(Added in the last part to add relevance for this forum.)
So, before I decided not to continue reading for various reasons, I took a look at the Daily Kos, a significantly liberal/progressive website. They have many discussions about the current “fiscal cliff” negotiations. Many of the most rec’ed diaries and posts are about feelings of betrayal (similar feelings, BTW, to the last time there were budget negotiations).
In summary, they (obviously not a monolithic group - there’s disagreement even within this community) felt that Obama had a significant advantage in these negotiations - that “going over the fiscal cliff” wouldn’t be all that bad (or bad enough), and that the President should just hold out for everything and let the budget go over the cliff if he didn’t get his way. They point to polls that seem to show that a majority would blame the Republicans if that happened.
But now that Obama’s offered what they characterize as cuts in Social Security, they feel betrayed - Democrats are “committing suicide” politically, and the President is called “Caver in Chief,” and say that this is just what Mitt Romney would’ve done as President.
Obviously, this is their right, and they’re certainly doing what they can to advance their point of view in practical ways. But when I look at this blog - at any blog of any political stripe - I have to wonder: how do their point of view jive with the typical Democratic or Republican voter? Does, for example, the typical Democratic voter feel betrayed by the President? What would they think of such a deal as is being floated out there right now, given the polls I mentioned earlier? Would they punish the Democrats in the next couple of elections? One of the concerns expressed at DK is that the Republicans will characterize a deal that includes the chained CPI as a cut in Social Security, and run against their Democratic opponents on that in '14 (and maybe '16), counting on voters forgetting that they demanded it and were in favor of it. They certainly COULD and WOULD do that (and, IIRC, have before), but how big a concern is that?
No idea if I am typical, but I would not punish Democrats for this. Obama is negotiating and offering concessions in good faith, which is what politics is all about. I cannot tell if Boehner is doing that or protecting his speakership.
So, if we all become leapers over the fiscal cliff, so be it. Taxes will increase and spending will go down, which is what any rational solution requires - we just won’t have an entirely rational solution.
Been thinking about this more. It may be that those who only follow mainstream media sources and not partisan blogs (the vast majority, I suspect) may be less inclined to blame anyone (or everyone) - they may hear about the cliff, think it’s a huge deal, and just want SOMEONE to do SOMETHING to avoid it.
OTOH, they may also be more vulnerable to the tactic I mention in my OP. Hmm.
“Mainstream” news sources have been so successfully played by the conservatives that they are in fact conservative in outlook. Progressives have very little outlets in mainstream media. Fortunately, most regular folks sense that the mainstream has been co-opted by conservatives and don’t pay much attention to them.
I think I’m a mostly typical liberal voter. I think the “fiscal cliff” term is silly. Driving over the “cliff” does what, exactly? Automatically raises taxes to the level they were before the W Bush cuts? Wait…you mean that time where we were super prosperous and the economy grew at like 10% a year for almost a whole decade? I’d drive over that cliff any day.
I think Obama is conceding too much. Republicans aren’t even accepting this already-too-much compromise. Drive the damn thing over the cliff, rip the damn band-aid off and be done with it.
The political tactical situation may be different in January than December, so “cliffing it” may be the best way forward for the Democrats and other rational thinkers.
However failure to come to an agreement in December is hardly benign. Some unemployment checks will be stopped; many government workers will be furloughed; and the stock market will fall. Although “cliffing it” ostensibly aims at deficit reduction, I think it will hurt rather than help America’s credit standing – America’s credit is falling not due to financial specifics but due to its political gridlock.
I wish there were a way to make GOP intransigence apparent to “rank and file voters.” Perhaps Obama should insist that his negotiations with Boehner be televised!
Obama will make all sorts of deep cuts to Social Security and Medicaid and Medicare, and also let the rich escape anything more than piddling tax increases, because he wants to be seen as a nonpartisan compromiser, and values that much more than the interests of the middle class, so expect him to be totally stupid about this from the viewpoint of his base. The only way the Republicans can lose is not to take any deal at all. Which they are just stupid enough to do. This whole thing looks like a moron train to me. I’d MUCH rather cliff it than see any “grand bargain” that negotiates away the advantages the Dems have gained here … and they DEFINITELY have the upper hand.
Of course Republicans will scream every like they can think of in 2014, but they were screaming every lie they could think of about Obama this year, and they got their asses kicked. Not that it makes much difference if we keep electing Democrats who ignore progressives.
Some Democrats vote based on their entitlement programs. I question whether or not they have any understanding of how much it costs to maintain these program’s and whether or not they are sustainable. So no, I don’t think that many voters consider the implication of their vote.
Do you understand what’s actually happening here? The “fiscal cliff” includes tax increases and spending cuts together.
And since you so condescendingly referred to Democrats who don’t consider the implications of voting for “entitlement programs,” can you please give us an example of a few entitlement programs you think aren’t sustainable?
Right. That’s a good faith negotiation alright. Never mind the fact that Obama once railed against raising the debt ceiling (he proposed eliminating the ceiling a few weeks back), the fact that he is unwilling to entertain neither spending cuts nor entitlement reform, the fact that the White House has said on more than one occasion that they’re fully prepared to go over the cliff unless Obama gets a tax increase in the wealthy (apparently, wealthy means whatever the White House wants it to mean) and the fact that he refuses to sign on to the Simpson-Bowles act even though it was a bipartisan agreement. He’s really negotiating in good faith. Obviously.
I for one hate the “cliff” analogy. Raising taxes and lowering spending? Sounds like a win for me. The cliff was the lower taxes with the high spending. I for one would support any politician that is willing to drive off the cliff if for no other reason then show that having a trying to reduce the deficit in 2012-3 is not the Mayan apocolypse.
