Associated Press
The New York Times' Bill Keller
There's been quite of a bit of commentary in recent weeks about who ultimately bears responsibility for Republicans' refusal to compromise in advance of the sequestration deadline, with a few too many pundits reflexively relying on the lazy "blame both sides" canard.
The New York Times' Bill Keller joins the crowd today -- his column's headline reads, "Obama's fault" -- and since his piece is longer and more fleshed out than most of the other related commentary, I read it thinking he might have something new to contribute to the general media dissatisfaction with President Obama.
So, what's Keller's pitch? It's worth noting at the outset that the Times columnist concedes that "much of the responsibility for our perpetual crisis can be laid at the feet of a pigheaded Republican Party." OK, but if that's the case, how do we get to "Obama's fault"?
When President Obama told us in his first Inaugural Address that our time of "putting off unpleasant decisions" was over, advocates of reforming our fiscal disorder read that as a promise that the new president would go beyond the perennial economic quick fix. After pulling the country back from the brink of depression by pumping some stimulus into the system (thumbs up for that), it seemed plausible that he would make some hard choices to put the promises of government more in balance with its resources.
Instead, the president's first big initiative was to create an overdue but expensive new entitlement, the Affordable Care Act. I'm not one of those who fault him for putting health care at the front of the line. But Obama emerged from that battle looking like a president who had spent the last of his political capital. And the great fiscal issues remained unaddressed.
Well, that's not quite right. For one thing, expecting the president in 2009 to turn his attention to deficit reduction -- in the midst of a jobs crisis, as the nation was struggling to establish the foundations of an economic recovery -- is deeply misguided. The nation needed more investment, not less.
For another, Keller's argument is predicated on the assumption that the Affordable Care Act is an "expensive" endeavor that ignores "great fiscal issues." As a factual matter, this appears to have the reform law backwards -- "Obamacare" addresses the nation's fiscal future directly by reducing the deficit and helping control health care costs in the coming years. The law, in other words, is a critical component of the larger agenda that Keller hoped Obama would pursue -- making politically difficult choices that serves public needs in a way that helps bring the budget closer to balance. It would seem, then, that Keller should be praising the president's efforts on this front, not criticizing them.
Keller then shifts gears.
The Simpson-Bowles agenda was imperfect, and had plenty to offend ideologues of the left and right, which meant that it was the very manifestation of what Obama likes to call "a balanced approach." So did he seize it as an opportunity for serious debate about our fiscal mess? No, he abandoned it. Instead, he built a re-election campaign that was long on making the wealthiest pay more in taxes, short on spending discipline, and firmly hands-off on the problem of entitlements.
If Obama had campaigned on some version of Simpson-Bowles rather than on poll-tested tax hikes alone, he could now claim a mandate from voters to do something big and bold. Most important, he would have some leverage with members of his own base who don't want to touch Medicare even to save it.
This isn't quite right, either. As Greg Sargent explained, far from "poll-tested tax hikes alone," the president during his re-election bid actually unveiled a multi-trillion-dollar debt-reduction plan, which included considerable spending cuts and "reforms" to entitlement programs like Medicare.
What's more, I'm not sure why Keller is convinced the president "abandoned" a debate about the nation's fiscal future. Obama presented a plan, in writing, that did the exact opposite, and spoke extensively on the subject throughout 2012, including his desire for compromise. More to the point, the president also repeatedly endorsed the goals and many of the provisions of the Simpson-Bowles agenda, which is far more than can be said of his rivals in the other party.
From there, Keller makes the point that he wishes Obama had negotiated differently when dealing with Republican tactics that included political extortion, hostage taking, and in Keller's words, "blackmail." I'm not unsympathetic to concerns about the president's negotiating postures, but I'm not altogether sure why the columnist is blaming the president for the GOP's reckless tactics -- the complaint reads a bit like someone critiquing whether a mugging victim was effective in handing over his wallet.
