Punching ourselves in the face

Greg Sargent sums up the decidedly non-theoretical disaster:

Democrats have effectively given up on trying to make the case for further government spending. The result has been bipartisan agreement to marginalize that argument to the point where it’s entirely vanished from the conversation. It’s only in this context that the bizarre bipartisan celebration of a deficit deal that managed to avert total implosion of the economy — while doing nothing to help solve the current problem with additional stimulus measures — makes any sense.

That both parties are asking us to view the current deal as an achievement ... only reveals the degree to which lawmakers, especially Democrats, have given up on making the case for sustained government action to help the economy.

That we must now operate a battered and limping 21st-century economy in accordance with 19th-century economic theory only intensifies the likely political consequences: a still-brutally battered, still-limping economy in 2012, for which virtually every incumbent will risk having to pay the price.

For the first time since January 2009 I'd wager that President Obama has at best 50-50 odds of reelection, and perhaps even an uphill battle. Mitt Romney -- probably -- will demagogue the living bejesus out of a wretched economy that his party, especially, has locked in.

The Senate? Democrats hold a 2:1 disadvantage in seats open or up for reelection, many of which sit in the economy's sorest spots.

The House? Democrats' best shot is at out-demagoguing (on Medicare) Republicans, who unquestionably will nationalize the election over the body politic's supreme economic concerns, which likely will have deepened by 2012's end because of government's spending retractions.

But, who knows. This is only a speculative snapshot, and to each his or her own. All guesswork is valid -- or unvalid, as the case may be -- at this point. It's what political junkies do.

Comments

[Robert Lipscomb]

The consensus seems to be that the Tea Party will emboldened, and I agree. Another consensus is that "traditional" Republicans are terrified of being "tea-partied" in their primaries. The logical conclusion is that the GOP will be completely radicalized over the next year.

I once mused over my fear that the GOP would find a way to un-pass the legislation destroying Medicare. Now, I assume that it will become a loyalty test in the upcoming GOP primaries. Every GOP candidate also will have to promise to never raise taxes. So their position is that Medicare, Medicaid, DOD and the rest will have to be cut by 40% to meet their goal of balancing the budget.

Yes people will be scared a year from now when the Great Depression is still in full swing, and that will make them more conservative. But as P.M. has pointed out many times, there is nothing conservative about the Tea Party - especially killing Medicare. I trust the people to see this.

Hell the people see through them now. What just happened is contrary to the will of the people. Even a majority of Republicans polled wanted a combination of cuts and tax increases. The same for taxes for incomes above $250,000.

Hell, there is plenty of evidence that rank and file Tea Party members do not support the actions ofthe Tea Party congressmen. By the way, does anyone know of a self-described Tea Party senator?

Wall Street has turned on thes yahoos. They might know how to stop them on this vote, but they damned sure know how to stop them during an election cycle. remember how "traditional" Democrats mugged Howard Dean after the Iowa caucus with the ginned up video of the scream? Do you really think Wall Street will sit with their thumbs up their butts as the Tea Party crashes the economy? The Koch brothers are outliers even on Wall Street.

These guys might have already done irepairable damage to country, but they are leading the GOP into an unholy civil war.

The Tea Party will be dead and buried in 2012.

I just hope the rest of us survive.

[CK MacLeod]

Left-liberals can follow up the general punch in own face with personal shoulders-dislocating double elbows to own stomachs and hip-breaking knees to own groins, then throb and moan their way to an epoch-making/-losing thrashdown in 2012-3...

...or they can grow up and gird the ol' loins, figure out what they stand for and as much or more what they stand against, stop expecting Dad to save them, and do a little wave assaulting of their own.

[Peter G]

Is there any point in making the case for further stimulatory spending? A pragmatist wouldn't waste their breath on it. I don't see this deal as any great loss. At least if the terms as outlined bt TPM are accurate. (http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/07/reid-agrees-to-major-debt-limit-deal----heres-what-hes-signed-off-on.php) On the contrary, the tea partiers clearly don't think they've won anything if their votes are any indication and I'll bet they are going to insist on being part of, if not in control of, the Republican half of the commission that is to recommend spending cuts. They won't get that unless Boehner is insane which is going to further divide the Republicans. Politcally in the short term it looks like a wash to me but the long term prospects for party unity are bad for the Republicans. No one will be able to detect any difference in the Democrats.

