How the Tea Party won the debt deal, Sen. Bernie Sanders: Why I Voted No

From: earthactionnetwork@earthlink.net

 
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/aug/02/tea-party-debt-deal

 

How the Tea Party won the debt deal

The Tea Party first captured the Republican party, then redefined the debt debate. Democrats must stop whining and start copying

 

Paul Harris

guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 2 August 2011 21.30 BST

 

It is time for liberals to praise the Tea Party, not to bury it.

 

Not for what it does, of course. The American left – and indeed, much of the not-so-left – is still reeling in shock from a debt ceiling deal that sees billions of dollars shaved off government spending programmes for the needy without a single cent of extra taxes for the rich. But American liberals should certainly admire how the Tea Party has achieved its goals, and give praise where praise is due. Then copy it.

 

When judged by its own aims, the Tea Party movement has been a remarkable success. It has bubbled up from ordinary voters fuelled by outrage and formed around a coherent set of simply explained beliefs (small government, no taxes, fear of socialism). Then, it set about taking over one of the two big American political parties. With that achieved, it has set about bending the entire political and economic system of the most powerful nation on earth to its will. It has done that with an iron discipline, a willingness to take political risks and an intolerance for ideological compromise that would have left Lenin impressed (not that he would have been welcomed at meetings).

 

Let's also not forget that even though the recent debt deal represented a spectacular cave by the Democrats and President Barack Obama, many in the Tea Party were still unhappy with it. Such is their genius that the Tea Partiers – on the back of a huge victory – were still able to feel like victims. The Tea Party has the will to do things in a way that the left in America currently does not. They have taken the old leftist battle cry of "Organise! Organise! Organise!" and done just that. Not for them the mass emails, spot protests and petition-signings of top liberal pressure groups. Not for them obeying their political elites. Instead, using the primary system, they have made sure that virtually any Republican candidate aspiring to office has either to be of the Tea Party or to pay homage to it. They put up their own candidates, fight tooth and nail for their beliefs against traditional Republicans, and then either win or make sure their agenda is agreed to.

 

After the midterm elections of 2010 put many Tea Partiers into high office, they then set about dragging the system rightwards. Ably assisted by a president who has fetishised compromise in the same way the Marquis De Sade liked a good spanking, they made positions that used to be considered rightwing into the middle ground.

 

The only way for the left to fight back is to do the same to the Democratic party. Constantly rowing for the middle isn't working anymore. Not when the middle sits so far to the right. If liberals want to be relevant in the Democratic party, they need to start ousting traditional Democratic candidates in the primaries. Just as the Tea Party has done with the Republicans. They need to create a loud and clear voice that makes unreasonable demands and fights for them. In short, the president needs to be afraid of his left, not just of the right.

 

Only in that way can the American body politic be dragged back from its constant rightward drift. But, critics will ask, what about the vital independent voters? To which I respond on two levels. First, the Tea Party has not won its victories from the middle ground. If political success in the US requires holding the centre, then someone should tell the Tea Party, because they have been doing very well by ignoring it. Second, just look at where Obama's race to the "centre" has got him. Actual policy is just as important as simple politics.

 

Obama won in 2008. He may win next year. But on the way, he has agreed to a vast extension of tax cuts for the rich. He has sealed a debt deal that slashes government spending on the poor but raises nothing from the wealthy. His healthcare reforms wrote a blank cheque to the insurance industry and failed to create a public option that would have controlled spiralling costs. Who on the left could be proud of that? If that is what being an Obama Democrat means in 2011, why not just vote Republican?

 

Liberals need to stop whining and moaning about the Tea Party. They should stop getting angry at it. They should start getting even with it.

 

------------------

 

http://www.readersupportednews.org/opinion2/279-82/6911-why-i-voted-no-on-the-deficit-deal

Why I Voted No on the Deficit Deal

By Sen. Bernie Sanders,

Reader Supported News: 05 August 11 

$2.5 trillion deficit-reduction deal brokered by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, House Speaker John Boehner, and President Barack Obama is grotesquely unfair. It also is bad economic policy. In the midst of a terrible recession, it will cost hundreds of thousands of jobs.

At a time when the wealthiest people in this country are doing extremely well, and when their effective tax rate is the lowest in decades, the rich won't contribute one penny more for deficit reduction. When corporate profits are soaring and many giant corporations avoid federal income taxes because of obscene loopholes in the tax code, corporate America will not be asked to contribute one penny more for deficit reduction. On the other hand, working families, children, the sick and the elderly - many of whom are already suffering because of the recession - will shoulder the entire burden.

The corporate media - which, by and large, covered this debate as if it were a baseball game with political "winners and losers" - mostly glossed over the real-life implications of $917 billion in cuts over the next 10 years. Nobody can predict exactly what programs will fall under the knife or say how much they will be cut. Those decisions will be made over the coming months and years by the appropriations committees. But here's what's at stake:

*  At a time when there are long waiting lists for affordable childcare and Head Start, it is likely that these programs will be cut significantly.

*  At a time when the United States is falling further and further behind other countries in the quality of our education, it is likely that tens of thousands of teachers and school personnel will be laid off.

*  At a time when working families are finding it harder to send their kids to college, it is likely that there will be cuts in federal student aid programs.

*  At a time when hunger among seniors and children is rising, it is likely that there will be cuts in various nutrition programs.

*  At a time when 50 million Americans have no health insurance and many of them are utilizing community health centers for their medical needs, it is likely that there will be cuts in primary healthcare.

At a time when states, cities and towns already laid off over 500,000 public service employees, it is likely that there will be even more police and firefighter layoffs and large reductions in federal support for roads, bridges, water quality, sewage and public transportation.

That's just for starters. There likely will be cuts in home heating assistance, affordable housing, support for family-based agriculture, and research in finding cures for cancer and other diseases. There likely will be major staffing reductions in agencies charged with protecting the physical health and economic well-being of our people. It is quite likely that the EPA, which enforces clean water and clean air rules, will be cut. The Securities and Exchange Commission, which regulates Wall Street, will be undermined. It is also very possible that the Social Security Administration, which assures that seniors and the disabled receive the benefits to which they are entitled in a timely manner, will also be cut.

That is just the first round of $900 billion in cuts.

In the second phase of the $2.5 trillion package, sweeping new powers are given to a 12-member, evenly-divided House and Senate super committee. The panel's mandate is to look at every federal government program and come up with $1.5 trillion more in savings. With Republicans and an increasing number of Democrats calling for major cuts in Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, all of those programs will be in jeopardy.

If the committee is unable to agree, cuts will happen anyway. A sequestration process would require $500 billion in cuts to defense spending and $500 billion more in across-the-board cuts to domestic discretionary spending. In that scenario, Social Security, Medicare benefits and Medicaid would be spared, but even more draconian cuts would occur in programs that sustain working families.

There is a great irony in all this. The deficit deal does exactly the opposite of what the American people wanted. In poll after poll, the American people said they believe in shared sacrifice. Instead of putting Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, education and environmental protection on the chopping block, overwhelming majorities say the best way to reduce the deficit is to end tax breaks for the wealthy, big oil, and Wall Street and take a hard look at military spending. What President Obama and Congress did, however was to let the wealthy and large corporations contribute nothing while making major reductions in services for working families and the most vulnerable people in our country.

Enough is enough! The American people must fight back. We need a government which represents all the people, not just the wealthy, campaign contributors and lobbyists. In these tough and discouraging times, despair is not an option. This fight is not just for us, it is for our children and grandchildren and for the environmental survival of the planet.