The bottom line remains the same: the president has played by the rules, accepting concessions, offering compromises, and negotiating in good faith. In the meantime, Republicans have been unyielding, condemning the very idea of compromise, threatening deliberate national harm, and walking away from overly generous offers that fall short of 100% of their demands.
So, remind me, how is it "Obama's fault"?
Leave a Comment:
They talk about Iran as if it is causing all this trouble. But what about all those drugs that have been flooding into Iran from Afghanistan. Don’t you think the Iranian people might get a little upset that an American established country Afghanistan is supplying drugs to addict their family members? And who encouraged the Afghan people to do that sort of thing, because America is directly connected to that situation? And politicians want to claim our country has been so wronged by Iran. Something is just not right with all this talk about Iran.
Deb, Republicans are simply upset that the Afghan war is winding down and they just cannot exist without a war. That's what Iran is about.
Remember McCain's little song in 08? "Bomb, bomb,bomb, bomb, bomb Iran?"
That little song and his VP choice kept me up lots of nights before Obama won the election.
If you thought Iraq was a mess, imagine the Iraq War with more than twice the population, a more deeply rooted popular militia, an ethnically more homogeneous population (no Sunni awakening possible), and mountains.
I know! A horror.
It's Obama's fault , because the Republicans said so! Rationality is long gone from American politics.
I try to be polite, but:
FU, Keller.
I hope there is a Hell, just for pathetic, harmful people like you.
2008-2009 the United States was losing jobs at a 500k plus rate per month and what was the government doing? Public majority unpopular Obamacare.
I find the government's concern over the possibility of losing government jobs due to the sequester to be very disingenuous. Where were they when the private sector was losing jobs at a rate of ten fold? Where was the outrage from the President then?
Then there's the little thing that there is no Simpson-Bowles Commission report for Obama to have abandoned. They couldn't get the votes from a handpicked group to implement what they wanted, so the two guys wrote their own report that had two votes.
I don't understand why Keller thinks Obama is beholden to a report that doesn't exist.
I did the google ... another Republican hack. He was in the bag for Mitt
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/22/opinion/keller-presidential-mitt.html?_r=0
Just when we were running short of hacks ...here comes Bill to the rescue
Keller and David Brooks should sing duets.
Tom Brokaw did the same thing today on THE CYCLE. Said the Prez should have taken them all to Camp David for 5 days, he should stop campaigning, and especially stop asking for revenue b/c the Republicans REALLY believe tax cuts are the answer and he got his cuts...nevermind that it was $4 of cuts for every $1 of revenue. For shame.
The problem with Republicans is that they concentrate exclusively on the things that do nothing to help the economy. In fact, the one thing the economy needs is a jump start stimulus to begin creating jobs.
Austerity is the last thing we need, and lowering taxes even more on the rich is absurd in the extreme.
They are not deficit hawks as they like to claim. In fact all of the things they are obsessed with do nothing whatever to jump start the economy or lower the deficit. To add insult to injury, they block everything the president tries to do that would impact the deficit.
Republicans have no historical or moral compass guiding them. They lead from a backward, ignorant ideology that does no good and a lot of harm. They need to wake up.
Or is this purposeful obstruction to keep the president from doing anything to help the American people? They simply want to ruin Obama's second term just as they tried to ruin his first four years.
Occam's Razor says that's the simplest explanation for their policies.
Those on the fiscal right can't state why they argue they way they do. They would not be able to defend it. They can only do it to their friends behind close doors away from scrutiny and daylight. You might remember the 47% comment!!! But since I live in the reddest of red state let me try to give you some insight. They wish to obstruct, and truth, argument, and logic be damned, much they same way the religious right invented "Intelligent Design". They believe in survival of the fittest and so they don't see everybody as fit, especially anybody off color or different from themselves. It's a neo-fascist idea of evolution applied to human society. In their line of thinking, it's everybody for himself and God for us all. They don't have much time for empathy or human suffering. A line you hear a lot around here is "That what doesn't kill you makes you stronger." Obviously an idiotic line of thinking given that their livers become more hardened each day from all the Whiskey they drink, but they don't think about it any further then there nose is long. One other line plastered in every rural restaurant states, "If you want any help around here, its at the end of your arm." Think about that one. How that mingles with calling yourself a Christian I'll never understand.
