There's talk that the president and other elected officials will try to tap the Occupy Wall Street movement's energy to boost their campaigns. It's good to see the rhetoric finally moving in the right direction. Even better, now there's an easy way to prove it isn't just election-year lip service: They can support the financial transactions tax being introduced in the Senate.

That should please the self-described "deficit hawks," since it will put an estimated $350 billion on the government's books. But the best thing about this tax might not even be the money. The best thing about it is that it just might help prevent the next financial crisis.

This tax helps the public ask its leaders a simple question: Are you for the banks, or are you for us?

Fair Play

The reason for the tactical about-face by politicians is clear enough. Occupy Wall Street caught on quickly and dramatically, and has already achieved the seemingly impossible by changing the public dialog from what Washington wants to discuss -- deficits -- to what the rest of the country wants to talk about, which is bank malfeasance and economic inequality in a rigged political and financial system.

Suddenly, cuts in spending aren't the only theme of the campaign. Case in point: Obama senior advisor David Plouffe was quoted as saying that "We intend to make (that anger) one of the central elements of the campaign next year... I'm pretty confident 12 months from now, as people make the decision about who to go vote for, the gut check is going to be about, 'Who would make decisions more about helping my life than Wall Street?' "

Actually, the prevailing theme of this mass movement is not anger, although that's part of the mix. The theme is justice, rather than rage or retribution. And the desire for justice today leads to certain conclusions: Criminals should pay for their crimes. The wealthy should pay their fair share. The ones who ruined the economy should help bear the cost of fixing it. And we must make sure that this sort of reckless greed is brought under control once and for all.

The financial transactions tax hits at least three of these four points. And if bankers try to evade it, we trust that the Justice Department and the SEC will finally start bringing wrongdoers to justice.

An idea whose time has come

Continue reading »

For those of you who came in during the third act, a guide to reading between the lines as Obama political adviser David Plouffe makes the rounds of the Sunday shows: First, despite what he says during this appearance on Meet the Press, there is no such thing as "a balanced deficit reduction package that doesn't harm the economy" during a prolonged recession. Nope, not gonna happen. (Just ask Paul Krugman, Joe Stiglitz, Dean Baker or Jared Bernstein.) Second, there's nothing "balanced" about a scenario where the public deals with the brunt of extensive cuts with no additional revenue and three, Social Security and Medicare are in the gun sights. Notice how he works that in there: "Our view is things like Social Security and Medicaid, you know, they can't be part of the solution here unless you've got a balanced package that includes tax reform." Whee!

David, please tell your boss: We don't see Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid as "part of the solution" to a manufactured debt crisis. They already are a solution, one that's worked very well for us, and we want no part of your plan:

MR. GREGORY: I'm joined now by senior adviser to the president David Plouffe. Welcome back to MEET THE PRESS.

MR. DAVID PLOUFFE: Good morning, David.

MR. GREGORY: So from your vantage point, you're inside the room. Is that overly rosy, or are you that close?

MR. PLOUFFE: Well, we don't have a deal. Everyone is cognizant, as, as Chuck Todd just reported on, both the legislative clock and, more importantly, the default clock. So the hours are ticking here. I think what's clear is that there's general agreement that we're going to have deficit reduction in two stages. The first is going to be something the parties largely agree on, about $1 trillion in deficit reduction. The second stage is going to be the trickier, elements of entitlement reform and tax reform, which this supercommittee's going to be charged with. And I think it's going to be incumbent on the leaders in Congress to appoint people to those committees who are going to drive to yes, to try and compromise, get out of their party's comfort zone.

MR. GREGORY: Let...

MR. PLOUFFE: Yeah.

MR. GREGORY: Let me be clear, though. What will the president accept as a deal?

MR. PLOUFFE: Well, first of all, we--it's clear our economy is obviously not as strong as any of us would like it to be. This debt ceiling cloud has harmed our economy. Why on earth would we want to go through this again a few short months from now?

MR. GREGORY: So it has to be through 2012.

MR. PLOUFFE: So--for the economy, number one. Number two, we want to make sure that if there is an enforcement mechanism--and again, the committee is not going to be charged with just doing spending cuts only. The committee's going to be charged with looking at our entire deficit reduction problem and look at things like tax reform and revenue. You need--you want something to compel this committee to act. That was part of the president's approach that he laid out to the country a few months ago, that there would be a debt cap that would enforce action. So you want to have something that compels both parties to act. Because I do think there's going to be a lot of pressure, rightly, on this committee to produce something that Congress can vote on. Yes.

