WILL AMERICANS embrace austerity through Mitt Romney’s candidacy and his advocacy for Paul Ryan’s budget, just as Europe is turning away from austerity after having learned it doesn’t work?
It’s the 2012 $64,000 question.
Merkel’s loss comes in the wake of socialist and anti-austerity candidate François Hollande’s victory in France, with the American presidential election being played out across the pond on similar turf.
Chancellor Angela Merkel’s conservatives suffered a crushing defeat on Sunday in an election in Germany’s most populous state, a result which could embolden the left opposition to step up its criticism of her European austerity policies. – Reuters
Part B of the question is whether voters will buy that Pres. Obama doesn’t have his own austerity lane.
It’s seen through his continued focus on debt instead of raising revenue, “Simpson-Bowles” and the ludicrous notion that entitlements are the problem, when it begins with revenue and the Pentagon, while Pres. Obama uses the fake bogie man of entitlement “reform” to suck up to conservative independents, while handing out goodies to his base as pacifiers. Considering progressives and other Democrats act like children when it comes to progressive economics, as well as individual rights, it’s what they deserve.
Obama’s triangulating populist hypocrisy that’s being trotted out for his reelection is obviously going to make partisans feel warm and cuddly in the “lesser of two evils” electoral sweepstakes, but it doesn’t stand up to the reality that Obama’s in the business of protecting the American Wall Street game, which is in direct conflict with strengthening the middle class.
It’s seen through Larry Summers and Tim Geithner, not to mention passing up Elizabeth Warren for the CFPB, but also through Jamie Dimon and the JPMorgan Chase loss of $6 billion, which proves nothing has really changed during Pres. Obama’s tenure.
Also gnawing should be Obama’s back room deals with private insurance and Big Pharma, as well as the Stupak Amendment that codified the Hyde Amendment into ACA, taking it out of the yearly HHS budgetary process, not to mention Obama choosing conservatism over science on Plan B. The first time a sitting Democratic president ignored the F.D.A. and facts, preferring emotional fiction.
Contraceptive coverage was a huge move, as was signing the Ledbetter Act, though that’s something any Democrat would have done, coupled with DADT, and all deserve to be lauded, which I have, without which there would be no liberal case to even consider Pres. Obama.
Turning to Andrew Sullivan’s most fawning rhetorical fellate of Pres. Obama since his “face” scribblings, as much as I applaud Pres. Obama evolving on marriage equality, policy hasn’t changed one whit. The credit deserves to be shared with the much more heart felt, honest and damned with faint praise candor of V.P. Joe Biden, who on “Meet the Press” had an epiphany in plain sight, which was the most refreshing instant of truth in American politics, which of course is considered a gaffe due to its obvious transparency, not the least of it because it was said by a devout, practicing Catholic in a statement that defied the Pope.
When we turn to foreign policy, between Obama’s convenient Libya involvement, juxtaposed against the inconvenience of Syrian war crimes, with our Afghanistan financial investment continuing until 2024, a positively ludicrous economic commitment that Americans should be protesting in the streets, it’s hard to see any difference between right and left, which is all about ease not purpose, and why the world game of risk never changes. We place our bets on outdated military outposts, drone strikes and assassinations instead of economic weaponry that’s clearly in the American arsenal to use. Our dirty little secret being our leaders, both political and financial, evidently don’t know how to employ the military if they bring them home, because they don’t have the brains to utilize investment and education instead of bombs, at home and around the world.
Of course, if you think Obama’s bad, Romney would embrace a similar austerity plan that’s brought the euro-zone to the brink, and make much of what is even worse, especially where women’s individual freedoms are concerned. This sets the picture on the paucity of choices facing American voters, with which they continue to be satisfied because Americans never threaten to take the Democratic and Republican purchase of the presidency on directly.
Amid this climate team Obama has released a campaign video (seen above, with the longer version below) to go at Mitt Romney on his tenure at Bain, which today seems like synchronicity. Job creation lays at the feet of both candidates, with American economic competitiveness in the world at issue. The Obama ad is yet another indictment of Romney’s choices that puts shareholders above the middle class; the very people who are the economic engine of this country. Pres. Obama’s efforts toward the American car industry versus the Romney bankruptcy model would be a worthy topic for any debate. It would pit the top 2012 issue, economics, and Obama’s restructuring against what Romney said occurred, which he believes was actually a restructured bankruptcy for the industry. I’m just wondering if there’s a moderator out there who could navigate it.
If the middle class can’t spend our economy won’t move. It all revolves around a living wage, not just shareholder value. Two jobs to cover the bills isn’t the answer and neither is bailing on universal health care, something both parties have done.