Godver domme,
Exactlly right, and you would know. It figures they would quote Goethe, as I see them as neo-Nazis.
As a Christian (Catholic) myself, I spend a lot of time feeding the poor, and helping the needy. No one can say they are Christian and neglect the most vulnerable amongst us. The first words, I believe, out of Christ's mouth at judgement day, are going to be, "What have you done for the poor?"
It is not a suggestion, it is a command. You cannot be a Christian and ignore it. We are also commanded to love our neighbours as ourselves. It wasn't specified that they be a certain race, creed, or ethnic groups.
john "@!$%# for brains" boehner has a job to do. he cannot do it so he wont do it. he still wants to get paid and not get fired. so he has decided his job is the responsibility of someone else.
GOP = degenerate pathological sociopaths.
Didn't the new Congress have the opportunity to put a fresh face in the Speaker's chair...yet they did not?
John must suit some purpose, like Bush, like Mitt, weak and malleable, weak and malleable...
I think the biggest problem is that no one could be found who wanted the job. Trying to herd that bunch of snakes is an impossibility and everyone, including Orange Man, knows it. Therefore since he already had the job, he was stuck with it.
Love the hair, hope it wins!
When will MSNBC stop treating Obama as the all knowing one who is never wrong. What did he do for a year and a half. Campaign. Then, after election, he continues to campaign. He sends his hacks to spread fear. The first rule of negotiating is never belittle your opponent
Tom, respectfully, what has your party done for you lately?
So you feel the left doesn't help you. Fine, you are entitled to your opinion. But at what point will you turn and ask what the right is doing for you?
They've given you someone to blame for all your problems for the past 5 years, but in those 5 years, what has your party done to help you and those like you who voted them into office?
No snark intended...
So, it's ok for the GOP to call Obama stupid, lazy, over his head, Marxist, etc...? Obama has shown more patience and even-temperedness than any man should have to and yet gets nothing but rebuked for his efforts.
Did you just crawl out from under that rock....? (snark intended)
Tom, All the belittling I ever heard has come from the right, aimed at Obama. I have never heard one word from him that wasn't moderate and even tempered.
Wonder why Tom didn't answer me, it was a legitimate question. Oh, wait...
This is disappointing at the very least as I have always felt Keller was more astute. Then again, the whole Judith Miller - Iraq happened under his watch. From the beginning the right has been successful taring the ACA as budget busting drain on the budget against facts to the contrary. So mr Keller - The sad truth which Keller should write is that the GOP is content with doing great harm to the country while sabotaging the president for purely partisan reasons - and they lie a lot.
I wonder if Krugman will respond . . .
That's a lie - even though I wish it was the truth.
Obama has repeatedly offered various elements of the horrible Simpson-Bowles plan in negotiations and in public statements. Much to the dismay of the Democratic base.
Where was the NY Times fact checking team before this was published?
Because Keller is like the recently retired POPE. He was a BIG SHOT before he was 'just a writer' and he can't adjust. C'mon Bill...give back the red shoes!
It only matters to them if tax collections are spent on Education, Medicaid, or Social Security. If it's on Defense, they look the other way and keep it off the books. Carl Rove and Dick Cheney hatched this plot (with "Dubya" as their front man) to break the bank/economy in order to gut Roosevelt's New Deal. Then they wanted to rebuild a pure Capitalist America from scratch. A neo-fascist State the way Henry Ford envisioned it. A world where the poor are ignored and the rich are entitled to rule. Goodbye to "Everbody is created equal." Goodbye Constitution.
No need to wonder why the American people are so misinformed.
