Superthoughts on the SuperCommittee

Lots of sturm and drang about the SuperCommittee, which has a deadline of Wednesday to come to agreement or face the prospect of automatic cuts to domestic programs and the defense budget.

It's become pretty clear that Republicans on that committee (and just as importantly, in the House) are not going to allow a deal that raises revenues to any significant degree.  The proposals that do manage to cut out some loopholes also include making the Bush tax cuts permanent, even though they are due to expire after 2012.  So essentially the GOP offer in the SC is to raise some taxes, while extending much more in permanent tax cuts, all in exchange for drastic cuts to domestic programs, Social Security, and Medicare.  As you can imagine, I don't see this as much of a deal.

Liberals now have all the leverage- the Debt Ceiling deal that led to the SuperCommittee looks like a well- negotiated one for Democrats at this juncture.  If Congress does absolutely nothing, taxes go up in 2013 and the medium-term budget problems are practically solved.  And Democrats control the Senate and the Presidency.  They're holding four aces.

So naturally they'll fold.  Senator Kerry has been rumored to be considering the GOP deal in the SuperCommittee.  President Obama could still veto of course, but his history of compromise doesn't exactly fill me with confidence.

Don't get me wrong- like the Democrats, I am willing to accept big cuts to domestic programs as well as the military.  But I would accept those not because I believe we should cut, but because in politics one has to compromise and I realize that many don't share my values.  But Democrats seem to have confused compromising with caving in.  Democrats need to be firm in refusing to consider cuts that aren't accompanied by significant revenue increases- that's what compromise is.  Let's see if they can stick to it.

What if the Fed is Playing for Team Republican?

So here's what I've been thinking about with regard to macroeconomics recently:

What if the Republicans win in '12 and start austerity policies, but at the same time the Fed finally starts getting really active and floods the money supply, announces 4% inflation targets, etc? As I've predicted before, Republican fiscal policies will throw the country back into severe recession (if the European debt crisis hasn't already done the trick, that is). But the more I read about the role of central banks, the more I wonder if, even with interest rates already at rock-bottom, they could do more to improve the economy.

So if the Republicans win and implement austerity starting in 2013, but the Fed comes out with guns blazing and higher inflation targets, then you have a mixed outlook for the economy according to conventional analysis. But Fed action may be enough to fuel growth. And the Republicans in elective office will get the credit. Liberal screeching about the Fed's refusal to do enough when they were in charge will be too obscure to gain any traction. I'll start wondering about the Fed managers' independence, as they would essentially be partisan players under this scenario. (The Federal Reserve Board is appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate, but politicians have no control over their actions once they're in office).

Then again, my guy Obama reappointed Bernanke and has been slow to fill other vacancies. This might be seen as a huge failure when all is said and done.  Bernanke was always known to be a conservative- here Obama's attempt to show his "new tone in Washington" may bite him in the rear.

Tough to know what to root for when!

Mitt Romney and Flip Flopping (updated)

So Mitt Romney has worked on his answer to the criticim of being a flip-flopper.  Here's something from a recent debate:

Again, it was Harwood who got to the heart of the matter, pivoting from a question about Romney’s seemingly shifting views on an auto industry bailout to a query about whether he lacked a core.
It has been a charge that has dogged him since Romney abandoned his 1994 and 2002 support for abortion rights, his 2003 backing for a regional greenhouse gas pact, and the endorsement of gay rights he expressed during his 1994 Senate campaign and 2002 candidacy for Massachusetts governor.
Romney replied this time: “I have been married to the same woman for 25 - excuse me, I will get in trouble - for 42 years. I have been in the same church my entire life. I worked at one company, Bain, for 25 years. And I left that to go off and help save the Olympic Games.”
Finding his sealegs, he continued, “I think it is outrageous the Obama campaign continues to push this idea, when you have in the Obama administration the most political presidency we have seen in modern history. They are actually deciding when to pull out of Afghanistan based on politics.”
Then, Romney added a red-white-and-blue coda: “Let me tell you this, if I’m president of the United States, I will be true to my family, to my faith, and to our country, and I will never apologize for the United States of America. That’s my belief.”

So that's his explanation for his changed positions on so many key issues over his political career, and it seems that many in the media have lapped it up.  I heard commentators on Morning Joe praising this answer to the skies.

I can't understand what people are talking about.  Noboby's ever questioned Romney's faithfulness to his wife or to the Mormon Church.  It's a totally separate question.  I don't doubt that he has a personal "core". I doubt that he has a political one.  Think about this laundry list:

• He was pro-choice when he was governor of Massachusetts.  Now he's radically pro-life
• He passed universal health care with a personal mandate in Massachusetts.  Now he claims the very similar Affordable Care Act is an assault on liberty
• He believed in Climate Change, along with the scientific consensus, but now is a total denialist
• He supported cap and trade, a market-based solution to pollution controls (along with John McCain), until he decided it was an assault on business
• He's been all over the place on the Auto Bailout, supporting it before it happened, and now criticizing it because Obama took the advice.

