David Dayen on the president’s populist rebranding in today’s speech:
For one of the first times ever, the President mentioned that two rounds of tax cuts passed by the Bush Administration in 2001 and 2003 created almost no jobs. He said that “Mortgage lenders … tricked families into buying homes they couldn’t afford” and that “irresponsibility and lack of basic oversight” on Wall Street “nearly destroyed our entire economy.” He recited the now-familiar economic statistics about inequality and how it corrupts, how the rich purchase politicians and have them do their bidding. He added stats about the creaking to a halt of upward mobility in this country.
I’m just not sure what the solutions expressed in the speech mean to provide. There’s a familiar focus on education, with the welcome line that “We shouldn’t be laying off good teachers right now – we should be hiring them.” There’s a focus on science and research and development, which makes sense. There’s a very good line about how building an economy on high-tech manufacturing rather than an outsized financial industry will attract the best and brightest to productive work, something I think needs to be stressed.
But then there’s this brag on how we have to live within our means and prioritize our deficit, the wrong message in a fragile economy when you can borrow at a negative interest rate. The first substantive plan in the speech is to cut the payroll tax, an anti-contractionary measure but not necessary the stuff around which a New Deal is created. Obama does support returning progressivity to the tax code, in the form of returning the high-end tax rates to the Clinton years. But that stops short of transformation.
I was most interested in the section on financial reform, where there were two specific policy proposals. First, the President vowed to veto any alterations to the Dodd-Frank law sent to him by Congress. That includes the de-funding of the agencies set up to implement the law (of course, this has already been violated; the Commodity Futures Trading Commission budget, signed by the President, was slashed 1/3 from his initial request). Then there was this:We shouldn’t be weakening oversight and accountability. We should be strengthening them. Here’s another example. Too often, we’ve seen Wall Street firms violating major anti-fraud laws because the penalties are too weak and there’s no price for being a repeat offender. No more. I’ll be calling for legislation that makes these penalties count – so that firms don’t see punishment for breaking the law as just the price of doing business.
More lip service, nothing changes…he has already proven where his allegiance lies, and it is not with We the People.
Gee, Susie, you’re much nicer towards this than I am. It’s all just hoo-ha campaign jingo to me. As for actions, his current action is to continue the payroll tax cut which is just another way of de-funding social security. And a con game at that. My understanding is the ss shortfall is taken out of the general fund to cover the tax cut. Why doesn’t he just cut a check out of the general fund and give it to the “middle class” like George Bush did right before campaign season? He’s adding to the deficit either way — but like I said, it’s just a way to defund social security. I just don’t know that I’ll be able to hold my nose hard enough to vote for this guy next year.
Oh, I don’t know that he actually believes it. I don’t think Dave does, either. The thing that’s interesting is that he feels compelled to change.
When Obama, an elected Democratic president, has to reach back to Teddy Roosevelt, a Republican Progressive, and ignore FDR, I wonder how much we can trust Obama’s fine campaign words.
We’ve seen once that his will say things to get up the hopes of the Democratic voters and people who hope for real change, but he governs with…Rahm and Timmeh and Austerians.
Somehow, I don’t believe he will actually change in a second term….
The number of liberal sites that went weak in the knees with self-delusion over this speech is shocking. I want to scream: How many times does the abuser have to rough you up and lie to you before will leave him?
Seconding Everythings Jake.
I mean, honestly. How many times? This is the first time in four years he needs anything from us. A vote. So now the sweet talk starts. Screw that. I wouldn’t vote for him if the back end of a dog was the other choice.
Bracing? It’s one month to campaign season. He did shit for the last 3 years, and this is just posturing. I don’t feel braced. I feel my cynicism being validated and also discovering new depths.
Srsly who in their right mind could possibly believe this guy.