Anyone who characterizes the deal between the president, Democratic, and Republican leaders as a victory for the American people over partisanship understands neither economics nor politics.
The deal does not raise taxes on America's wealthy and most fortunate -- who are now taking home a larger share of total income and wealth, and whose tax rates are already lower than they have been in eighty years. Yet it puts the nation's most important safety nets and public investments on the chopping block.
It also hobbles the capacity of the government to respond to the jobs and growth crisis. Added to the cuts already underway by state and local governments, the deal's spending cuts increase the odds of a double-dip recession. And the deal strengthens the political hand of the radical right.
Yes, the deal is preferable to the unfolding economic catastrophe of a default on the debt of the U.S. government. The outrage and the shame is it has come to this choice.
More than a year ago, the president could have conditioned his agreement to extend the Bush tax cuts beyond 2010 on Republicans' agreement not to link a vote on the debt ceiling to the budget deficit. But he did not.
Many months ago, when Republicans first demanded spending cuts and no tax increases as a condition for raising the debt ceiling, the president could have blown their cover. He could have shown the American people why this demand had nothing to do with deficit reduction but everything to do with the GOP's ideological fixation on shrinking the size of the government -- thereby imperiling Medicare, Social Security, education, infrastructure, and everything else Americans depend on. But he did not.
And through it all the president could have explained to Americans that the biggest economic challenge we face is restoring jobs and wages and economic growth, that spending cuts in the next few years will slow the economy even further, and therefore that the Republicans' demands threaten us all. Again, he did not.
The radical right has now won a huge tactical and strategic victory. Democrats and the White House have proven they have little by way of tactics or strategy.
By putting Medicare and Social Security on the block, they have made it more difficult for Democrats in the upcoming 2012 election cycle to blame Republicans for doing so.
By embracing deficit reduction as their apparent goal -- claiming only that they'd seek to do it differently than the GOP -- Democrats and the White House now seemingly agree with the GOP that the budget deficit is the biggest obstacle to the nation's future prosperity.
The budget deficit is not the biggest obstacle to our prosperity. Lack of jobs and growth is. And the largest threat to our democracy is the emergence of a radical right capable of getting most of the ransom it demands.
Robert Reich is the author of Aftershock: The Next Economy and America's Future, now in bookstores. This post originally appeared at RobertReich.org.
Follow Robert Reich on Twitter: www.twitter.com/RBReich
Faheem Younus: How Islam Can Eliminate the U.S. Debt
Chris Weigant: Which Three Democratic Senators?
The end result is the continued destruction of our government, our middle class and our democracy. The wrong man for the job. It seems that everything he does is oriented toward four more years in the White House while simultaneously ignoring the base that put him there. He won't lose any votes to republicans, but he is losing independents and progressives in droves who may well stay home in 2012.
But instead, Obama came out with his 'grand bargain' giveaway. This made it clear that he actually agreed with the Republican economic agenda and was eager to cut a deal to allow it to happen. He set this all in motion a year ago when, instead of establishing a 'jobs commission', he chose to establish a deficit reduction commission and appointed Alan Simpson to lead the charge.
The sad truth is that Obama is essentially just a Wall Street Republican. His entire election campaign pretending to be a 'hope and change' progressive was a fraud, but he managed to fool enough people to get elected President.
I can tell when I can't stand the lying anymore-every time Bush used to come on televsion I would hit the mute button.
Since a week ago Sunday, when Obama wasted a brilliant opportunity to lambast the GOP and demand revenue, he has been lying to us. He is a conservative democrat. He agrees with the outcome.
If you were a 'hopey changy' Obama person, just study the opposites-what was the opposite he could have done that would have sent a message that he truly DISAGREED with the GOP? He did not telescope any message other than he will compromise, as if compromise is an END UNTO ITSELF.
He needs a primary challenger so we can challenge his true beliefs, not his slogans. He is a deficit hawk and allowed the GOP to do the dirty work. Disgusting.
I don't just mute the TV when Obama appears, I switch the channel, just as I used to do with Bush.
Gertrude Stein's comment on Oakland applies to Obama--"There's no there there".
Yes, disgusting and nauseating because I voted for the creep.What about Russ Feingold as a primary challenger?
It won't resemble anything anyone has ever known.
I grew up in the fifties. I remember Kennedy .I felt good about being an American and looked forward to the future.
This country is losing its heart and its losing its soul.
The Threat Party is already prosperous and the hell with those who aren't. And the Dems are stymied by and because the President's close advisors are from Wall Street--stocks rise when jobs are cut.
they're elected and there's going to be a groundswell of public anger that's going to flow over the streets of Washington DC and DEMAND change. If that change doesn't come, then who knows what's next? All that's needed right now is a leader to step forward and challenge this insane process by which most all of us are losing.
Also, corporations are part of the picture, but the reactionaries that genuinely hate government and want it dismantled (except for defense and security related stuff) are creating the biggest problem right now.
Anyway, I'm going on and on. But I disagree with needing a leader to step forward. A real movement is self organized anyway; in a sense leaderless. The way the Arab Spring ignited and spread; completely outside the confines of existing political institutions (BTW- those existing institutions won't like it). Sure, there will be individuals and groups that lead and organize. But the kind of leader I think you're talking about comes later, after the movement fires up.
IMHO :)
We relied on the President and the Democrats to be our voice, they failed us. Now it is time for us to find our collective voices and be heard. And to do so we have only to look to Wisconsin and how they did it.