Obama's so-called bipartisanship
I only wish I'd written these two editorials. The first is by Glen Ford at Black Agenda Report. The second is from Paul Krugman at The New York Times (thank you, Baaaaaaaaaaaaaabara for the heads-up on this one):
1.
<<
Black Agenda Report
http://www.blackagendareport.com
Wednesday, 04 February 2009
Obama's Crusade to Save the Banksters
by BAR executive editor Glen Ford
http://www.blackagendareport.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1013&Itemid=1
Much of Black America has been politically neutered, incapable of even imagining a situation in which they would make demands of Barack Obama - "whom many believe is literally a God-send." In any case, the president's attentions are focused on his primary mission: to save the core institutions of the financial capitalist class at the unlimited expense of the real economy and its dependents - the rest of us." The sacrifice will be for nothing. "In the process of attempting to breathe life into the bankster zombies, Obama and his bipartisan buddies will exhaust the capacity of the federal government to create money out of nothing."
The quickening spiral of economic decline finds Black America utterly without political or psychological defenses - damn near helpless, and pitifully so. Although it is common to hear Blacks half-joke that "white folks" waited until the system was in meltdown to hand over the White House keys to a "brother," it is Barack Obama who has pulled off history's biggest trick on African Americans. Obama caused Black America to drop its primary defense - a deep and abiding suspicion of the intentions of Power - at precisely the historical juncture when suspicion is most needed. As Constitutional power flowed into Obama's person on January 20, African Americans in their forty millions willed themselves to believe they had "overcome" - when, in reality, they had been overcome by the delusion that the new president did not represent the Power that was never to be trusted, always to be resisted. No, he was a walking, talking treasure to be protected by the group as a whole, the repository of ancient Black hopes and the living proof of change.
Most literate Black people are familiar with Frederick Douglass's maxim, "Power concedes nothing without a demand." But Black Obamites cannot conceive of making demands on "their" president, whom many believe is literally a God-send. Who would even think to make demands of an emissary from Jesus? Religion, that vaunted "rock" of Black society, once again knocks us senseless.
Shorn of defenses and politically neutered, Blacks become befuddled spectators to Obama's version of economic "recovery" - a desperate effort to resurrect from near-death the investment bankster class that ultimately made like Richard Pryor and, driven by its accumulated contradictions, set itself on fire. Obama must also fulfill his obligations to American Empire, which sustained through threat and force of arms the artificial, unjust U.S. global advantages that allowed the Wall Street banksters to believe they could forever feast on the world's sweat and resources while producing nothing themselves.
Between the multi-trillion dollar pincers of an addicted military and the limitless cost of detoxifying a universe of derivative, fictional assets, the real economy and those that depend on it will be squeezed beyond endurance.
Obama's mission is truly impossible: to bring back from the dead the mighty investment banks that were until lately the arbiters of economic development in the United States. As Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin proclaimed at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, "[T]oday, the pride of Wall Street - the investment banks - have practically stopped existing." The composition of Obama's economic team, which is suited only to the warped world of investment banking, shows the new president is determined to raise the dead. But even if such a resurrection were desirable, it cannot be done. By the end of 2007, the banksters had created $596 trillion in over-the-counter derivatives - 12 times the value of the gross planetary product of Earth. Bailout is a nonsensical proposition. What is occurring is a desperate effort to save the core institutions of the financial capitalist class at the unlimited expense of the real economy and its dependents - the rest of us.
It is logical, therefore, that the misdirected "recovery" of the real economy is by design rudderless, lacking any guiding federal institutional structure or general plan for economic development, despite unprecedented projected spending. The Obama team's overarching goal, like the Bush team before it, is to recreate the primacy of investment bankers in guiding economic development - not to replace them with governmental mechanisms. Since the investment banksters "have practically stopped existing," the real economy's recovery effort will ultimately degenerate into a free-for-all grab fest amidst dwindling spoils.
In the process of attempting to breathe life into the bankster zombies, Obama and his bipartisan buddies will exhaust the capacity of the federal government to make money out of nothing. At that point, it will be too late to pay for band-aid "reforms" to mend a gravely wounded economy and society. The self-immolation of the banksters, and the futile attempt to save them, will have destroyed the larger system.
Black folks will be powerless to affect the trajectory of disaster, so long as the Obama delusion holds sway. In any case, from its conception the Obama plan contained no transformational elements that might have narrowed the institutional gaps between Blacks and whites, nothing that would alter the two-to-one ratio of Black unemployment to white joblessness, or shrink the Black Prison Gulag, or bring Blacks closer to wealth parity with whites. African American economic standing relative to whites is likely to slip further, given the fragility of the Black middle class.
Obama will preside over a society that is poorer, less fair, and likely to be engulfed in war, as the U.S. military tries to retain America's unjust advantages in the absence of any recovery.