I have the utmost respect for Tom Brokaw or should I say had. After seeing him on The Cycle today I wonder. He is another who is blaming President Obama and the senate for not putting a plan in place for the sequester. Did'nt he check to see the senate had a plan ready to go but it was filabustered by republicans? I'm thinking now he's just another hack worried some people wo'nt talk to him if he tells it like it is. Oh and by the way, he does'nt think the President should be out talking personally to the people of the country. I guess he does'nt want him leaving the Washington bubble.
Keller and Brokaw both share the same commonsense challenge - they are members of the retirement generation (soon to be packed with boomers) who are utterly unable to understand that their generation has had 30 years to get ready for the inevitable wave of retirement that will swamp the ship of state for next 20 years.
To Steve's point - healthcare is the single biggest issue for all Americans - retirement and next generation - and Simpson-Bowles identified this by proposing a number of approaches to this issue including addressing medicare and single-payer proposals.
The other important point of Simpson-Bowles was the clear understanding that historically low tax revenues had to increase by nearly 40% to accomplish the goal of reducing long-term debt.
Meanwhile the reality of this plan included an introduction of their plan in the last Congressional session:
So Mr. Keller, you are an IDIOT, and your generation needs to stop telling those of us who will be paying the bills how we are going to deal with the mess your generation has left.
Soon we will ALL have to make painful choices, and the only practical one is is to make is very clear that cuts become universal for all generations, and the idea that the retirement generation is exempt from any pain while pushing the responsibility on the next generation is yet another example of your generation's selfish, foolish behavior and a lack of reality as witnessed in your poorly researched article which leaves anyone with a relational mind stunned by your vulgar lack of concern for the mess you've left for the rest of us to face in the coming 30 years.
Yes blame the President for a generational financial challenge that has been clearly approaching us for decades. It won't be going away any time soon and the false belief that somehow the next generation will give up all hope for their own future while also paying for the retirement generations healthcare demands is unsustainable and will soon lead to more political wrangling than just the Republicans and Democrats blaming each other for a general lack of courage to deal with the real problems we are all facing because the real issue is that one generation failed to make proper choices for more than 30 years and now they hope to pass the problem on to the next generation.
Mr Keller you are part of the problem in more ways that you seem to understand.
I haven't heard Keller or anyone else at the NY Times, or other mainstream media, explain why last week that only 6 percent of Americans polled knew that the deficit has declined in Obama's presidency, not gone up. That is a MASSIVE media failure. Supposedly the job of journalists is to provide the public with the information we need to make responsible judgments about policies. On the deficit, a crucial aspect of the economy that has been ALL OVER THE NEWS lately, the news media have failed.
Mr. Keller is a shill for the GOP. The fact that he is whining while the President beats the GOP over the head by campaigning in the country tells me that the President's method is working.
No GOP pain, no gain.
The only way that you'll be able to determine his thoughts on why he made such ridiculous statements is to ask him. I've found that trying to analyze someone's thoughts is fraught with peril because often you just missguess. Contact the guy and ask him why he wrote something that was just plain silly and then get back to us. Who knows? He may even believe his own talking points.
Speaking of believing one's own talking points: I am reading Ryan Lizza's article about Eric Cantor in the Mar. 4, 2013 issue of The New Yorker ("The House of Pain"). Cantor (and Boehner) always say that Obama has not instituted or offered spending cuts, to the point where I am beginning to disbelieve what I thought was true. They ARE wrong, aren't they? There have been spending cuts enacted (although, yes, more needs to be done ... I guess). I feel like I'm in Looking-Glass Land...
JArmen,
The GOP is wrong and it is their favourite Big Lie. In fact, the president has cut more spending than any recent president: 1.5 Trillion over ten years is what my sources tell me.
Cutting spending is clearly not what reputable economists are saying we need. In fact, they are harmful. Austerity plus the sequester cuts are a major setback in our economic recovery. We need some Keynesian policies to boost the recovery such as a large stimulus to jump start the jobs market. These spending cuts the GOP demand will set us back, and do nothing to help the deficit. The sequester will not help the deficit, either. It may well increase both unemployment and the deficit.