I go back again to the amazing conservative media machine's ability to tar any non-conservative with any criticism through constant repetition.  They decided to make John Kerry a "flip flopper", in spite of the fact that he's been a consistent moderate liberal his whole career.  And now comes Romney, with 180 degree turns in policy constantly- I wonder if this issue will gain any traction during the general election.

As I've said before, the moderate "Wall Street Journal Conservatives" I know are ready to vote for Romney, believing that he's just lying about his extreme Tea Party positions to get the nomination.  They assure me that he'll pivot to sanity in time for the general election and as president.  Of course that same belief is held by Tea Party types, who don't want to vote for him for the same reason.  But the moderates ready to vote for him need to remember that he'll be working on re-election once he's elected, and it sure looks like the path to re-election for Republicans is to govern hard right.  It worked for Bush II, and Reagan, and the moderate path failed for Bush I. 

One thing I know is in Romney's "core"- winning.

UPDATE: Here's another great post from TNR on Romney's meta-flip flopping.

Somewhat lost amid the tizzy over Rick Perry's “oops” moment this week was that the former Massachusetts governor flip-flopped on whether or not he flip-flops. Observe Romney justify his many shifting views to a New Hampshire town hall audience in late September:

“In the private sector, if you don’t change your view when the facts change, well, you’ll get fired for being stubborn and stupid,” Romney said. “Winston Churchill said, ‘When the facts change, I change too, Madam.’”

The Churchill quotation, as many noted gleefully, is in fact properly attributed to John Maynard Keynes. But that doesn’t matter anymore, because since then Romney has changed his mind. He’s actually not a flip-flopper! During Wednesday night’s GOP candidate debate, when confronted with accusations of flip-floppery, Romney readily counted himself among the stubborn and stupid: “I think people understand that I’m a man of steadiness and constancy.”
Someone call Jorge Luis Borges, because Mitt’s flips and flops are getting downright meta.

Rick Perry's Brain Fart

Well, it's fun for us liberals watching conservatives have uncomfortable moments while campaigning, particularly a candidate as arrogant and undeserving as Rick Perry. 

At the same time, his inability to remember the third department he'd cut if he were president is understandable.  I've drawn a blank under pressure like that, and I suspect most of us have.  Unfortunately for Perry though, it fits the narrative that's already hurting him, that he's not very bright and he's too lazy to prepare for debates.

But to build on the point I posted about a few days ago, the gaffe isn't the reason Perry should be finished as a candidate.  The more we get to know about this guy, the more clear it is that he's a lot like George W. Bush- not too bright, and more importantly a man with no intellectual curiosity or sense of seriousness.  We can't picture him soberly sitting down and studying an issue.  Like Bush, I'm sure he'd make decisions "from the gut", and we saw how that went in the 2000s.

As an aside, I'm reminded again of the puzzling Republican talking point that Obama can't speak without a teleprompter.  Obama is remarkably articulate and good at thinking on his feet- he's actually great at speaking extemporaneously.  Rick Perry is the guy who really needs a teleprompter.  Sometimes I think Republicans have gotten so good at creating negative narratives of their opponents that they just pick issues that don't even have a grain of truth, just to prove to themselves that they can do it.  It's like they get bored 'cause it's so easy for them. 

"Hey, let's start hammering Obama for the way he talks so technocratically and boringly now that he's president!"
"No, that's too easy!  Let's say he's so dumb he needs a teleprompter all the time!"
"No way- that's so obviously untrue that Americans will never buy it"
"Hey, let's try it anyway!  A hundred bucks says I can pull it off"
"Alright, you're on!"

Herman and Clarence

As the Herman Cain sexual harassment scandal continues to percolate, I keep hearing it compared to the Clarence Thomas- Anita Hill brouhaha 20 years ago, and there are lots of similarities.  Black conservatives, with questionable qualifications, dealing with old allegations of sexual improprieties and blaming the liberal media.

Of course the liberal media did spend a little time picking at the various indiscretions of Bill Clinton, but that doesn't seep into the conservative imagination, as it impedes their narrative.

But I find myself saying the same thing about Herman Cain that I said about Clarence Thomas many years ago: don't reject him because of sexual harassment allegations that can't be proven either way; just reject him because he's unqualified for the position for which he's being considered!  We didn't need a sex scandal to know that Thomas's resume was very thin and very undistinguished when he was nominated- a Democratic Senate could have rejected him based on that (Lord knows a Republican Senate now would never allow a Supreme Court nominee who is that radical on the other side to be confirmed these days).  Similarly, Herman Cain is a clown, with no knowledge of most of the things government does.  He's funny and entertaining, but he'd be a terrible president.   That's all we need to know.