MR. GREGORY: But, but a lot of people watching this have got to be wondering, what's actually going on today? What is the fighting about? So first stage, you, you cut government spending over a 10-year period to raise the debt ceiling. Part of that is a second stage, another committee in Washington that looks at really making the hard decisions. And then if they don't make the hard decision, something forces Congress' hand. So again, what will the president accept as a consequence to force the, the Congress' hand?

MR. PLOUFFE: Well, again, it might be more enjoyable to negotiate this with you this morning. I, I can't get into a great amount of detail. But I think that, one, we have to make sure that you can agree on the initial set of spending cuts. The process for the committee, it's essential, we think, that the debt ceiling get extended off into the future so it doesn't hurt the economy. Then we want to make sure whatever enforcement mechanism is something, one, that if it were triggered, you know, you think the country could live with; but secondly, strong enough to compel folks to act. And I think that you, you see, this has been a healthy debate. I think the country's learned a lot about our debt and deficit problems. I think there's been some education here in Washington. And I think what's clear is, you know, where the president stands is where the American people stand, that if we're going to do another set of deficit reduction, over $1 trillion, they're going to insist it be balanced. Because if you're a middle-class family, if you're a senior citizen...

MR. GREGORY: But it's not going to be balanced. There's no tax increases in this.

MR. PLOUFFE: But...

MR. GREGORY: You--the president said it had to have tax increases, it must--had to be balanced.

MR. PLOUFFE: The committee--yeah.

MR. GREGORY: That's not what's in this deal.

MR. PLOUFFE: Well, listen, this committee's going to be charged with coming up with additional deficit reduction. There's no way to do it without smart entitlement reform and tax reform.

MR. GREGORY: So you only get to do potential tax increases as part of a second stage of spending cuts that a committee has to agree to?

MR. PLOUFFE: Well, the first stage--it's clear in this first stage what we're going to get is an extension of the debt ceiling...

MR. GREGORY: Right.

MR. PLOUFFE: ...you're going to get that first set of spending cuts over $1 trillion, and then you're going to get this committee that's going to be charged with reporting out, hopefully, a balanced deficit reduction plan.

MR. GREGORY: Well, what is healthy about this debate? I mean, you talk about another supercommittee. Seventeen months ago the president convened a debt commission, the proposals, recommendations from which were not acted on by the president or Congress. Now you're talking about another committee. Nobody's yet making the hard choices about two-thirds of the budget, which is entitlement spending. So what's healthy about this debate?

MR. PLOUFFE: Well, it's certainly not been a healthy debate in, in the short-term. I think the American people are sitting back and saying, you know, "I'm going through tough things in my life, and these folks are sitting there arguing with each other, unwilling to compromise, do tough things." Particularly the House Republicans this week. But I would say this. The president laid out several months ago a $4 trillion deficit reduction plan. What we were striving to do with the speaker of the House was a, a big deficit reduction package that wouldn't have a supercommittee, we would have done it right now. That wasn't possible. The speaker of the House, pulled by the right wing of his party, walked away from that. But the president's going to be committed over these next few months, as I--and I think members of Congress needs to be as well, that we need to finish the job here. And the way they're going to finish that job is to have a balanced deficit reduction package that doesn't harm the economy.

Continue reading »

You know what the administration reminds me of? Those crazy, dysfunctional households that are in utter chaos before Jo, the Super Nanny, arrives. "We have to let the kids stay up all night because if we don't, then they'll scream and no one will get any sleep." Reinforcement of negative behaviors to avoid short-term disruption because YOU DON'T HAVE CONTROL OF YOUR CHILDREN.

So every time they scream, you give them what they want because you don't know how to say no. Any lessons there, I wonder? Of course not.

Senior Advisor to the President David Plouffe conceded this morning that some of the cuts the White House agreed to in order to avoid a government shutdown were draconian. In an interview on “This Week” with anchor Christiane Amanpour, he called the cuts both “draconian” and “historic.”

