First Mistake: Tax Cut Compromises with Republicans in the Stimulus Package

[Tom Rinaldo]

That set the stage for so many troubles to follow. Our priorities could have and in hindsight should have been more sharply focused and boldly defined back then, in the early days of the Obama Administration on the heels of a sweeping Democratic victory in the 2008 elections. Direct job creation expenditures were cut back to make room for more Republican backed tax cuts and credits. The results; a less immediate and obvious bang for the buck in reducing unemployment, a concessionary soft peddling of the virtues of direct public works programs (laying the groundwork for a later retreat on the Public Option in HCR), an emboldened Republican minority who learned they could have their cake and eat it too by insisting that Democratic initiatives be changed in response to their concerns, and then opposing the final legislation anyway.

[bigdarryl]

1. YEP

[elleng]

2. Thanks, Tom.

What was second mistake?

Any thoughts on who should be this Admin's domestic tactical policy czar?

[Tom Rinaldo]

3. uuummm.

Like I said above "in hindsight..." which is always easier than foresight BUT DOES NOT MAKE IT LESS IMPORTANT. You have to keep learning from mistakes to improve.

Now for my own humble opinion letting Max Baucus create a secret Senate Task Force on HCR and putting almost everything on hold while its Republican members dithered and delayed was a big mistake. Was it the second, almost certainly not. Every Administration makes dozens of mistakes, it comes with the playing field.

I'm not a biggie on the czar theory but they should have at least been consulting with Howard Dean more than they did.

[elleng]

5. I agree.

Thanks.

How you doing?

E

[Tom Rinaldo]

7. Doing OK Ellen, thanx, except for economically ):

Hard times don't make for good times. Hope you are OK.

[IndianaGreen]

4. Ongoing mistake: no leadership!

A brutal and devastating column by David Michael Green summed it up best:

* He does not lead. Americans, especially in times of crisis, want their daddy-president to pick a point on the horizon and lead them to it. Often - especially in the short term - they don't even care that much which point it is. They will happily follow a president whose policies they oppose if he will but lead.

* And if he will demonstrate some conviction. I have never seen a president so utterly lacking in passion. This man literally doesn't even seem to care about himself, let alone this or that policy issue. He doesn't seem to have any strong opinions on anything, a sure prescription for presidential failure.

* He has therefore let Congress ‘lead' on nearly every issue, another surefire mistake. Instead of demanding that they pass real stimulus legislation - which would have really stimulated the economy, big-time, and right now - he let those dickheads on the Hill just load up a big pork party blivet of a bill with all the pet projects they could find, designed purely to benefit their personal standing with the voters at home, rather than to actually produce jobs for Americans. And on health care, his signature issue, he did the same thing. "You guys write it, and I'll sign the check." Could there possibly be a greater prescription for failure than allowing a bunch of the most venal people on the planet to cobble together a 2,000 page monstrosity that entirely serves their interests and those of the people whose campaign bribes put them in office?

* Well, yes, now that you mention it. If you really want to bring your government crashing to the ground, why not spend endless months negotiating with vicious thugs, who will never vote for your legislation anyhow, because they are so entirely devoted to your destruction that they're willing to call you a granny murderer? What a great and winning strategy!

* Another possible strategic move even stupider than deferring to Congress to write major legislation is to cozy up with the least popular people on the planet - including, in fact, the real-life granny killers. Got an economy that is so raw it's leaving thousands in literal peril of losing their lives? Why not draft some legislation to bail-out the people who created that mess and guarantee that they retain their multimillion dollar bonuses?!?! You know, the same folks who are always talking about how great capitalism is and how important it is to take risks! The same ones who are always telling us how awful the government is - the same government that saved them from extinction. Those folks. That's right, bail out with outrageous bonuses the very people who need it least and who caused billions of people around the planet to suffer, while leaving everyone else to fend for themselves! That'll raise your presidential job approval ratings every time! And while you're at it, bring in the much beloved health insurance and pharmaceutical corporate lobbyists, and negotiate a deal with them to craft your high profile health care legislation! What voter can't get behind that?

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/01/22-7

[Armstead]

6. A small but important verbal mistake (unless deliberate)

Obama did -- does -- the same damn thing Clinton did.

He spends as many words essentially negating liberalism (i.t.government action) as he does trying to justify action. he makes the conservative case before suggesting any action.

"I'm not for bog government and we are going to have to bring these deficits down, but we need to invest some money now to get the private sector moving again."

