Good piece, TVD and it's also good to read such a brave and tightly reasoned defense of our President by Mr HM.

There's been a lot of grousing lately about how Obama "caved" to the far right in the debt ceiling deal, but that's hardly his worst mistake. President Obama suffers from the same syndrome that affected Martin van Buren: an innate aversion to controversy and inability to stake out firm positions. The economy tanked under Mr. van Buren in 1837. While lacking the economic theory and tools that a modern president possesses, van Buren failed to take serious action. He also avoided the question of Texas annexation. Perhaps he thought that he could avoid criticism by not staking out controversial positions, but the strategy was obviously a failure for both the country and for Mr. van Buren's career.

If President Obama had taken on the Bowles-Simpson approach, promoted it in his State of the Union address, and spent the first half of 2011 campaigning for it, the plan would have been much more popular than the Republican all-cuts approach. But as you say, the main reason for public frustration with the president has been the leadership vacuum from the White House, which people expect to have solutions to difficult problems.

I wouldn't look to 2013 for any bipartisan harmony. For one thing, the most vocal tea party members of Congress come from overwhelmingly Republican districts; their political support and fundraising depends on them being as conservative as possible, not in statesmanship or tangible accomplishments. A Republican president is the only thing that would moderate the party, but it is hard to survey the GOP field and conclude that this is likely.

But regardless of how the election turns out, Washington clearly lacks the capacity to take on major challenges in an effective manner. The Bad '10s will roll on.

"I could never vote for a Mormon," a well known southern civil-rights advocate told luncheon companions.

Civil rights for some, eh?

Let's not forget Obama's great strength: the long game. Of the few in Washington, DC, who even play the long game at all (e.g., the late Ted Kennedy), Obama is probably a master. Looking at the long game makes his maddening near-term approach to many things (e.g., LGBT issues) make a bit more sense.

I'm curious; what happened to H. Meyer's commentary?

Today's NYT has a brilliant OpEd on this theme...

http://community.nytimes.com/comments/www.nytimes.com/2011/08/07/opinion/sunday/what-happened-to-obamas-passion.html

Judging from the near-unanimous reader response, there is widespread consternation among those who envisioned a more vital, effective progressive leader who would counter the right.

It's time to seriously consider the unthinkable: A movement within the Democratic party to dump this failed president and reload for the vitally important next four years.

Obama could aid by issuing an LBJ disclaimer now and removing himself from the fray. Certain defeat is the alternative, along with a failure to regain the House--a formula for continued rightward drift.

Kieth, good question, I am inquiring with the editors. I sure hope they aren't trying to quell civil, evidence-based critical comments. If so, that's going over the line in terms of suppressing dissenting views.

I guess I'll have to say it again that while TVD takes it as holy grail that public debt (which he defines as expensive entitlements) is the "core" of our current economic problems, that is not the view of most serious, mainstream economics. And I provided two links to support that, including one of a Japanese economist warning the U.S. not to repeat Japan's huge austerity policy error:
http://www.npr.org/2011/08/03/138946257/economist-in-japan-eyes-effects-of-u-s-debt-debate
http://www.npr.org/2011/08/04/138975657/unemployment-recession-back-in-focus-after-debt-debacle
Neither do mainstream economists share TVD's view that extending unemployment benefits doesn't help the economy. They help prop up consumer demand, which is the msin problem in the current economic recession.

I also commented that Romney's religion isn't his big political problem, it's his pattern of caving to right-wing pressure. His caving to the right and denouncing the debt ceiling deal was his new low point.

Finally, I questioned TVD's statement that the debt ceiling fiasco has made the Republican Tea Partiers in Congress more realistic and responsible. I said good luck with that.

Here's a report from an economist at the Urban Institute on how unemployment insurance helps the economy during a recession.
http://wdr.doleta.gov/research/FullText_Documents/ETAOP2010-10.pdf

HM, it's probably not hard to find economists who advocate continuing to borrow and spend to inflate our economy back to a more vigorous growth mode (there's always Krugman) but I think the unspoken and unspeakable end game of that strategy is a repudiation of the debt in one way or another. Conservatives do not accept this and ask how this exponentially increasing debt (even with Tea Party inspired "cuts" we will be borrowing more money per year in 2021 than we are now) can possibly be a solution beyond a few short years. Doesn't the S&P; downgrade suggest that? what do your favorite economist suggest to prevent further downgrades from Fitch and Moody's? higher taxes? that might hurt as much as it helps.

