The Passing of an Illusion

There is something bracing about the stark revelations regarding the character of America's criminal corporate class over the last several months.  Yes, we are outraged, yes, we are shaken by the damage that they have done, and many will suffer much on account of their sins.  Nonetheless, there is an upside to the pain that they have caused -- the scales have fallen from our collective eyes and our country's business overclass appear before the public as they are and long have been -- arrogant, entitled, greedy beyond measure, incompetent, short-sighted, solipsistic, and astonishingly overrated. 

For years we have been fed the bullshit notion that our economic system provided "pay for performance." rewarding greatly those who most deserved it.  When one was so gauche as to engage in "class warfare" and criticize the compensation of CEOs and Wall Street titans, and the growing gap between them and the average worker, we were lectured to by the Randroids and libertarians, the business press, and most of all, by Republicans, that this was simply the invisible hand briskly stroking the deserving organ of commerce. 

The AIG situation stands as a wonderfully emblematic moment, a veritable tsunami washing away this illusion.  It is but one of many instances in recent years where business elites have chosen to enrich themselves despite their all too verifiable failure.  But it is one so stark, so brazen, so jaw-droppingly, gob-smackingly outrageous that it has created a public furor that could be transformative if used correctly.  Coming as it does on the heels of Madoff and Stanford, Lehman and Bear Stearns, the stock market meltdown, the real estate bubble, the grotesque manipulation of exotic financial instruments by our financier-illusionist class, the public has simply had enough.  They are afraid and angry, bitter and put-upon.

Obama needs to validate these feelings, both because they are legitimate, but also because they can be the key to promoting transformative change in our politics.  America's business elites have been the true beneficiaries of a generation of Republican rule.  They and their cheerleaders in the press and on televsion have stood in the way of any moves toward more leftish, egalitarian economic policies over the last 28 years.  It is time to rout these people, to amplify their unpopularity, to make clear which side this Administration is on, and to do so in a way that isn't afraid to show a little righteous anger toward them.  Health care reform, a more progressive tax structure (including on dividends and capital gains), the passage of the Employee Free Choice Act and other pro-worker measures, and the strengthening of Social Security and Medicare can all be accomplished if we can effectively channel the anger of this moment into political popularity for the President and progressives and against the business elite and their apologists.    

Comments

[nimh]

Hear, hear!

[litbrit]

I think this may be your best post ever, Sir C, and that's saying something. Hear, hear indeed.

[NealB]

Oh, boy. I always wanted to know, when I was a director, what my actors wanted. "What do you want?" I would ask. It didn't matter what their answer was. I wasn't interested in their answer. I wanted to see their answer in their performance (especially when paying audience were in attendance).

So, I'm here tonight, reading this thing your wrote, and I wonder what you want. Did you see what Alan Grayson did late this afternoon in the House committee with Liddy? After the chamber was just about empty?

He asked for names.

[karl]

Late 80s: S&L meltdown -- deregulation leads to risky quick-profit policies.

Late 90s: Enron, Worldcom, Arthur Anderson -- Dishonest accounting masks impending corporate doom.

Late 2000s: AIG, et al -- Do you really think we are going to learn anything here that we haven't learned before?

[Corvus]

Hey, Sir C.

You know how Obama always used to say that the ground had shifted beneath peoples feet? I feel like the ground has now shifted beneath Obama's feet. He came in with a strategy of trying to enact change by politely listening to all interested parties, but that just won't work anymore. People are pissed. There really has erupted a a class divide in this country, that makes that idea of compromise abhorrent, because it has become clear who the enemy is. Obama's approach will just not work, going forward, and what I am afraid of is that he won't recognize this, or will be constitutionally (behaviorally, not legally) incapable of realizing or adjusting to it. He's made some good noises lately, but it remains to be seen if that will translate into good actions.

What's weird though is that I feel like one of the things that set the groundwork for this shift is all the media harping of tax increases on the rich, and the budget in general, which really drove home (for me) how much our media, and thus our own opinions, are controlled by cruel overlords indifferent to the people's well-being and only concerned with their own class' interest. I feel like that response had to in some way set the ground work for the massive clusterfuck going on now. It's like Obama consistently underestimates just how virulently the overclass will oppose even the most modest reforms, and then has no back-up plan. At some point he is just going to have to start treating these people as hostile.

