Yes. I was trying to write, "Go back to the Clinton tax rates." Not very close, I admit.

When the GOP Humpty Dumpty cracks

The corporate Democrats put him back together again.

Originally Posted by TPMemo

Is it possible that Democrats will squander the political advantage on Medicare that they just regained over Republicans? It could happen.

At his weekly Capitol briefing with reporters Tuesday, House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-MD) confirmed what aides in both parties have been telling reporters: Cuts to Medicare will be on the table in deficit and debt limit negotiations, led by Vice President Joe Biden.

After arguing that Democrats made significant headway toward extending Medicare's solvency with the health care law, Hoyer said, "Do I believe that there are other things we can do related to Medicare? The answer is I do. I'm not going to get into articulating each one, but my expectation is they will be under discussion by the Biden group."

Yeah you can count on Hoyer to be the frontman.
And I wish the Biden would be replaced by a true left libertarian, but I know how likely that really is. :

Originally Posted by TPM

***

But there are any number of ways to cut Medicare spending without "fixing" the Medicare debt problem -- from means testing, to raising the retirement age, to reducing reimbursement rates, and so on. Not all of them constitute benefit cuts, but many of them do.

If a grand bargain on spending includes Medicare benefit cuts that both parties buy into, it will further expose the shambolic nature of the last two years' politics. But more to the point, it will blunt Democrats' ability to run against the House Republican vote to privatize, and, yes slash Medicare. And it will hurt Senate Democrats, many more of whom will be up for re-election in 2012 than will their Republicans colleagues. Their opponents won't have Paul Ryan's budget to answer for -- but they will have the Dems' vote for the deficit grand bargain, and the Medicare cuts therein.

As Greg Sargent points out, and Republican congressional aides are happy to confirm, Republicans are eager to keep attacking Democrats from the left on Medicare, just like they did in 2010.

Indeed on the healthcare issue, despite labeling Obama's plan as "socialism" in 2010, the GOP generally attacked from the left. And it worked.

It'd would be nice to see the Democrats really try the same.
But 2012 is looking like a tarnished version of the 2008 donkey product.
More than likely the Democrats will win.
But only because the Republicans will be often unelectable in the larger presidential election populace.

I believe that we are far enough into the demographic shift of the social moment that the old boomer coalition can only win midtern elections. I believe that since 2006 we've gone into a drift era not unlike what we entered in the late 1960's which led to the Reagan years defining the 3T. A 40 year half cycle leading to a critical election in 2020 that solidifies the new way and makes a 1Ta possible by the mid 2020's ? It's not only possible, mathematically it makes sense.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

The Democratic candidate has won the special election in perhaps the most Republican district in the state of New York, the Far West. Moreover, she won with 47% of the vote in the three-way race. Republican voters cited the Republican Medicare plan as a huge reason for their vote. Ryan's statement is another political disaster for the Republicans. (If World War III were breaking out apparently they would argue it had to be paid for with cuts in other programs, too.) The evidence is mounting that they have blown it politically--but that doesn't mean we'll have any true rebirth of progressivism, it just means we'll stay about what we are, or, best case, get rid of the (Dubya-era) tax cuts for everyone.

(Freudian slip corrected)

One very bad ending of the 4T seems to have been cut off as a possibility, that being a swift and early resolution into a new form of peonage for All But the Few, probably with Metternich-style repression (that's your model) as shown in the isolated special Congressional election of NY-26. It's Jack Kemp's old district, for Heaven's sake. Not that Jack Kemp would be particularly welcome in the current GOP... Kemp seemed more intent on optimism based on strong markets and copious opportunity. Throwing the elderly of ten to twenty years from now under some heavy form of moving transport equipment is execrable politics. Paul Ryan may have made the biggest rhetorical blunder in American politics in decades, not so much for what it does to his career (he could still be re-elected) but instead for what it does to what looked like a Republican ascendancy that followed what looked like an abortive repudiation of it.

I think that the GOP is going to rue the 2010 election in much the way that a child who eats too much candy rues the stomach ache that his parents warned him about -- except that the stomach ache goes away in a short time. Political defeat has its benefits for the long-term survival of a political party -- most notably that it forces a Party to clean up its act. Maybe it won't be the Federalists or Whigs to which the current Republicans are compared, but instead some of the Communist Parties of central and Balkan Europe.

Eric Cantor came up with another boner for the GOP, suggesting that the disaster relief in the wake of the unusual tornadoes be paid for out of spending cuts elsewhere. Did anyone say much the same about the response to hurricanes? One tarries with disaster relief only at great cost to innocent victims. Republicans may pay a political cost in November 2012 when a state that seems to have been drifting R (Missouri) bites back, but that is insignificant in contrast to the personal costs of people who need prompt help in the form of rescue.

...

All in all the political Regeneracy is not underway until the US is no longer so split on regional divides. Such can happen when the GOP becomes much less ideological or that a region that has drifted toward reactionary politics (the South) becomes politically more like America as a whole. The election of 2010 may prove to be a relapse of the Degeneracy of 3T style in politics.

Originally Posted by herbal tee

When the GOP Humpty Dumpty cracks

The corporate Democrats put him back together again.

Yeah you can count on Hoyer to be the frontman.
And I wish the Biden would be replaced by a true left libertarian, but I know how likely that really is. :


Indeed on the healthcare issue, despite labeling Obama's plan as "socialism" in 2010, the GOP generally attacked from the left. And it worked.