But that's the point. The Republicans in Congress are not deficit hawks, they are two faced liars who have one goal: Ruin the president's second term. They will do this by running out the number of hours congress can be in session doing actual work, they will do this through the filibuster, and they have done it through the debt ceiling debacle and the sequester disaster. They have another crisis planned for later in March. It is called "disaster capitalism". They have done and will continue to do this, to take us from one crisis to the next. It confuses the voters and runs out precious congressional hours.
They have gotten 98% of what they want. The hours tick by....nothing is getting done for the American people. Sadly, Obama is not a King or dictator; he cannot make them do a single thing. Not one. It's in the law. It is the way our government is set up.
Thee days we all feel like we've gone down the rabbit hole or through the looking glass. They lie and Fox and Rush and the other toxic talkers double down on the lies.
The really bad news is "these days" are going to continue as long as the American people don't rise up and demand they do the work we pay them for. Ruining the country is not what we have in mind.
Want to hear the really bad news? Most Americans have never even heard of the sequester. Most cannot name the three branches of government or how they work. Most Americans are unfamiliar with the debt ceiling. I spoke to a woman the other night that did not know Obama was a Democrat! She was functioning, not crazy or retarded.
At the moment most Americans are busy trying to find a way to support their family properly and this often involves both working. People are just plain worn out. Politics is not the escape they've chosen for their hours of relaxation, scarce as they are.
No one knows that better than these politicians.
typo I spoke to a woman the other night WHO did not know Obama was a Democrat.
The ghost of my English teacher slapped me across the face for that infraction.
Now we see why education was soooooooooo important to Shrub's administration. An ignorant, uninformed electorate is so much easier to mislead.
India...Terminology is key when talking about our national debt/deficit situation. You may very well be right that President Obama has cut spending more than anyone else with over $1.5 trillion in cuts over the next 10 years. However, that is cuts against projected spending, not actual expenses. If someone proposes a 100% budget increase over the next 10 years, but Obama cuts that by 5%, is that really a cut? If you think it is, then why not propose a 200% increase and then cut it by 40% and really tout the spending cuts?
If you go to the OMB webiste... http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals/... and click on Table 1.1 for historical data related to the budget, you will see that expenses have continued to grow EVERY year and will continue to grow every year for the foreseeable future. From $3.5 billion in 2009 to $3.8 billion last year.
Cutting proposed spending is not the same as cutting real spending.
just saying...
Correction to my previous post...spending has increased from $3.5 TRILLION to $3.8 TRILLION over the time period listed. Forecasted expenses for Obama's last year in office, 2016 are $4.3 trillion. That represents almost a 25% increase in spending from his first year in office.
That is not cutting spending...
just saying...
storm guy,
Read, What's The Matter With Kansas, by Frank. Then we'll talk. Then you can explain to me why you are a conservative. Then you can tell me how great the results of conservative ideas have been for the average Joe six-pack. It may open your eyes, though I doubt you'll do it.
just sayin..
India...if you cant explain to me how Obama has decreased spending, why should I read your book? Not saying that I won't, but why dont you start by explaining to me how a liberal can claim that by increasing spending by 25% in 8 years, Obama actually reduced it.
just saying...
And as for Gay Rights !
We’ll give ‘em something to be Happy about !
And as for Guns ! Go out and Buy YourSelves one (or more) with plenty
of bullets !
Support your Local, National and Global Weapons Manufacturers !
Leah, Interesting post.
The T-Party has leadership alright. The shadow government of, for, and by people like the Koch brothers, are leading the T-Party and the country off a cliff as they further their agenda.
The fact that the Koch agenda ruins the middle class and the poor is totally irrelevant to them. They are greedy, power hungry, and determined to get their way. The T-Party is their vehicle as is the GOP congress.