Defining liberalism down

Defining liberalism down

by digby

Today's LA Times:

Even as the political battle mounts over federal spending, the end result for federal policy is already visible — and clearly favors Republican goals of deep spending cuts and drastically fewer government services.

President Obama entered the fray last week to insist that federal deficits can’t be reduced through spending reductions alone. Federal tax revenue also must rise as part of whatever deficit reduction package Congress approves this summer, he said. Obama has been pushing to end a series of what he calls tax loopholes and tax breaks for the rich.

But even if Obama were to gain all the tax-law changes he wants, new revenue would make up only about 15 cents of each dollar in deficit reduction in the package. An agreement by the Republicans to accept new revenue would be a political victory for Obama because “no new taxes” has been such an article of faith for the GOP.

I feel fairly confident that they are happy with that outcome. After all, the GOP blatantly telegraphed what it was going to do from the beginning (and also signaled that they would raise the debt ceiling in the end) so it's not as if the White House can possibly be surprised. This then, must be the preferred outcome. Huge spending cuts on one side with a few small face-saving loophole closing on the other. indeed, with the way the Democrats are talking, I'm not sure they're even all that invested in that --- Harry Reid said

It makes no economic sense (cutting spending will not help the economy, and as a result the deficit is unlikely to come down either) so I'm guessing that they think there will be a big political payoff for being "fiscally responsible" and that the GOP will adhere to some private agreement to take "deficit reduction" off the table. And there's the magical thinking that the confidence fairy will set everything right. Unfortunately, it's almost inevitable that we are going to see yet another round of brinksmanship with the FY 2012 budget and if the administration thinks this is the path to victory, it's hard to see how we won't see even further cuts. After all, the White House has proposed 4 trillion in cuts on its own. But even if this is the end of it, it's quite an accomplishment. As Dday writes:

The entire concept of trading an increase in the debt limit, a routine bill that usually passes with grumbling but little else, for a transformation of government, is Grover Norquist’s most long-hoped dream realized.
First of all, the LAT writes that this would be the third major GOP victory in less than a year, the extension of the Bush tax cuts and the 2011 appropriations bill being the other two. Second, it confirms once again that $200 billion in cuts to Medicare and Medicaid have been agreed to by the White House, although we still don’t know what those cuts signify. And third, it clarifies the numbers I laid out yesterday, with the Administration having reduced their revenue demands from the already-small number.

But the small numbers of "revenue enhancement" aren't really the point. The point is that the government is fiddling while Rome burns --- we officially have 9.1% protracted unemployment and it's not getting better. And sadly, not only is all this likely to result in a continued joblessness and poor growth, it is killing liberalism itself. When the conservatives hang this lifeless economy around the Democrats' necks as a left wing failure, the only reply we will have is that tired old trope "but liberalism was never tried!" --- at which point they will point and laugh and remind us that Barack Obama was the most liberal president in history.

Update:

Here's Krugman:

Barack Herbert Hoover Obama

From today’s radio address:
Government has to start living within its means, just like families do. We have to cut the spending we can’t afford so we can put the economy on sounder footing, and give our businesses the confidence they need to grow and create jobs.
Yep, the false government-family equivalence, the myth of expansionary austerity, and the confidence fairy, all in just two sentences.
Read this and this to see why he’s wrong. This is truly a tragedy: the great progressive hope (well, I did warn people) is falling all over himself to endorse right-wing economic fallacies.

Update II:

Eliot Spitzer just said on CNN's Ali Velshi show that we need to put off the very necessary "serious cuts in the entitlements that need to be made" for at least three to five years so we can concentrate on job creation. Great.