It'd would be nice to see the Democrats really try the same.
But 2012 is looking like a tarnished version of the 2008 donkey product.
More than likely the Democrats will win.
But only because the Republicans will be often unelectable in the larger presidential election populace.

I believe that we are far enough into the demographic shift of the social moment that the old boomer coalition can only win midtern elections. I believe that since 2006 we've gone into a drift era not unlike what we entered in the late 1960's which led to the Reagan years defining the 3T. A 40 year half cycle leading to a critical election in 2020 that solidifies the new way and makes a 1Ta possible by the mid 2020's ? It's not only possible, mathematically it makes sense.

I was just about to post about this. It is depressing, but the only way to change things right now is to change the Democratic party from within. That means fielding primary challenges to people like Hoyer and voting for better canidates in open primaries.

Its not about trying to force the Democrats to do something unpopular either. Obviously the idea of cutting medicare is very unpopular - unpopular enough to swing elections. Instead, as during the health care debate, where the version of the bill with the public option was more popular than the version of the bill with just a mandate, its about finding people who are willing to break from the culture of lobbying in Washington and from the assumptions about the American electorate that have governed the Democratic party for the last 25 years.

As the past year has made clear though, simply staying home to punish Democrats, or voting for Republicans, is not the answer. It just makes things worse.

Incredibly, the Wall Street Journal reports this morning that the Republicans will now try to shift the public's attention by introducing yet another revolutionary new proposal: a cut in top marginal tax rates for both individuals and corporations to 25%, which of course will turn the economy loose and create jobs!!!! I am not making that up. I don't think any major party has been half as out of touch with reality as the Republicans are right now. The problem is that I think they will force a shutdown and an end to government borrowing.

My fellow liberals like BTL, above, are reminding me more and more of the reform Republicans after the Civil War such as Charles Francis Adams and Carl Schurz who were appalled by corruption under Grant and his successors. They tried various strategies to provide the country with an alternative, such as getting the Democrats to nominate Horace Greeley (one of their own) in 1872. Nothing worked. In 1884 they had their only success, when they became "Mugwumps" and helped swing the election to Grover Cleveland instead of the brilliant, but notoriously corrupt, James G. Blaine. (Blaine was the model for Silas Radcliffe, the hero of Henry Adams's great political novel Democracy, which was a sensational best-seller when published anonymously right at that time. It's a relatively short book and I can't recommend it too highly.) But of course in this case there's no possibility of the Republicans running anyone a Democrat could vote for.

That was also toward the end of a 4T and into the 1T, when the major issues of the time had already been solved and progressives were on the out. A better comparison actually is with the socialists and labor activists of the first Roosevelt administration, when disappointment with FDR began driving activism on the left. A better comparison with the post-Civil War Republicans is the progressives of the late 1940s and early 1950s, frustrated with the rightward turn of the country and the anti-Communist witch-hunt that was going on.

EDIT: It occurs to me that the crazy Republicans seem crazy partly because the party has largely entered a Fourth Turning mindset, much like the secessionists in the lead-up to the Civil War. Their program is disastrous and wrong-headed, but they at least have one, and recognize that this is a time for radical change, that the system as it has existed during the current saeculum is broken and can't be restored. The post-seasonal ones are the conservative Democrats, not the crazy Republicans.

As was Ryan's Plan was viewed favorable months ago and has now become a milestone around the GOP necks, I believe the debt ceiling vote could turn out the same and for the same reason. Much depends on whether the House Dems can be prescient (if not bold) enough to take the tougher vote right now.

The House GOP leadership has scheduled for next week a vote on a "clean extension" of the debt ceiling. i.e., a bill with no spending or revenue provisions, just the usual extension. This vote will mark the clear decision to move down a path of confrontation over the debt ceiling.

There is no doubt that this bill will fail with all the GOP members voting against it. The question is will Dems vote for it.

Right now the polls clearly show that a majority of voters would not like to have the debt ceiling increased without deficit reduction measures included. One poll shows greater concern for debt increases than a US default on its debt!! (???) -

http://www.washingtonpost.com/busine...dAH_story.html

Among those who believe they are well-informed, 52 percent say they worry more about Congress raising the limit and permitting additional borrowing. By comparison, 37 percent worry more about the possibility of default. Those who consider themselves less well-informed are more evenly split, with 45 percent more worried about borrowing and 34 percent more concerned about default

[As an aside, it's both kind of funny and sad that "those who believe they are well-informed" are more concerned about more debt than default - obviously, Idiot America doesn't understand the worst consequence of debt]

Just as with the Ryan plan, people don't yet truly understand what default would mean, or more likely, what measures will be necessary to avoid default should the ceiling not be extended. Once this becomes clear, there will be no other priority but to raise the debt ceiling. It’s really just a matter of what will be necessary to make it clear - and that may include getting into an irreversible going-over-the-cliff situation. See my 'moderate' scenario here -
http://www.fourthturning.com/forum/s...895#post372895

With clarity will come the blame game of who did what to get us to the point of clarity (i.e. the "OMG, we're all going to die!!!" point of clarity). Various steps along the way will be examined – e.g., the GOP asked too much, the Dems didn't agree enough, etc.. etc..

