Dialogue with Doug B post-election

In reverse chron order (because I'm lazy)


From Doug B.: I largely agree on your perspective on Obama but I think he focused on too many key issues at the outset, and gave the impression that the economy was not necessarily issues 1 through, say, 3. In addition, the stimulus bill was very sloppy, to say the least, and the benefits of the bill have not been convincingly communicated. Finally, I agree with the importance of the objectives of the health care bill, but the way it was put together it becomes yet another entitlement we can't pay for.

I am not sure how Obama could have done more to appear "non-partisan" in the environment but somehow he has appeared to be partisan. Agree that Fox, Limbaugh, Murdoch, etc., have done much to damage the process, but there have been significant errors on the Dem side.

From Chris: (1) Health care was/is the holy grail of Democratic politics and has been for 75 years. This blinded Obama and all Democrats to some extent. They did a half-assed job, but given the Senate “requirement” of 60 votes and the unbelievable distortions of the debate, it is amazing they did anything at all. Of course, the reasonable question is: why do anything so half-assed? The politics dictated that once they started, they could not stop without being deemed a “failed” congress. But, I am convinced it’s the half-assedness of the job that killed the Congressional Democrats – all the benefits are back ended, while the costs seem not to have been affected (Though the CBO says ultimately costs will be reduced, I believe that there is a supply and demand issue and the bill increased demand without increasing supply. That’s too simplistic, I’m sure.)

(2) Obama did not understand until very late that the other side benefitted by opposing and vilifying him: and a united front made mischaracterizations of the legislation and Obama himself “stick”. Mitch McConnell said very early on something to the effect: if there is bipartisan legislation on things like the stimulus, financial reform and health care, those bills will be immensely popular. Despite our duty as public servants, we cannot afford popular legislation if we want control of Congress/the White House.

(3) The mischaracterizations required to oppose those bills created some of the most widely misunderstood legislation I can remember – not since we were told that flouride was a communist plot do I remember gaps between truth and assertion being so wide. And Obama did not understand that framing the issues was important as formulating the legislation. Nor do Democrats generally understand message discipline. As one minor factoid: more than 50% of the electorate believes that the Obama administration is responsible for the Wall Street bailout. Don’t get me started on the electorate’s lack of basic scientific knowledge or acceptance of simple facts like Obama’s religious affiliation or place of birth. That’s a direct result of the partisan divide – the McConnell paradox. (Added to that, the Republicans have accomplished the near-impossible: they have convinced the electorate that they didn’t really support the bailout and that they in fact hate bailouts; simultaneously they garnered almost all of the money and support from the financial services industry by opposing financial regulation reforms (and of course thereby contributing to the distorted regulation that resulted), after the largest regulatory failure in American history.)

(4) Under these conditions – economic near collapse, corrosive public discourse, partisan “news” organizations – there is no possibility of Obama (or anyone else) uniting the country to address the incredible long-term fiscal and environmental issues we face. It has to happen over a long period of time, as truth eventually becomes clear and the wall of mischaracterizations falls of its own weight.

Obama’s other mistakes (other than your list and mine, and simply not connecting with people):

(1) the tax code needed certainty - why not raise the limit to $500k/year and not lose that debate? That should have been issue number 2 after the stimulus – extend the cuts except for those making over $500k and elevate the estate tax deduction to $5mm. Reduce corporate tax rates and close off-shoring loopholes/incentives. Even that very generous legislation would have been tough but do-able; however it would have been very popular immediately afterwards.

(2) health care should have followed financial reform (and tax cut extension) because there were some Republican votes for those 2. There were none for health care and they should have known that – they were completely taken in by McConnell, Nelson and Grassley on that one.

(3) cap and trade (or similar carbon limiting legislation) should have followed health care, because it would also have been very popular – but only after reduction of corporate taxes – especially after the oil spill and the mine disaster. How the Dems lost that opportunity, I will never know.

There is no Deficit

There are multiple deficits. Addressing the Federal deficit is not nearly enough. Overall federal debt, state deficits and debt and unfunded public pension liabilities must be addressed in any clarifying discussion of public fiscal problems. Pension liability accounting must also be addressed. How can a discount rate be justified in calculating total liabilities? If New Jersey uses 8% (or thereabouts) as a discount rate, on what basis does it do that - especially if people are living longer?

Me and My Uncle

It seems to me that lots of Western Republicans believe that, having had their states created by the federal government from land bargained at the point of a gun or outright stolen from Native Americans, they would like now to shoot their partner, the federals, take the rest of the land, and leave the government "dead by the side of the road."