Obama changes conversation on deficit with call for new investment

[Enrique]

http://news.firedoglake.com/2011/01/24/obama-changes-conversation-on-deficit-with-call-for-new-investment/

The headline “Obama to Press Centrist Agenda in His Address bore very little resemblance to the content therein. Maybe I expected something far worse, and am judging the results thusly, but I’d say that the President calling for new investments and staying silent on the Bowles-Simpson cat food recommendations is pretty darn good, all things considered:

Mr. Obama is unlikely, they said, to embrace the recommendations of a bipartisan majority on the debt-reduction commission he created, which proposed slashing projected annual deficits through 2020 with deep cuts in domestic and military spending, changes to Social Security and Medicare, and an overhaul of the individual and corporate tax codes to simplify them and to raise additional revenues.

In general, the theme of deficit reduction will be less prominent in the speech as Mr. Obama emphasizes spending “investments” and “responsible” budget cutting at a time when Republicans have proposed spending cuts, unspecified, of 20 percent or more. “We’re also going to have to deal with our deficits and our debt in a responsible way,” Mr. Obama said in the videotaped message. “And we’ve got to reform government so that it’s leaner and smarter for the 21st century.”

You can watch the video preview from which some of this report comes here.

All of this will be pushed through a frame of “competitiveness.” And yes, that’s a hackneyed and even misleading frame. But it’s being employed for the generally good ends of seeking more investment in education, research and infrastructure. I’ll take the flip side of this argument from Krugman, then.

Right now, there’s no way that these investments will see the light of day. Republicans fell all over themselves yesterday to say they’d oppose them. But instead of the argument playing out over how much of Social Security or some other federal spending to cut, we have a new argument about new investments, and Obama has the bigger megaphone, so he can set up a true opposition to Republicans in this regard. This gives the Democrats in Congress something to rally around. And all of a sudden, we’re having a brand new conversation to the expected one over how much to cut. This first offer on the negotiating table for more spending on key areas changes the conversation completely.

(...)

[Armstead]

1. It's the same old argument

No challenging of bad assumptions.

For example, the pushing of "free trade" by Clinton in the 90's helped set the stage for the current mess.

Truly free trade is impossible, as our experience with China, Korea, etc, proves. The US abandoned protectionism at the behest of the corporate pirates -- but other nations offered those corporations a free lunch while also subsidizing their own domestic industries.

As a result they are now eating OUR lunch.

Instead of pushing "investments" in education for non-existent jobs, it would much more constructive for Obama to utilize the bully pulpit and policy to demand more accountability from the fat cats.