(Not a direct quote, but paraphrase.)

IMO that just gives the conservatives more ammo, and continues to embed the GOP memes.

Rather, IMO, he should cut to the chase and lay out and positively explain government action.

"The conservatives have been starving the public interest and sending your money into the coffers of the elites and large corporations. And they have screwed up the economy and siphoned your money. We need government to take an active role to revitalize the economy, and restore a balance that will allow you to earn what you're worth and allow govern,ment to provide the services that are necessary to help and rebiuld the middle class."

or something like that...

[Tom Rinaldo]

8. Democrats have become fearful of defending the role of Government in society

A lasting legacy from Reagan it seems. When times are hard most folks want to know who is to blame, and the Republicans are always ready with an answer (Big Government, Liberals, and Clinton), while Democrats usually come across as mushy.

[ProSense]

9. So the first mistake was passing the Stimulus?

Are you forgetting that there were only 58 members in the Democratic caucus, and some of them were complaining about the deficit just as the three Republicans who voted for the bill were doing?

The tax cuts in fact were things like food stamps, unemployment and this brilliant move. Since not a single House Republican voted for the stimulus, they need to be reminded of that move. The stimulus helped tremendously. People argue that it should have been larger, but many others realized that it may not have been possible in one big bill. In fact, the administration has allocated more than the $1.2 billion to stimulus-type funding in its first year.

[Tom Rinaldo]

10. Your paraphrasing is a work of art

Do you forget that the stimulus bill was almost all about the budget and was always eligible for reconciliation if need be? I never said it was a mistake to pass a Stimulus bill, did I? Nor did I say it would have been better to pass nothing than what did get passed. But with the political capital Obama had when he first entered office, and with fears of a great depression, yes I believe he could have gotten a better package through and I think it would have served him better had he done so, as I indicated.

[ProSense]

11. Evidently, you did forget.

Reconciliation? Don't you need 50 votes? Do you actually remember how many Democrats were beefing about the stimulus package? The deficit hawks included Feingold and McCaskill.

[Tom Rinaldo]

12. No, I'm sorry you forget

The biggest beef some Democrats had was with the total deficit number. Reread my OP, the compromise I talked about involved lowering the amount of money that went to direct jobs creation in order to make room under the imposed "budget hawk ceiling" to increase the additional tax cuts and tax credits that Republican demanded. The final bill that passed met the budget hawk target with over 60 votes, 50 would not have been a problem for Democrats to reach with a bill that did not increase the deficit more than the one that passed did, but instead had more direct expenditures for job creation and less loss of revenues from Republican sponsored tax credits.

[Tom Rinaldo]

13. You might also recall that Obama originally wanted to use stimulus money...

...to modernize America's infrastructure, shift toward green energy, and bring our economy and technological into the 21st century. The stimulus bill did do some of that, but not as much as was originally envisioned. Sure some blame can always go to Congress for wanting to include pet spending projects that would not otherwise be worthy of inclusion. But Obama also cut stimulus money planned for direct rebuilding of infrastructure and technology advances in order to allow room for the additional tax cuts the G.O.P. was demanding. This is no secret, it was discussed at the time.

[FrenchieCat]

14. First Mistake were Democrats out there thinking that

They should spend all of their times criticizing this President,
with every single move he made, never showing support on anything,
ever.

Now and then, he's damned no matter what.

When 2012 comes along, do as you wish,
but realize that we will have two options.

The Corporations owns us now, and I fail to see how going back
trying to figure out what went wrong and doing so with bias,
really helps negate the SCOTUS ruling.

[Armstead]

15. "Those who ignore the past are condemned to repeat it."

[FrenchieCat]

16. Those who live in the past

do not recognize the present.

[Tom Rinaldo]

17. I take exception to this line Frenchie:

"I fail to see how going back trying to figure out what went wrong and doing so with bias"

Since you are respnding to my OP, I don't think it inappropriate to read it personally. Aside from whatever inherent bias comes with the human condition, what bias are you accusing me of exactly?

And I suggest you ask any military leader (one comes to mind in particular) about the value of analysing past battles fought with an eye toward improving the results of future ones.

[asdjrocky]

18. I was thinking the same thing the other day.

One of the first anyway, without talking about Rick Warren and the cabinet picks. They make it 40% tax cuts so they can complain for a year that no jobs were created and Obama bought it hook line and sinker.