Tuesday morning on CNBC, the spazzy white guys in lower Manhattan were debating how the administration and Congress can best repair the economy, and mainly the jobless numbers. At one point, Rick Santelli, the hyperkinetic shoutcaster and instigator of the tea party movement, began to flail around, waving his arms above his head while yelling, "Stop spending! Stop spending! Stop spending!"
And contrary to accusations from one of the other spazzy white panelists, Santelli insisted he wasn't calling for more tax cuts. Just a freeze in government spending. Somehow.
Fine. Show us another time in American history when a spending freeze -- and a spending freeze alone -- jump-started an economic recovery following a deep recession and high unemployment. Show us. Where in the world is Santelli getting this?
It doesn't really matter from which hole Santelli's latest television meltdown was extricated. Suffice to say, there is no historical precedent for any such thing. In fact, the often-referenced spending cuts of 1937 caused the opposite effect: a backslide in the economic recovery during the Great Depression. Oh, sorry. There we go again -- referencing actual "history" instead of just screeching incongruous, contradictory and unsubstantiated nonsense, which seems to be the accepted style of discourse these days.
Santelli's rant is just another performance in a broader strategy by the Republicans and tea party movement to deliberately sabotage the economic recovery. Not unlike Santelli's "stop spending" idea, this is a strategy which also, to the best of my knowledge, has no historical precedent. For the first time ever -- and this is worth repeating -- one of the two major political parties in America is sabotaging a delicate economic recovery for the sake of humiliating the president and his party, and subsequently recapturing a political majority.
More than a year ago, Rush Limbaugh both predicted this and set the table for it to occur. They want the president to fail, and now it's clear that they're willing to take the economic recovery down in order to make it so. Is there any doubt who leads the Republican Party?
Most recently, the Republicans have been filibustering all efforts to create jobs and to offer a safety net for the millions of Americans who continue to seek employment. They successfully filibustered the jobs bill after they, along with their Conservadem enablers, whittled the thing down to nothing. And this week, House Republicans successfully blocked the extension of unemployment benefits due to a two-thirds majority rule (who said super-majorities were reserved for the Senate?).
So how does this sabotage play out?
It begins with the cynical exploitation of the angry, screeching Republican base. Unlike the Democrats during a Republican congressional majority, it's clear that Republican voters generally don't care whether their lawmakers actually attain any legislative accomplishments short of blocking the other guys. In other words, there's no political demand from the GOP base to actually pass anything resembling a conservative piece of legislation. Consequently, there's no need to barter or compromise with the Democrats.
All they have to do is to block, and they'll use any means necessary to do so, be it self-contradiction or utter ridiculousness. Speaking of which, we have Tom Coburn (R-OK) who insists he's a fiscal hawk beating the "stop spending" drum, voting against unemployment benefits and filibustering jobs bills, while, at the same, time voting to continue paying $35 billion in corporate welfare to Big Oil every year. Yesterday, Coburn and Mitch McConnell, blocked the Homeless Women Veterans and Homeless Veterans With Children Act. Why? "Stop spending!" of course.
So the president has no choice but to zigzag his agenda through this Senate with those arcane filibuster rules, and in an era when the Republicans are given a free pass from their dittoheads and tea party hooples to scrap the GOP legislative agenda in lieu of obstructing the economic recovery (among other things).
They're counting on independents and voters in both parties to not grasp the intricate realities of the Senate. The Republican-enabling Conservadem senators often stymie the Democratic majorities, and the complicated filibuster/cloture procedures grant lopsided power to the minority party. They're counting on the most simplistic and obvious reaction: the Democrats are the majority party so they should be able to do... something. And since they can't, maybe the Republicans can. That's precisely how the Republicans might end up winning.
But if anyone believes a Republican majority in Congress will suddenly make things better, they're absolutely mistaken in so many ways. At least now, Congress and the president are able to pass reforms that will actually help real people regardless of party or politics. These achievements are often compromised and watered-down (how can they not be with this Senate?), and we might not agree with the motives of every line item, but despite how it's being painted in various circles, there hasn't been an era of significant reform like this one in generations. Yet, if the Republicans manage to take the House or Senate or both, not only will Congress "stop spending," but literally nothing will get done. Nothing. Except for endless investigations of the administration by zealots like Darrell Issa.
That's precisely what they want.