But if what I think is very likely to unfold, the House Dems should uniformly vote a clean extension next week. They need to clearly lay down a marker that they preferred to not subject the nation to what the delay in resolving the debt ceiling will likely entail.

As with the Ryan plan, we will enter an "educating phase" of the debt ceiling. That education will center on gaining the understanding that 4/5's of the federal budget funds three primary functions: a large insurance program (Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security); a large army; and substantial but consistent debt paying.

The education will be that a default would require measures that go well beyond the 'usual' government shutdown and instead heavily impact the three primary functions of our federal government. We will be educated on the political muscle of each of these three elements but with the markets giving us a major spanking, if not sheer terror, on the last element of consistent debt paying.

As with the Ryan Plan, I think once the ball gets rolling we will quickly move from people appreciating how 'bold' it was to put the debt ceiling in play to it being considered batshit crazy for anyone to have led us down to staring into the abyss. The back and forth recriminations as to what was too much of a cut by the Reps and too little agreement by the Dems will be swept away with the new question of who the hell was it that first got us on this crazy man’s path. The Dems, next week, could make that very clear that it wasn't them.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

That was also toward the end of a 4T and into the 1T, when the major issues of the time had already been solved and progressives were on the out. A better comparison actually is with the socialists and labor activists of the first Roosevelt administration, when disappointment with FDR began driving activism on the left. A better comparison with the post-Civil War Republicans is the progressives of the late 1940s and early 1950s, frustrated with the rightward turn of the country and the anti-Communist witch-hunt that was going on.

EDIT: It occurs to me that the crazy Republicans seem crazy partly because the party has largely entered a Fourth Turning mindset, much like the secessionists in the lead-up to the Civil War. Their program is disastrous and wrong-headed, but they at least have one, and recognize that this is a time for radical change, that the system as it has existed during the current saeculum is broken and can't be restored. The post-seasonal ones are the conservative Democrats, not the crazy Republicans.

I like the juxtaposition of your post with mine above. What it makes me think is that the GOP believes that playing with the debt ceiling is a 3T game. There may be a soothing lull right now, but we be 4T and messing with your country's financial foundation will very likely be looked back upon as not being very smart for the times.

The thing is, there's a way to look at what the Republicans are doing that, while politically not very sound, does make sense in terms of what they're trying to do -- if you make certain assumption about what exactly they ARE trying to do. The following would be consistent with their programs and recommendations.

1) They are not trying to balance the budget. On the contrary, they are doing their best to send the federal government into bankruptcy. This is deliberate. It was even spoken of somewhat openly years ago: a design to drown the government in a bathtub.

2) They are not trying to revive the economy. On the contrary, they are doing their best to wreck it, and end up with a downsized economy of which almost everything will be the property of a few wealthy people.

A pure plutocracy, in which the rich have everything and everyone else is reduced to servitude, that is their long-term goal, if we may judge by their actions on the assumption that they're not entirely stupid or simply insane. Everything they do is in service to that goal.

I find there's something from my novella Robin that fits; this is set in the future after something like this goal is achieved.

"America has become like a gated community, except most of the people living here are poor, and most other countries are richer these days than we are. We used to be the richest country in the world. Now we’re the poor relations, poor and socially backward, poor because we’re socially backward. The factories could produce a lot more than they do, but we couldn’t sell the stuff if they did. Not enough people with enough money to buy it, except abroad, and they have their own industries. We hit a crossroads when I was a boy, and turned the wrong way. Europe, Japan, Canada, Australia, they’re all socialist today, and everyone in those countries except for families like ours lives much better than Americans. They decided to go that road, and we decided to preserve the property of the rich instead. So now we’re one of the poorest countries in the world, and the rest of the world shuns us like lepers. But the rich here, why, we’re the richest people on earth, richer than ever before. It’s a paradox, but it just points up what parasites we are and always were, feeding off our host, weakening it."

That is the vision that the Republican right have of America. Their actions are not self-destructive or blind or foolish, they are simply aiming at a different goal than most Americans would approve of. It's the ends, not the means, on which we disagree. They are not stupid or crazy. They are evil.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

The thing is, there's a way to look at what the Republicans are doing that, while politically not very sound, does make sense in terms of what they're trying to do -- if you make certain assumption about what exactly they ARE trying to do. The following would be consistent with their programs and recommendations.

1) They are not trying to balance the budget. On the contrary, they are doing their best to send the federal government into bankruptcy. This is deliberate. It was even spoken of somewhat openly years ago: a design to drown the government in a bathtub.

2) They are not trying to revive the economy. On the contrary, they are doing their best to wreck it, and end up with a downsized economy of which almost everything will be the property of a few wealthy people.

A pure plutocracy, in which the rich have everything and everyone else is reduced to servitude, that is their long-term goal, if we may judge by their actions on the assumption that they're not entirely stupid or simply insane. Everything they do is in service to that goal.

I find there's something from my novella Robin that fits; this is set in the future after something like this goal is achieved.