[Bulworth]

"On the contrary, the tea partiers clearly don't think they've won anything if their votes are any indication"

And wait until they find out there aren't actually any real cuts, or at least there aren't any cuts that can't be prevented by future congresses.

Basically this deal raised the debt cealing. That's it. And it created some kind of super commission congress thing whose main attribute is any failure on its part to enact drastic and politically unpopular cuts to important social programs will be that the ax will fall on the Pentagon instead.

I think the Repubs got snookered. Not that there's anything wrong with that.

[Alli]

Actually Obama just talked about spending on the TeeVee.

[TomD]

"...Obama just talked about spending on the TeeVee."

Doesn't count, Alli.

To use the bully pulpit correctly, Obama must lead off by ordering Boehner to produce universal employment legislation and he must close his remarks by casting a bank executive into a bonfire. (But he'd probably just pick some token board member instead of a chairman or CEO... freakin' precapitulator.)

[janicket]

@ TomD -- thank you for the guffaw -- I needed that.

[RC]

It's just too early to start talking about 50/50 elections. Bush I demonstrated that. Who knows what might be around the corner over the next year that will completely change the dynamic.

Nonetheless, it's awful to see the GOP come out of this with momentum of any kind. They've managed to damage this country's reputation permanently, and now they'll take down the economy eventually (if elected).

[Frank Sinclair]

Obama may have put himself in a stronger position vis a vis the GOP as a result of this deal.

But it isn't going to put food on people's table. Obama can try to get a jobs bill through Congress -a real stimulus (NO! TAX! CUTS!) but the teabaggers and dittoheads in the House will never let it see the light of day. As a result, this economy will be a Millstone around Obama's head.

I predict a GOP president and Congress in January 2013.

Anybody going to Canada?

[Peter G]

Well Frank, I hope your assets do not exceed 600 grand or so because one tax the US has increased is the one you pay when you renounce your citizenship. It is 45 per cent on everything over that amount. Everything.

[Bruce]

So who made all those phone calls and sent all those emails last week? The untold legions of supporters ready to abandon Barack Obama forever?

[TurboNerd]

CK MacLeod, I like your thinking. I'm a centrist Independent who has thrown in with the Democrats more and more over the years due to the increasingly bizarre thinking of the Republican Radicals (they are NOT Conservatives). However, I have also been remarkably frustrated about how whiny and defeatist many Liberals are. In a divided government you have to FIGHT for what you want. I see Obama carrying this fight every day. I don't see him getting the credit he deserves. Then again, I like him because he is a pragmatic centrist. Anybody a sigma or two off the mean probably doesn't appreciate him the way I do.

This President is doing EXACTLY what he promised: bringing pragmatic bi-partisan sanity back to Washington. That he is having to fight One-and-a-half parties (All the Republicans and half of his own party) to do it and has still made amazing progress (Health Care Reform, DADT repeal, keeping us out of a freakin' Depression, Killing Bin Laden, new aggressive MPG standards, etc) is nothing short of amazing. I am constantly astounded to see people whining about how little he is doing when in fact he has been able to achieve amazing things in a toxic political environment of neo-conservative insanity. I'd like to see Liberals spike the ball and loudly celebrate every time there is even a partial win. Morosely complaining and withdrawing just pushes guys like me away. That is what loses political fights and elections.

Liberals need to focus on telling America how they will make America better with pragmatic solutions that will help everyone AND that are fiscally prudent, not whining about how Obama isn't FDR resurrected. If they do, centrist independents like myself will be happy to lend a hand.

[CK MacLeod]

TurboNerd: Obviously, I agree with you, but I try not to judge the Liberal-Left too unkindly. Progressives want to defend and advance social democratic policies - for very good, authentically conservative reasons - but they call them anything else or nothing at all. They often seem to be refraining from saying what they're really after, to be afraid of offering a coherent program - in part because they've been taught to fear losing centrist independents like yourself.