By now, for anyone who's watching carefully, Obama's use of right wing talking points should be familiar.
Here's another one: Tax cuts as the solution to everything (except for the problems of people who don't actually have money). Krugman, after noting that Edwards and Hillary have their own stimulus plans (Edwards, as usual, being the driver), looks at the Obama plan:
The Obama campaign’s initial response to the latest wave of bad economic news was, I’m sorry to say, disreputable: Mr. Obama’s top economic adviser claimed that the long-term tax-cut plan the candidate announced months ago is just what we need to keep the slump from “morphing into a drastic decline in consumer spending.”
Because even I, cynical as I am, couldn't believe that a putatively progressive candidate was offering a discredited Republican nostrum seriously, I took a look for the quote; it's from Austan Goolsbee:
Austan Goolsbee, the University of Chicago Graduate School of Business economist and adviser to Barack Obama, says the Illinois Democrat saw the need for fiscal stimulus before other presidential candidates did.
Obama put his plan forward in the fall: A $500 per worker, or $1,000 per couple, tax credit that is meant to offset the first $500 of Social Security payroll taxes.
“There is at least going to be a significant slowdown,” Goolsbee says. “With this jobs report, we hope it isn’t spreading beyond housing and fin services.” The proposed Obama tax cut “addresses the middle class squeeze” and helps “prevent this from morphing into a drastic decline in consumer spending” Goolsbee says the proposal offers a sharp contrast to Republican calls to extend President Bush’s tax cuts.
"Sharp contrast." I like that. Yeah, it's like the sharp contrast between horseshit and, well, pony shit. By this time, surely everybody outside of Harvard knows that Republican tax cuts are all about shrinking government so that it's small enough to drown in a bathtub, so why is Obama's top economic advisor shoving the Overton window right?
And we've seen this all before, you know. Krugman reminds us about that:
Hmm: claiming that the candidate is all-seeing, and that a tax cut originally proposed for other reasons is also a recession-fighting measure — doesn’t that sound familiar?
So, Goolby's "plan" seems to have gone back to the drawing board. Here's the new one:
Anyway, on Sunday Mr. Obama came out with a real stimulus plan. As was the case with his health care plan, which fell short of universal coverage, his stimulus proposal is similar to those of the other Democratic candidates, but tilted to the right.
For example, the Obama plan appears to contain none of the alternative energy initiatives that are in both the Edwards and Clinton proposals, and emphasizes across-the-board tax cuts over both aid to the hardest-hit families and help for state and local governments.* I know that Mr. Obama’s supporters hate to hear this, but he really is less progressive than his rivals on matters of domestic policy.
Jeebus.
I mean, I know that Obama exudes more charisma than any one individual should be allowed to have, but this is getting ridiculous. If I want to vote for a Republican, I'll vote for McCain, for pity's sake.
I'd say "Bush Mocha" instead of "Bush Lite" if that wouldn't embroil me in the whole racism celebrity cage death match Obama and Hillary are having.
Readers, can you help me come up with "Bush _____" to describe Obama's continued rightward slide?
NOTE Can anyone believe that, when put in play legislatively, these tax cuts won't be tilted toward wealth, and at least part of Bush's giveaway to the rich will be locked in place for ever? Maybe that's why, although Krugman is calling bullshit, Republican operatives Kristol, Sullivan, Brooks, and Broderalla are all very comfortable with Obama. They know he's going to govern from the center right, and they'll have more influence than ever, as "honest brokers." Gag me with a spoon.
VARIOUS OBORG PROPHYLACTICS No, Krugman is not on a vendetta against Obama; he disagrees with Obama on policy; see here for extended treatment. For example, when Bush was intellectually dishonest on his numbers, that was a red flag to Krugman, who called his shot on Bush very early, and was right. Krugman is right to do the same with Obama. Yes, Obama gives a really good speech. Yes, there are lots of policy papers on the site. No, none of them will mean anything, because in a political campaign, it really is the rhetoric and the dog whistles that matter. Yes, Obama has a great biography and wrote a book ten years ago. No, none of that necessarily matters going forward. Past performance is no guarantee of future results. I'm proposing the simple idea of examining what Obama is actually campaigning on. Eh?
- lambert's blog
- Login or register to post comments
- 1+[encrypted]+#b94+
Printer-friendly version
Front page
Comments
i have no problem with bush mocha
not if he's honestly talking about tax cuts. christ.
with all the slashing of all the programs for the needy and hurting these last 8 years, and he is out there selling some pissant 500$ credit as if that will help people? Fuck
.
of course, expect nothing less from UoC econ advisors. den of snakes, that department is.
University of Chicago?
The epicenter of disaster capitalism? I really really really really hope that nominate someone else.
sigh
Bush Mocha it is, then
That should bring the OFB
out of the woodwork. You can deal with them ;-)
Yes, University of Chicago. There was some DU stuff on Goolsbee floating around, but I didn't find it completely trustworthy; the man seems to have done a study that shows that (surprise) administrative costs for government run Social Security is less than if it were privatized.
