Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

The Obama Presidency in Peril: Warnings from Robert Kuttner

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
Better Believe It Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-05-10 08:41 AM
Original message
The Obama Presidency in Peril: Warnings from Robert Kuttner
Edited on Wed May-05-10 08:53 AM by Better Believe It
A Presidency in Peril: Warnings from Robert Kuttner
by Dean Baker
Dean Baker is the co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR). He is the author of The Conservative Nanny State: How the Wealthy Use the Government to Stay Rich and Get Richer ( www.conservativenannystate.org) and the more recently published Plunder and Blunder: The Rise and Fall of The Bubble Economy.
May 5, 2010


Like most progressives, Robert Kuttner had great hopes following President Obama's election in 2008. However, Kuttner also has been around long enough to realize the risk that President Obama might not live up to his potential in bringing about progressive change. His new book, A Presidency in Peril, documents how the Obama administration has been falling short.

The basic story is both straightforward and depressing. President Obama surrounded himself with advisers that were close to Wall Street and business in general. This undoubtedly reflected his disposition; he had always been a political moderate. However, it was also partly determined by his political backers. Wall Street's generosity with campaign contributions was an essential part of his rise to the top of the Democratic field in the presidential primaries. This guaranteed that Obama would pursue a cautious business-friendly path.

Much of the book focuses on the response to the economic crisis, in particular the bank bailouts and the stimulus. In both cases Obama took a centrist path that that largely protected the interests of the wealthy. This is most clear in the case of the bank bailout. In the closing weeks of the presidential campaign Obama took time out to push for the TARP, a huge wad of money for the banks that came largely without strings. After TARP, the bailouts continued, with Citigroup and Bank of America nursed back to life thanks to the generosity of the taxpayers.

By contrast, the government could have taken a hard line, temporarily taking over insolvent banks, including these giants. This would have wiped out shareholders. It also would have meant giving bondholders a haircut, and sending the top executives packing. While this route was derisively termed "nationalization," including by some top Obama officials, the point was not to have the government own the banks. Rather the point was to do a quick clean-up operation that would involve selling the banks, possibly in smaller pieces, back to the private sector as soon as possible.

Kuttner points out that the stimulus was woefully unambitious and inadequate. The amount that they requested from Congress was only a bit more than half as large as Obama's top economists felt was necessary. Of course, they ended up with even less as Congress pared back the request. The result is that the unemployment rate is still close to 10 percent and is not projected to return to near full employment until 2016.

Kuttner also attacks the administration's strategy on health care. He argues that there were major failings of both timing and approach. On timing he argued that Obama would have been better off waiting until he established a record of accomplishment to give him the standing to press his case. On approach, he criticizes Obama's chief of staff Rahm Emanuel for taking an approach that involved cutting deals with the major business interests at the onset. This limited the opportunity for cost savings and therefore meant that the resulting health care plans would still be expensive for middle-income families.

Kuttner's book does not give much cause for optimism. We are sitting in the middle of the worst downturn since the Great Depression listening to Robert Rubin lecture us about the need to cut Medicare and Social Security. Given that Rubin earned more than $100 million from the mortgage games that sank Citigroup, and set the economy on a glide path to disaster as Treasury Secretary, there is something seriously wrong with this picture.

Please read the full article at:

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/05/05-1

And next up will be severe cuts in Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security benefits that will be proposed by President Obama's deficit commission. The commission is weighted down with conservative "deficit hawks" from both political parties. Their "deficit cutting" proposals will be similiar to the wage, pension and other social welfare cuts being proposed across Europe in order to bring down government deficits. BBI
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
msongs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-05-10 08:46 AM
Response to Original message
1. a conservative democrat will do until a true lib/progressive can take over lol nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NJmaverick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-05-10 08:51 AM
Response to Original message
2. File this under- WISHFUL THINKING
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jaxx Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-05-10 09:51 AM
Response to Reply #2
5. It reads like a made for TV movie.
Blame blame blame and then some. Everything was hunky-dory on Jan. 20, 09.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nightgaunt Donating Member (124 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-06-10 12:06 PM
Response to Reply #5
27. Kuttner still to soft on Obama's hard right positions
He also doesn't see that we almost went into a Great Depression and could still go! Nothing has changed to stop another bubble from forming and bursting again. The banks still owe over $2 trillion and that isn't in the pipeline to be paid back anytime soon. We are already in a Depression it just is spun as a "recession" and the numbers are manipulated to look lower than they really are.