"America has become like a gated community, except most of the people living here are poor, and most other countries are richer these days than we are. We used to be the richest country in the world. Now we’re the poor relations, poor and socially backward, poor because we’re socially backward. The factories could produce a lot more than they do, but we couldn’t sell the stuff if they did. Not enough people with enough money to buy it, except abroad, and they have their own industries. We hit a crossroads when I was a boy, and turned the wrong way. Europe, Japan, Canada, Australia, they’re all socialist today, and everyone in those countries except for families like ours lives much better than Americans. They decided to go that road, and we decided to preserve the property of the rich instead. So now we’re one of the poorest countries in the world, and the rest of the world shuns us like lepers. But the rich here, why, we’re the richest people on earth, richer than ever before. It’s a paradox, but it just points up what parasites we are and always were, feeding off our host, weakening it."

That is the vision that the Republican right have of America. Their actions are not self-destructive or blind or foolish, they are simply aiming at a different goal than most Americans would approve of. It's the ends, not the means, on which we disagree. They are not stupid or crazy. They are evil.

Where they may have screwed up is actually linking taxes and spending. Reagan, Bush Sr (to a lessor extent), and Bush Jr only gave lip service to cutting spending and actually went hog wild with the credit card.

The vast majority of Americans are okay with getting their taxes cut. A large number are okay with cutting someone else's government spending, just nothing that would impact themselves. Until lately, for most voters, the tax cuts have been real, the spending basically hypothetical - all gain, no pain.

Either the GOP has lost its mind or we have reached the point were the trade-off is necessary. I think its a bit of both - no gain without pain, no tax cuts without substantial impact on government functions.

Our tax rates are lower now than any other time since the 1920s; we've likely hit the point where the GOP can no longer work the magic. If Americans want the federal government to continue to do those three primary functions - large insurance program; large army; and consistent debt payor - we will have to pay for it with sufficient taxes. If we don't want to pay for it, then there is now going to be some big pain. To date, the GOP has generally gotten what they wanted because the pain has not been sufficent enough or broad enough to provide an obvious reason (at least to most typical voters), why the GOP (and, many Americans) shouldn't get what they want - lower taxes. That has changed, and I think we are going to find that out big time over the next three months.

I don't think a vast majority of Americans are willing to suffer the pain of spending cuts that the current tax rates require. I think the GOP has reached the end of their rope - no more magic ponies.

Originally Posted by playwrite

Where they may have screwed up is actually linking taxes and spending.

You didn't understand, it seems. I'm saying none of this is a screw up. All of it is by design, except the political setbacks. They don't think they have a better way to bring prosperity to the country. They don't want to bring prosperity to the country. They want to do exactly what they've been doing to the country: bankrupt it, break it down, ruin it -- and facilitate having a few privileged people feed and get fat on the twitching carcass. They aren't failing to balance the budget. Balancing the budget would itself be a failure. They WANT runaway debt. They WANT default, bankruptcy, breakdown, ruin. All of that serves their real purposes.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

You didn't understand, it seems. I'm saying none of this is a screw up. All of it is by design, except the political setbacks. They don't think they have a better way to bring prosperity to the country. They don't want to bring prosperity to the country. They want to do exactly what they've been doing to the country: bankrupt it, break it down, ruin it -- and facilitate having a few privileged people feed and get fat on the twitching carcass. They aren't failing to balance the budget. Balancing the budget would itself be a failure. They WANT runaway debt. They WANT default, bankruptcy, breakdown, ruin. All of that serves their real purposes.

While the endpoint is the same, if they get their way, I don't give them as much intellectual credit as you - at least for the vast majority of them.

In regard to getting their way - again, I think they have reached the end of their rope. AT some point, no amount of campaign money nor back room dealing is going to continue to counter reality when that reality begins to bite hard on the three fundamental elements of the federal government - insurance program, large army and consistent debt payor. The pain will be just too overwhelming. I think we are closing in on that point with Medicare and NY26 being just an early indicator.

In regard to my lack of giving them the intellectual credit - with the exception of a few (e.g., Brothers Koch), I think they are solely about wanting to keep every dollar they possible can not because they want to explicitly bring the country to ruin but that they just are incapable of grasping how that would come about. Their brains have been lobotomized by Ayn Rand bullshit for so long that they're no more capable than a crack head in comprehending or caring about the consequences of their actions.

But again, regardless of how it comes about, we see the endpoint as the same - I just don't think (or, want to believe) that the average American is going to stand for what's coming and will eventually rise above the manipulative bullshit, spewed for the last 30 years, to finally take these MFers out.

Here's one Democrat I wouldn't mind getting rid of:

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011...as-osama-pals/

All the libertarian senator Rand Paul wanted was to add amendments to the government’s cherished surveillance law that would protect Americans’ privacy. For this, Reid, the Senate Democratic leader, charged that Paul’s efforts would “increase the risk of a retaliatory terrorist strike against the homeland and hamper our ability to deal a truly fatal blow to al-Qaida.”
It’s not just that Reid is demagoguing Rand Paul. It’s that Reid’s objections betray the depths of his hypocrisy on both surveillance and its politics, as revealed by the sophisticated consistency-generating algorithm known as Google.
Remember back when a Republican was in the White House and demanded broad surveillance authority? Here’s Reid back then. ”Whether out of convenience, incompetence, or outright disdain for the rule of law, the administration chose to ignore Congress and ignore the Constitution,” Reid said about Bush’s warrantless surveillance program. When Bush insisted Congress entrench that surveillance with legislation in 2008, Reid turned around and demanded Bush “stop fear-mongering and start being honest with the American people about national security.” Any claim about the detrimental impact about a lapse in widespread surveillance were “scare tactics” to Reid that ”irresponsibly distort reality.” (Then Reid rolled over for Bush.)

