Maybe he was playing 11 dimensional chess. This suggests as much. This is clearly well above my pay grade.
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
A Commentary on the Passing Scene by Robert Paul Wolff rwolff@afroam.umass.edu
My Stuff
https://umass-my.sharepoint.com/:f:/g/personal/rwolff_umass_edu/EkxJV79tnlBDol82i7bXs7gBAUHadkylrmLgWbXv2nYq_A?e=UcbbW0
Coming Soon:
The following books by Robert Paul Wolff are available on Amazon.com as e-books: KANT'S THEORY OF MENTAL ACTIVITY, THE AUTONOMY OF REASON, UNDERSTANDING MARX, UNDERSTANDING RAWLS, THE POVERTY OF LIBERALISM, A LIFE IN THE ACADEMY, MONEYBAGS MUST BE SO LUCKY, AN INTRODUCTION TO THE USE OF FORMAL METHODS IN POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY.
Now Available: Volumes I, II, III, and IV of the Collected Published and Unpublished Papers.
Now Available: Volumes I, II, III, and IV of the Collected Published and Unpublished Papers.
NOW AVAILABLE ON YOUTUBE: LECTURES ON KANT'S CRITIQUE OF PURE REASON. To view the lectures, go to YouTube and search for "Robert Paul Wolff Kant." There they will be.
NOW AVAILABLE ON YOUTUBE: LECTURES ON THE THOUGHT OF KARL MARX. To view the lectures, go to YouTube and search for Robert Paul Wolff Marx."
Total Pageviews
Search This Blog
Philosopher's Stone
Blog Archive
About Me
- Robert Paul Wolff
- As I observed in one of my books, in politics I am an anarchist, in religion I am an atheist, and in economics I am a Marxist. I am also, rather more importantly, a husband, a father, a grandfather, and a violist.
25 comments:
I've seen several analyses like this. Also, the number of pissed off Freedom Caucus/MAGA folks leads me to believe Joe won this round.
Well, it’s nice to know that the old guy, with his shambling gait, occasional stutter, and apparently naïve persona, knew what the hell he was doing. Thank goodness for that.
This is nonsense:
The Democrats got nothing in these "negotiations".... other than a lowering of the Republican ransom demand.
I guess "nothing" is expanded SNAP, no budget stand off next year, a two year extension that takes us past the next election, and none of the damaging parts of the 2011 deal.
There appear to be various takes on this. Here is a more negative one:
http://balkin.blogspot.com/2023/05/losing-big.html
(I didn't read every word of it.)
On the substance of the deal:
From the NYT: "The deal reached this weekend includes something of a compromise: It increases work requirements for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program and cash welfare but does not alter requirements for Medicaid. It also expands food stamp access for veterans, homeless people and young adults transitioning out of the foster care system."
That is pretty thin gruel on substance.
As for process: kicking the can down the road does buy the Dems some time--- but it leaves in place the Repubs future opportunity for hostage-taking.... the equivalent of: "When you take the kid hostage in 2 years, we'll talk again then about how much ransom we are willing to pay.
If I were in the progressive House caucus I would whip my colleagues to say to Biden: "No votes from us--- you still have the 14th Amendment to deploy."
The "losing big" blog referred to above is worth reading in full:
Part 1:
"President Biden got owned. Nominally, he got owned by Speaker Kevin McCarthy. In reality, he got owned by Rep. Matt Gaetz. Rep. Gaetz had a clear, well-developed long-term strategy that he followed with great discipline. The Administration had only a set of half-formed, often contradictory, impulses that it followed haphazardly, rarely thinking even one move ahead. It likely thinks it won several news cycles and is hard at work trying to win another. Rep. Gaetz set out to win on substance, and the wailing and moaning we are now hearing from the Freedom Caucus is precisely what they ought to do to lock in their huge substantive victories and set the stage for more. Surely the Members that are paying attention know that they won. But by withholding their votes, they can force even more Democrats to vote for this deal.
"The details have yet to emerge, but from media accounts it appears the President agreed to a substantial nominal-dollar cut in non-defense discretionary spending for next fiscal year. When roughly five percent inflation is considered, this will be a deep reduction in the capacity of the federal government to perform its basic functions. For the following year, nominal non-defense discretionary spending would rise one percent, which after the effects of inflation will mean several additional percentage points of real cuts in its ability to do its job.
