Nader writes: "Putting themselves on the defensive, while dialing business lobbyists for the same campaign dollars as the Republicans, the Obama crowd, of course, could not advance what they promised the American people."
Ralph Nader says the president is 'averse to conflict with corporate power.' (photo: AP)
Obama and the Art of the Cave-In
04 January 12
zra Klein, the bright, young, economic policy columnist for the "Washington Post" believes that Obama came out ahead last year in the "administration's bitter, high-stakes negotiations with the Republicans in Congress."
He cites four major negotiations in 2011 with the Republicans that Obama won. Obama won the game of chicken played in February by the House Speaker John Boehner and Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell to avoid a government shutdown. He won the battle to raise the customarily supported debt ceiling on government borrowing. He avoided an embarrassment after he had to concur in the formation of a "Supercommittee" on deficit reduction when Congress couldn't come to an agreement. And he won all of a two-month extension of the social security payroll tax cut and extension of unemployment compensation benefits.
If those were "high stakes," I wonder what microscopic instrument would detect any lower stakes. Obama keeps "winning battles" that he could have avoided. But what about taking the offensive on some really significant matters? For example, when he caved in December 2010 to the minority Republicans and agreed to extend the deficit-producing Bush tax cuts on the rich, he didn't demand in return a continuation of the regular bi-partisan approval of lifting the debt limit. So over weeks in 2011, he had to mud-wrestle the Republicans on the debt limit - to the dismay of finance ministers across the world - and won only after conceding the bizarre creation of a Supercommittee to order its own Congress to enact budget cuts. That Supercommittee gridlocked and closed down.
Finally, if he does nothing, the $4 trillion over 10 years that are the Bush tax cuts expire automatically on January 1, 2013 - after the election. On the same day, the spending trigger automatically kicks in which cuts over ten years $500 billion from the bloated Defense budget and another $500 billion from other departments, but not from social security and Medicare/Medicaid beneficiaries.
This is an Obama victory? What makes Mr. Klein so sure Obama won't cave again? He has all this year to do so. His own Defense Secretary Leon Panetta has often said that there's no way he would go for any further defense cuts. Also, Obama was ready in 2011 to raise the Medicare eligibility age in return for the deal on debt ceiling. He was saved from this folly only by the stubbornness of Boehner and his clenched-teeth sidekick, Virginian Eric Cantor from the arguably most passive Congressional district in the U.S. Boehner and Cantor wanted more.
Here are some high stakes fights where the Republicans defeated the White House and blocked major substantive advances. They stopped the wide-ranging energy bill, and stifled Uncle Sam's authority to bargain for drug discounts that taxpayers are paying to the gouging drug companies for the drug benefit program for the elderly. They kept the coal industry King Coal on Capitol Hill, preserved crass corporate welfare and tax loophole programs, and blocked the able nominee to head the new agency to protect against consumer finance abuses. They also cut budgets for small but crucial safety programs in food, auto safety, and children's hunger.
Republicans preserved the notorious nuclear power loan guarantee boondoggles, a bevy of Soviet-era weapons systems nestled in the arms of the military-industrial complex and mercilessly beat up on the work and budget of the cancer-preventing, illness-reducing Environmental Protection Agency. That's just for starters.
Obama and the majority Democrats in the Senate dug this hole for themselves when they failed to curtail the filibuster in January 2009 and 2011 by majority vote. They doomed themselves to the numerically impossible hurdle of needing 60 votes to pass any measure and avoid filibusters.
Putting themselves on the defensive, while dialing business lobbyists for the same campaign dollars as the Republicans, the Obama crowd, of course, could not advance what they promised the American people. They went silent on raising the federal minimum wage to $9.50, promised by candidate Obama in 2008 for 2011. At $9.50, it would still have been less than the federal minimum wage in 1968, adjusted for inflation. Hardly a radical proposal.
Obama went silent on the card check, promised unorganized American workers in their losing struggle with multinational corporate employers. While bailing out the criminal gamblers on Wall Street, he could have pressed for a stock transaction sales tax that could have raised big revenue and helped dampen speculation with other peoples' money such as pension funds and mutual fund savings.