[nimh]

And a hear, hear to Corvus too. I've got nothing to add to that, other than, you guys tell them. It's time.

[Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle]

Sir C.:
I am curious, what do you say to all those posters over at the Great Orange Satan that are posting diaries that we should leave poor Timmeh ALLONNNNNEEEEEE!!!!! Frankly I think they are off their rocker. I don't get all the support Geithner is getting from some people. Regardless of whether Treasury is understaffed or not, he's covered himself with a lot more shame than glory(And people seem to forget he was NY Fed chief up until 2 months ago).

[Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle]

Corvus:
So what are you saying? That John Edwards was right?

[Sir Charles]

NealB,

Good question. I want a couple of things -- one, for people to be firmly and finally disabused of the notion that the "masters of the universe" class is in any way worth what they are paid or otherwise worthy of our esteeem and admiriation; and two, much more importantly, I want for Obama to take advantage of this moment and use it as a cudgel with which to achieve progressive economic ends. I don't want this to simply be a frothing, Lou Dobbs like opportunity for inchoate rage --I want it to result in meaningful policy and the gaining of political strength with which to subdue our opponents.

Corvus,

Good to hear from you -- I feel like we haven't been graced with your presence for a little while.

I still have a great deal of faith in Obama's judgment, both from a political and policy perspective. I think he is patient and smart and blessed with very good instincts.

Like Stephen and drip, I am worried by Geitner. One of the galling things that we have to deal with on the left is the fact that these Wall Street bozos have enormous control over our collective destinies. Thus the perceived need to have someone in the Sec. Treas. slot who reassures our Galtian warriors of the Big Board. I can't say I like it much. (See response above to Gene).

[big bad wolf]

i agree, SC, that obama needs to take advantage of this moment of anger to push through progressive measures. to go with his cudgel with which to swat the malfeasors, he needs also a narrative that is fact-based but emotionally appealing and educative in the long run. no one (well no one who is not a lifer on the right or the left) can stay outraged all the time. outrage is of limited utility and often loses focus, settling into a general suspicion and distrust of power, of which, sadly, government is the most obvious symbol.

like fdr, obama needs to teach about his changes as he pushes them. he needs to get people to understand how government can work for them, how government is them---not always perfect, as we are not always perfect, but essentially good and essentially committed both to the betterment of the whole and the protection of the individual. this last is where the battle lies. he needs to help us re-recognize that the individual can be protected---speech rights, reproductive rights, employment rights---and helped-- infrastructure, safe banks, pollution issues---while simultaneously being reined in some in the economic pursuits. the old weak rights/strong rights debate. we are not now going to win it finally in one blow (if it is ever settled finally). obama can, like fdr, win it for a generation. then it is up to us to teach it to ourselves and our heirs over and over and over to try to help it self-sustain.

[Sir Charles]

bbw,

I totally agree with how you've stated this. And Obama is a perfect person to engage this project.

[ikl]

OK, folks, just don't complain if we get a bad budget and no health care reform because the left if more interested in fighting over AIG than supporting the rest of Obama's agenda. Sorry, but there is a lot of wishful thinking in the place of political strategy here.

[Corvus]

I feel like we haven't been graced with your presence for a little while

Yeah, I kind of got burned out on politics. I think mostly it was the establishmentarian response to the budget, which was just completely disheartening, combined with the sense that Obama didn't really have a way to fight back against it.

So what are you saying? That John Edwards was right?

Yes and no, but mostly no.

First, Edward's rhetoric would not have worked in pre-crisis Washington. Obama's Organizer-in-Chief approach would have been more effective than Edwards neo-Huey Long approach. Now, with the Financial Crisis, Obama probably does need to move somewhat towards Edwards in terms of rhetorical strategy, so Edwards was right in that degree, but it can't be a direct facsimile of Edwards. The problem with Edwards rhetoric is that it would have run into the brick wall of the Washington Establishment and nothing he wanted would have gotten done. Obama still has to deal with the Washington Establishment, who are now looking for a way to bring him down, through Geithner, so any new stance he adopts will both have to suave the faux-populism the Village is whipping up and do it in a way that doesn't set off their establishmentarian defenses. Maybe that's as simple as calling their bluff, but we aren't exactly dealing with stable, or honest actors here.