“The Senate majority called what the Speaker was asking for, just in February,” Amanpour said, “he called it ‘draconian.’” She pointed it the cuts were now being called historic. “I mean, which is it? Is it draconian yesterday and historic today?” Amanpour pressed.

“Well,” Plouffe replied, “some of the cuts were draconian. Because it’s not just the number, it’s what composes the number.”

“So in this budget deal,” he said, “the President, Senator Reid, you know we protected medical research, community health centers, kids in Head Start. We were not going to sign off on a deal that cut those things,” Plouffe said. “The President was comfortable with the composition of this deal that, again, there were some tough cuts in there…but in these fiscal times, everyone is going to have to make tough decisions. So it was a historic deal for the American people.”

Plouffe insisted the budget that the White House, the Senate and House agreed to preserved the country’s ability to invest in and “win the future.”

No, no, no, David. Let's be clear. The only really tough decision people have is now convincing themselves to vote for a president who rode in on a wave of high hopes, and floats out as the mere lesser (barely) of two evils. Because this budget crap is campaign kabuki, and you insult our intelligence by pretending otherwise.

This morning the New York Times praises Pete Peterson as the prescient man who saw the budget debate coming, never quite drawing the obvious conclusion: He dedicated $1 billion to manufacturing the budget "crisis."

We're surrounded by brazen liars and craven fools.

DOWNLOADS: 305

PLAYS: 155

Embed

A conference call with Congressional Budget Office spokesman Ken Baer and White House adviser David Plouffe tonight was probably aimed at growing indignation in the blogosphere over the proposed Obama budget, which features your proverbial draconian cuts to just about every social program -- except Social Security and Medicare.

It's good that the administration is engaging in these calls because we get to hear more details about their budget instead of the usual MSM drone, but I'm not sure that bloggers are happy with the overall conversation since once we got into the details of arguing different cuts, it looked as though we were buying into the White House frame that the cuts were urgently needed in the first place, and many of us don't believe that's true.

The audio of the call is in our media player--above. What do you think?

Baer's opening remarks focused on "shared sacrifice."

My question: "When you’re talking about shared sacrifice, clearly, the working and middle class is getting a disproportionate slam everywhere they turn with this budget, and you’re talking about a few, what sound like token items to the rest of us out here, and I wonder how you rationalize that during this severe economic recession."

Baer said people got that impression from the stories that were released early, without looking at the big-budget picture. (Click here.)

Is this a ploy to back Republicans into a corner over popular programs? Is this a strategy to get the public to support Social Security cuts later or not at all? Is it to woo Independents?

In the meantime, here's a roundup of some budget stories:

Ezra Klein: The U.S. Government: An insurance conglomerate protected by a large, standing army.

HuffPost: Republicans Response: It would be better to pass nothing.

David Dayen: Festival of budget links!

mcjoan at KOS writes that Social Security is back.

Digby writes more on the administration and Social Security in a pretty positive light:

Unless they have decided to define raising the retirement age something other than "slashing" benefits cuts, this sounds like the only thing they are willing to consider is raising the cap, which is very good news. It's the rational choice.

Who knows where this will end up in negotiations, but it's a strong a statement as we've heard since the president inexplicably decided to talk about social security solvency at the beginning of his term. If they've backed off cuts, I think it's because of the sharp resistance from the left, which wisely mobilized the minute they announced Pete Peterson as a key speaker at their Fiscal Responsibility Summit. All of us shrieking Cassandras may have had the desired effect of keeping SS a third rail they just don't want to touch --- which is always the point. (And it's not like there aren't more pressing issues.)

Robert Reich: Budget fights fire with gasoline.

(Sorry for the republished post. It was originally posted at 6PM and unpublished by accident. Additional content was added)

enlarge

This is a bit of a shock, but I guess it's predictable. People who have political and policy jobs tend to see things through the wrong end of the telescope, because they're so proud of the work they did, they can't see the big picture. What continued to astound me was that the White House staffers seemed completely out of touch with the depths of the economic devastation out here, so if any of these staffers are responsible for that blind spot, a change will serve the president well:

Some high-level Democrats are calling for President Barack Obama to remake his inner circle or even fire top advisers in response to what many party strategists expect to be a decisive defeat on Tuesday.