To get to that stage, the next step in the sabotage has to be continued high unemployment with the added stink of unemployed Americans losing their benefits and health insurance (no COBRA subsidies). In the simplest terms, the economic ripple effect will radiate concentrically into a decline in consumer spending, increased foreclosures, a lag in the house market and so forth. And due to a lethal mixture of Republican cynicism, voter ignorance and traditional media hackery, the president will ultimately be blamed for the continued pain -- paving the way for Wingnut Republican President X and mission accomplished.
"Stop spending!" is bullshit. Yes, long term debt at this level is ultimately unsustainable but so is long term unemployment and economic misery -- what Paul Krugman is calling the "Third Depression." But the president and the Democrats are trapped inside a box made of Johnny-come-lately deficit-reduction hysterics. There's very little the president can do at this point to ameliorate the jobless numbers, and that's proof the sabotage is working. Spending on job creation is no longer a practical option, so those numbers will remain trapped in this dead zone of nine or ten percent. Somehow, the Republicans have been able to convince enough people that "Stop spending!" is a better idea than creating jobs and providing unemployment benefits to one out of every ten Americans. One out of ten!
The Republicans are willing to let one out of every ten of your friends go broke in the name of foiling the president and reclaiming control over the government (which they say they hate). Think about that. They have no plan for fixing unemployment. No matter how often the president acquiesces to Republican demands, they still vote against anything the president intends to sign into law. They're using the filibuster. They're exploiting ignorance. They're lying about deficits. They're contradicting their own positions, sometimes in the same day or even the same sentence. They're passing off gibberish as statesmanship. They're holding the American economy hostage in the most obvious political ratfuck since the Nixon years, only this time, the stakes are deadly serious. Your job. Your money. The future of the economy. They're sabotaging all of it.
But "stop spending" fits nicely on a t-shirt or on a misspelled protest sign. So that's something at least.
(With apologies to the Beastie Boys.)
Listen to the Bob & Elvis Show podcast here.
Bob Cesca's Awesome Blog!
Follow Bob Cesca on Twitter: www.twitter.com/bobcesca_go
Roosevelt won every election he ran in. That's the biggest positive for Obama I can think of, and he won against similar stone age thinking absolutist opposition and a media overwhelmingly against him.
Thomas Jefferson, (Attributed)
The result is a continual movement of the center of the political spectrum to the right.
However, in flattening an n-dimensional political landscape into a straight line, you end up squeezing together some pretty disparate groups that really have very little in common. The one-dimensional electoral process tends to expect voters to accept a "package deal" - left or right - and if you keep all of those disparate extreme viewpoints on the ticket, you end up thoroughly unelectable. So all of the ideas from the extremes get thrown away leaving just the bare outline to get the vote of the appropriate base, and you end up with a blend of the bland on both sides - pale blue or pale pink - and policy reduced to Powerpoint bullets.
In a richer electoral environment, some of the fresher (or more extreme) ideas would at least get an airing, and get discussed. Many would still be discarded, but some might strike a chord with the electorate, and be adopted. Under the current system, though, we'll never know.
WELCOME to the banana republic of the USA, brought to YOU by the sabotage crash the country party.
And what happened to Scott, jobs, jobs, Brown voting N O on the JOB BILL.
Unconcerned about his states unemployed? I doubt it.
When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with inherent and inalienable Rights; that among these, are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness; that to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
For the support of this declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor.
"Conservatives" in Congress, shilling for rich corporate interests, are hiding their true motives by framing the debate around moral lines (again). In the past it's been the "ownership society" and "death panels." This time it's the "righteousness of thrift."
Paul Krugman and others are right in saying that the jobs just aren't there. Why then would "Conservatives" in Congress want to inflict that kind of pain on their fellow citizens (hurting non-citizens is just an added bennie - a twofer!)?
If wages are "sticky downwards" it is going to take real desperation to get workers to accept major pay decreases. Kill Unemployment Insurance and the desperate will be willing to work for just about anything. Corporate interests get to significantly cut wages and benefits and temporarily fatten their bottom line. Congressional moralists get to preach the goodness of (others') pain and look "responsible."
However, in a consumer society, less spending money means lower spending and little pricing power. The very real possibility for wage price deflation exists. Call it a variation of the Tragedy of the Commons whereby employers acting in their own self interest end up depleting a common resource (consumer buying power) that sustains their existence.
That makes 1dem and all repubs.
So let's not exaggerate the facts.
fanned