That’s nowhere near the end of Reid’s hypocrisy here. When the Senate debated renewing the Patriot Act in 2006, Reid, a supporter of the bill’s surveillance procedures, himself slowed up the bill’s passage to allow amendments to it — the better to allow “sensible checks on the arbitrary exercise of executive power.” Sounding a whole lot like Rand Paul, the 2006-vintage Reid registered his “objection to the procedural maneuver under which Senators have been blocked from offering any amendments to this bill” and reminded his colleagues, ”the hallmark of the Senate is free speech and open debate.”

Of course, when I read that one lone Republican opposed the extension of the Patriot Act (along with 22 Democrats -- not nearly enough!) I knew it had to be Paul. Who else?


Be that as it may, Harry Reid here displays why it took a total Tea Party loser of an opponent last year to let him keep his seat. He really deserves to lose it, and if the Republicans hadn't run a nut job against him he would have, surely.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

That was also toward the end of a 4T and into the 1T, when the major issues of the time had already been solved and progressives were on the out. A better comparison actually is with the socialists and labor activists of the first Roosevelt administration, when disappointment with FDR began driving activism on the left. A better comparison with the post-Civil War Republicans is the progressives of the late 1940s and early 1950s, frustrated with the rightward turn of the country and the anti-Communist witch-hunt that was going on.

EDIT: It occurs to me that the crazy Republicans seem crazy partly because the party has largely entered a Fourth Turning mindset, much like the secessionists in the lead-up to the Civil War. Their program is disastrous and wrong-headed, but they at least have one, and recognize that this is a time for radical change, that the system as it has existed during the current saeculum is broken and can't be restored. The post-seasonal ones are the conservative Democrats, not the crazy Republicans.

That second paragraph certainly caught my eye because it's pretty much what I've been saying for at least a year. The Republicans have a transformative agenda, the Democrats do not. Incidentally, Brian recently criticized me for saying the country had been heading steadily rightward on the grounds that we had moved leftward on social issues. The problem is that social issues are not 4T issues. In the 4T it's time to focus on the critical issues that matter to all of us, regardless of race, gender, or sexual orientation. Tragically, the Democratic Party doesn't seem to want to do that anymore. It is voting "no" on every budget proposal that comes before Congress, totally refusing to take any responsibility for the situation.

I don't really agree that the Republicans in Congress want a new economic collapse, 10% unemployment as far as the eye can see, etc., although they do appear to want more inequality of wealth since they've now introduced yet another round of tax cuts. I think they are drunk on their own ideology and can't see straight. It's extremely difficult to keep your attention span above 60 seconds as a Congressperson today, and it shows.
They are leading a postmodern 4T, all based on appearance instead of reality, while the country goes down the tubes. But that may be more appealing to the country than no 4T at all, the Democratic solution.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

That second paragraph certainly caught my eye because it's pretty much what I've been saying for at least a year. The Republicans have a transformative agenda, the Democrats do not. Incidentally, Brian recently criticized me for saying the country had been heading steadily rightward on the grounds that we had moved leftward on social issues. The problem is that social issues are not 4T issues. In the 4T it's time to focus on the critical issues that matter to all of us, regardless of race, gender, or sexual orientation. Tragically, the Democratic Party doesn't seem to want to do that anymore. It is voting "no" on every budget proposal that comes before Congress, totally refusing to take any responsibility for the situation.

I don't really agree that the Republicans in Congress want a new economic collapse, 10% unemployment as far as the eye can see, etc., although they do appear to want more inequality of wealth since they've now introduced yet another round of tax cuts. I think they are drunk on their own ideology and can't see straight. It's extremely difficult to keep your attention span above 60 seconds as a Congressperson today, and it shows.
They are leading a postmodern 4T, all based on appearance instead of reality, while the country goes down the tubes. But that may be more appealing to the country than no 4T at all, the Democratic solution.

I think you are confusing a major tactical error by political neophytes for some sort of profound new 4T direction by the GOP. Sure Boehner has been around for awhile but not in a national leadership decision-making role (and no, leader of the minority in the House does not qualify). Boehner pulled a major boner by allowing the politically-ignorant riff-raff t-bagger freshman to put forth something that 30 years of politicaly- professional 3T Republicans, since Ray-gun, have avoided like the plague – actually proposing specific spending cuts to reduce the deficit.

As the 3T party of borrow-and-spend, the GOP has gotten their real objective of reducing taxes by NEVER putting specifics on the table about what those tax cuts would actually mean on the spending side. The Ryan Plan of destroying Medicare has now introduced that the necessary spending cuts go far far beyond a typical government shutdown, waste-fraud-abuse, foreign aid, NPR, or any and all of the usual characters trotted out to support the notion of the need to trim the government, or more accurately, the lack of any pain from doing so.

In the last 24 hours, as a result of both the NY26 election and the Senate vote on the Ryan plan, the GOP leadership has begun an attempt to mask their mistake and pivot back to their 3T strategy. They have introduced new “jobs legislation” which once again offers substantial tax cuts with no mention of what spending cuts it will take to sustain those cuts. They're rolling out the same old Laffer Curve, supply-side voodoo, and trickle-down – not using those discredited memes, of course, but I'm sure we're headed towards a whole new lexicon that one can be sure will create jobs overnight.