He could have pushed seriously for a visible public works program producing domestic jobs in thousands of communities for improved public services. He could have directly challenged the Tea Partiers with cuts in corporate welfare, but he did not, except for ending an ethanol subsidy. He could have made a big deal of cracking down on corporate fraud on Medicare and Medicaid that totals tens of billions of dollars a year. However, once on the defensive from his own self-inflicted weak hand, he was always on the defensive.
Obama may be in a superior tactical position vis-a-vis the Congressional Republicans, as Mr. Klein posits, but is this all there is left of the touted movement for hope and change in 2008?
President Obama is deemed by his fellow Democrats to have won the financial battles, but the Republicans won the rest. How can the expectation levels of this two party duopoly sink any lower?
Let's face it, if today's Republicans are the most craven, greedy, ignorant, anti-worker, anti-patient, anti-consumer, anti-environment and coddlers of corporate crime in the party's history, why aren't the Democrats landsliding them?
For two answers try reading John F. Kennedy's best-selling Profiles of Courage, 1955, or if you favor the ancients, Plutarch's Lives (circa 100 A.D.).
Reader Supported News is the Publication of Origin for this work. Permission to republish is freely granted with credit and a link back to Reader Supported News.
|
THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community. |
 22 May 2012
|
 21 May 2012
|
 21 May 2012
|
 21 May 2012
|
 21 May 2012
|
 23 May 2012
|
 22 May 2012
|
 22 May 2012
|
 22 May 2012
|
Comments
We are concerned about a recent drift towards vitriol in the RSN Reader comments section. There is a fine line between moderation and censorship. No one likes a harsh or confrontational forum atmosphere. At the same time everyone wants to be able to express themselves freely. We'll start by encouraging good judgment. If that doesn't work we'll have to ramp up the moderation.
General guidelines: Avoid personal attacks on other forum members; Avoid remarks that are ethnically derogatory; Do not advocate violence, or any illegal activity.
Remember that making the world better begins with responsible action.
- The RSN Team
But do you know where the word "politician comes from?
I've heard it said that the word 'politics' is derived from the word 'poly', meaning 'many', and the word 'ticks', meaning 'blood sucking parasites'.
This is an indication of how well the US Congress is representing the people that voted for each of them.
The way to get the representation you vote for is see what he actually does, and don't just listen to the promises he makes.
Been there; done that.
"Poly" derives from the Greek "polys," meaning "several." Politics, on the other hand, comes from "polis," meaning "city" and "politikos" meaning "citizen," or more precisely a citizen who takes part in the affairs of the city.
To the ancient Athenians, there was no higher secular calling that to be a "politician," which is to say someone who dedicated time and energy to public discussion. Modernity, however, has adopted a different approach, reducing citizens to consumers and marginalizing anyone who is serious about promoting the common good.
We can argue and argue about whether Gore won but refused to fight, whether the election would have been stolen from him if he'd earned the few million extra that were taken by Nader, etc.
It's all beside the point.
I hated Nader. Now I don't.
This article puts more succinctly than anything else I've read exactly what the "game" of Presidential politics has become since Obama took office.
Nader, thanks for taking the time and trouble to bother pointing out the truth about the situation we face.
STILL...
Gore ONLY won by 400,000 votes.
If Nader had not intentionally tried to keep him out of office, it's conceivable that he would have won by well over 3 MILLION votes.
The Supremes would NOT have been able to fudge around those numbers - especially when you cosider the fact that Nader WENT OUT OF HIS WAY to campaign in Florida at the last minute for this very purpose. He even lost Michael Moore's support when he did that.
Nader's campaign was much like gingrich's - COMPLETELY DRIVEN BY PERSONAL VANITY and NOT the best interests of American citizens.
Unfortunately, third parties don't work in our political system (yet). It's mind-bending to think how things might have been different without Cheney's influence on Bush. I agree it was the Supreme Court who cheated Bush into the White House and not Ralph Nader.
You're right. It's too bad we have a two party system. But, it's a fact. Until we have 2 or 3 three Constitutional amendments passed to change the electoral process, that's the way it is. How often are referendums even tried anymore? There's a reason for that. If you think Utah and Mississippi will give up on the two party system, you're mistaken.