No implication of the kind as things started to go bad as early as 1999 and just accelerated under Bush the younger till today. Then Obama quadrupled spending to save the economic patient but didn't remove the leeches or close the wounds that caused the problem in the first place. You see Obama is of the same school as his predecessors so he is a Regressive in a nicer package. Same poison but different bottle. That and with added sugar makes it go down better. Drink up!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lamp_shade Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-05-10 09:01 AM
Response to Original message
3. Oh... it's YOU!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OHdem10 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-05-10 09:02 AM
Response to Original message
4. Kuttner has it just about right. The American people in general do not
see nuance all that well. The approach(which is DLC Centrist)
is a moderate Republican Approach. I DO NOT blame Obama
alone. I also hold the Democrats on the Hill accountable.
From the beginning had they been out there explaining and
fighting back the Republican smear campaign on all things
Democratic and especially Obama, even a Republican Lite
Agenda would be in much better place. My take is Obama
made a serious mistake by turning the Issues over to
Congress to write the legislation.

Kuttner has done some great analysis here and he is
probably right. This will be perilous for both the
entire Democratic Party.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mmonk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-05-10 09:57 AM
Response to Reply #4
6. I agree the American public does not see nuance.
Edited on Wed May-05-10 09:58 AM by mmonk
They, like the media (or what the media portrays) "see" more differences in policies than there really is. The danger is compounded in the fact the public is led to believe the differences are sharp. Thus, disillusionment and confusion.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
katandmoon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-05-10 09:59 AM
Response to Original message
7. K&R.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Blue-Jay Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-05-10 10:05 AM
Response to Original message
8. Lots of 'concern' in that article.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Better Believe It Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-05-10 11:38 AM
Response to Reply #8
9. Is that suppose to be a sarcastic remark?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Blue-Jay Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-05-10 11:42 AM
Response to Reply #9
11. You better believe it.
I don't need to use the sarcasm smiley, because I'm good at it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-05-10 11:40 AM
Response to Reply #8
10. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Peacetrain Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-05-10 11:44 AM
Response to Original message
12. Maybe I will send this to Robert K.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Better Believe It Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-05-10 11:57 AM
Response to Reply #12
16. I think you're about to derail, go off the rails. You need to do something about that!
Edited on Wed May-05-10 11:57 AM by Better Believe It
And you want us to get onboard your train .... of thought?

:)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
amborin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-05-10 11:45 AM
Response to Original message
13. Wall St. & Hedge Fund Donors to Obama's Campaign: more than to any other:
Edited on Wed May-05-10 11:45 AM by amborin
from Sourcewatch.org

"Inflating the numbers
"The news that Barack Obama has been counting all the people who buy his t-shirts and bumper stickers as being among his record 258,000 campaign donors is causing something<53> of a stir<54>," Karen Tumulty wrote July 17, 2007, in TIME Magazine's Swampland Blog.<55>

"It turns out that Obama's contributor numbers were WAY inflated, because they included anyone who bought a bumper sticker, or a keychain with his name on it, or paid $5 to hear him talk. Yet he represented these people as if they had simply handed over cash for nothing in return, and the media went all ga-ga over his 'stunning' (the word one reporter used to describe it) contributor base. Basically, he made the mainstream media look like idiots...," Swampland contributor Paul Lukasiak commented.<56>


Big industry contributors

Investment banks, hedge funds and Wall Street
"Obama received more donations from employees of investment banks and hedge funds than from any other sector, with Lehman Brothers, Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan Chase among his biggest sources of support.

"Individual donors included Ken Griffin, the multi-billionaire founder and chief executive of Chicago-based Citadel Investment Group, one of the world's biggest hedge fund companies," the UK's Financial Times reported July 17, 2007.<57>

"Obama's fundraising was more heavily dominated by financial professionals than other main candidate. He received $160,760 from employees of Lehman Brothers, just over $100,000 each from employees of Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan Chase and $61,125 from Citigroup employees," the Times reported.