Kieth, we are in an absolute crisis right now. If you are doing much reading and listening to what a wide range of economists are saying, it's consistent with what this Times story today says. The federal deficit can and must wait until we've effectively addressed the lack of growth and joblessness. Cutting back on government spending now means more stagnation, lower tax revenues, and bigger deficits. Krugman is absolutely in the economic mainstream on this.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/08/business/a-second-recession-could-be-much-worse-than-the-first.html?hp
“There is no approachable precedent, at least in the postwar era, for what happens when an economy with 9 percent unemployment falls back into recession,” said Nigel Gault, chief United States economist at IHS Global Insight. “The one precedent you might consider is 1937, when there was also a premature withdrawal of fiscal stimulus, and the economy fell into another recession more painful than the first.”

Responding to several comments:

--Many of the Tea Partiers elected as freshman Members of Congress do come from conservative districts. But many do not; they come from swing districts which went GOP in 2010 but could go Democratic in 2012. The big losers in the 2010 congressional elections were moderate Democrats, whose ranks were decimated, leaving the Democratic caucus more liberal and the GOP caucus more conservative. I suspect Democrats will recapture some of the swing-district seats lost in 2010---especially where Republican incumbents are perceived as rigid and contributing to gridlock.

--Yes, I was as surprised as Ben Lukoff by a civil-rights advocate's statement about Mormonism. I do suspect, however, that Romney's religion
will hurt him in 2012, although perhaps not fatally.

---I know of few economists who would challenge the proposition that
our massive public and private debt overhang is the greatest threat to our long-term wellbeing. EU countries presently are trying to cope with the same problem. The Standard & Poor's downgrade (which, by the way, I regard as unjustified) flowed directly from S&P;'s belief that White House and Congress were not moving competently toward reduction of such debt. Similarly, I know of few serious analysts who would not agree that entitlement-program reform was urgent and necessary, though politically difficult. There has been a 30-year consensus on this point by leaders of both major political parties. It did not suddenly appear as a priority. As my piece stated, we simultaneously must undertake steps toward short-term stimulus and job creation. Some of the prospective steps were listed.

---I've expressed before my disappointment that President Obama did not
take ownership of his own Bowles-Simpson commission's recommendations for debt reduction and drive them forward. That would have made him a leader rather than spectator on the issue.

---I doubt Obama is playing any "long game" politically. From here it appears to be an exceptionally short game. Yes, it is possible that Obama will be challenged for the 2012 Democratic nomination but highly unlikely.
It probably would take a foreign-policy calamity, atop the present weak economy, to trigger such a challenge.

TVD, most serious economic and health policy analysts recognize that our biggest long-term deficit problem arises from uncontrolled cost increases in the U.S. health care system, of which federal programs are only a part. Cost increases in Medicare, Medicaid, FEHBP, military health care, etc. can't effectively be addressed in isolation. Cost shifting to the poor, the elderly (most seniors are near-poor), employers, etc., which is what most of the entitlement cutters' proposals (such as raising the Medicare eligibility age, see the recent Kaiser Family Foundation report) would do, doesn't solve the problem. It's a complicated, long-term challenge requiring long-term commitment by everyone involved, and isn't helped by entitlement cutting sloganeering. Try studying up on health care policy instead. Social Security is a totally separate issue which is much easier to address -- through raising the income level subject to the payroll tax, through modest COLA adjustments, etc -- and SS is not contributing to the deficit. Many knowledgable people would challenge the assertion that debt is the biggest threat to our long-term well-being. Have you heard of climate change? I simply do not understand the obsession of TVD and other entitlement cutters with taking badly needed retirement and health care benefits away from people who badly need them -- and ignoring or downplaying the huge amount of public resources showered on corporations, wealthy people, and the military-industrial complex. The federal defense budget actually increased faster than the Medicare budget through the 2000s, and now is much larger. Even some fairly conservative defense experts believe at least $100 billion a year could be safely cut from defense over the next decade. That's a lot more than could be safely cut from Medicare or Medicaid over that period. Why not rail about that for a while?

I certainly appreciate TVD's perspective on the situation in Washington DC. But let's make one thing clear, President Obama doesn't really doesn't need to care much about what Progressive and long-term DC insiders think. There is only one item of importance at this stage of his presidency and that is what does Ohio think.

Every decision, every soundbite, every press release and every public appearance that Obama makes from now until the 2012 election will be based upon how it plays in those few counties in Ohio that decide who wins and who loses that key state.

Decry as much as you want David Plouffe but it was Bush II that taught us how extremely important it was to consider re-election from day-one of the presidency. If Obama loses the next election, you can likely also say sayonara to a Democratically controlled Senate. And that will mean the end to any hope of universal healthcare, progressive taxation, and an non-ideological Supreme Court.

P.S. Readers might be interested in Bob Samuelson's take on last week's modest deal in this (Monday) morning's online Washington Post.
He's been consistently on the money over the many years he has written his Post column.

Just read Bob Samuelson's take on the budget negotiations as recommended. I would disagree with Samuelson about the military budget. For the past 10-years, the US military has gotten a blank-check and defense expenditures have been hidden in other budget line items (e.g. Department of Homeland Security). Clinton's budget in 2000 had defense expenditures at 3.0% of GDP whereas currently it is at 4.5% of GDP. The US spends more on the military than other nations combined.

The Defense Department is in urgent need of having its budget and priorities looked at closely just as other US government programs and policies. For example, Samuelson raises the point about flying the F/A-18 well past its design service life of 6000 flight hours and not having a replacement. Well, part of that blame can be ascribed to the Irag/Afghan wars which are being fought without any attendant increases in revenue. If the flight hours are high, it is because they are being flown on missions in support of these wars. Part of that may be ascribed to the failure of Lockheed-Martin to maintain cost, schedule and performance promises during the development of the F-35B variant for the US Navy. A cost overrun on this program comes directly at the expense of other current expenditures.

One should also look at the ability of defense contractors to deliver on their contracts. Boeing's mis-management of the cancelled Future Combat System--a $340 billion program--is a case in point. Let's also not forget such defense department welfare programs such as Reagan's SDI program which conveniently found a new threat in North Korea once the USSR imploded.

Washington pundits are eager to identify winners and losers. Perhaps in this case the winners are the American taxpayer who can finally ask serious questions about the US military and its budget. Do we really need bases in Germany? What is the role of the carrier battle group in the current world economy? Why are we spending funds on missile defense against a country that has no friends or allies?

It's interesting to see some posit that we need to ignore the debt and work on reviving business. The problem with that position is that the reason the debt is so high, and that the business climate is so weak, are the same: A decade of phenomenal growth in the size, cost, burden and arbitrariness of government. The best way to improve the business climate is to reform the tax code, repeal Dodd-Frank (having those two gentlemen writing economic policy would be akin to me teaching a course in ballet) and reduce the size and expense of government. That will encourage investment and entrepreneurial innovation, and that will increase revenues to government through increased economic growth. To say that government debt and a weak economy are separate issues is like saying that drought and high crop prices are separate problems.

In a race down South between a Mormon Republican and a wounded black Democrat, Romney can afford to lose a few points to religious bigotry and still win handily. But neither Romney or Obama will generate much excitement, except perhaps in theological circles over which is the more likely to be the Anti-Christ.

"lies with our huge overhang of public and private debt"

Not according to Robert Reich either.
http://robertreich.org/post/8644148810

As for Obama in 2012, as a strong progressive, I'll be working to unseat him in the primaries. He's a failed president and unless the economy crashes in late 2011 early 2012, and he get's an FDR moment, he's out of his league.

Given the truly Machiavellian sophistication Obama displayed during his 2008 presidential campaign, not for a second will I believe he is “out of his league.”

Instead – as proven by the sources of his 2008 campaign money – I suspect he is doing exactly what the Ruling Class hired him to do. He is leading an economic revolution, precisely the job for which he was paid by unprecedented contributions from Wall Street (see http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/indusall.php?cycle=2008).

But – contrary to the cover cunningly provided by the Teabaggers and the Republican noise machine in general – the revolution is most assuredly not socialist.

Instead it is capitalist – or more appropriately tyrannocapitalist (malicious greed as epitomized by Tyrannosaurus Rex) – and it has two parts. One is the savage downsizing and radical outsourcing of the U.S. economy. Two is the imposition of what – for the United States – is a new paradigm of governance: absolute power and unlimited profit for the Ruling Class, total subjugation and genocidal poverty for all the rest of us.

And it's working exactly as the capitalists intend. Ruling Class wealth and power is at an all-time high and growing. Only 400 families – the true capitalist aristocracy – now own or control the nation's money and property. Just as in 1929 and 2008, the ongoing crash will only make them richer and more obscenely powerful.