[Sir Charles]

ikl,

I couldn't disagree with you more on this. The way to get a good budget and health care reform is to marginalize the opposition. I don't see how taking on AIG in any way leads to the path you're suggesting.

You need to sketch that out for me, because it's not making a lot of intuitive sense.

[scott]

I guess if we unquestioningly support Obama, even when he does dumb things that lead to bad results which the public dislikes, he'll succeed politically and we'll all be happy. Except not.

[Corvus]

Sir Charles, a lot of the problem with the populism being whipped up is that a lot of it is focused on the Obama administration. The news media is trying to make this his fault. If he gets marginalized, everything else on his agenda gets marginalized with him, and getting back 100 million isn't worth not getting Universal Health Care.

[Stephen]

ikl,

I'm also confused here. Are you suggesting that Obama will submit bad budgets out of pique? That he'll intentionally sabotage his own health care reform plans because we're being mean to Geithner and AIG?

Or, is your argument akin to the one the GOP is making against Obama's multitasking? Speaking only for myself, of course - well, maybe for Sir Charles, too - but my outrage is a renewable resource. My ability to hound my elected officials is not finite, nor am I forgetting that we have other problems and challenges. Unfortunately, our ability to accomplish Obama's other goals is directly tied to whether or not we're going to spend $1 trillion on AIG alone over the next year. It's dependent upon how much money ultimately gets sunk into the TARP mess, and that means we need someone at Treasury who can free himself or herself from Wall Street groupthink and his or her personal relationships with the people who have caused all of this.

If we want government that is accountable to us, then we have to hold it accountable to us all the time, not only when we think it's extra-important. That means accountability with health care reform and with the hundreds of billions of our money they're spending on Wall Street.

[ikl]

Sir Charles, I guess I agree that in this environment, the Obama administration has to be seen as trying to punish AIG, but I don't see this as much more than media strategy / cosmetics. We aren't talking about serious reform or real money here.

What I am questioning is why so many lefty bloggers seem so eager to attack the Obama administration. If this is good for the progressive movement, why, then, is the Republican party trying to use AIG to score political points against the Obama administration? These folks are not marginalizing the opposition. They are teaming up with them.

AIG is mainly a distraction from the big issues. If this were actually a threat to the Republican-supporting monied interests, Republicans in Congress would be behaving a lot differently. Calling for Geithner's head is dumb and plays right into the Republicans hands. I'm not especially confident in him at the moment, but firing him before he even has his team in place would be awfully silly. It would handicap the Obama administration and set back its policy agenda considerably.

There are five big items on the agenda for this year:
1. Economic stimulous (done for now)
2. Housing and financial regulation
3. The Budget
4. Health Care
5. Global warming / carbon cap / carbon tax

Four big items are left. Obama and the House are both further left than anything that will get accomplished on these fronts. What happens is mainly a function of what we can get through the Senate. Ganging up with Republicans to attack the Obama administration over 0.1% of the bailout funds that AIG got is a spectacularly unwise use of political energy in this context. The more political capital Obama has, the easier to get things through the Senate. The less political capital Obama has and the more left pressure is being applied to the administration rather than to the Byah, Nelson and Snowe types in the Senate, the less likely any of this is to happen.

If Geithner does a bad job over the next year or two, then Obama should find someone new. That he mishandled a matter involving slightly over 0.01% of TARP money when he is dealing with an economic crisis of historic proportions, has been on the job for 50 days, and doesn't have his subordinates in place yet is not a big deal. There are a lot more important things going on (which he might or might not be handling well - jury is still out on that, I think). Obama didn't make kneejerk, media cycle driven decisions during the campaign and I don't expect him to start making them now.

[Sir Charles]

Corvus,

My point is that Obama needs to be out in front on this wave of outrage precisely so he does not get stuck with the blame for this crap by the faux populism of the GOP and the television media. I think the "Americans have more important things to worry about" tone set today by Emanuel and Axelrod is disastrously tin-earred -- I'm really surprised by it too.