Tensions have come to the surface after meetings over the past few weeks in which Obama senior adviser David Axelrod discussed communications strategy with senior Democratic strategists and party officials. Some Democrats were so unhappy with the White House meetings, they started their own.

The strategy sessions aired a range of disagreements over how to help Democrats forestall an electoral drubbing at the polls—a defeat party strategists believe could have been minimized with a different White House playbook.

Among the complaints: Mr. Obama conveyed an incoherent message that didn't express what Democrats would do over the next two years if they retain power; he focused more on his own image than helping Democratic candidates; and the White House picked the wrong battle when it attacked Republicans for using "outside" money to pay for campaigns, an issue disconnected from voters' real-world anxieties.

The latest strategy session took place Monday afternoon.

"The money thing could work, but there's never been a larger frame around it to connect it to people's lives," said Dee Dee Myers, a consultant who worked for the Clinton White House when Republicans swept the 1994 elections. She said she participated in an Oct. 8 meeting with Mr. Axelrod and about 15 Democratic strategists at the White House.

Continue reading »

AmericaBLOG's John Aravosis seems to have discovered a disturbing pattern. I really, really hope he's wrong -- but I wonder:

A day after former Obama campaign manager David Plouffe is elevated to a more senior adviser status at the White House and the DNC, Plouffe pens an op ed in the Washington Post in which he seems to suggest that much of President Obama's promise to ban pre-existing conditions is now being jettisoned. Plouffe wrote in the op ed, which was certainly cleared with the White House, if not written by them:

Parents won't have to worry their children will be denied coverage just because they have a preexisting condition.

Their children? The original promise - even the bad Senate bill - protects everyone, of any age, from being denied coverage because of pre-existing conditions. Now it's just children?

And before anyone argues that Plouffe was simply using children as an example - that the legislation could still cover everyone - look at what else happened in the last two days. CBS News reported that the pre-existing conditions promise was now looking unlikely. But even worse, the NYT talked to folks on the Hill and health policy experts, and they were told the compromise package might just protect kids under the age of 19 from being denied for pre-existing conditions. No one else.

It would sure be one hell of a coincidence if Plouffe, on behalf of the White House, is now talking about kids being protected from pre-existing conditions when the growing chatter in town is that only kids may now be protected from pre-existing conditions - that the rest of us are about to get tossed under the Martha Coakley bus.

As Joe noted the other day, the pre-existing conditions promise, for "all Americans," was the top item on the Obama transition's health care reform page. So, in an effort to appease the masses, they're now considering gutting the one provision that everyone likes, the one provision that defines the legislation.

Droopy Dog -- The Chump Champ

I used to love these Saturday cartoons, but I gotta admit, Droopy Dog is forever ruined for me because of that traitor Joe Lieberman. And guess what, boys and girls? The most craven politico of them all, Joe "Screw my constituency, it's all about me" Lieberman will be on Face the Nation this week, disgustingly unrepentant about his complete 180 on health care reform. But perhaps in response, the White House is sending out a bunch of spokespeople to make sure that that needy, attention-whore sell-out isn't the only one setting the dialog, with Valerie Jarrett on This Week, David Axelrod on Face the Nation and David Plouffe on Meet the Press. But the ultimate cartoon, the completely shameless fact-free zone has to be awarded to Fox News Sunday, because their sole guest this week is none other than Rush Limbaugh. Excuse me while I lose my breakfast.

ABC's "This Week" - White House senior adviser Valerie Jarrett.

CBS' "Face the Nation" - White House senior adviser David Axelrod; Sen. Joe Lieberman, I-Conn.

NBC's "Meet the Press" - Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner; David Plouffe, former Obama presidential campaign manager; author Jon Krakauer.

NBC's "The Chris Matthews Show" - Panel: Katty Kay, Howard Fineman, Mark Whitaker, Mary Jordan. Topics: Afghanistan and Health Care and How They Will Determine Obama's Legacy. One Year Later: Why Isn't Obama's White House as Brilliant as His Campaign? Meter Questions: Will Afghanistan define President Obama's legacy more than health care? YES: 6 NO: 6; Is the Far Right more likely than the White House to have its hardball tactics backfire? YES: 7 No: 5.

CNN's "State of the Union" - House Republican leader John Boehner of Ohio; Gov. Haley Barbour, R-Miss.