Nuclear power industry
This article is part of the Center for Media & Democracy's focus on the fallout of nuclear "spin."

"Barack, for the second quarter in a row, has surpassed the fundraising prowess of Hillary Clinton," Jeffrey St. Clair and Joshua Frank wrote July 4, 2007, for the Dissident Voice.<1> "To be sure small online donations have propelled the young senator to the top, but so too have his connections to big industry. The Obama campaign, as of late March 2007, has accepted $159,800 from executives and employees of Exelon, the nation’s largest nuclear power plant operator.

"The Illinois-based company also helped Obama’s 2004 senatorial campaign. As Ken Silverstein reported in the November 2006 issue of Harper’s, ' is Obama’s fourth largest patron, having donated a total of $74,350 to his campaigns. During debate on the 2005 energy bill, Obama helped to vote down an amendment that would have killed vast loan guarantees for power-plant operators to develop new energy projects … the public will not only pay millions of dollars in loan costs but will risk losing billions of dollars if the companies default.'"

snip
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
arthritisR_US Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-05-10 11:57 AM
Response to Reply #13
15. well, they have certainly gotten a lot of bang for their buck. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
arthritisR_US Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-05-10 11:55 AM
Response to Original message
14. I think it's a good article posted with good intentions. My concern for this
administration began with it's top heavy appointments of banking thieves. Having foxes as ones advisor's leaves the hen house doomed. JMO.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cali_Democrat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-05-10 11:59 AM
Response to Original message
17. concern noted. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Better Believe It Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-05-10 12:13 PM
Response to Reply #17
18. Move along. Nothing to see here. Nothing to be concerned about. Everything is fine.

Move along now.

Just keep your blinders on or your head in the sand and everything will be fine and back to "normal".

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cali_Democrat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-05-10 12:23 PM
Response to Reply #18
19. I didn't know that noting concern was the equivalent of putting on blinders
I'm sorry.

Was my reaction insufficient and not up to your standards? :shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Better Believe It Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-05-10 12:31 PM
Response to Reply #19
20. So your "noting concern" means? If you expressed an opinion on the article that would help a lot!
That would make it a lot easier to figure out what point or points you wish to make, if any.

"Noting concern" is meaningless and can hardly be called a response to the article, much less a critique of it. Why do you want us to guess what your "noting" means?

What parts of the article do you disagree with and why?

I'm listening!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
QC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-05-10 02:10 PM
Response to Reply #19
21. No, it's just a passive aggressive way to call someone a troll.
But you already knew that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Better Believe It Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-05-10 03:45 PM
Response to Reply #21
22. Does "Cali_Democrat" agree with your explanation or are you now writing on his/her behalf?
Edited on Wed May-05-10 03:45 PM by Better Believe It
The question was directed to "Cali_Democrat".

So far she/he has failed to respond.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cali_Democrat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-05-10 04:10 PM
Response to Reply #21
23. You're entitled to your opinion
Noting concern is nothing more than noting concern. The author of the article seemed concerned about Obama and I noted it :)

I don't think the author of the article or the OP are trolls. You're the one that made that leap, dearie. :hi:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Better Believe It Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-05-10 10:42 PM
Response to Reply #23
24. QC suggested that's what your comment meant. Not me.
Edited on Wed May-05-10 10:43 PM by Better Believe It
Don't you ever read posts before deciding to comment on them?

That would explain your seeming inability to critique the article.

Dearie.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cali_Democrat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-06-10 01:37 AM
Response to Reply #24
25. Look at the thread again
Edited on Thu May-06-10 01:41 AM by Cali_Democrat
Response #23 was to QC, not you.

The article doesn't even merit further comment, just the noting of concern.

Honey :hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Better Believe It Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-06-10 09:05 AM
Response to Reply #25
26. Thanks for the correction. Since QC didn't answer your respone he/she might have also thought it

was a reaction to my comment.

Glad you're not accepting that troll nonsense.

Honey! :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dionysus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-06-10 12:23 PM
Response to Original message
28. "And next up will be severe cuts in Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security"
glad to see you have no problem making shit up and lying.

:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Apr 26th 2024, 11:47 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC