Barack Obama

The stock market's plunging as of this writing, as the global economy reels from the destructive consequences of austerity economics. Yet in Washington, politicians are moving full speed ahead in their determination to impose a rigorous new program of... austerity economics.

What's wrong with this picture? more »

More »»

Back in my corporate days I sat in a boardroom with one of the most powerful and fearsome CEOs in the country. He had called in the executives that designed his employee benefits program and asked them to propose changes to the corporation's retirement and health programs.  But he scowled and shook his head as they presented one set of options after another.  Finally I asked the question the others were afraid to ask:  What do you want to accomplish by changing your employees' benefits?

"I want to give them less," he said, "and make them think it's more."

The Human Resources executives in the room turned pale.  As brilliant as this CEO was, he didn't know what they had learned from experience:  

When you give people less, they always know it.  

Less is Less

I thought of that meeting when I listened to the President's remarks on Social Security in Iowa.  A woman with lung cancer asked the President to speak about Social Security, and he began by employing a lot of the rhetoric he's been reluctant to use so far, and by making a lot of the arguments he's refused to make since he was elected.  

More »»

An unelected and unrepresentative group they call the 'Super Committee' has been given extraordinary power over our own economic destiny. Think if it as a political Justice League of America, except that its mission is to rescue Treasury bonds, not people.

Problem is, the bonds don't need to be rescued. People do. more »

More »»

In the wake of a deal that included all the wrong things, today the President finally said all the right things. His agreement with the Republicans included no investment in economic growth, no job creation, no tax increases on the wealthy, no closing of corporate loopholes, no protection for entitlements - not even include an extension of unemployment benefits for the victims of Wall Street's last greed-and-gambling spree. That's why three-quarters of the Republicans in Congress - and only half the Democrats - voted for it. It's why most of the Tea Party Caucus supported it, and why most of the Progressive Caucus rejected it.

As Nate Silver explains, the numbers show that the President could have pushed for a better deal and he probably would have prevailed. This deal appears to be the latest in a series of agreements where the President seems to have gotten what he wanted, while at the same time claiming it was the best he could get. He's spent far too time much echoing the destructive austerity rhetoric of his opponents, and he has pushed for far too many of their policies. He has opposed positions that are supported by an "American Majority" made up of Democrats, independents, and in many cases by Republicans too.

More »»

Gandhi famously answered the question "What do you think of Western Civilization?" by saying "I think it would be a good idea." That phrase might come in handy the next time somebody asks what you think of a two-party democracy: It would be a good idea. As the economy burns to the ground, nobody's calling the Fire Department. Both parties want to throw gasoline on the fire, and their only disagreement is whether to use regular gas or unleaded.

Here's a challenge, if anyone's willing to take it: Can you read the statistics below without concluding that our current debate is a national disgrace? Both parties are pushing radical and counterproductive cuts that would devastate middle class and lower-income Americans, compounding the misery for ninety percent of us. Neither asks the top one percent of earners, some of whom caused this crisis, to help repair the damage after enjoying historically low tax rates.

And this isn't just somebody's opinion. These are the numbers talking, not me. John Boehner's plan is a radical right-wing assault on government that would have embarrassed previous generations of Republicans. Nevertheless, his party's base and members of the House will probably reject it. Harry Reid's proposal is also devastating - and his party's rank and file may very well support it. It's hard to know which is a sadder statement on the degraded state of our politics.

More »»

History books record an empire's fall as a series of dates and events. Battles are fought, people resist, elections are called, arrest warrants are issued. But those are just details. An empire really falls in that moment when people stop believing that it's invulnerable. Whenever the spell is broken, whether it's by anger or just by awareness, the end becomes inevitable. It doesn't matter what happens to Rupert or James Murdoch now. They may return to positions of relative wealth and privilege or their lives may take unpleasant turns. Either way, the Murdoch empire has already fallen.

There's a lesson here for anyone who thinks the safest and surest path to success is by serving the seemingly invincible. Sure, it may lead to riches and power, at least for a while. But you may also wind up like those powerful people in Great Britain who now find themselves struggling with scandal, hiding in fear, or facing terrible legal consequences - all because they believed in Murdoch's invincibility and served him accordingly. As Martin Luther King often said (and we've often quoted), "The moral arc of the Universe is long, but it bends toward justice."

And since the Universe is our home, the Murdoch scandal reminds us of another principle too: "Never bet against the house." more »

More »»

Want to be a cynic? You've got plenty of material to work with, that's for sure. But if you want to be an idealist, a practical idealist who can get things done, cynicism would be a tragic mistake. Lately all I've been hearing — and, frankly, most of what I've been saying — has shed too much heat and not enough light.

Here's the cynical view of what's going on in Washington right now: This whole "debt ceiling crisis" isn't real. Choose your metaphor: It's a Wild West show for gullible rubes, a Kabuki dance, an Indonesian puppet play that's nothing more than shadows on a dirty screen ...

That last image is ideal for the cynically minded. Matchstick puppets dance before a candle or a naked lightbulb, casting images on a bedsheet to enact an ancient epic of good over evil. But they're really only pieces of wood in the hands of puppeteers, masters of illusion who use light and shadow to bring life to dead dolls and make them seem larger than they are. more »

More »»

This isn't the first time the White House has floated the idea of Social Security cuts as part of a 'grand bargain' with Republicans, and it's not the first time there's been a groundswell of opposition. But that opposition has never crystallized so quickly into something deeper and more threatening to the President's political fortunes.

Liberal pundits are turning against him and Democrats on the Hill are taking the fight directly to him. With a new poll confirming that Social Security cuts would alienate the other side's base and independents, this "grand bargain" doesn't look like much of a bargain anymore.

Sen. Bernie Sanders already laid the responsibility for unpopular cuts squarely at the President's feet on a phone call with reporters today: " We thought Social Security was off the table," said Sanders, "but by reopening this issue the White House is not only going to take on these changes, but will open the door to whatever else Republicans want."

In other words: If something bad happens to Social Security, you own it, Mr. President.

More »»

How much would you lose in benefits if President Obama makes a deal with the Republicans to cut Social Security? The Administration isn't denying reports that just such a deal is in the works. As the President prepares to meet with Congressional leaders tomorrow, the financial security of millions of Americans may hang in the balance.

According to the polls, so could his political future.

If the President and his party accept a proposed "chained CPI" benefit cut, they - and not their opponents - are likely to be painted as "Social Security slashers. " (Remember the GOP's Medicare strategy in 2010?) Dealmakers hope to avoid that by hiding the reduction in a lowered cost of living (COLA) adjustment, but it seems wildly optimistic to think a cut of this magnitude can be hidden from the public. It's doubly unfortunate because COLA adjustments should be increased, not reduced.

If you have a copy of your statement of estimated Social Security benefits (a document which, interestingly, the government seems to have stopped sending), this chart may give you a sense of how this deal would affect you: more »

More »»

Pop quiz: Can you list some specific, concrete military objectives we're trying to accomplish in Afghanistan? If so, please write them in the space provided below:

If you felt you could fill out this form, here's part two of the quiz: Now write a speech uniting the nation around your objectives. Explain that they've been achieved successfully enough to begin bringing troops home, but not successfully enough to bring them home very quickly.

Finally, convince your fellow citizens that spending billions each month to meet these objectives is more important than investing in jobs, growth, education, or a crumbling national infrastructure.

More »»