CNN's "Fareed Zakaria GPS" - Matthew Hoh, the first U.S. official known to resign in protest over the Afghan war, gives Fareed one of his first interviews since resigning. Plus, we have a superb discussion on the economy with two great minds -- Martin Wolf of the Financial Times and Robert Schiller, the economist who accurately predicted the financial crisis and the stock market collapse of 2000.

CNN's "Amanpour" - Zalmay Khalilzad, former US Ambassador to Iraq, Afghanistan & UN; Tom Ricks, author of Fiasco, and Tahera Shairzay of Women for Afghan Women.

"Fox News Sunday" - Rush Limbaugh, conservative radio talk show host.

What's catching your eye this morning?

Open thread below...

And don't forget to call Congress and tell them to vote for Henry Waxman for E&C. He's someone we need at this point in time.

1 (800) 828 - 0498

1 (866) 338 - 1015

1 (877) 851 - 6437

1 (800) 459 - 1887

I have maintained that the Obama presidential campaign will be studied and dissected by political scientists for years to come. It is, quite simply, one of the most impressive implementations, not only of Howard Dean's 50 State Strategy, but of grassroots-level organizing that lifted the entire campaign of a serious longshot candidate right into the White House.

60 Minutes' Steve Kroft sat down with the executive team of campaign manager David Plouffe, chief strategist David Axelrod (who will move to the White House as Senior Advisor), senior aide Robert Gibbs (who will move to the White House as Press Secretary) and communications and research specialist Anita Dunn to discuss the campaign about 24 hours after victory. They touch on the amazing organizing at the local level, the paradigm-shifting strategy to ignore the red state/blue state divide and those moments that threatened to derail the campaign, like the controversy over Rev. Jeremiah Wright.

Full transcripts at 60Minutes.com

DOWNLOAD (119)

PLAY (226)

Chris Wallace--like the rest of the Fox News world--wants the world set up in easily definable terms: Liberals vs. Conservatives, Patriots vs. Pinheads, Red States vs. Blue States. The Barack Obama presidential campaign is clearly crossing those boundaries and I think that Wallace doesn't know how to cope with that. Obama has taken Howard Dean's 50 State Strategy and shown that Democrats can be competitive in traditionally red states. In fact, so much so that Obama is actually within the margin of error in McCain's home state of Arizona. But for Wallace, it's arrogant of Obama to advertise in states that Republicans have traditionally dominated.

Obama Campaign Manager David Plouffe argues (and I believe correctly) that it is more the arrogance on the part of the McCain campaign to think they didn't need to set up a ground game in these states than it is for Obama to simply believe that there were enough voters seeking change to make these states competitive:

WALLACE: First, let’s talk about the thing I brought up with Rick Davis, the fact that you have decided to make a late push in North Dakota, in Georgia and even in McCain’s home state of Arizona. Is it there a touch of arrogance here? I mean, wouldn’t it make more sense to focus your resources, focus your advertising and everything on the states that you need to lock up 270 electoral votes?

PLOUFFE: Well, Chris, we’re doing everything we can in the core battlegrounds: Ohio, where Sen. Obama will be today; Florida; Virginia; North Carolina; Indiana. All of those states we’re doing everything we think we need to do to try and win. In these three states, we’ve been organizing for some time, the reason Georgia is so competitive right now is all the organizational groundwork we’ve put in, why you’re seeing early vote numbers in such large measures. So, in North Dakota, Georgia, Arizona, we think all three of those are going to be close and there’s benefit to having the playing field to yourself. One of the reasons we’re so strong in states like Indiana, North Carolina, Virginia, even in Florida, is the McCain campaign was arrogant. They were asleep at the switch and thought those states would not be competitive. So we had two-three months headstart, advertising, organizing. So in North Dakota, Georgia and Arizona, we think we have the playing field to ourselves, we think all three will be close, and we’re going to give it a shot to see how…now I think John McCain should be favored in all three of those states, but we think they’re going to be very close and if you look at Georgia, the early vote there—similar to North Carolina – is just striking in terms of its composition. And we think we’re heading to a very close finish there.

Finally, is it me or is the whole term "arrogant" a codeword for "uppity"? How dare that Democrat think he's going to get Georgia or North Dakota? Doesn't he know that those are America-loving red states?