[Sir Charles]

ikl,

I agree with what you've laid out here. I wasn't attacking Obama or Geithner (that's Stephen's department) for that matter, although the latter leaves me feeling very uneasy -- he's been awfully uncertain and I don't think he's got very sound political instincts -- and yes, I understand that he has inherited a huge and incredibly complex pile of crap, but still, I think he needs to step it up a notch or two soon.

My point was that this is a chance to generate a much-deserved backlash against our plutocratic economics of the last generation. I would like Obama to try to use this situation to generate political capital, not have it be an undeserved millstone around his neck.

I remain very supportive of Obama and optimistic about what he can accomplish. I understand that he is not going to make me happy on all things, but I like the man's brains, his instincts, and his style.

[ikl]

We are on the same page I think.

I just worry sometimes that the outrage of the day obscures the bigger picture at times.

[drip]

I wasn't attacking Obama or Geithner but you will be, because the ineptitude in this easy part of the agenda you set forth is causing stumbles that will make the hard stuff (Employee Free Choice Act, e.g.) extremely difficult to pull off. Iki is wrong about the stimulus, because it is not done yet, it wasn't large enough; unemployment will hit 10% by the end of September; and the banks aren't close to stable.

I agree that Obama is smart and talented but he is a very moderate guy who is floundering in an environment that needs some radical moves. As for Geithner, as I noted in the previous thread, I think he's likely gone by the end of May, so I won't waste more time berating his efforts.

[Stephen]

The AIG bonuses are obviously just a part of the problem. But the bonuses that have been paid out in general are actually fairly significant; billions have been paid out in bonuses to people working for firms that have either been allowed to reorganize under bankruptcy or have received TARP funds. And that's on top of the various golden parachutes and exorbitant salaries. The American taxpayer is footing the bill for this industry and should be able to dictate all sorts of terms, including maximum compensation limits. It would be nice if we could just focus on health care or renewable energy, but this is happening right now.

Chris Dodd actually tried fix it, but Geithner stopped it. What I'm wondering now is if Geithner was acting with Obama's knowledge or not.

Paulson and Bernanke - and Geithner as a Fed official - created TARP and sold it to us as a way for banks to keep going in the face of their losses. So we paid out hundreds of billions to all sorts of banks and funds so they could recoup their losses. Now we find out that the AIG bailout has been structured from the beginning to pay many of those same banks to cover their losses.

If that sounds like double payment for one set of losses, that's because it is. And that's Geithner's doing from the beginning of it all the way to now. The man doesn't work for Obama, but for himself.

And I think Obama might realize it. He's out in front on this now, saying things that will constrain - I hope - Geithner's planned giveaways to his buddies.

I really don't understand those who think that this outrage is directed at Obama. There's the standard GOP outrage-a-thon, but they don't even know what they're mad about anymore. Some of them are mad because we're not letting these banks just fail, some are mad because Obama wants to recoup these bonuses. There's no message discipline whatsoever - and what little they have has actually been given to them by Treasury misinformation, such as blaming Chris Dodd for everything.

I'm mad at Geithner, and disappointed at how Obama is getting played. I'm hopeful, almost confident, that Obama is going to get rid of this idiot in the next couple months simply because Geithner is making him look bad. But aside from the optics, Geithner's inability to handle this differently than a Bush appointee would is going to place health care reform, climate change actions, education reform, etc., etc. in jeopardy. If you care one bit about those, then you need to care about AIG.

[Sir Charles]

drip,

As someone who has been working for the labor movement my entire life I guess I have always been pessimistic about EFCA -- if it flounders though, I doubt that it will be Obama's fault. More likely it will be the fault of our courageous Senators like the duo from Arkansas, Ben Nelson, etc.

I think you are right that we may well need another stimulus bill, but I think we have to wait and see first. If you are right about unemployment in September, I think another one will be forthcoming.

I actually don't think the administration has stumbled too much -- the area where they have been weakest is the banks, and I think that is a really thorny problem.

I remain pretty optimistic about Obama and how progressive he is.

[Corvus]

I agree with ikl.

One thing I think needs to be kept in mind is what the options actually are for these situations. Calling for Geithner's head seems like a bad idea to me, because from my perspective, if Geithner is forced out, it's over. If Obama's Treasury Secretary, the media and Republicans will use it as an excuse to run a no confidence campaign on Obama. The Senate "moderates" will use that as an excuse to defect for cred, and Obama will have an effective minority in the Senate. Remember, what the corporate class wants, and thus what their agents in the Republican Party and the (corporate owned) media are angling towards, is to stymie any reforms, so that after the economy tanks out and starts to slowly heal, they can go back to business as usual. Any reforms that could be effective for dealing with this situation will need overwhelming public support to keep the Bayh Caucus in line. Going after Geithner gives the media the excuse to eat away at that support. When the most vocal voices on the left also go after Geithner, they also eat away at that public support, and the result will not be more leftist policies, but no new policies at all.

We have to assume that the Obama administration is operating in good faith. We have to assume that Geithner is is operating in good faith, and couch criticism in such an attitude as well. Maybe that assumption is wrong, but if it is, then it doesn't matter, because we are already fucked.

[Crissa]

Don't you think we might be able to actually form a real break between the populists and the unrepentant in the Republicans lines with this, ikl?

[ikl]

Crissa, I'm not sure that I understand the question. What do you mean by a "form a real break"?

[drip]

Corvus--I have no doubt that the administration is operating in good faith. Unfortunately, that good faith has lead them to a politically perilous place. To use the AIG bonuses as one small example, the Senate will now put the administration on trial to discover how the Wyden-Snowe amendment banning large bonuses morphed into one approving bonuses promised prior to enactment. "Was it Dodd? Did Geithner order it? Look at how awful the dems are!" I don't doubt the sincerity of certain people in their approach to fixing the financial system, but continuing to transfer wealth to rich people and the old investment banks and their european equivalents is not playing well and I believe it is substantively wrong. Many people a lot smarter that I am, agree that the failure to operate AIG and the insolvent banks in receivership is a major mistake. But the flow of money from AIG to Goldman Sachs and the rest is also a serious economic and political mistake in this environment. And any thought that the Senate Blue Dogs are going to play ball is a pipe dream. Of course Obama's natural drive to the center assures their participation.

Sir Charles, the EFCA seems like a good idea to me. As to whether its worth to cost politically, or whether it has a chance to pass, I cannot say, but maybe our analysis of Obama differs only in that I see him as a middle of the road politician and you view him as a progressive. Surely he is a social progressive, but in economic and foreign policy matters he is to the right of a large part of his party. I think he's smart and I think he's open minded. I hold out hope that some day soon he will say that we need to move in another direction, one that requires great efforts and great sacrifices for the future, that the working classes have sacrificed long enough (see chart in post above) and it's time for the rest of the country to join in.

[Sir Charles]

drip,

I am curious as to what makes you evaluate Obama to the right of his party on economic and foreign policy matters. (That's a genuine question, not a rhetorical one.) He strikes me as just slightly to the left of center in both areas -- certainly that is true if one looks at the make-up of the Democratic Senate caucus as a prooxy for the party.

When I look at the broad strokes of what Obama has outlined in terms of the stimulus, tax policy, future budgeting, energy/environmental policy, and health care, I think it is reasonably audacious and definitely on the progressive side. Is it as lefty as I, a single payer, laborite, social-dem type would like? No -- but then again, if he were in complete agreement with me he'd be raving on a blog and not sitting in the Oval Office.

On the foreign policy front, he seems committed to diplomatic engagement and changing the tone. There hasn't been all that much substance yet, and it may only be in comparison to his predeceessor, but again, I see him as once again slightly to the left of center.

I think the area that is causing people the most concern about Obama's ideological bona fides is in this banking crisis/bailout arena, and I think the difficulty here is that it is an incredibly complex problem and the visceral reaction that many on the left have of just sticking it to Wall Street (which I share) isn't all that helpful. Getting credit flowing again and restoring faith in the financial markets is crucial to our collective well-being. Believe me, as someone who represents people who build buildings for a living, this is not an abstraction, it is vital.

[Corvus]

drip, this isn't just you, but I have to say, I am sick to fucking death of hearing how Obama isn't progressive, or Liberal, and is middle of the road. Seriously, read his book, the first one. He just isn't.

He's easily the most socially liberal president ever. When has a president state they were a strong advocate of gay rights?

On Labor he's the shaping up the be the best president since FDR. On social welfare, if he get's a universal healthcare system in place, he will be the fest since LBJ. He's already passed a stimulus bill over double the size, in terms of GDP, of the entire New Deal. Think about that.

On foreign policy? On foreign policy he could well be transformative. Look at the advisors he is getting, a collection Realists and Liberal Interventionists placed in key political positions, while surrounding himself with a brain trust of newer, fresher thinkers like Power. If he can bounce back and forth between the Realists and LIs, allowing them to cancel out each other's weaknesses, he can form some new foreign policy vision almost identical to that held by his brain trust.

I mean, what the fuck do want? Just to wish all our problems away? Can you really tell me that working towards leftist values wouldn't start with something like this, like the Obama administration? We won the lottery here; stop moping.

/rant

[Sir Charles]

Corvus,

You are an excitable boy today.

I agree with you for the most part, although LBJ was pretty damn good on labor stuff too. He met weekly with Walter Reuther, the legendary president of the UAW. Obama would have to go a long way to equal him.

[Corvus]

Hmm, I didn't know that. I was just going off my scanty knowledge of legislation passed. I defer to your expertise.

Still, did not Union density decline over the course of the 1960s? Providing he gets EFCA passed (not saying he will) I think that would place him above LBJ. Meeting with Labor is awesome, but it wasn't politically anathema back then the way it is today, or the way it was before Roosevelt. Turning Labor's course would definitely push him over LBJ, and the potential is there. That definitely makes him third, though, right?

[Sir Charles]

I think if Obama could help arrest labors decline, he would leap over Johnson in significance on that front.

Union density did decline somewhat in the sixties, largely due to the decline of a lot of northern industries that headed south to right to work states before heading overseas, see e.g. textiles, leather manufacturing, shoe making, etc., all of which deserted my native Massachusetts in droves during that era. Two interesting things -- in some ways this movement was made possible by the civil rights revolution, which made corporations a little more comfortable about operating out of the South. The second thing is that while JOhnson was doing all of the things I noted above, there does not seem to have been a major push to repeal the Taft-Hartley Act or the "right to work" section of it, although both were standard planks in the Democratic platform. I don't know why this was the case, but I suspect labor was complacent and had no idea what was in store.

[drip]

I thought I wrote a comment in response to Sir Charles's question at 11:06. If I did, I don't know were I put it, because it ain't here. Let me try again and respond to Corvus as well. First, I am not criticizing Obama. I really just want to describe what is going on. As I noted, he is bright and talented and, uniquely among our recent presidents, he seems to do what he says he'll do, or at least try to.

As to Obama's social values: Liberal. He has a little trouble with seeing his gay friends enjoying the same rights as the most privileged among ,us but he is a social liberal.

His foreign policy is not progressive at all. It is middle of the road, bipartisan, plain vanilla american interventionist. We are not leaving Iraq, we have not closed guantanamo, we still have the DEA and CIA in Columbia, we are expanding the war in central asia, our trade policies remain supportive of despotic regimes where it serves our economic purposes and we the unwavering support for the only nuclear armed state in the middle east remains unwavering, Compared to the batshit crazy neo-cons, or the Bush Cheney war criminals, this may appear mildly liberal, but it is not and most of these positions are to the right of those held by most democrats, but this is no time for making waves in foreign policy because the shitstorm(s) are in domestic policy.

Let's look at some major issues where Obama is to the right of most democrats: He wants to "fix" social security. It doesn't need fixing. It is fine and most democrats view it as sacrosanct. Medicare and medicaid are problems, but lumping social security in a basket called entitlements is a disservice to social security.

Most democrats want a single payer national health care system. Obama favors a national insurace companies based system that covers most , but not all, people. Now Peter Orzag is maybe the smartest, best informed person we've had in government since Califano ran HHS. I'll stand to be corrected, but this is a smart guy. I am fairly confident that he will keep the social security program safe, but the healthcare system Obama proposes is more moderate than that of most democrats.