"But it gets worse: a lot worse. Media accounts say that veterans’ health care, one of the larger accounts within that category, will be protected. That means that everything else will have to absorb proportionately deeper cuts to make up for those not going to veterans’ health care. Numerous other government functions (e.g., Border Patrol, protective details for high officials, utilities for federal buildings) will not be cut, forcing still-bigger cuts in what remains.
Continued below
" In addition, if Congress and the President do not agree upon all twelve annual appropriations bills by January 1, the agreement apparently would impose a year-long continuing resolution (CR) with a one-percent across-the-board nominal cut. This will give Republicans – who can effortlessly hold back one or more bills – enormous leverage in negotiating the content of those appropriations bills. So not only will the levels be far below those needed to maintain government functions, but the money that is spent will almost certainly be badly misallocated. It remains to be seen how these pieces fit together, but even the best-case scenario is pretty grim.
"This result has enormous long-term significance. First, and most obviously, each year’s appropriations discussions start with the prior year’s spending level. Merely restoring a program to its now-current level of effectiveness will require the President and Congress to go far above that baseline and invite the label “big spenders.” Many programs still have not recovered from the “sequestration” cuts President Obama agreed to over a decade ago.
" More insidiously, underfunding government programs will cause them to function less well. National parks will close off areas for lack of resources for operations and maintenance. People will miss flights as TSA lines lengthen, or those flights will get cancelled when air traffic control is overstretched. People will get sick when contaminated meat gets past USDA inspectors even more overwhelmed than they are today. The FDA will hold up approvals of anticipated drugs for lack of examiners to review applications. All this will support the Republican narrative that government is incompetent and “deserves” more funding cuts.
" Beyond that, the Biden Administration passively accepted – at times even reinforced – Republicans’ profoundly tendentious framings of the issues. Rather than working to gain public acceptance of the legal theories that could end debt limit hostage-taking once and for all, the Administration planted stories about how it was having trouble taking seriously “out there” theories and the President himself pledged not to use them (and thus obliterating his negotiating leverage).
"People who would never be foolish enough to say that de-indexing the Internal Revenue Code was not a tax increase are nonetheless accepting the inflation-denialist demand to discuss spending programs only in nominal dollar terms.
The Administration ceded without serious contest the mantle of “fiscal conservatives” to Members of Congress proposing huge unfunded business tax cuts that would swamp the effects of these spending cuts. The approach of Presidents Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush was to ram through large unfunded tax cuts and then later “discover” a “fiscal emergency” that “required shared sacrifice” to address. Today’s Republicans believe they can get away with pursuing these contradictory agendas simultaneously. And the Biden Administration is telling them they are right."
Part 2:
"Perhaps most insidiously, the Administration continually accepted Republicans’ characterization of eligibility purges from basic assistance programs as “work requirements.” None of the Republicans’ main proposals for the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) block grant had anything to do with putting anyone to work: they simply sought to increase the quotas for families that states must purge from their already-shrunken assistance programs in order to avoid creating the work programs states almost unanimously are unwilling to operate.
"And the so-called SNAP “work requirement” would cut off food assistance after just three months to low-income people between ages 50 and 55 who cannot prove that they are working at least half-time every month. Minimally skilled people in this age range, which the Social Security Administration describes as “closely approaching advanced age,” commonly see their employment prospects dwindle as they are unable to compete with younger people at hard physical labor. They may make ends meet with several jobs, often with volatile hours. If they cannot collect adequate verification of all those hours each month, or if their total hours ever dip below half-time, they are cut off. Nothing in current law or the Republicans’ proposal requires states to give individuals in need the opportunity to work for continued benefits. And despite generous financial incentives to offer work slots, only a handful of states even purport to do so. Yet when most reporters hear about “work requirements,” they assume that only the willfully idle are affected. "And the Biden Administration has made little effort to educate them otherwise – making its capitulation all but inevitable.
"President Biden had a front-row seat for the Obama Administration’s short-sighted, strategically clueless approach to Republican debt-limit extortion. Apparently he learned very little from it. He had plenty of time to raise the debt limit on a budget reconciliation bill after the election, needing no Republican votes. All candidates for Chair of the House Budget Committee last fall were publicly promising debt limit extortion to radically transform the federal government.
" Failing to raise the debt limit in December might have made sense as part of a plan to invoke the 14th Amendment or to employ one of the several available technical means of avoiding it. Unfortunately, the Administration had no plan. This is the result. The President should tip his hat to Matt Gaetz."
"He had plenty of time to raise the debt limit on a budget reconciliation bill after the election, needing no Republican votes."