[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." -- Mahatma Gandhi
Why all tax credits tilt right
Because a "$500 or $1000 tax credit" does jack shit nothing at all for people who need it most, which is to say those who don't make enough to pay taxes in the first place. Frequently these people, even if working in the aboveground or just slightly gray economy have been told by the IRS (as I was some years back when I went on SS widows 'n' orphans benefits) to not bother them with a tax return until/unless the economic situation changes.
And I am not talking drug dealers here for chrissakes. I mean those who scrape by with a "legit" job like waitress or walmart or motel maid, that doesn't give high enough pay or enough hours to live on. So they do other stuff on the side to make up for it: house or office cleaners, home healthcare workers, day laborers, contract workers, nannies/babysitters...the list is lengthy. Much of this is for cash and so unreported.
Maybe the waitress/walmart job craps out and you go to the hand-to-mouth work full time. Bet there's a lot of people in this situation. They could be out there a'consumin' an a'stimulatin' the economy more than they do, but this tax credit crap ain't gonna do it for them.
Well, "unity" doesn't apply to waitresses and WalMart
How could it?
Let's be reasonable, here, Xan.
[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." -- Mahatma Gandhi
That infamous tax rebate
Don't forget, it had to be paid back.
Ruth
Ruth
What?!?!!? Pay back a tax rebate?
Who's plan are you talking about here, Ruth?
[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." -- Mahatma Gandhi
Bush
That $300 to everyone was taken out of your next tax return.
Ruth
Ruth
i think you missed the snark there, sister
;-)
i like to put it this way: poor people that xan describes not only don't get any benefit this year, they get to pay for it, with interest, in the form of what suck gimmicks add to the national debt later. so they actually pay for it, those who can afford such burdens the least.
nice move, obama.
Oh, duh
Remember you're talking to an invalid. Be gentle. (Now that really is snark.)
Ruth
Ruth
Bush Mocha?
I don't get it. Are you saying Obama = Bush + Chocolate?
no, that would be something sweet, and pleasing
i told lambert to go for it with this term, the "tax cuts are the solution to our economic problems" bit from a previous post was too much for me. if he's going to act like a republican, he can be tarred with an association with the worst of them. imho.
I wasn't sure...
... but it's a riff on Bush Lite.
Too much?
[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." -- Mahatma Gandhi
Bush Latte works better
as a riff on Lite as well as the Latte-liberal slam on Dems from the right, just a suggestion.
Bush Oreo, now that would be over the line.
agreed, BIO. lambert, what do you think?
latte carries just the right amount of snark, irony, and sass, and doesn't go over the line. imho.
Yeah, Latte
I agree with BIO.
Either way you get a frothy corporate beverage with mass appeal but the chocolate is just unnecessary, IMWO (In My Whitey Opinion).
Frothy could be taken to imply....
frothy mix, which brings up its own set of connotations, not all of them bad...
But it any case the off-rhyme of lite/latte works for me. Well done all.
[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." -- Mahatma Gandhi
Interesting that it said
Interesting that it said the cut was to offset SS payments. Many people above the poverty level pay more in SS than in income tax every week. They don't get any of that back at the end of the year.
Maybe he could have suggested cutting the SS rate back to what it takes to run the program rather than to run surpluses that are used in the general fund as a stealth tax anyway.
I don't understand this Burns and Allen stuff. Half of what I have belongs to you. Half of what you have belongs to me. I have a dollar. Here's fifty cents. Give me a quarter. Now we're even.
Change in energy policy? Well, no need now.
"For example, the Obama plan appears to contain none of the alternative energy initiatives that are in both the Edwards and Clinton proposals..."
Recessions = reductions in both energy consumption and carbon emissions. Such a prospect should make Senator Obama's coal buddies breath a bit easier (so to speak). No need to set a place at the table just yet for those annoying alternative energy folks. All this talk of Unity
and Lattes has finally revealed the Hope to be found in severe economic downturn: a cleaner environment without all the unpleasant bickering.
(Still new here. First try at linking. Be kind, please.)
You did fine Mama J, welcome aboard!
The link works perfectly. I am not acquainted with this Marc Gunther person but find his arguments entirely logical as far as the coal-to-liquid-fuel matter goes. That is one of the biggest examples of the great quandry in New Energy movement: should the push be for Energy Independence, totally directed to reducing imports, or for Climate Change Avoidance, directed with utmost emphasis on reducing carbon/greenhouse gas outputs?
I lean to the Climate Change Avoidance position myself, which explains my tolerance of increased, or at least ongoing-at-the-present-level use of nuclear. As Stewart Brand puts it, we really only need technology good enough to sequester nuclear waste for about 250 years, not the "10k years+" frequently cited. Either our descendants will have technologies capable of a better solution than what's available now in another quarter century, or the human race will be collapsed to the stone-knives-and-bearskins level and some random radiation will be the least of our problems.
Not being a fan of either flint knapping or bearskin-chewing, I hope we can keep technological civilization cooking along. With the recipe changed to steady-state from its present growth-at-any-cost way of doing things, which is gonna kill us all if China and India insist on replicating our mistakes.