On the one hand we owe Nader thanks for publicizing that there are no significant differences between the two major political parties. Many people still don't see that the US has a single business party with two heads. Nader may even have contributed to the rise of the OWS movement by strengthening the paradigm of cutting through the partisan BS, and seeking real change.
On the other hand, Obama is preferable to the Republican candidates, and there are presently no realistic alternatives to the major political parties. Those of us who consider Obama better, however slightly, may have to vote for him in a close situation to avoid greater evil. But we shouldn't delude ourselves into believing Obama is trying to protect the civil rights of the American people or the finances of the working/middle class. That notion is demonstrably untrue. Obama places system elites, individuals and institutional structures, before the American people.
Nader wants us to know (appropriately, I feel) that we haven't won anything by getting Obama in office. All we've done is ward off greater disaster. As OWS has so dramatically revealed, we need to focus on real changes to be made on the grassroots level.
As I understand it the SCOTUS decision was that a full recount should be done but said it should be done in the impossibly short period that Florida set up saying it wanted the decision by Dec 16, instead of the previous deadline of January 6. A heck of a trick of not setting a precedent on the actual need for a complete recount, but making it impossible by requiring it to be done in a few hours.
I forever will be trying to make up for having voted for Bush. I've dumped Bank of America, started listening to the OWS people in person, and would happily vote for Nader for Senate or support him in any other position he could be helpful in.
The lesson is that real change will not come from either the Democratic or Republican Parties. Let's not fool ourselves. It takes some people a Ralph Nader to remind them.
Nader was funded entirely by the repuglican party for a reason. He gleefully took that money. His "principles" seem to have a limit.
No use wasting time on might-have-beens. I say Nader is worth listening to (He's earned that much to me), and (like anyone) worth following when he makes sense-- but certainly not blindly.
Nader had nothing to do with it. Put your anger where it belongs.
This has all the markings of a drug industry created red-herring.
Where I live the supermarket Price Chopper has better prices in the stores that have a pharmacy than Wal-Mart.
Canada has the best prices although re a few OTC items, the cost has increased. But, still cheaper than America even with shipping charges. CanadaDrugs.com has no shipping charges and terrific customer service. You can buy online or by phone but you must have a perscription. This pharmacy plays by the rules.
Canadian pharmacies' customers typically include numerous seniors from America who have reached the donut hole and, of course, the uninsured.
You have to do your homework to survive the American so-called "health care" system which is totally barbaric, and this includes Medicare for seniors who can't afford Parts B or D or can't afford Medicare with supplemental coverage.
Medicare is not cheap if you are on a fixed low-income, it doesn't cover a lot and it is expensive to use. Actually, cost sharing went up for 2012 although Part B premiums decreased for some. So for $15 bucks a month less for Part B, affording to actually use the coverage just got worse.
Paying Medicare tax all these years turns out to be a racket.
Pharmacies generally adjust prices to what the local insurance companies-- and medicare/medicaid, especially in the poorer and and older regions-- will pay. The prices paid by insurance companies and the federal government through medicare/medicaid are set by negotiations with the pharma companies. These companies have bargained with the feds to avoid price controls, and to keep states from undercutting them. A Faustian bargain for the government. In the absence of federal controls, Maine and other states have been looking to cut costs on drugs, threatening to buy from Canada to get cheaper prices.
Why would you vote for someone who is also a POS and has shown that he is as willing as Bush to continue and enlarge the fake war on terror, put through austerity measures that only affect the 99 percent while he cuts taxes for the wealthy, who allows Wall St. and the banksters to get away with murder and who also signs a law that allows the detention of Americans willy-nilly? Those are just a few items. Read Nadar's list again.
You can take a stand and keep your self-respect at the same time by voting for Jill Stein or Rocky Anderson. Jill is on the side of the 99 percent. Rocky sounds like he is too, but I don't know as much about him as I do Jill.
Otherwise, you are an enabler and have no right to complain about anything Obama has done to the 99 percent and the rest of the world.
You are an Obama apologist. He is getting exactly what he wants, and Ralph Nadar is not attacking him. Nadar has given you the cold, hard facts whereas Ezra Klein has not b/c he is paid to rally the base.
If Klein told the truth, he would lose his seat under the tent. I heard and read Klein ad nauseum regarding Obamacare during the year long dog-and-pony show and was so disgusted by his false talking points on a topic he knew nothing about that I don't read him anymore. Same with Krugman.
