Subject: [big campaign] New Huff Post from Creamer-How Obama Seized Political High Ground in Budget War
From: [email-masked]
To: [email-masked], [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2011 10:47:38 -0400 (EDT)
List-Id: <bigcampaign.googlegroups.com>

How Obama Seized the PoliticalHigh Ground in Budget War
 
     For severalmonths, Washington conventional wisdom has convinced itself that PresidentObama – and Democrats in Congress – have been on the losing end of thedeficit-budget debate.  But with hisspeech yesterday, President Obama seized the high political ground in thebudget war that will heavily define his second two years in office.  Four factors have changed the politicalequation.
 
      First, Obamachanged the frame of debate from the realm of policies, programs and green eye-shadesinto a contest between the progressive values that have always defined what isbest in America and the radical conservative values of the Gilded Age. 
 
     The right alwaysgoes to political war armed with a full complement of value-based arguments andsymbols.  They are very good at clothingthe self-interest of Wall Street/CEO class in talk about freedom andindividualism and self-reliance.
 
      We lose when wetalk about policies and programs and they talk about right and wrong. 
 
     But the moment wetransform the debate into a contest between progressive and radicalconservative values – between the progressive and conservative visions of thefuture – we completely change the political equation. 
 
     Yesterday,President Obama argued that the debate about the Federal budget is actuallyabout two very different visions of American society:
 
·     Are we all in this together – or do we believein a society where everyone is out for himself and himself alone?
·     Should we simultaneously take responsibility forourselves and look out for each other – or should the strongest and most cleveramong us simply be allowed to dominate and exploit the rest?
·     Do we aspire to hope and possibility – to thebelief that we can shape a better future for our kids?  Or are we ready to concede that we can nolonger afford to assure that every child has the education she needs to fulfillher potential – or that seniors should be denied a dignified life in theirretirement – or that if you’re sick and poor, you’re just out of luck?
 
      Our religioustraditions make it clear which side of this value debate embodies the trueaspirations of most Americans – as does our choice of heroes and heroines.  
 
      We uniformly admire men and women whoembody our belief that the highest calling is standing up for each other.  We honor people like Martin Luther King,Ghandi, Mandela, Lincoln, Kennedy, Roosevelt, Elizabeth Cady Stanton-- peoplewho fought to broaden the realm of freedom – who embody the view that all people are created equal and thatour society should provide everyoneopportunity.  
 
      The list doesnot include robber barons or defenders of slavery.   
 
      When we proudlyassert our progressive values, we win.
 
     Second, the elementsof the President’s budget program are immensely popular. 
 
      The beltwaypundits would have you believe that to have a “serious” budget plan you have todo things that are “painful” and “unpopular.” The only reason that would be true is that they often advocate takingactions that are beneficial only to the top two percent of the population atthe expense of everyone else. 
 
      They say that tobe “serious” we have to cut Social Security for seniors who make an average of$19,000 a year and give tax breaks to people who make tens of millions – sometimesbillions a year.  
 
     It’s easy to seewhy that would be pretty unpopular with most people.  To make it palatable to ordinary people youhave to convince them that they need to take the “bitter medicine now” so theycan have a better life – or avoid an even more dire fate – in the future.   This, of course, is self-serving hog wash.  To have a better life in the future we don’thave to give more wealth to Wall Street and the rich, and sacrifice investmentsin education, research, infrastructure and a decent life for senior citizens.Just the opposite.
 
     Of course we needto do what is necessary to pay for what government does.  But the choice we face is not between short-termpain and long-term prosperity.  It isbetween a better life for most people and the greed of a few people. 
 
     President Obama’sproposals are very popular because if we clearly lay out the true choices,normal people are smart enough to understand their own interests.   Eighty-one percent of the population favorsincreasing taxes on millionaires.  Hugepercentages oppose cuts in Medicare and Medicaid.  They oppose eliminating Medicare andreplacing it with vouchers that steer you to buy private insurance.   They certainly oppose increasing out-of-pocketcosts for seniors on Medicare by $6,400 -- which the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office says is the directconsequence of the Republican budget.  They support making smart, appropriate cuts in defense spending. Theysupport investing more, not less, in education and scientific research.  They support more money – not less -- forHead Start, nutrition programs, to pay for police and fire protection, to buildschools and bridges and high speed rail. They support investing more money in clean energy. 
 
     Democratic budgetpriorities are popular precisely because they reflect the progressive valuesthat are shared by the vast majority of Americans.
 
   Third, thePresident established two additional important framing points:
 
·     Eliminating the budget deficit is notinconsistent with progressive priorities. This should be obvious to anyone with an ounce of memory, since the lasttime the budget was balanced was just ten years ago and that was done underDemocrat Bill Clinton. However, it was necessary to make this point clear bypresenting a plan to achieve fiscal balance that also embodies progressivevalues.
 