The fly in their ointment is that they have taken on the deficit hawk role (even Cheney who just 7 years ago said deficits don't matter, is now as hawkish on it as he was on Iraq!) and the vehicle for bringing their dilemma to the limelight is the upcoming debt ceiling fight.

Their dilemma is if they stay with the deficit hawk stance, as demanded by the t-baggers, it can only lead to the lost of their real objective – low or lower taxes. The necessary spending cuts to the three primary functions of the federal government – insurance program, large army, and consistent debt payor – are so onerous that to actually attempt it will destroy the GOP as a viable national party. Raising taxes is the only real solution if you really want to address the deficit – the problem with that for the GOP is that it removes the reason for their existence.

What you've seen is perhaps a glimpse of a 4T GOP but it was a self-made mistake which they are quickly trying to rectify by returning to their 3T ways. From a political perspective, they have no choice - what the glimpse exposed was that a 4T GOP is the end of the GOP.

Someone else finds the big shift in the GOP - not!

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/05/27/no-ideas/

No Ideas
Ezra Klein points us to the House GOP’s rather pitiful jobs manifesto. Ezra describes it as “now more than ever”: the GOP’s response to the employment crisis is to demand exactly the same things it demands when the economy is doing well.

Actually, the same is true of the Ryan plan: when the GOP claimed that deficits don’t matter, it called for privatizing major social insurance programs while cutting taxes on the rich, and now that it claims to be deeply concerned about deficits, it calls for privatizing major social insurance programs while cutting taxes on the rich.

This is a major asymmetry: people on the other side really do offer different prescriptions for different problems. I’m often accused of inconsistency for warning about deficits back in 2003 while favoring continuing deficits now — but the point is that these were responses to different issues. The Bush tax cuts were intended to be permanent — so they were designed to increase deficits even when the economy was at more or less full employment. This was a bad thing. By contrast, deficits are helpful when the economy is depressed and in a liquidity trap, as it is now.

Anyway, the new “jobs plan” illustrates, once again, the foolishness of believing that we can reach any real bipartisan agreement on economic policy. The GOP stopped thinking a long time ago; all it knows how to do is parrot Reaganite rhetoric over and over. And there’s so little there there that the document — look at it! — has to rely on extra-large type and lots of pointless pictures to bulk it out even to 10 pages.

Originally Posted by playwrite

I think you are confusing a major tactical error by political neophytes for some sort of profound new 4T direction by the GOP. Sure Boehner has been around for awhile but not in a national leadership decision-making role (and no, leader of the minority in the House does not qualify). Boehner pulled a major boner by allowing the politically-ignorant riff-raff t-bagger freshman to put forth something that 30 years of politicaly- professional 3T Republicans, since Ray-gun, have avoided like the plague – actually proposing specific spending cuts to reduce the deficit.

As the 3T party of borrow-and-spend, the GOP has gotten their real objective of reducing taxes by NEVER putting specifics on the table about what those tax cuts would actually mean on the spending side. The Ryan Plan of destroying Medicare has now introduced that the necessary spending cuts go far far beyond a typical government shutdown, waste-fraud-abuse, foreign aid, NPR, or any and all of the usual characters trotted out to support the notion of the need to trim the government, or more accurately, the lack of any pain from doing so.

In the last 24 hours, as a result of both the NY26 election and the Senate vote on the Ryan plan, the GOP leadership has begun an attempt to mask their mistake and pivot back to their 3T strategy. They have introduced new “jobs legislation” which once again offers substantial tax cuts with no mention of what spending cuts it will take to sustain those cuts. They're rolling out the same old Laffer Curve, supply-side voodoo, and trickle-down – not using those discredited memes, of course, but I'm sure we're headed towards a whole new lexicon that one can be sure will create jobs overnight.

The fly in their ointment is that they have taken on the deficit hawk role (even Cheney who just 7 years ago said deficits don't matter, is now as hawkish on it as he was on Iraq!) and the vehicle for bringing their dilemma to the limelight is the upcoming debt ceiling fight.

Their dilemma is if they stay with the deficit hawk stance, as demanded by the t-baggers, it can only lead to the lost of their real objective – low or lower taxes. The necessary spending cuts to the three primary functions of the federal government – insurance program, large army, and consistent debt payor – are so onerous that to actually attempt it will destroy the GOP as a viable national party. Raising taxes is the only real solution if you really want to address the deficit – the problem with that for the GOP is that it removes the reason for their existence.

What you've seen is perhaps a glimpse of a 4T GOP but it was a self-made mistake which they are quickly trying to rectify by returning to their 3T ways. From a political perspective, they have no choice - what the glimpse exposed was that a 4T GOP is the end of the GOP.

I think you are over-interpreting and misunderstanding what I said. All I'm saying is, the GOP is talking a 4T talk: we're in a terrible crisis and huge steps must be taken! Yes, it's appalling to see them rush one totally irresponsible proposal after another through the House without hearings or debate, and they have no idea of the actual consequences, but they have seized the political initiative. Ryan's Medicare plan was a setback but they are charging ahead on another front. Meanwhile Obama, Reid and Pelosi are silent and invisible.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

I think you are over-interpreting and misunderstanding what I said. All I'm saying is, the GOP is talking a 4T talk: we're in a terrible crisis and huge steps must be taken! Yes, it's appalling to see them rush one totally irresponsible proposal after another through the House without hearings or debate, and they have no idea of the actual consequences, but they have seized the political initiative. Ryan's Medicare plan was a setback but they are charging ahead on another front. Meanwhile Obama, Reid and Pelosi are silent and invisible.