Most democrats support progressive income taxes which would include marginal tax rates of 50 on the richest earners (say those making over 2 million a year) and descending down to the 34% on 250k we have now. Further, every single person who understands the income tax structure in this country knows of its regressive natuure. When you add both ends of the FICA tax (employees would receive the employers contribution if it wasn't paid to the gov't, they earned it) to the federal tax rates, workers up to about 50,000 pay about 24% and 50-100,000 pay about 37% on their wages. The largest tax loophole in the sysyem is still the mortgage interest deduction available to most over 100,000 per year and less available at lower income levevls. Most democrats want to change this. Obama does not.

Obama has suggested that he will let Bush's tax cuts expire, but he has yet to address the reinsttuition of the Estate Tax. We'll keep an eye on that one but again, a progressive would support taxing large estates (over 2 or 3 million dollars) of which there are a few thousand every year,

Most democrats support some sort of receivership/nationalization/bankruptcy for the insolvent banks and other financial institutions. They do not support using AIG or the treasury itself, as a conduit to pass huge amounts of government money to Walll Street sharpies and fat cat shareholders in foreign countries which is what Obama's bank plan has accomplished so far.

Labor is an important democratic issue. Secretary of Labor was the last cabinet official he named and when Obama introduced his economic team, he had yet to even nominate Solis, let alone include her. EFCA is pretty far down the list of legislative initiatives and Obama has seemingly given up on trying to fix NAFTA and CAFTA, important labor issues. Obama has supported the treasury secretary who demanded that UAW workers give back contract and pension rights while arguing for the sanctity of contracts for the bonus babies at what remain of the old investment banks and insurance companies.

Obama has given no indication that there will be any more help for working homeowners in financial distress due to mortgage trouble but there is an increasing drumbeat for the government to acquire the "toxic assets" based upon those same faulty mortgages. Indeed the Fed (outside of Obama's direct authority to be sure, but well within his sphere of influence as well as his bully pulpit) has picked up another 800 billion in authority to buy such securities.

I understand that the only plausible alternative to Obama was McCain but Obama is more centrist than leftist on any scale that does not place McCain (or Bush for that matter) near the middle.

I want the guy's economic plan to work. I'm fine no matter who is president but I have 2 children in their mid-20's who are starting out in life with a big handicap left from 25 years of right wing neo-liberal economic policies. This has got to change if the results are to change and the Volker/Geithner/Summers economic team is not going to get it done. Obama has managed to convert the Bush/Paulson plan into the Obama/Geithner plan and it will inhibit his ability to maneuver going forward, because now, as I wrote right here in January, Obama's ability to deficit spend which is so desperately needed, will fall victim to the sloth brought on by the republican Senate budget balancers. What we saw with the TARP II is going to repeat itself in the Nelson/Collins budget of 2010.

This is what I see. I am not trying to insult Obama by calling him a centrist, that is what he is. I don't know whether his plan will work. I hope it does. I want easy credit, good jobs and blue skies too. But If we don't get some economic balance, some affordable housing, healthcare and education going here, we will have squandered a great opportunity.

[Sir Charles]

drip,

That's well argued, but I'm not sure if a majority of Democrats are quite as progressive as you think. I'm with you, but I'm not sure the majority is. Your comment is worthy of a post at some point.

[Corvus]

I don't feel like debating drip's statements at the moment, since I am lazy, but I do think he is wrong on nearly everything. I am looking forward to Sir Charles post on it at some later point (The heat is on!). Maybe we can hash out the points of divergence then.

[drip]

Yeah, I may have overstated the democrat's position on some points, but not by much and not at all on Iraq, social security or healthcare. More to the point, what started all this, at least for me, is the Geithner situation and my position, that Obama has adopted the Paulson/Bush plan and was wrong to do so, has been borne out over the last couple of days. This is a centrist position based upon Obama's allegiance to the middle or third way, his fear of being tagged a socialist and Geithner's fear of causing another shock to the credit markets by taking out BoA or AIG. We'll see how long Geithner lasts if he really is going to take all the bad investments off the hands of the old investment banks to transfer cash to their operators and shareholders. I feel the need to quote some authoriy, so Simon Johns, MIT, former IMF bigwig and all around establishment guy says that we have an obligation to dismantle the oligarchy that is running the country and to make sure another one doesn't rise up to take its place. See a delightful 30 minutes with him here.