2011 is not 1995

[phantom power]

So why were Reid and Obama so eager to celebrate Boehner’s compromise with his conservative members? The Democrats believe it’s good to look like a winner, even if you’ve lost. But they’re sacrificing more than they let on. By celebrating spending cuts, they’ve opened the door to further austerity measures at a moment when the recovery remains fragile. Claiming political victory now opens the door to further policy defeats later.

And policy defeats are what will matter. The Obama White House is looking toward the Clinton model. After all, Clinton also suffered a major setback in his first midterm, Clinton also faced down a hardline Republican Congress, Clinton also suffered major policy defeats, and yet Clinton, as the story goes, managed to co-opt the conservative agenda and remake himself into a successful centrist. The Obama administration has even hired many of Clinton’s top aides to help them recapture that late-90s magic.

That story misses something important: Clinton’s success was a function of a roaring economy. The late ‘90s were a boom time like few others -- and not just in America. The unemployment rate was less than 6 percent in 1995, and fell to under 5 percent in 1996. Cutting deficits was the right thing to do at that time. Deficits should be low to nonexistent when the economy is strong, and larger when it is weak. The Obama administration’s economists know that full well. They are, after all, the very people who worked to balance the budget in the 1990s, and who fought to expand the deficit in response to the recession.

Right now, the economy is weak. Giving into austerity will weaken it further, or at least delay recovery for longer. And if Obama does not get a recovery, then he will not be a successful president, no matter how hard he works to claim Boehner’s successes as his own. Clinton’s speeches were persuasive because the labor market did a lot of his talking for him. But when unemployment is stuck at eight percent, there’s no such thing as a great communicator.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/2011-is-not-1995/2011/04/06/AFxPaT5C_blog.html

[Drale]

1. I think I would take the 1995 congress

over todays tea bagger infested congress any day.

[zbdent]

8. Just give me the 1995 media ...

at least then, the "liberally-biased media" was actually somewhat (although in miniscule amounts) "moderate", sometimes sticking the toe into the water of "liberally-biased" ...

[nashville_brook]

2. Ezra gets it right again.

[TacticalPeek]

3. "Clinton also faced down a hardline Republican Congress"

'Also'?

Also, like as if Obama faced down *anybody*, ever? I don't think that word means what Ezra thinks it means.


President Clinton, 1995:

Five months ago I proposed my balanced budget plan. It balances the budget in the right way. It cuts hundreds of wasteful and outdated programs. But it upholds our fundamental values to provide opportunity, to respect our obligations to our parents and our children, to strengthen families and to strengthen America, because it preserves Medicare and Medicaid, it invests in education and technology, it protects the environment and it gives the tax cuts to working families for child-rearing and for education.

Unfortunately, Republican leaders in Washington have put ideology ahead of common sense and shared values in their pursuit of a budget plan. We can balance the budget without doing what they seek to do. We can balance the budget without the deep cuts in education, without the deep cuts in the environment, without letting Medicare whither on the vine, without imposing tax increases on the hardest-pressed working families in America.

I am fighting for a balanced budget that is good for America and consistent with our values. If they'll give me the tools I'll balance the budget.

I vetoed the spending bill sent to me by Congress last night because America can never accept under pressure what it would not accept in free and open debate. I strongly believe their budget plan is bad for America. I believe it will undermine opportunity, make it harder for families to do the work that they have to do, weaken our obligations to our parents and our children, and make our country more divided. So I will continue to fight for the right kind of balanced budget.

Remember, the Republicans are following a very explicit strategy announced last April by Speaker Gingrich to use the threat of a government shutdown to force America to accept their cuts in Medicare and Medicaid, to accept their cuts in education and technology and the environment.

Yesterday they sent me legislation that said, we will only keep the government going and we will only let it pay its debts if, and only if, we accept their cuts in Medicare, their cuts in education, their cuts in the environment, and their repeal of 25 years of bipartisan commitments to protect the environment and public health.

On behalf of the American people, I said no. If America has to close down access to education, to a clean environment, to affordable health care to keep our government open, then the price is too high.


http://clinton6.nara.gov/1995/11/1995-11-14-for-the-record-president-on-government-shutdown.html


C-span3 today played video of some key moments in the 95-96 shutdowns. They are also up at their website. Ezra should take the time to review these, and see how well it can work when you know what you believe in and have advanced political skills.

http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/FederalGove

You have to stand for something!

:kick:

[RC]

4. I'm thinking Obama and Reid should read this.

Maybe out loud to each other.

[stevedeshazer]

7. Excellent post.

That is a great reminder.

+1

[OHdem10]

5. The Federal Government will be laying off workers exactly

as the States are laying off workers.

Are they trying to cancel out any growth by the Private
Sector???

[xchrom]

6. Recommend