Wealth, Populism, and Obama's Credibility

Watching the speech President Obama gave last night on the deficit cum debt ceiling debate, in addition to noticing how tone deaf to the reported state of the negotiations, I was struck by one specific line. While castigating the republicans for seeking to unfairly heap the burdens of deficit reduction on the poor and middle class, he rhetorically asked "How can we slash funding for education and clean energy before we ask people like me to give up tax breaks we don't need and didn't ask for?" (emphasis added).

"People like me," obviously, refers to the "millionaires and billionaires" earning $250,000+ annually, who the President would like to see start to carry an increased tax burden. A curious group for the President to name himself a member of while he tries to rally the support of those well outside that tax bracket. Nor is this the first time that Obama has drawn attention to his own personal affluence: During one of the primary debates back in 2007, he cracked a joke related to his book sales. At the time, it was an amusing and refreshing way to couch the tax argument he was making, lending himself credibility on understanding the personal finances of the wealthy and peremptorily deflecting accusations of class warfare. Almost four years later, the charm and originality has worn off.

Instead of lending credibility, it seems that constantly reminding the American people that he is substantially wealthier than most of them will ever be saps Obama of it. The upper classes with whom he identifies in those moments has, by and large, rejected his entreaties, and considering that he earned his money through activities that don't trickle down much (book writing versus, say, running a sales business), he can't effectively rebut the main argument lodged against his tax position, that it would overly burden job creators. All that's left, then, is a reminder for the average Joe that the President identifies with a different class, feeding into the charges of elitism that have dogged him ever since he first ran for the Presidency.

What makes this approach so mystifying is that the Obama earned much of that money telling the story of how he was once much like the middle class voters he so desperately wants to connect with. He demonstrated during the health care debate that he is capable of drawing upon his own personal narrative to further the cause (even if that narrative might be embellished). Yet on the deficit and the economy, on the issue where he can do the most good for the people he professes to want to help, there he is, constantly reminding the people that he is no longer like them, that he has already risen above their level. But why?

Democrats should pass the balanced-budget amendment

As the doomsday clock ticks down on America's debt limit, some members of the republican party - whether on account of pre-existing delusions or simply being emboldened by concessions offered thus far - have taken their demands to another level, insisting that any debt-limit increase be predicated ont he passage of a balanced budget amendment that would cap federal government spending at 18% of the previous year's GDP. As the Washington Post's Ezra Klein has amply eplained, this is a magnificently terrible idea, and congressional democrats are understandably anathema to the thought of crippling the government's ability to provide for an aging population. But being opposed to the plan doesn't have to entail voting against it. Quite to the contrary, were I a democrat, I would insist on passing a simple one-for-one trade of raising (or, ideally, abolishing) the debt limit in exchange for passing the amendment currently under consideration.

If this seems odd, remember how amending the Constitution works: Congress, via a 2/3 majority, can propose amendments to the Constitution, which are then sent to the states to be considered by the individual states either in their legislatures or in special ratifying conventions, where 3/4 of the states (38 total, for those who don't have a calculator on hand), must vote in favor of the amendment. Does anyone actually have any concern that may happen? Between the democratic bastions on the West Coast and in the Northeast, you have already have 14 states that would in all likelihood vote against - 2 more than are needed to block any amendment. One can also realistically expect purplish states such as Colorado, Missouri, and maybe even Virginia to vote against such a radical proposal. So not only would the democrats get their debt limit increase for free, they could also let the tea party republicans walk into a embarrassing defeat at the hands of the people if and when a majority of states vote against them.

The more substantive concern is one of intraparty politics, and what kind of blowback congressional democrats would face from the left if they voted for a measure so abhorrent to their party identity. Yet with proper messaging, this sort of tumult can be pretty easily sidestepped. It would be most entertaining to see the democrats simply admit they were voting in favor of the amendment to watch republicans stumble at the ratification stage, but that's not really a viable approach since the right could use that as an excuse to scuttle the deal. More plausibly, one can look the ratification of the 18th amendment for guidance: many lawmakers who were ambivalent towards, or even outright opposed to prohibition were cajoled into voting in favor of its submission to the states on the grounds that their vote was not for the amendment, but for letting the people make their voice heard. Obviously, given the vehement opposition to the amendment provided thus far, the democratic caucus can't simply pull an about-face, but framing the compromise as giving voice to the American people rather than gutting their government should be a perfectly adequate post hoc justification when the time comes to deflect challenges from the left.

The tea party caucus, in its seemingly unending naivete, is offering the democrats a magnificent opportunity. Too bad they're just as reflexively shortsighted as their counterparts on the right.

UPDATE: President Obama is apparently threatening to veto the balanced budget amendment is passed as part of a debt limit deal, so it looks like my idea is even more moot than it was when originally posted.

Dahlia Lithwick's irresponsible impugnation of the Supreme Court

Dahlia Lithwick's latest article over at Slate has me confused. In it, she decries three 5-4 decisions from the past Supreme Court term, Wal-Mart v. Dukes, AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion, and Janus Capital Group Inc. v. First Derivatives Traders. What, exactly, is Ms. Lithwick's problem with these decision? In her own words: "The greatest impact of the Wal-Mart decision isn't the blow dealt to class-action suits. It's the guidance it provides employers" (This sentiment permeates the article, and is every bit as applicable to the AT&T and Janus cases as to Wal-mart).

This argument baffles me. The entire point of written opinions, rather than simple judgments, is to expose the court's reasoning and bring clarity to the law. If one disagrees with that judgment or reasoning, then yes, the opinion may well look like a guide to being evil. But to actually ascribe such malicious intent to the court only undermines its legitimacy. That may sound like a good idea when it's issuing opinions you don't like, but it's unlikely to stop at just those.