Amazingly I agree with the "esteemed" professor on something. The Repubs are at least talking in a 4T context that we are in a major fiscal crisis. Unfortunately, the more the Dems demagogue the Ryan plan, the more they make it more difficult to confront the medicare issue with their own plan that will inevitably involve some sort of reductions (or major tax increases). Heck, they themselves took 500 billion from medicare to fund Obamacare. When Bush tried to reform Social security it was used as a cudgel to beat Repubs in 06-the can was kicked down the road, it could work again, meanwhile the crisis deapens ensuring more pain for all of us down the road.

What would be nice is that Reid and Pelosi create their own plan to deal with these issues and then they could start negotiating with Repubs to solve the issue. Of course this is fantasy, they'll never commit to a plan which would open them to criticism much like they never submitted a budget in 2010. Instead of leading, they are playing politics. At least the Repubs had the balls to lay out a plan and take the heat.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

That second paragraph certainly caught my eye because it's pretty much what I've been saying for at least a year. The Republicans have a transformative agenda, the Democrats do not.

The conservative Democrats do not. The progressive Democrats do. They are 4T. The Republicans are 4T. The conserva-Dems are post-seasonal.

Incidentally, Brian recently criticized me for saying the country had been heading steadily rightward on the grounds that we had moved leftward on social issues.

The country is moving leftward on economic issues, too; the only problem is that the government has been moving the other direction under corporate influence.

I don't really agree that the Republicans in Congress want a new economic collapse, 10% unemployment as far as the eye can see, etc., although they do appear to want more inequality of wealth since they've now introduced yet another round of tax cuts. I think they are drunk on their own ideology and can't see straight.

That is of course not unlikely. Never ascribe to malice what can be adequately explained by stupidity. I suspect, though, that someone behind them does want economic collapse and high unemployment forever.

They are leading a postmodern 4T, all based on appearance instead of reality, while the country goes down the tubes. But that may be more appealing to the country than no 4T at all, the Democratic solution.

Once again, you're making the mistake of thinking, on the basis of last year's election, that their program is "appealing to the country." It is appealing to a little over 20% of the country, the ones who voted Republican last year. Those people are just as "drunk on ideology" as the GOP freshman pols in Congress, if not more so. We are seeing at this time that it is not appealing to the country as a whole, not in the slightest!

Originally Posted by herbal tee

... Indeed on the healthcare issue, despite labeling Obama's plan as "socialism" in 2010, the GOP generally attacked from the left. And it worked.

It'd would be nice to see the Democrats really try the same.
But 2012 is looking like a tarnished version of the 2008 donkey product.
More than likely the Democrats will win.
But only because the Republicans will be often unelectable in the larger presidential election populace.

I believe that we are far enough into the demographic shift of the social moment that the old boomer coalition can only win midtern elections. I believe that since 2006 we've gone into a drift era not unlike what we entered in the late 1960's which led to the Reagan years defining the 3T. A 40 year half cycle leading to a critical election in 2020 that solidifies the new way and makes a 1T a possible by the mid 2020's ? It's not only possible, mathematically it makes sense.

Yeah, it's a bit sad, but 2020 looks to be the earliest election that can elect a Progressive slate, and the stars will have to align to get us there as early as that. How great an impact that will produce is questionable, but it should be enough to extinguish the rocket-powered shift to the right. In fact, that may now have already reached its pinnacle. Then again, we're already near the right wall, even in conservative friendly America.

In many ways, Obama is the shadow-Nixon, the counter-party President that completes the cycle started by the other party, while previewing the shift to follow. I can't see him triggering the shift, but he seems to be capable of reversing the dismal trend. We still have to find a way back.

2016, not 2020. And it will happen in stages: 2012, 2014, both moving that direction. 2010 will be seen as a necessary foil, provoking quasi-Newtonian action/reaction.

I actually think we'll see some good things happen in Obama's second term.

There is nothing new or profound in what the GOP is offering. If one really looks carefully at what Ryan is proposing, the basic math doesn't even add up - it still is magical ponies.

As with Bush's attempt to privatize social security, they made a mistake in over-reaching and revealing the consequences (e.g. Medicare) of their continuing assault on the ability of the government to collect sufficent revenues. They are pivoting right now to correct that mistake and returning to their 3T strategy that has served them well.

What they have actually done is locked us into a 3T mindset so that the 4T cannot be solved. Government deficits had nothing to do with the Great Recession nor the financial meltdown, and yet the deficit has become the problem that must be fixed immediately. Real solution like tax increases, further re-regulation of the finacial sector, or government stimulus are not possible - it's hilarious for people to say Obama, Reid and Pelosi aren't doing anything in this present faux 3T climate.

Again, the GOP simply made a tactical mistake of putting forward specific measures on the spending side to reduce the deficit ( while, of course, continuing to starve the beast with current or now additional proposed tax cuts). They are returining to the 30-year strategy of giving lip service to the deficit and giving us magic ponies that we can have further tax cuts because through the magic of Laffer curves, voodoo supply economics and trickle-down, we are going to become a great economic engine again.