The other issue is that concerning Wall Street, neither Pres. Obama or Mitt Romney are the men to alter the reality, because both bring their own brand of austerity economics to the presidency, coupled with a cozy relationship with the very people who have made our economic pain terminal.
With Congress a feckless hallow unable to challenge the Executive branch on anything, because instead of an equal branch they’ve become a propaganda organ, America is poised to continue moving slowly in place when urgency, action and foundational change are what’s required.
No no no Taylor. You can’t say “…it’s hard to see any difference between right and left, which is all about ease not purpose, and why the world game of risk never changes.” That’s false equivalency and shows that you aren’t “hip” to real politics…. BLAH! Whateva…
You 110% on point Taylor. Both Democrats and Republicans kiss the shiny green arse of Wall Street 7 days a week, 24 hours a day. Entitlements? Welfare? Wall Street is the biggest and original “welfare queen” (to use that sick term). Like I told a friend, we should just vote for corporate groups for POTUS. Much more accurate.
Something that is just glossed over. It’s so basic that it’s laughable: the middle class lacks sustainable income to keep us moving. I live in mostly rural SC. So many rural poor whites, blacks, and Hispanics around here. SC is, and I hate the whole color thing, a pure red state. Yet so many of it’s citizens are flat out disenfranchised, disillusioned, and disgusted. Yet the are conned and cajoled into supporting policies FLAT OUT AGAINST their needs by politicians. It’s painful to watch yet the politicians keep on doing it. The shameless exploitation and manipulation of the American people by many Democrats and Republicans is the primary reason we see so much nonsense and non-movement. Gridlock is king because to the politicians, it’s all country club life.
T-Steel, your 110% right also. I hope to vote third party this year. If Gary Johnson gets on the ballot in my state, I will vote for him or another third party candidate and other third party candidates. In my state of West Virginia, it seems the Democrats have turned into DINOs except one Senator Jay Rockerfeller. Both my Democratic Senator Joe Manchain and Governor Earl Ray Tomblin don’t no if they are voting for President Obama. I voted for the “jailbird” as a protest vote no knowing anything about him, and so did 41% of the democratic primary voters. As far as people voting like they did in Europe, Romney is doing way better than I expected in the battleground states and well as national polls. In alot of polls Romney and Obama are tied. Its going to be a long fight.As for Americans reject Austerity, I can only hope they do. But President Obama is the President and he will get some blame also. Thats why ads like this will have to be put on the airwaves until November. This is not going to be 2008, its going to be a long-hard fight.
It’s seen through his continued focus on debt instead of raising revenue, “Simpson-Bowles” and the ludicrous notion that entitlements are the problem, when it begins with revenue and the Pentagon
_____________
I’m going to vote for Obama. I’m sure that shocks most of you.
BUT I promised myself I wouldn’t canvass or contribute until Obama did two things. One, come out for gay marriage (no pun intended). Two, publicly support Simpson-Bowles. Looks like we’re halfway there. Time to get some comfortable walking shoes in 3,2,1…..
As for the quoted language above, I just have to shake my head. Germany, Greece, UK, etc. actually make, rather than undermine, the case for deficit reduction. That is, if U.S. doesn’t make modest, long-term fixes now, then austerity programs are guaranteed when we can no longer postpone the inevitable. As to which, have you read the 2012 SSA Trustees Report? Or the Medicare Report? If you haven’t, you should – the executive summaries, at least. If you have, then you realize the extent of the crisis. Of course revenue and Pentagon budgets should be on the table. But there is no way we plug the whole with just tax increases and defense cutbacks. We need to reduce benefits too. And the real choice is between (a) at the margin, and gradually over a long period, or (b) suddenly and precipitously. We need to stop deceiving ourselves.
I too am voting for President Obama…however we could abso-fracking-lutely solve the problem with military cuts.
As with everything else, it depends on how you define the problem. You seem to be talking about a budget deficit. In which case, it is true that defense spending exceeds SS and Medicare spending. And the budget deficit would be much lower without defense spending.
I am talking about the structural deficit, which is what the Medicare and SS Trustees are concerned about. I am doing this from memory, but the present value of the Medicare shortfall is north of $75 TRILLION. Annual defense spending is approx. $850 billion. When you consider that $75 TRILLION in light of the fact that Obama and Boehner could not get a $1 Trillion deal done, you begin to grasp the enormity of the problem.
But don’t take my word for it. Let’s let the Trustees speak for themselves:
The trustees have also said that SS is viable through at least 2030 with no changes to withholding, and it will be viable for most of the century with slight adjustments. That Congress doesn’t make those adjustments, and the President doesn’t call for them, is their failure.
Medicare/Medicaid is a different issue, and it’s to do with the cost of care, about which the ACA did almost nothing (limiting the overhead for commercial insurance is about it, and that’s only if they and later administrations bother to enforce it). Reforming how care is paid for, and who does it, is what’s necessary, not cutting benefits. At least, I’m not going to be convinced cuts are necessary there until we have a system similar to what the rest of the advanced world has.