·     Controlling health care costs – which is a majordriver of increased spending – is not the same as simply shifting these coststo seniors and the disabled.  Controllingcosts is about actually controlling increases in the costs of delivering healthcare – chief among which are the outrageous costs of prescription drugs.  Obama reintroduced a major way to cut healthcare costs into the debate: allow Medicare to use its buying power to negotiatelower drug prices.  But that of coursewould lower the profits of the drug companies.
 
     Finally, Obamahas outmaneuvered the Republicans. 
 
     Obama’s strategywas to settle the short-term 2011 budget battle in order to eliminate the Republicanweapon of the short-term government shutdown.  That was a key leverage point because it was very much in Obama’sinterest to avoid the economic damage that a shutdown would cause to thefragile recovery.  He wanted to get thebest deal he could in terms of pure dollars and cents.  But his main goal was to come to an agreementthat avoided a shutdown, but did not compromise structural or policy issuesthat would reshape the political and economic landscape far beyond theSeptember end of the fiscal year.  Inthat, he was largely successful.
 
     By coming to anagreement before he launched the broader policy debate he also had theopportunity to see exactly how far the Wall Street/CEO faction of RepublicanParty and the Party’s political elite would allow the Tea Party faction to goin pursuit of its program.  Turned outthat they were unwilling to shut down the government over the Tea Party socialagenda.
 
     Obama also wantedto wait to seriously join the debate until after the Republican Budget Chair,Paul Ryan, had unveiled the details of their budget plan that lays bare thereal contours of the right wing vision for everyone to see.   That allowed him to clearly contrast aprogressive vision with a fully articulated Republican blueprint.
 
     Obama has changedthe terms of negotiation – the benchmarks – from pure dollars cut, to questionsinvolving the purpose of Government and our vision of society.  That makes it much easier for him to drawclear lines in the sand – as he did yesterday. He pledged unequivocally not to privatize Medicare, not to block grantMedicaid, and not to sign another extension of the Bush tax cuts for thewealthy. 
 
     At the same time,his proposals allow him to take off the table the issue of how much Democratswant to reduce the deficit.  He presenteda plan that matches and – actually exceeds – the Republican deficit reductiongoals.  That leaves the only question fordebate the issue of how that goal is achieved, which is the strongestDemocratic political ground.
 
     What aboutRepublican claims that they will hold an increase in the debt ceiling hostageto their budget demands?  They arenothing but bluster.  If the WallStreet/CEO faction was unwilling to allow the Tea Party to shut down thegovernment, they certainly are not going to allow them to explode the economyand financial markets with government default. 
 
      Obama SeniorAdvisor David Plouffe has said that both Republicans and Democrats know that wehave to increase the debt ceiling so that it’s really not an issue.  In other words, the Administration simplyplans to call the Republicans’ bluff. That eliminates any leverage provided by the debt ceiling vote.
 
     The Congress doesnot need a “budget” for fiscal 2012 and beyond. To continue operating, the government does need new appropriation billsfor 2012.  Those will become the focalpoint of the next “shutdown” drama, but that will once again likely involvenumbers and spending levels – not the long-term structural questions posed bythe Republicans and Obama budget plans.
 
     Many Progressivesare wary that the budget negotiation process the President announced yesterdaycould ultimately lead to a deal that does in fact yield ground on thesestructural issues.   They point outcorrectly that as long as there is a Republican-controlled House, any dealwould of necessity involve bad outcomes.
 
     I agree with thatconcern.  Luckily, I am about as likelyto be reincarnated as a frog as the Republicans are to agree to increase taxeson the wealthy.  This is the holy grailof Republican’s policy world.  It is, infact, the principal raison d'etre of the Party’s existence. 
 
     That being thecase, the odds of a true long-term global budget deal this year are, I believe,very slim.  In all likelihood that mustawait the next election where Democrats will regain control of the House,maintain the Senate and the White House.   
 
     The President’sspeech yesterday made that kind of electoral outcome much more likely.  It also increased the odds that the countrywill actually get a long-term budget plan that simultaneously reduces ourFederal deficit and allows us to win the future. 
 
Robert Creamer is a long-timepolitical organizer and strategist, and author of the book:  Stand Up Straight: How Progressives Can Win,available on Amazon.com. Followhim on Twitter @rbcreamer.

 

      

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the "big campaign" group.

To post to this group, send to [email-masked]

To unsubscribe, send email to [email-masked]

E-mail [email-masked] with questions or concerns
 
This is a list of individuals. It is not affiliated with any group or organization.