The Fed Shutdown Poll and Megathread

[Sheilbh]

I wish our "sane and rational" President would come out with some ideas, and some strong leadership on budget reform. He sits back and lets others do the dirty work; I have to assume he doesn't want to tackle this tough and tricky task, or feels he can put it off until after 2012 and he gets re-elected.

He let's the legislature legislate.*  Quelle horreur!  I'm sure there's lots of behind the scenes stuff but the administration submitted their budget and now this is the sort of thing that Congress is there to do.


*Except when it comes to issues of war and peace.

The area I think he can and in my view must show leadership isn't this budget but a medium-term road to budgetary control.  That'll require defence cuts, tax rises and more cost-control in Medicare than was already included in healthcare reform.  Basically throw down a challenge to your opponents to get serious - as right now the Republican right remain an attitude of outraged grievance rather than a governing party - while it lets you define yourself against your own party to some extent. 

I think he simply doesn't know what a president does.  He spent all his time trying to get elected president, without spending time figuring out why he wanted to be president. 

He's got healthcare reform which is something that Democrats have been trying to achieve for decades and is, I think, a big part of what he campaigned to do.  In addition I think what he and Bush did on the economy was right and helped avert a disaster.  It's difficult to have too much vision when you've got the hangover of the biggest financial crisis in 70 years, an enormous deficit (largely from dealing with that) and a very hard-worked military.  It can happen that any President comes into office with a very strong vision but will have to spend a lot of time fire-fighting. 

I also think that one of the real achievements of the last few of years has been the management of this economic crisis without a return to protectionism and that has, I think quite efficiently, managed the start of a new global system.  I think the growing responsibilities of countries like India and China, but also the increased inclusion of Indonesia and the like has been pretty well handled.  I don't know that in the autumn of 2008 I wouldn't have guessed that the G20 would have been quite important, relatively successfully, and the world managed to avoid major trade wars.  I think Obama and others will be judged pretty well on that in the long-term, similarly Geithner's stress tests were surprisingly effective.

But as I say I think you can have all the vision you want and have to deal with the situation you inherit and a great President or PM will try to transform the world as it is, rather than to impose their own idea that would work in a more benign world or just float around.  For what it's worth I think Cameron is a peace-time Prime Minister whose ideas would be generally better received without an economic shitstorm - this is why he didn't win the election - while Brown was a guy who had no idea what to do with the office he'd coveted for so long.  In my view Obama's challenge is the deficit, but it's not necessarily this year's battle as much as it's laying out a plan of getting the deficit and the debt down.

For what it's worth I think the economic situation in the US compared to the UK in recent months suggests that it was quite right to hold off on austerity at least for this past year.

[Sheilbh]

Plus the noise Moody's was making about a downgrade back when the deficit commission ( ) was operating.

Why the rolleyes at the deficit commission?  So far they've produced they've one of the few credible plans around.

[Admiral Yi]

Why the rolleyes at the deficit commission?  So far they've produced they've one of the few credible plans around.

Because people paid about as much attention to it as W did to Jim Baker's Iraq report.

And you're off about the president's role in the budget negotiation.  It's his baby.  It's his executive branch being funded.  It's his country being taxed.

[KRonn]

"He let's the legislature legislate.*  Quelle horreur!  I'm sure there's lots of behind the scenes stuff but the administration submitted their budget and now this is the sort of thing that Congress is there to do."

It looks more like he's trying not to get in trouble with anyone, by not taking much of a stance or showing strong leadership. The health care plan, was that even much of his idea? Seemed a mess of all stripes being pulled together, same as his stimulus plan - trying to favor everyone he wanted to, letting someone else make too many of the decisions.

In any event, he needs to lead on the budget issues, not go along for the ride. Does he even want to solve it? He doesn't seem to say much, all the while we have a 1.5 trillion deficit per year. And he needs to make some tough decisions on the budget. He would best do that by working with both parties, to lessen the political blow. Make the case for budget changes to the American people. People will listen, for the most part, as many feel the debt is a serious issue.

[garbon]

Sheilbh seems to put a lot of confidence in Congress.

[Slargos]

You elected a black president. Live with it.

[Sheilbh]

Sheilbh seems to put a lot of confidence in Congress.

Your constitution does, I just think they should play their role. Personally I prefer a parliamentary system with an over-mighty executive.

[MadImmortalMan]

"He let's the legislature legislate.*  Quelle horreur!  I'm sure there's lots of behind the scenes stuff but the administration submitted their budget and now this is the sort of thing that Congress is there to do."

It looks more like he's trying not to get in trouble with anyone, by not taking much of a stance or showing strong leadership. The health care plan, was that even much of his idea? Seemed a mess of all stripes being pulled together, same as his stimulus plan - trying to favor everyone he wanted to, letting someone else make too many of the decisions.

Seems like a good plan, judging by the consequences that were paid by the people he let take the lead on those things. He got what he wanted and somebody else took the blowback. Well, so far anyway.

[grumbler]

He's got healthcare reform which is something that Democrats have been trying to achieve for decades and is, I think, a big part of what he campaigned to do. 

Actually, the failure of healthcare reform is the poster-child for the failure of Obama's "leadership."  The democrats had irresistible majorities in both houses and still ended up giving birth to a plan that provoked massive resistance and exemplified the worst of special-interest pandering.  If Obama had actually had a hand in the planning, the result wouldn't have been as disastrous and the final passage wouldn't have had to rely on a gimmick.

[DGuller]

How does one have an irresistible majority when one can't break a filibuster? 

[Admiral Yi]

How does one have an irresistible majority when one can't break a filibuster? 

He had an irresistable majority until Captain Chappaquidick croaked.

[DGuller]

How does one have an irresistible majority when one can't break a filibuster? 

He had an irresistable majority until Captain Chappaquidick croaked.

Even then it's a questionable comment.  It assumes that Democrats are organized in the same way that GOP or CPSU are, and will always obey the orders from the top when it comes to voting.

[frunk]

Kennedy had a seizure after the inauguration and was virtually incapacitated within a couple months of Obama taking office.  I don't think that gave them much time with an irresistable majority.

[Admiral Yi]

Even then it's a questionable comment.  It assumes that Democrats are organized in the same way that GOP or CPSU are, and will always obey the orders from the top when it comes to voting.

Which I think is a way of restating what grumbler said.  Universal heath care has long been a totem of the Democratic party, yet with absolute control of all the levers a sizable number of representatives wanted to scupper it because it wasn't ideologically pure enough.

[grumbler]

How does one have an irresistible majority when one can't break a filibuster? 

  How can one be a majority of any group except a group of one.

If you are responding to my comment, I said that "democrats had irresistible majorities," which is true.  They had 60 Senators (enough to overcome any filibuster) and 256 Representatives.