It’s Not that the White House Lies Even to Itself…
It’s that they are so bad at it.
At least they made clear that Glenn Greenwald was correct when he said the deal is exactly what Obama wanted:
Fact: President Obama laid out key priorities that had to be part of any deal. Those priorities are reflected in this compromise.…the initial down payment on deficit reductions does not cut low-income and safety-net programs such as Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. Third, we set up a path forward that will put pressure on Congress to adopt a balanced approach. And finally, we raised the debt ceiling until 2013, ensuring that House Republicans could not use the threat of default in just a few months to force severe cuts in Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. [emphasis theirs]
Uh, yeah, about that “we protect Medicare shtick.” Maybe you should try actually saying that in public, or in negotiations.
And they play with straw men:
when push came to shove, Republicans backed down on their key demands. For months, Republicans called for a budget that would have ended Medicare as we know it, made catastrophic cuts to Medicaid, or cut investments in education by 25 percent, clean energy by 70 percent and infrastructure spending by 30 percent. As if that wasn’t enough, they also demanded that we repeat this debt-ceiling crisis, just a few months from now.
Gosh, I feel so “protected” now. Instead, the White House agreed to cut education loans, sidebarred the EPA discussion until they can lose that (h/t Mark Thoma) (having already surrendered on a “market-based” energy solution), and had Goolsbee lying to Jon Stewart last night about how there will be a National Infrastructure Alliance that will work in the same manner as TARP.
With friends like this, who needs enemies?
In a related aside, Dow 3,600 anyone?
I give Obama et al a little break on the Medicare cut as they have also qualified as they are going after the 17% extra we pay in the medicare advantage program (Bush semi privatization). But, it won’t be the “hold my breath” break.
One more thing:
As to he can always veto any bill not “balanced”? Do date, 2 vetoes. Only 2. Now maybe it’s because the repub legislature was the filibuster kings for the first 2 years and the current House has only managed 48 bills to date (Pelosi was in the hundreds), so he has not had an opportunity to enjoy the veto experience.
Though, Pres. Roosevelt managed 635 in his 3 terms with only 9 being overturned. This is what an aggressive president trying to change the ideology that policy will be based on. So, I can’t accept that he has not had the opportunity as to the only why of only 2 vetoes.
Nice little article here on presidential vetoes: http://blog.lib.umn.edu/cspg/smartpolitics/2011/06/obama_the_most_veto-shy_presid.php
I sort of like the reference to DOW 3,600. I understand that Europe and the underlying weaknes of the economy is part of what is driving the fear, but to the extent that markets know what they are doing, it sure is not a vote of confidence for austerity. I think there is at least a 50-50 chance that this will not be 1937 redux–it will be much worse than 1937.
Ah, the markets are not impressed. Really, really not impressed.
Austerity is meant for the poor to pay into the banks to inflate those balance sheets from all the MBS/CDO which are worthless.
The markets may have recognized the proles are tapped out!
I do not think the Italians will be as mild as the Greeks.
GM is gone …..
A further final posting…..
http://seekingalpha.com/user/411093/profile
http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Columns/2011/08/05/Obama-The-Covert-Conservative-Liberals-Have-to-Love.aspx#page1
Bruce Bartlett reviews 2008 the hopey changy thing from recent comments on AB. Eyes wide….two points emerge….Obama was center right and named such, and got 20% of the conservative vote.