Of course Cain is also probably a serial sexual harasser of women.  As was Bill Clinton.  JFK famously demanded a new woman every day to relieve his urges while in office.  These guys are all narcissistic megalomaniacs- I think those traits are probably necessary to put up with everything that politicians have to put up with.  So no surprise to see Herman Cain in the same light, not because he's Black or conservative, but because he loves being the center of attention- just like everyone running for president.

Predictions (updated 11/5/2011)

I do not look like this

I want to put some stuff on the record, for future "I told you so's" or future "Doh's!":

1. If the economy is really bad in 2012, it doesn't matter who the Republican nominee for president is, he'll win.  If the economy is so-so, like it is now, it's a toss-up
2. If the Republicans sweep in 2012, and implement the austerity policies they are campaigning on, the US economy will do very badly- tax cuts and spending cuts will not revive the economy, and will in fact make it worse.  Plus the deficit will be even worse.
3. It is possible, however, that President Romney, knowing that #2 is true, will somehow find a way to avoid these cuts and will do much of what Obama would do.  I think it's more likely, though, that he'll be forced into self-defeating policies.  After all, the House will be Republican and filled with True Believers, and they won't let him do stimulus.
4. It looks like the European debt crisis might lead to Greek and other default along with the end of the Euro.  If this happens, there will be a terrible worldwide recession no matter what the US does.  In that case, whoever is president of the US at the time will be blamed, even though he will be totally powerless to do anything about it.
5. UPDATE- One more point 11/5/2011: The actions of the Federal Reserve Board have been undercovered in the news.  The Fed announced this week that it expects unemployment to remain high for three years, but intends to do nothing about it in order to keep prices stable.  The Fed could do things- print money essentially, to spur inflation- but won't do that right now.  So on to the prediction: If the Fed takes massive action, such as targeting nominal GDP as many are urging, that would lead to economic growth and lots of good things.  If this happens soon, President Obama will get the credit.  If it happens in 2013, the next president will get the credit for the recovery.  Neither President Obama nor President Romney/Perry/Cain will have any control or deserve any credit for Fed action.  Obama can, however, be credited with the blame for the Fed not doing anything yet, since he re-appointed Bernanke and has not pushed for other Fed governors who would be more inclined to activity.
6. OK Still another point 11/5/2011: While I'm updating my predictions, I want to repeat one I've put down here before: If Republicans take control of the Senate, they will eliminate the filibuster as soon as the Democrats make noises about using it the way Republicans have been using it these past three years.

The Connection Between OWS and Government Employee Union Busting

I was listening to a story on the radio today about the fight in Ohio over the Wisconsin-inspired anti-public union law that was passed by the legislature and led by Governor John Kasich, but which has been put on the ballot and may be repealed by voters.  It got me thinking about the connection between union-busting and income inequality.

Here's what I mean: unions protect the wages of working class and middle class people.  But unions have been on the decline for 30 years, and the only sector left in which they're truly strong is among public employees.  That's where you see working people (road crews, city bus drivers, firemen, police) and lower-pay professionals (teachers, protective service social workers, clerks in government offices) making reasonable wages, while their brethren in the private sector have been falling behind badly.

And what is the topic du jour today, in light of the Occupy Wall Street protest?  Income inequality.  We've all been hearing about the incredible pay increases among the "top 1%", but have thought less about the pay decreases (or more accurately, flat pay) of the middle class.  But this is an important issue too.

From the 1940s to the 1970s, middle class pay increased.  There were lots of good jobs in unionized industry, which probably pushed up pay in non-union shops too.  But with globalization and the departure of lots of textiles and manufacturing elsewhere, the downward pressure on blue collar labor has been intense.  Union shops just closed and the factories moved elsewhere where labor costs were cheaper.

But the result is that now the blue collar jobs that are left don't pay very well.  Our economy has moved to one domintated by the service sector, and retail and fast food industries have effectively blocked unions.  The pay at Walmart and Burger King is terrible compared to the pay at a factory 40 years ago, but that's where the jobs are now.

So Conservatives, in their bid to destroy their opponents in the union world, have turned their eyes to government sector unions.  The Ohio and Wisconsin laws don't just cut benefits, they outlaw union dues being collected from paychecks, effectively destroying the unions entirely.  Of course, there aren't enough Big Business conservatives to support such legislation, so they have to get votes from somewhere else, and they've hit upon a really smart strategy: splitting the middle class.

The voter who works at Walmart has crappy pay and crappier benefits.  He looks at the DPW worker, with similar skills, making a living wage for the government, and he's getting angry about it.  And he should be angry!!!  But the right wing machine has figured out how to get him angry at the DPW worker, instead of getting angry at Walmart.

If Liberals want to win this battle, we have to turn the anger of the middle class away from government workers and toward the elites who are leading these changes.  After all, government workers aren't getting paid any more than they ever were- the change is that private sector workers are getting paid less.  Maybe Occupy Wall Street can help lift that narrative.