It just sounds sooooo 80s to me.

However, they may have lock themselves in with this debt ceiling confrontation. My money is on them wiggling out of it. If they do, they've just kick the can down the road a little further, but their time, and the nation's, is running out. When it does, then the full force of this 4T will finally reveal itself.

Here is my tax plan to help solve the current situation:

Under 250,000 a year-eliminate the income tax. Of course this would eliminate all the deductions, child credits and the earned income tax credit. Low income people would have more money in their pocket each month. In addition, for incomes under 250,000 keep the current temporary 4.2% payroll tax which would put additional dollars in their pockets.

For over 250,000-a flat 25% income tax rate without ANY deductions. No child credits, no mortgage interest deductions, nada zip zilch......

Raise the SS contributions from 6.2% to 7 percent
AND raise the threshold of incomes from 106,000 maximum to 125,000 with a cost of living adjustment every 3 years.

Corporate rate-25% with NO deductions

Capital gains tax-15%

Eliminate ALL subsidies to business AND farms.....phase these in over time to allow for adjustments.....

Also-for social security- add a national 401 k/tax free annuity etc. You could invest from 2% to 10% of your income in an investment plan of your choice that is completely portable. So, for instance, when you begin working at a low wage job 2% could be invested then you could make higher investments when your income increases. This would not affect the current system as far as you getting a guarenteed benefit already with some investment income on top of that. Of course business could entice potential employeee with private pension plans of their own or mathcing plans to the system....

And last but not least-add a small VAT tax. exempt food (except fast food, junk food, alcohol etc), health care and housing/rent and Utilities. Granted Im not sure, in any way how small the VAT woudl have to be but still large enough to cover revenue needs of our budget but I would hope it to be a small, less than 10% hopefully less than 5%.

Of course there also would have to be budget cuts which are too many to list...

oK. let the tearing into my plan begin, but let me assure you I tried to throw a bone to everyone, as well as the fact that everyone is going to have be unhappy about something too. Instead of letting my idealogue side of throwing out a completely conservative boomerish smash the other side plan I let my Gen X lets solve the problem side try to tackle it.......

Well, the first thing that comes to mind is this. Regarding income tax, you're talking about eliminating all income tax on the first $250k of income. Then you drop the rate 10% on income above that, and compensate at least in part by eliminating deductions. If we are relying on income tax for revenue, while I agree in principle with exempting the first X amount of income, $250k is too high to set that floor. What you're doing here in essence is shifting from income tax to SS and a VAT as the principle source of revenue -- flattening the tax system even more than it is now.

Naturally I have a problem with that -- although I do have a thought that it can form the basis for a workable system, with three additions.

1) A confiscatory surtax on incomes above $1.5 million per year -- say 90%.
2) A shift in focus by the government to strongly supporting labor rights, which means a punitive tax on income earned abroad, and increased penalties for illegal firings and other illegal anti-union activities, plus tightening of limits for skilled-labor visas.

If we had a serious effort to flatten incomes, there would be no significant problem with a flat tax.

Ultimately, it comes down to this. Do we want an economy that performs well, at productive capacity or near it, and provides a good standard of living for everyone? Or do we want an economy that performs poorly, is always faltering, has high unemployment on a consistent basis, but maximizes the ability of the rich to get richer? Those are our choices, or of course somewhere in between, but there is a direct contradiction between the ability of the rich to get richer (especially relative to everyone else) and the ability of the economy to perform well and provide a good standard of living for everyone.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Well, the first thing that comes to mind is this. Regarding income tax, you're talking about eliminating all income tax on the first $250k of income. Then you drop the rate 10% on income above that, and compensate at least in part by eliminating deductions. If we are relying on income tax for revenue, while I agree in principle with exempting the first X amount of income, $250k is too high to set that floor. What you're doing here in essence is shifting from income tax to SS and a VAT as the principle source of revenue -- flattening the tax system even more than it is now.

Naturally I have a problem with that -- although I do have a thought that it can form the basis for a workable system, with three additions.

1) A confiscatory surtax on incomes above $1.5 million per year -- say 90%.
2) A shift in focus by the government to strongly supporting labor rights, which means a punitive tax on income earned abroad, and increased penalties for illegal firings and other illegal anti-union activities, plus tightening of limits for skilled-labor visas.

If we had a serious effort to flatten incomes, there would be no significant problem with a flat tax.

Ultimately, it comes down to this. Do we want an economy that performs well, at productive capacity or near it, and provides a good standard of living for everyone? Or do we want an economy that performs poorly, is always faltering, has high unemployment on a consistent basis, but maximizes the ability of the rich to get richer? Those are our choices, or of course somewhere in between, but there is a direct contradiction between the ability of the rich to get richer (especially relative to everyone else) and the ability of the economy to perform well and provide a good standard of living for everyone.

Not trying to be snarky here...

In my view if you're looking for productivity you should not de-incentivize achievement. Imagine a Hollywood actor who would like to make more than one movie a year, why would they if they are going to be punished simply for making more than your income limits. The same could be said for a business. Why invest to expand the businees which would create alot of benefits for society as a whole like more jobs, more tax revenue on the 25% rate that my plan collects, etc....

Why be productive if your rewards are only limited?