When an article states some thing like that and fails to explain just how one gets Joe Manchin (and possibly Sinema) to go along, we should mark that article to market.
"Invoking the 14th Amendment" isn't an incantation that once chanted changes everything. Other stuff has to happen. if war is necessary, I have no problem with going to war but if war can be avoided then maybe that's the way to go. The 14th is the equivalent of war.
After the invocation bills have to be paid. If we go to 31USC 3301ff we see that issuing bills, notes, and bonds can be enjoined - all that is needed is a Trumpy judge. That leaves the coin, consols, and quantitative easing (I assume McCarthy got a private reality check and hence the cave). Doable but cliff-hanging for a bit.
Still, going down that road would have been messy with public option being formed by a media that is largely too stupid to see beyond horse-race politics. Repealing the debt ceiling would face the same problem. It has to happen (and will likely be easier after 2011 and now) but it won't be easy (too many olds).
We will be doing the equivalent of drawing to inside straights for the next several election cycles and we only have to lose once. That's what important, not a marginal (and sunsetted) SNAP provision.
Well, we have two antithetical assessments of how Biden did, the Daily Koss, not a right-wing tool, asserting that he was a “genius,” whereas Prof. Super maintains that he got owned. I am not in a position to determine which of the two is more accurate. Can they both be right? I will wait to see what happens if it gets passed in Congress and signed by Biden.
I believe Professor Zimmerman.
I haven't followed this matter at all, but I have watched over the years the arguments of the people who comment above and Professor Zimmerman seems to be the least brainwashed of the major players by liberal mainstream common sense discourse.
After my argument with Marc a few days ago, I will not be commenting actively in the future. I know from experience that if I argue with Marc and his liberal hegemonic viewpoint, I'll be insulted and he'll distort my arguments, forcing me to clarify them, which is a drag and pointless.
However, I follow this blog if only out of idle curiosity at how the players play their hands.
I don't have Professor Zimmerman's persistance nor his fortitude in debate, but in general I share his worldview and even agree with him about the non-objectivity of value judgments in philosophy and/or in daily life. So I'm on his team.
Whatever Sir Galahad complex I may once have had, the necessity to right all wrongs and contest all fallacies and bullshit, has dissipated with age, but, as Chilean political commenter Mirko Macari says "politics is a lot more entertaining than football".
I am not looking for a fight, but I wish to say, s. wallerstein, that I am not brainwashed, by liberal media or otherwise. I know how to think for myself.
Winners: wealthy tax cheats, war profiteers
Losers: the vulnerable
Yup, Joe "head fake" Biden knew what he was doing. what a guy!
I totally believe Trump will be reelected. And if Kevin Sorbo's "Left Behind" movie is a true prediction of events to come, those truly left behind will end up taking orders from Trump during the worst natural disaster ever: the Book of Revelation's Comet Wormwood.
Imagine being stuck on planet Earth with a comet hurtling towards you, & with all of the good people gone?
Unbelievable future prediction? If you're an advanced alien civilization (like retired Israeli space officer Professor Haim Eshed mentions) & have the ability to save around a billion people, then why wouldn't you do so?
[Of course, why not destroy Wormwood before it gets close to Earth? The idea is that the Galactic Federation cannot destroy an advancing comet because that is illegal according to interstellar law. But they can rescue a certain amount of people as a codicil to that same interstellar law.]
Those of you who are criticizing Biden for having cut the deal he did with Rep. McCarthy (hmm, “McCarthy,” that’s interesting, is his nickname Gunner Kevin?) rather than using one of two emergency options are, frankly, in error. Neither of the proposed options would have worked, and would have resulted in the country exceeding the debt limit and sent the world into an economic tailspin.
First, there is the claim that Biden could have invoked the 14th Amendment and unilaterally raised the debt limit. This proposal, endorsed by Paul Krugman, who is an economist, not a constitutional attorney, is bogus. The 14th Amendment states in Sec. 4:
“The validity of the public debt of the United States authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned.”
But this ignores Sec. 5, which states:
“The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.”
That is, the Executive does not have the power to raise the debt ceiling without the authorization of Congress, which would have required Biden to negotiate with the same radical Republicans who have been threatening to send the country into default anyway. Had Biden acted unilaterally, without Congressional approval, it would most certainly have been enjoined by a federal District Court, and the S. Ct. would have affirmed. (See, e.g., Flores v. City of Boerne, 521 U.S. 507 (1997), in which the S. Ct. held that Congress did not have the power under Sec. 5 to enact the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.) In the meantime, the U.S. would have defaulted. The 14th Amendment option was nonsense.