However, Mr. Van Dyk is surely right about one thing: Obama's sun is setting.

Which – again given Obama's undeniable political sophistication – leaves me wondering if that too is deliberate.

Perhaps the man who entered the White House as the epitome of “change we can believe in” and quickly turned himself into Barack the Betrayer never intended to be more than a one-term president.

Perhaps that was the plan from the very beginning.

"I used the time to meet with a number of capital regulars who, for the most part, had big jobs in previous Democratic White Houses and administrations, the Congress, and the media. The regulars were just as irritated and impatient with the current state of policy and politics as ordinary voters out in the country."

I have a request. I would like to see TVD and other Crosscut contributors and posters be more transparent about their sourcing and evidence than in the above two sentences from the first paragraph of TVD's column. As a working journalist, when I file an article or column, my editors rightly want to know who I talked with, what documents I drew from, and how authoritative my sources were. They would never accept anonymous sourcing as in the above two sentences.

That's because there's no way for readers to evaluate the credibility, potential biases, or the vested interests of the sources without identification. Perhaps the sources work for Republican or Democratic officials, or business or labor union groups. Lots of "experts" speaking out in the media these days on deficits, spending, Social Security and Medicare, taxes, etc. work for Wall Street interests and in particular for Pete Peterson and his foundation, dedicated to slashing and privatizing Social Security and Medicare (though, as on NPR twice last week, they aren't necessarily identified as such). Or perhaps the "experts" the writer talked to just aren't very smart or credible or well-informed people.

The best reporting and commentary is verifiable by the audience. We can check on the sources ourselves and evaluate their credibility. But that's impossible to do when a reporter or columnist says, "All my experts agree that such and such is true."

There's nothing wrong with a commentator saying, "Here's my personal opinion," and preferably following that by providing the evidence that it's based on. But it's highly problematic for someone to say, "This is what everyone who knows anything in Washington is saying." Tell us who's saying it and who they represent and what their interests are, then we the readers can evaluate that information ourselves and decide how credible it is.

I'm suggesting that we all hold each other to that standard when writing and posting on Crosscut. I believe it would improve the quality of the discussion.

To me Obama wasn't much of a Senator and true to type he's not much of a President. From my perspective he doesn't know how to drive the leadership vehicle. He wasted Bowles-Simpson. Instead of the high road he turned left and then right and then around and headed home. He passed up an opportunity to have an impact on the Gang of Six. When the Technology CEO Council report was given to the President’s Management Advisory Board, his administration studied it, made sound bites, but in the end didn't act.

This report is worth a read. Why? One trillion dollars why. It proposes that the federal government adopt the use of proven technology that businesses and other governments use to save money and cut costs without the usual fuss and muss of budget reduction fights and Congressional bickering. One of the identified problems and solutions addresses a way to identify and eliminate improper government payments. The savings in 2009? Close to 200 billion according OMB records. As far as I can discover they're still using the same old system and improper payments continue.

When someone hands you a plan that can cut a trillion dollars of waste in the way government does business, a smart leader grabs it and runs. An inexperienced one does what Obama did; sound bites, nod the head, and quietly shelve it. To be fair no one from Congress has stepped forward to adopt and champion it the fixes suggested, but then again, it is the Presidents advisory board.

It's not a page turner in the best seller mode but it is interesting once you get to the meat of the report. Read it here; http://www.techceocouncil.org/news/2010/10/01/reports/one_trillion_reasons/

Djinn, thanks for pointing out that interesting Technology CEO Council report. There are plenty of interesting-sounding ideas in it, like consolidating government purchasing, consolidating administrative services, using more advanced tools for avoiding payment errors, etc. But there are plenty of political obstacles to doing some of these things, many of them coming from the same corporate world that produced this report. The U.S. Department of Health & Human Services currently is working on using more sophisticated software tools to detect Medicare fraud, which costs taxpayers tens of billions a year. But whenever the government starts talking about tougher Medicare fraud enforcement, the health care industry starts screaming, arguing that it'll be harder for them to collect their payments. It's probably the same with every federal agency and every associated industry -- vested interests like things exactly as they are. Same for the Council's sensible idea of the government setting higher and more appropriate fees (grazing, mining, oil drilling, etc.). The power of special interests in D.C. makes it difficult to do lots of sensible things. Private corporations don't face that same challenge.