This is pretty much what President Obama has done. He's making vague noises about the "government tightening its belt", which has made Delong, Krugman and Mark Thoma go ballistic.
Of course, contingency plans for a possible 5% cut that might involve not filling vacancies is not going to do anything to placate deficit hawks and Tea Party Peeps.
Sure the President is in a rough spot. The incumbent party generally loses seats in a mid-term election, and voters tend to punish incumbents for poor economic performance, but Obama seems to have gone totally tone deaf, appealing to neither the left or the right.
Perhaps the most disconnected part of his remarks are where he blames the upcoming electoral debacle on the Supreme Court:
Obama linked the Republican momentum to a Supreme Court decision that allowed corporations to spend freely on elections.
"I would feel very confident about our position right now if it weren't for the fact that these third-party independent groups, funded by corporate special interests and run by Republican operatives, without disclosing where that money is coming from, are outspending our candidates in some cases 5 to 1, 10 to 1.. . . And it's the direct result of a Supreme Court opinion called Citizens United."
He called the opinion "a profoundly faulty Supreme Court decision [that] has opened the floodgates to special interest money, undisclosed, and having a significant impact on the election."
Wow.
2 comments:
Eh, you can be as snarky as you want: He probably has a point.
1) Freakonomics aside, The econometric and political science literature is pretty clear that campaign effects are real. (Yes, it's difficult to detect, but grad students are clever). One estimate was that the Obama campaign's huge increase in field offices tipped over 3 states. Effects in the House are even larger.
2) The Citizens United ruling had a pretty big effect on the amount of money being spent on the mid-term campaign, and roughly 90% of the new money has gone to Republicans.
3) This election is really close, if the Democrats gained 1% in the generic ballot then they would probably gain the House.
Taking these three points together, the statement "The Democrats would probably be set to take the House if it were not for the Citizen's United Ruling" is well supported and probably true. Sure, the economy is the primary cause, but Obama has owned up to that every time he gets by a mic.
So, what exactly is your issue?
Of course, contingency plans for a possible 5% cut that might involve not filling vacancies is not going to do anything to placate deficit hawks and Tea Party Peeps.
Nothing but total Republican control is going to placate Tea Party Peeps. At which point they will retire back to their lives of "not giving a crap since our guy is in office" and said Republicans will continue to spend like the horny drunken sailors they are.
He called the opinion "a profoundly faulty Supreme Court decision [that] has opened the floodgates to special interest money, undisclosed, and having a significant impact on the election."
Where is he wrong? Money has been pouring in at unprecedented rates, and even more has flooded in through independent expenditures now allowed under the CU ruling.
Post a Comment