The second option, also endorsed by Krugman, was to have Treasury mint a platinum coin worth a trillion dollars. Really? The Treasury also could not do this unilaterally. It would have to have been approved by the Federal Reserve, which is an agency statutorily independent of the Executive. Sec. Yellen was pretty sure that Sec. Powell would reject the idea as a “gimmick.” The same idea was proposed in 2013, and was rejected by both the Treasury and the Reserve. Had Biden failed to reach an compromise with McCarthy, depending on this gimmick, the U.S. would have defaulted in the meantime.
All you pundits who are blaming Biden (head fake Biden), frankly, do not know what you are talking about (yes, I know, I’m “brainwashed”). The compromise is not nearly as bad as you are claiming - see https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2023/05/29/debt-ceiling-deal-details-foreman-vpx.cnn The work permit requirement is very limited, and does not apply to people on welfare; the claw back applies to covid funds which were not used for covid relief; and the cap on discretionary spending was inevitable anyway – unless the national debt is reduced, by 2045 50 cents of every dollar in taxes is going to pay off the interest on the national debt. Rather than wasting time on bogus options which would have failed, Biden managed to raise the debt ceiling and avoid default, with minimal concessions. All you naysayers who are accusing him of selling-out should try running for office and see if you can do a better job.
I am just waiting for the vote. If it passes with the Democrats behind it and 10 republican votes it will weaken McCarty and the Maga idiots. i'm also betting on the long run here because I expect the Democrats will retake the House and hence can amend tis deal, or better yet, repeal the whole debt limit charade.
After all this, Congress might not meet the June 5 deadline anyway. The earliest the House can pass the bill is Wednesday night. The Senate will take it up right away and could pass it by unanimous consent, but it won't due to objections from Senators Lee and Paul. They will then filibuster the bill, which will draw out the process. Unless they are out-maneuvered or cave to pressure, it will take about a week for the bill to pass out of the Senate, by which time it will be June 7, two days past the X date. Who knows what will really happen if they drag this past the June 5 deadline.
Matt Gaetz is a great strategic thinker? Wow. Who would have thunk it?
Marc, if you consult the sections of the USC I've referenced you will see that consols are legal and doable. Given the deep pockets of the domestic and international actors who have a vested interest in the US and foreign economies not going belly up, it's reasonable to assume that the acceptance of the first offering would be prearranged thereby making any negative market fears of short duration.
Also the Fed could do some quantitative easing. This may be of interest:
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2023/04/19/powell-debt-ceiling-fed-00092522
I assume Biden's initial "no negotiation" stance was a set-up for a classic Br'er Rabbit and the briar patch scenario.
The 14th Amendent makes a general statement while the debt ceiling is a statute with specific requirements. The debt not being questioned and Treasury/FED not being able to issue debt, coinage, as well as QE are different things. QE, consols, and the coin are all legal within the relevant statutes.
Powell and Yellen actually have recently equivocated on the coin, while Powell has been open to QE. If QE is doable then consols aren't that big a leap. Merely a hop and a skip from there to the coin.
I assume all this was made clear to McCarthy in private.
"Who knows what will really happen if they drag this past the June 5 deadline."
Per the 14th the FED will do QE. If matters drag out then Treasury will offer consols which will be snapped up. Our politics get interesting.
aaall,
High finance is not my area, so I am writing somewhat in the dark about this, but I am skeptical that issuing consolidated annuities (consols) in the event the debt ceiling is not raised would suffice to pay the bills that will come due as of June 5 and will amount to several $Million per day. Moreover, I do not see how quantitative easing (QE) would address the problem. Easing the availability of money and avoiding exceeding the debt limit are two separate, unrelated issues, it seems to me.
Before aaall's comments, I was completely unfamiliar w the word "consols," which I haven't looked up.
As for quantitative easing, I don't really understand what that has to do w the debt issue or how it helps. Unless it's a euphemism for printing money, handing to the agencies, and saying "pay the bills w this." And it would run counter to the Fed's raising of interest rates in an effort to bring inflation under control.
Posted the above before seeing MS's.
The Fed being willing to buy obligations at par and maintain coupons would preserve the very liquid market in treasury paper. The offer itself would likely prevent dumping so the inflation potential could be avoided.
Post a Comment