And yes, secularhumanizinevoluter is correct about the deficit vs. defense. If we only put the same portion of our GDP into defense that the world does generally, our defense budget would be $330 billion lower annually (if you’re impatient, just scroll down to the table). We spend a stupendous amount of money to be better at blowing up other peoples’ countries than anyone else, and we don’t get much for it.
You’ll get no argument from me on the merits of curtailing defense spending. But it’s not the panacea you and Sec say it is. $330 billion is bupkis compared to the structural shortfall.
“Viable” is such a vague term. Let’s talk specifics. The 2012 report says that by 2016, the Disability Insurance portion of the SS Trust Fund will be completely exhausted. (Art, are you listening?) The report says that the entire fund, including the OASI (Old Age and Survivors Insurance) portion, will be completely exhausted in 2033. And while that may seem like a long ways off to some, it is three years earlier than last year’s estimate. The trendline is in the wrong direction, income of the fund is declining below payouts, we’re borrowing from general revenues to make up the shortfall (caused mainly by the payroll tax holiday), which means the Chinese are financing our overconsumption. How is any of this “viable”?
And that’s without discussing Medicare which, as you concede, is in much worse shape. You may not be convinced that we need to make changes to benefits, but the Trustees certainly are. We left the mythical land of either/or (raise taxes or cut benefits) a long time ago; we are now in both/and territory. Obama knows this, but his advisors are cautioning him against doing what’s right. He should not listen.
Since the people who signed that executive summary were mostly convinced that cuts are the way to go from virtually the moment they took office, I don’t see why I should be impressed that they think so now. The Obama Administration has tried to cut SS several times, including by naming a bunch of like-minded folks to the Cat Food Commission. They’ve also been lowering SS withholding as part of the “stimulus”. When someone actually changes his mind, particularly if they do it based on something real, I’ll be interested. Until then, it’s just hammers looking for nails as far as I’m concerned.
If they withhold at proper levels, we’ll be OK. That’s Congress’ and the President’s job. Like so many other things they are supposed to do, they’ve abdicated that responsibility, because Wall Street doesn’t like SS or Medicare.
Will America? Not if Mittens and the rethugs have anything to say about it. If Mittens and the rethugs get 4 years to do what they want, all that will be left is the lord of the manors and the peasants.
Unfortunately, with Obama and Romney as the only choices, America will not have the option to reject “austerity,” in quotes because said austerity will not carry over to the military industrial complex of course.
Ognec wait- u want Obama to support SImpson Bowles? Why? Bowles is disgusting- cuts Medicare and Mediciaid, reduces SS meager payments ot folks like me while the fat cats still dont pay the price they should. Bowles would end our natl pars as we know by charging folks larger sums to go, end PBS etc.. no way in hell should any Dem etc back this monster. Ever. he only good news is the hard left- the real hardleft- is rising fast globally.
Art, be fair. Simpson-Bowles ends distinction between cap gains and ordinary income. It eliminates tax expenditures, which advantage the wealthy because of ability to itemize deductions. It raises cap on SS taxes. All of which progressives want desperately. How many know that about Simpson-Bowles? the progressives take what they want, and demonize everything else. Then the conservatives do the same thing in reverse. And that’s exactly why we are in such a mess. Read the reports if you haven’t – the SS and Medicare trustees are practically SCREAMING for leadership.
So, yes – I believe Obama should back Simpson-Bowles. I think it makes good policy sense AND good political sense.
I, for one, am rooting for as much takeover of Europe by socialists as possible. This should produce a readily observable petri dish for determining if one can spend their way out of a recession.
If they succeed, we shall likely have a great migration of statists from here to there.
And if the converse, just think of the deals on Hermes bags, when the EC breaks apart and the French frank comes on and is healthily devalued.
I know you’re being glib, because no one can “spend their way out of a recession.” I trust that’s something everyone who reads here knows or will if they hang around long enough, including reading some of the comments provided.
This isn’t a recession, which is a short-lived economic downturn. It’s a depression – a long term downturn in which a society’s economic output is much lower than it should be.
I’ll leave the question of whether a country can spend its way out of a recession to you economic geniuses, but that’s not what we’re discussing here. We know from past experience that we can spend our way out of a depression. We’ve done that before.
OTOH, both during that depression and during the recent events in Japan and Europe, we’ve had a “petri dish” that clearly shows that austerity only makes a depression worse. Countries that have avoided austerity, like Iceland and Germany, have avoided worsening economies. Countries like Japan, Great Britain, Spain, and Greece, have shown that austerity makes things worse, as did our experiment with it in 1937.