Bigger is Not Better

The bigger the budget deal, the more permanent poverty for the non-rich, the more permanent power for corporations, the quicker end to the last remnants of genuine democracy in this country.

Digby nailed it Monday:

"Bigness" has absolutely nothing to do with policy. Or even the scale of the policy. (Most people would consider health care reform "big", after all.) No, "bigness" is all about the image of Obama being "the one person in Washington willing to rise above partisan concerns and do what's right for the country." And clearly, everyone who's anyone knows that "what's right for the country" is cutting spending on an epic scale in the middle of an economic nightmare.

I will say this, I think there may be quite a few Independents and "people in the middle of the political spectrum" who might see things in more parochial personal terms and could conclude that the president has indeed Gone Big --- on unemployment, home foreclosures, anemic growth and a general belief that the country has gone to hell in a handbasket. (And after the Koch Brothers weigh in, they will likely conclude that he went Very Big on cutting Medicare and Social Security too.) But according to the Village, those are irrelevant details. All that matters is that the president is seen as a "grown-up" who gets credit for making a deal. Any deal. As long as it's Big.

If the president is listening to these people he's making a Big Mistake.

Susie Madrak at Crooks and Liars gets shrill:

So is multimillionaire President Obama something different than a Third Way-loving neoliberal? I can't wait to hear multimillionaire talking head Lawrence O'Donnell explain this one:

WASHINGTON -- The White House on Wednesday closed the door a little more on the debt proposal being floated by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) [Ed. note: apprx. $17 million; wife Elaine Chao, board member of Wells Fargo and other boards, compensation unknown], a measure already under siege by conservatives.
"This is not a preferred option," White House Press Secretary Jay Carney [Ed. note: annual salary $172K, married to ABC News correspondent Claire Shipman, believed to be $700K per annum] said of McConnell's proposal in his daily briefing.

McConnell's proposal for avoiding debt default -- to transfer full power to raise the debt ceiling to the White House for the remainder of Obama's current term, cutting Congress out of the process -- does nothing to address deficit reduction, Carney said. And Obama is set on making sizable cuts.

"The president is firmly committed to significant cuts in spending and to dealing with our deficit and debt problems in a balanced way," he said. "Bigger is better. ... It's an opportunity for a game-changer, to put the United States on much firmer ground as we really get into the 21st century and the economic competition that confronts us."

You got that, people? This is from the White House press secretary: "Bigger is better." You say "rope-a-dope," I say "watch your wallets."

Yes, I get the alleged end game. I know that 60 of the GOP freshmen have signed the "no tax" pledge of unelected Koch legbreaker and unindicted Jack Abramoff bagman Grover Norquist [born wealthy, trust fund baby who earns $200K annually from part-time job directing Americans for Tax Reform and other miscellaneous income; married to PR flak Samah Alrayyes Norquist, income unknown], which means that at least 38 Democrats have to sign onto any debt ceiling deal. So surely House Dems would use that leverage to protect Social Security and Medicare, right?

The problem here is, President Obama really likes that old-time DLC religion. He keeps telling us he actually wants a Republican grand bargain on Social Security and Medicare (let's not forget the Catfood Commission), and has a track record of pushing House Democrats to bend over for things they'd rather not.

Hey, maybe I'm wrong. I hope so. But since we've known all along that the Republicans would never actually allow a default, wouldn't the real stroke of 11-dimensional progressive genius have been to refuse to negotiate at all? To say, "People are hurting enough and this deficit talk is a manufactured crisis"? Nope. He wants these deep austerity cuts. He'll do whatever he can to get them.

Paul Krugman explains how the White House has this exactly backwords:

Greg Sargent tells us that the White House is promoting a Gerald Seib piece which summarizes the political strategy thus:

A big deal would reassure independents who fear the country is out of control; position Obama as the adult who made Washington work again; allow the President to tell Dems he put entitlements on sounder financial footing; and clear the decks to enact other priorities later.

[Bangs head against wall]

What I learn from political scientists is that this is all fantasy — albeit a kind of fantasy beloved of political pundits, who love to imagine that complicated psychodramas are playing out in the minds of voters. Well, here’s a little secret: most voters don’t sit around reading Clive Crook columns or debating the Bowles-Simpson plan. They have a gut sense — things are getting better or they’re getting worse — and mainly vote on that basis. They’re not paying attention at all to this stuff.

Wait, it gets worse. Even if voters were trying to make decisions based on things like fiscal responsibility, how likely are they to have remotely accurate information? Not at all if they watch Fox; but the truth is that even if they watch a reputable network, or for that matter even if they read the Times the way most people read it, getting fast impressions rather than scanning articles carefully for the nuances hidden in the 12th paragraph, they probably have only the vaguest sense of what’s going on.

How many Americans truly understand just how extreme and dangerous a game the GOP is playing with the debt limit? Surely it’s a small minority — partly because conventions of “balance” prevent most media outlets from ever saying too clearly what’s happening.

Oh, and about independent voters: if you think that they’re strong-minded, solid citizens repelled by the partisanship — well, there may be a guy like that somewhere in America. But by and large, given the vast differences between the parties these days, independent voters are basically confused, clueless people — not exactly the kind of people likely to take reassurance from Obama’s stance on entitlement programs. On the contrary, they’re the sort of people likely to be stampeded by “Obama wants to raise the Medicare age!”

When pundits talk this kind of stuff, it’s mainly funny in a tiring sort of way. But if the White House actually believes this stuff — well, that’s scary.

Liberals value content over size, and substance over appearance.