Newsgroup: it.politica.internazionale
Titolo: After the GOP deluge, what next for the economy?

Wednesday, Nov 3, 2010 09:01 ET
After the GOP deluge, what next for the economy?
If President Obama steers to the right on economic policy, he's taking 
the wrong lesson from the election results
By Andrew Leonard
Two years ago, President Obama came into office declaring his intent to 
seek bipartisan cooperation as he addressed the dire economic woes 
facing the United States. But with the exclusion of a tiny handful of 
"moderate" Republican senators, he was utterly rebuffed. From day one, 
Republicans attacked his stimulus plan remorselessly, derided his bank 
reform initiatives as "anti-business" and called him "socialist" for 
such actions as rescuing General Motors. Even measures that normally 
receive routine Republican support, such as tax breaks for small 
businesses, or the extension of unemployment benefits during the middle 
of a recession, were opposed at every turn.
So now the Republican "wave" has swept over the landscape, the Democrats 
have decisively lost control of the House and witnessed their majority 
in the Senate substantially weakened. But unemployment is still high and 
the economy is growing at a snail's pace. The question is thus posed: 
What is the economic policy agenda for the White House from here on out? 
Will Obama pull in his horns, cowed by defeat, and look for ways to work 
with the likely new Speaker of the House, John Boehner? Or will he 
decide that there is no point in continuing the attempts at 
accommodation that got him nowhere in the first two years, and conclude 
that he has no choice but to become more aggressive in figuring out ways 
to get the economic moving again, help the most vulnerable Americans in 
a time of hardship, and tackle the grim reality of growing income 
inequality?
In practical terms, will Obama try to raise taxes on the wealthy, boost 
infrastructure spending, and directly employ government power to create 
jobs, while protecting the consumer from the depredations of Wall 
Street, or will he swivel his focus and energy to the supposed number 
one priority of conservatives: reducing the scope and size of government?
To some extent, the question is moot. The most likely scenario for the 
next two years is gridlock. There is little hope for major legislation 
of any kind moving through Congress. Further fiscal stimulus is out of 
the question. Instead, Obama is more likely to spend the next two years 
fighting off attempts by House Republicans to roll back the 
achievements, such as they are, of his first two terms. The grim truth 
is that, outside of anything Bernanke's Federal Reserve decides to do, 
the window for effective economic policy-making is closed, for now.
But symbolically, Obama can still set a tone. His actions in the next 
few weeks will tell us much. He has yet to appoint a replacement for 
Larry Summers as Director of the National Economic Council. If, as some 
have predicted, he ends up picking a CEO for the job as part of an 
effort to prove himself more Wall Street-friendly, he will send a clear 
signal that the "anti-business" jibes have taken their toll. If, as 
hinted late last week, he abandons his effort to allow the Bush tax cuts 
for the wealthiest Americans to expire, the move will mark another 
obvious retreat. And if he suddenly restyles himself as a fiscal 
conservative, aiming to bring government spending under control, he will 
have declared outright surrender.
But what would be the point? On Tuesday night, the New York Times 
reported that on Wednesday, the president would hold a press conference 
"where he is expected to call for both parties to put aside the vitriol 
of the last several months and work together to restore the nation's 
economy." Perhaps such boilerplate is simply de rigeur for a party 
leader whose party gets walloped in a midterm election. But it also is 
remarkably reminiscent of his rhetoric upon initially taking office, and 
therefore, just as unlikely to be realized in any meaningful way. If 
there's any lesson that Republicans are going to take away from this 
election it is that vitriol and intransigence and total unwillingness to 
cooperate work -- politically, at least, if not in terms of getting 
anything done that meaningfully improves the welfare of Americans.
Nothing has changed in that dynamic. Republicans are already telling us 
that the people have "spoken" and will surely interpret the change in 
electoral fortunes as a rebuke of Obama's economic policy up to this 
point. But their success still hinges on ensuring Obama's failure. They 
will be less willing than ever to compromise, if such a stance is even 
conceivable, given that they already were "the party of no." To attempt 
to seek cooperation in such an atmosphere is a fool's game.
One of the most dispiriting data points from last night's election was 
exit polling revealing that voters who blamed the banks for the state of 
the economy were voting for Republicans. Even if you believe Obama was 
too easy on the banks, this represents a remarkable Democratic failure, 
since the banking lobby has now swung its financial support to 
Republicans, with the explicit agenda of rolling back regulatory reform, 
loosening government oversight, and fending off any increase in their 
tax burden. The banks are the big winner in his election, in part by 
capitalizing on populist anger against the banks!
Perversely, one could almost argue that one message sent by the 
Republican upsurge is that American voters don't think the government 
has done enough for Main Street. The White House response should 
therefore be to look for ways to prove that it is actually on the side 
of the working man. In the new political reality Obama's options will be 
limited: Ultimately, his freedom of an action may boil down to a 
willingness to be negative, to resolutely veto anything that 
conservatives manage to get through the House and the Senate. But if he 
wants to have any chance of winning in 2012, it's hard to see how 
cooperating with the GOP will get him there. He already tried that. It 
didn't work.
     * Andrew Leonard is a staff writer at Salon. On Twitter, 
@koxinga21. More Andrew Leonard

 the wrong lesson
l'alternativa è la splendida (per un necrofilo) stasi assoluta del
regime sovietico in fase crepuscolare....se svolta a destra, almeno si
suicida, c'è più azione che stare fermo sulla poltrona ad aspettare
l'infarto...:D

amaryllide ha scritto:

Deve solo piantarla di recitare la parte del bravo negro: ha idee e 
energie bastanti per portare quel cazzo di paese nella realtà presente.
Scommetto sulla sua intelligenza.

 Deve solo piantarla di recitare la parte del bravo negro
Pirla razzista.
Tb
-- 
Make like a Mister Milquetoast and you'll get shut out,  Make like a
Mister Meek and you'll get cut out,  Make like a little lamb, and wham,
you're shorn,  I tell ya, chum, it's time to come blow your horn.