The debacle will be exceedingly painful for Obama, who entered office with the apparent idea of creating a 21st Century "Era of Good Feeling," much like the harmony that was said to reign over (the white sectors of) the nation from around 1815 to 1824. Back then, with the collapse of the Federalists, American politics was dominated by the Republican-Democrat Party. President James Monroe won the White House in 1820 with only one electoral vote against him - the kind of bi- or non-partisan heaven (except for slaves and Indians) that Obama craves, and attempts to recreate in his own small way by populating his cabinet and advisory ranks with Republicans.
Those wishful souls that convinced themselves Obama would become the vessel in which to pour progressive ideas and programs in time of economic crisis, did not give him credit for having notions of his own - ideas that would sacrifice the people for the benefit of the banksters. Obama pursues his bankster rescue crusade in plain sight, yet white "progressive" supporters insist he's up to something else, and Black Obamites avow he's doing the work of God.
Not quite. More like the work of Goldman Sachs, in hopes it will rise again.
BAR executive editor Glen
Ford can be contacted at Glen.Ford@BlackAgendaReport.com
>>
<<
February 9, 2009
The Destructive Center
What do you call someone who eliminates hundreds of thousands of American jobs, deprives millions of adequate health care and nutrition, undermines schools, but offers a $15,000 bonus to affluent people who flip their houses?
A proud centrist. For that is what the senators who ended up calling the tune on the stimulus bill just accomplished.
Even if the original Obama plan — around $800 billion in stimulus, with a substantial fraction of that total given over to ineffective tax cuts — had been enacted, it wouldn’t have been enough to fill the looming hole in the U.S. economy, which the Congressional Budget Office estimates will amount to $2.9 trillion over the next three years.
Yet the centrists did their best to make the plan weaker and worse.
One of the best features of the original plan was aid to cash-strapped state governments, which would have provided a quick boost to the economy while preserving essential services. But the centrists insisted on a $40 billion cut in that spending.
The original plan also included badly needed spending on school construction; $16 billion of that spending was cut. It included aid to the unemployed, especially help in maintaining health care — cut. Food stamps — cut. All in all, more than $80 billion was cut from the plan, with the great bulk of those cuts falling on precisely the measures that would do the most to reduce the depth and pain of this slump.
On the other hand, the centrists were apparently just fine with one of the worst provisions in the Senate bill, a tax credit for home buyers. Dean Baker of the Center for Economic Policy Research calls this the “flip your house to your brother” provision: it will cost a lot of money while doing nothing to help the economy.
All in all, the centrists’ insistence on comforting the comfortable while afflicting the afflicted will, if reflected in the final bill, lead to substantially lower employment and substantially more suffering.
But how did this happen? I blame President Obama’s belief that he can transcend the partisan divide — a belief that warped his economic strategy.
After all, many people expected Mr. Obama to come out with a really strong stimulus plan, reflecting both the economy’s dire straits and his own electoral mandate.
Instead, however, he offered a plan that was clearly both too small and too heavily reliant on tax cuts. Why? Because he wanted the plan to have broad bipartisan support, and believed that it would. Not long ago administration strategists were talking about getting 80 or more votes in the Senate.
Mr. Obama’s postpartisan yearnings may also explain why he didn’t do something crucially important: speak forcefully about how government spending can help support the economy. Instead, he let conservatives define the debate, waiting until late last week before finally saying what needed to be said — that increasing spending is the whole point of the plan.
And Mr. Obama got nothing in return for his bipartisan outreach. Not one Republican voted for the House version of the stimulus plan, which was, by the way, better focused than the original administration proposal.
In the Senate, Republicans inveighed against “pork” — although the wasteful spending they claimed to have identified (much of it was fully justified) was a trivial share of the bill’s total. And they decried the bill’s cost — even as 36 out of 41 Republican senators voted to replace the Obama plan with $3 trillion, that’s right, $3 trillion in tax cuts over 10 years.
So Mr. Obama was reduced to bargaining for the votes of those centrists. And the centrists, predictably, extracted a pound of flesh — not, as far as anyone can tell, based on any coherent economic argument, but simply to demonstrate their centrist mojo. They probably would have demanded that $100 billion or so be cut from anything Mr. Obama proposed; by coming in with such a low initial bid, the president guaranteed that the final deal would be much too small.
Such are the perils of negotiating with yourself.
Now, House and Senate negotiators have to reconcile their versions of the stimulus, and it’s possible that the final bill will undo the centrists’ worst. And Mr. Obama may be able to come back for a second round. But this was his best chance to get decisive action, and it fell short.
So has Mr. Obama learned from this experience? Early indications aren’t good.
For rather than acknowledge the failure of his political strategy and the damage to his economic strategy, the president tried to put a postpartisan happy face on the whole thing. “Democrats and Republicans came together in the Senate and responded appropriately to the urgency this moment demands,” he declared on Saturday, and “the scale and scope of this plan is right.”
No, they didn’t, and no, it isn’t.
>>