As for politicians, both parties play good cop, bad cop while they dine at the same trough. Obama is just another lying politician - certainly not a statesman. I think the latter is extinct.
Nadar has done people a favor by letting them know the truth. Accepting the truth is another story, and only you can be willing (and not afraid) to do that.
If you continue to live in denial, then you will get what you deserve. Unfortunately, we'll all go down with you.
It's fun to talk the talk. These people seem to have co-opted the marketing of John F. Kennedy for their own purposes without any of the substance. Lloyd Benson's remark to dan quale could just as easily apply to the Clintons and Obama.
What two (or even one of them) answers are in "Profile In Courage" and/or Plutarch that Ralph is pointing out?
We'll just keep throwing stuff out there Ralph & maybe someday, someone will hear.
Neither the Supremes, nor Katherine Harris could have fudged 97,000 votes into the bush category.
If Nader's vanity hadn't put his own personal interests before those of the American people, the Florida "re" count would never have reached the Supreme Court in the first place and bush would never have entered office.
As so many are seeing, both parties take from the money powers and thus are committed to them, not the people. That seems to be the bottom line.
Time for change!
Ralph could not run , effectively, a toy shop and really needs to get over the fact that there are no more Corvaires on the road.
Don Quixote, please go home. You are creating more problems than you say you are supposedly fighting.
It's a windmill Ralph , A windmill.
Why are Green Party supporters misguided? Please enlighten me b/c I find this to be a silly, judgemental comment, and I would like you to prove me wrong.
Do you also think that people are misguided who support Rocky Anderson's Justice Party or is it just the Green Party supporters.
For the record, I'm not a supporter of any party at this point but am definately not going to vote for Obama or whoever opposes him. If I were to fill in the oval next to Obama's name after all he has done to us and the lies he has told, I would have no self-respect.
In the second term, if there is one, Obama would do well to follow Nader's lead and take the offensive on really significant matters. Why the Democrats aren't landsliding the "craven, greedy, ignorant, anti-worker, anti-patient, anti-consumer, anti-environment and coddlers of corporate crime in the [Republican] party's history is the one question that has no logical answer.
The 99% need real representation.
-I have appreciated Ralph's courage and pressure from a citizen's interest point of view...tactics and timing could have been better as pointed out
-I appreciate the vision put out by Obama's candidacy that perhaps is part of the spark of the OWS movement here and around the world
-Obama has always said he can't do it alone..he's right..enter OWS
-The OWS movement has the momentum and values to
change the system..it has already changed the conversation
-Pushing the corporate Democrats to the left is much more of a challenge than the Tea Party had pushing the Repubs to the right
-Let's not paint all the Democrats with the same broad brush...there are many progressives...it's a disservice to them and us and our humane efforts
-OWS is expressing the values to change the systems favoring the few at the expense of the many
-Our job is to unify, connect and create the world we want to live in
-Let's be kind to each other and respect maybe even learn from our differences.
-2012 is the opportunity to transform the world as we know it ..the end of polarizing selfishness and greed and the growth of connection and collaboration
-were on our way
In your list you have written: I appreciate the vision put out by Obama's candidacy that perhaps is part of the spark of the OWS movement here and around the world.
The OWS movement has no political affiliation and is not part of any spark put forth by Obama's vision. Obama's only vision is doing what his money masters want him to do which includes starting more wars and trying to stop the OWS by his recent signing of the detention of Americans law.
It appears from articles I have read that the police violence, brutality and arrests of peaceful OWS protestors as well as people sitting on the sidelines was ordered from the top. Who is at the top?
Ordering violence against your own citizens is ugly. Obviously, this is an effort to stop the "occupying" and to discourage people from joining, but it hasn't worked so well.
Obama or any of the politicians on either side of the aisle don't care about the 99 percent. That is blatantly obvious. On Captitol Hill, we have the Party of Wall St. and the Other Party of Wall St.
What Obama has done AGAINST the 99 percent with the help of Democrats, Progressives and Republicans is why the OWS movement was formed.
I suppose you could call that a spark but not in the context you mention.
RSS feed for comments to this post.