This is the president I voted for! This is what I want from him. He lays out a clear vision of the government he wants and he attacks the Republican (Paul Ryan) plan.
Maybe I misjudged him. Maybe he was right to keep quiet and get the small compromise victories of the tax deal and the 2011 budget and save the big government discussion for the real big compromise. And maybe this compromise would not have happened had he been as vocal as I would have liked. Maybe.
Let's hope though that Obama doesn't let this be the one time he speaks about his vision. He needs to keep hammering home what a deficit plan should look like. Not everyone will read this speech. But if he talks enough about it, people will know what he wants and may be convinced he is right. But they can only do that if they hear him often.
Friday, April 15, 2011
Sunday, April 10, 2011
Mandate and Overreach
If I have learned anything from Obama's election followed by Republican victories in the mid-terms, it is that both sides are bound to misinterpret their victories. Barack Obama, and the Democratic Party, saw the election as a mandate on liberal policies (as opposed to short term correction from bad Bush policies and a victory over an inferior candidate). So they went big and they went hard. They passed a health care reform that was complicated and let Republicans define it as excessively liberal and an overreach.
Looking back, I think Democrats should have focused entirely on the financial crisis, the economy and financial reform. And they could have also made small improvements on health reform.
Republicans though seem to similarly think that there is a huge mandate to reform government. They are talking about drastic cuts to current spending and major changes to entitlement programs and government regulation like EPA. John Boehner seems to be playing it smart and not overreaching on his election. He reached a decent compromise (one I am not happy about, but was good for him), instead of allowing for a government shut-down. There was a lot of talk about how Republicans would be blamed for a shut-down - talk I found nauseating, but probably true. I don't think the 2010 elections were a signal that the public wants serious cuts in programs.
That being said, we'll see if the Republicans can maintain discipline. There is a fight coming up around the debt ceiling, and there is a good chance they will overreach and draw a backlash. (There is also a good chance that the opposite happens; that they extract major concessions from the craven Democrats.)
My basic point is that rarely does public opinion change so much to warrant major policy changes. Those rare examples usually come from major upheavals like the Great Depression - and as bad as this financial crisis has been, it doesn't seem to be having the same widespread impact, thankfully. Politicians should instead realize that the public is often ready for incremental change. If you want to go bigger, you can, but be prepared for a backlash and hope that your changes withstand it.
Looking back, I think Democrats should have focused entirely on the financial crisis, the economy and financial reform. And they could have also made small improvements on health reform.
Republicans though seem to similarly think that there is a huge mandate to reform government. They are talking about drastic cuts to current spending and major changes to entitlement programs and government regulation like EPA. John Boehner seems to be playing it smart and not overreaching on his election. He reached a decent compromise (one I am not happy about, but was good for him), instead of allowing for a government shut-down. There was a lot of talk about how Republicans would be blamed for a shut-down - talk I found nauseating, but probably true. I don't think the 2010 elections were a signal that the public wants serious cuts in programs.
That being said, we'll see if the Republicans can maintain discipline. There is a fight coming up around the debt ceiling, and there is a good chance they will overreach and draw a backlash. (There is also a good chance that the opposite happens; that they extract major concessions from the craven Democrats.)
My basic point is that rarely does public opinion change so much to warrant major policy changes. Those rare examples usually come from major upheavals like the Great Depression - and as bad as this financial crisis has been, it doesn't seem to be having the same widespread impact, thankfully. Politicians should instead realize that the public is often ready for incremental change. If you want to go bigger, you can, but be prepared for a backlash and hope that your changes withstand it.
Budget Deal: When Bipartisanship Sucks
I like to think of myself as a moderate - or at least as a reasonable person supportive of compromise and happy when compromise happens. However, the recent budget deal does not make me happy - and for two reasons.
First, to the extent that we have a debt problem that needs to be addressed, it is a long term problem. Our current spending levels are unsustainable only in the long term considering the trends we see in our entitlement programs, especially Medicare and Medicaid. But there is no evidence of short term problems; bond markets are not signifying that they are worried about American debt.
And yet, if you listen to our dialogue, you would think the problems are short term and immediate. Republicans have done a great job at framing the issue about something that has to be addressed now.
Whether or not deficit spending is dangerous right now is especially important since we are in a recession where monetary policy is largely ineffective (as we are up against the zero bound). Since deficit spending is not a problem, the ideal policy, if we were actually smart and objective, would be to deficit spend (fiscal stimulus) right now to help get the economy going while addressing the long term problems.
We are of course doing the opposite. We are cutting spending now, when we need it most, and not addressing future issues at all. And Paul Ryan's plan, which pretends to be addressing those issues, cuts taxes as much as revenues, leaving us in the same place long term we are now (the plan also uses unbelievable forecasts about employment and discretionary spending).
The second reason this budget deal depresses me is that Democrats, especially the President, have not been standing up for Democratic causes and they have not been making the case I made above. Instead, they have ceded the issue, accepting that we need to make cuts. And Democrats have refused to point out that as Republicans talk about making sacrifices, they are really asking the poor and middle class to make sacrifices while pushing for the rich to get rewards.
I would feel much better about compromise if Democrats were at least defending their position before accepting a deal. There is a real argument for why cuts shouldn't happen now, and nobody in government is making them.
First, to the extent that we have a debt problem that needs to be addressed, it is a long term problem. Our current spending levels are unsustainable only in the long term considering the trends we see in our entitlement programs, especially Medicare and Medicaid. But there is no evidence of short term problems; bond markets are not signifying that they are worried about American debt.
And yet, if you listen to our dialogue, you would think the problems are short term and immediate. Republicans have done a great job at framing the issue about something that has to be addressed now.
Whether or not deficit spending is dangerous right now is especially important since we are in a recession where monetary policy is largely ineffective (as we are up against the zero bound). Since deficit spending is not a problem, the ideal policy, if we were actually smart and objective, would be to deficit spend (fiscal stimulus) right now to help get the economy going while addressing the long term problems.
We are of course doing the opposite. We are cutting spending now, when we need it most, and not addressing future issues at all. And Paul Ryan's plan, which pretends to be addressing those issues, cuts taxes as much as revenues, leaving us in the same place long term we are now (the plan also uses unbelievable forecasts about employment and discretionary spending).
The second reason this budget deal depresses me is that Democrats, especially the President, have not been standing up for Democratic causes and they have not been making the case I made above. Instead, they have ceded the issue, accepting that we need to make cuts. And Democrats have refused to point out that as Republicans talk about making sacrifices, they are really asking the poor and middle class to make sacrifices while pushing for the rich to get rewards.
I would feel much better about compromise if Democrats were at least defending their position before accepting a deal. There is a real argument for why cuts shouldn't happen now, and nobody in government is making them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)