side's position or the likely outcome of the various positions being promoted. Numerous examples abound. It wasn't until well after the health care bill was established that I saw an article pointing out that it was nearly identical to the bill adopted by Massachusetts while Romney was governor. And even then it only came about when Romney's opponents attacked him for adopting such an approach. The fact that the individual mandate was originally a conservative Republican idea, I discovered doing research on my own; I never saw anything on that during the time the bill was being considered. During this whole debt ceiling issue, did anyone in the mnedia ask any economists what the likely outcome would be if there was a substantial cut in government spending? Only today, after its adoption, did I see an estimate of over 1 million jobs lost in the next 18 months as a result of this abomination of a bill.
The Republicans have been in full campaign mode since last December and their campaign has become their policy. The have employed campaign rhetoric and the result is a bill which is based on nothing but rhetoric. It has no real rationale, a very fuzzy goal, and a poorly constructed mechanism for implementation. It is, in short, a travesty. Representative Emmanuel Cleaver, leader of the Black Caucus, called it "a sugar-coated Satan sandwich."
Today in a speech the President began talking about the need to address the jobs problem. He should have been doing this for the last year or more. Once again we see how this administration has missed the boat. It seems as if the administration is doing a lot of navel gazing and ignored the basic issues which are critical for both policy and electoral success.
The Tea Party As A Revolutionary Movement
Please bear with me as I go political scientist here. When we look at revolutionary and/or anti-colonial movements, they share many similarities. They are united behind a narrow, simply defined goal--the overthrow of the established order. The movement is made up of "true believers" who have a religious fervor about the righteousness of their cause. Things are seen in terms of armed struggle. As a result, they see everything in black and white terms and as a zero sum game--any loss for one side is a gain for the other and any gain for one is a loss for the other. No quarter is given and none is expected in return. Compromise is generally shunned, except as a tactic to achieve the over arching goal. In fact, compromise is seen as weakness, something to be exploited when shown by the opposition. Because the true believers share the same goals and beliefs, dissent is usually not tolerated once a decision is made. This is heightened by the frequent presence of a charismatic leader heading the revolution. The leader of the opposition is objectified and vilified.
Once these groups achieve power, they are usually failures at governing, especially in a democratic setting. Many begin democratic, but turn autocratic quickly. What they find is that overthrowing a government is much easier than running a government. Before you had only one main goal, now you have many important goals. Before you didn't have to compromise or take into account the needs of other groups, now you have to in order to have effective government. It is much easier to tell your followers to attack a bridge and see it carried out than to tell your followers to build a bridge and see it carried out. Followers become distracted by other issues such as money, prestige, or the quest for power. Once the original foe is vanquished, you no longer have the same thing to rally your supporters against. It is much easier to rally people against something than to rally them for something. Governments tend to be much larger and more complex than revolutionary armies. Outcomes before were clearly defined and easily measured. You win or lose a battle, take a position or not, etc. With government, outcomes are not so easily defined or achievable. Unexpected consequences are the norm, not the exception. It is harder to tell if an outcome as a victory or a defeat; outcomes are often mixtures of both.
This is just a brief rundown, but you can see how the Tea Party Movement shares many of the attributes of a revolutionary movement. Like a revolutionary movement, they take no prisoners, are not interesting in compromise, and have no idea how to govern. They show real signs of autocracy. There main goals are to defeat Obama and shrink government down to a few core programs such as defense. One of the big failures of Obama is his failure to understand the nature of his opposition. The Tea Party was driving the GOP in the House and he should not have expected that a fair deal could be reached with them.
Obama's Failure As A Negotiator
Here is an analogy for the way I see how the President treated the negotiations. Obama is having an argument with an opponent and the opponent calls out the President, demanding that they have a showdown at such and such a place and time. The President agrees, telling his opponent that he will not be armed and will ignore what his supporters are telling him to do. Upon arriving for the showdown, Obama's opponent demands the President to give him A,B,C, and D by tomorrow morning. The President replies that he can give only A and B. The opponent then pulls out a gun and holds it to the President's head. The President says, if you shoot me, you could be arrested for murder, so I will give you A,B,C, and D but I cannot give it all to you until a week from tomorrow. The opponent agrees and then leaves. The next day the President tells everyone what a good deal he got because his opponent will have to wait a while to get what he wants, and his opponent did not shoot the President.
What to me seems inexplicable, is how President Obama, over and over, will give up bargaining chips at the start of negotiations without getting anything in return. Another thing he frequently does is to tell his opponent what his final position is and it actually is his final position. In negotiations you should never start out with your final position.
In the instance of the debt ceiling, while a number of Democrats were mulling over the possibility of the possibility of the President utilizing the 14th Amendment to avoid default, almost immediately the President took it off the table. In doing so he lost one of his biggest bargaining chips. He should have said I want a clean bill that only deals with raising the debt ceiling for the
next two years. If you give me anything else, I will veto it and invoke the 14th Amendment in order to avoid default. Why he went from a clean bill as originally stated, to his idea of a grand design is incomprehensible. By doing so, he was playing on the Republicans fields, and making the issue cutting the deficit instead of raising the debt ceiling and avoiding default. He should have painted Republicans as out to ruin the economy while ignoring jobs. He should have said over and over again that their efforts would cost jobs, not create them. Even in his idea of a grand design, he bungled it badly. He said it should be $1 dollar in revenues for every $3 dollars in cuts. That is 75% cuts, 25% revenues. The Republicans began at 85% to 15%, cuts to revenues. The President should have started at 50/50, at the very least, and threatened to veto anything less. We ended up with a bill of all cuts and no revenues.
Another major error he made was to state that Medicare and Social Security were "on the table". By putting those two issues in play he alienated his own party and gave up a major issue that favors the Democrats. Not even Tea Partiers want to have cuts in Medicare benefits. By offering to put Medicare and Social Security in play in the negotiation, President Obama was throwing away one of the greatest political advantages the Democrats have over the Republicans. Almost every Republican voted for the Ryan Budget which would replace Medicare with a voucher system that will cost seniors an estimated $6000 more per year in medical expenses. This idea is opposed by about 70% of the public. By offering to negotiate Medicare/Social Security, the President will find it hard to present himself as a defender of those programs.
This is one of the worst examples of negotiation I have ever been aware of. It is horrendously bad and it ensures that the Republicans will continue this tactic with every major issue. Personally, I find it hard to do anything for the Presidnet's re-election other than to vote for him.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)