Blog

David Sirota

By David Sirota
Political journalist, best-selling author and syndicated newspaper columnist

The last time America found itself in a budget debate pitting domestic priorities against war expenditures, Richard Nixon was in the White House and David Obey was the youngest member of Congress – an anti-war liberal whose insurgent campaign unexpectedly vaulted him into the House seat vacated by the hawkish president’s new defense secretary. In those dark days, it was the guns of Vietnam and the Cold War versus the butter of the Great Society and the War on Poverty – and despite Obey’s protests, guns won the day.

“President Nixon issued a call to counterrevolution at home,” summed up Time magazine in 1973, noting that while the Republican administration was increasing the Pentagon budget, it was proposing the “abolition or deep cutting of more than 100 federal grant programs that have benefited the unemployed, students, farmers, veterans, small businessmen, the mentally ill and tenants in federally aided housing.”

The resulting body bags and cuts to homeland investment were, of course, devastating – which is why it is fitting that Obey is choosing to end his congressional tenure where he started it: on the side of butter in a 21st century reprisal of the ancient debate.

Over the last decade, Obey has been methodically campaigning against the war in Iraq and the endless Afghanistan occupation, saying their rationales are weak, their prosecution inept and their deficit-financed costs unaffordable in the face of unmet domestic needs. For years, he valiantly has championed bills to legislate withdrawal timetables and war surtaxes. Now, with President Obama pushing a plan to boost Afghan war funding at the potential expense of economic aid at home, Obey has replaced the scalpel strokes of proactive legislation with the blunt force of filibuster.

According to Politico, Obey last week “drew a direct link between war funding and progress on domestic priorities” with his announcement that as Appropriations Committee chairman, he will “withhold action on the war funds until there (is) some resolution on a major economic relief bill extending jobless benefits.”

Like clockwork, the move was met with hypocritical hysteria. The same Republican Party that bewails deficits responded with a letter asking Defense Secretary Robert Gates to champion the deficit-exploding war-funding bill in order to avoid “undermining” the military. Gates, despite just having called for defense spending cuts, obediently complied. “Gates to Congress: Stalling on War Funding Will Hurt U.S. Troops,” read the Fox News headline after he publicly echoed the GOP demands.

The Nation’s Chris Hayes has written that such tripe boils down to “You’re either with the war or you are against the troops” – and as the bloated Pentagon budget proves, that message has thwarted Obey for most of his life.

Until, perhaps, now.

Yes, just as Obey prepares to retire, there are signs that his crusade is winning converts. For instance, Oklahoma Republican Sen. Tom Coburn is using his position on President Obama’s deficit commission to focus attention on Pentagon profligacy. Similarly, Politico reports that “key tea party players (are) expressing a willingness to put the Pentagon budget on the chopping block.”

Whether or not the cacophony stops the Pentagon’s latest blank check is less important than Obey finally having rekindled an honest discussion about guns and butter. In a 41-year career of venerable accomplishments, that is the most profound achievement of all.

***

David Sirota is a former spokesperson for the House Appropriations Committee. He is the bestselling author of the books “Hostile Takeover” (2006) and “The Uprising” (2008). E-mail him at ds@davidsirota.com or follow him on Twitter @davidsirota. This is his latest column for Creators Syndicate.

David Sirota

 

Author of “The Uprising: An Unauthorized Tour of the Populists Revolt”

When they write their retrospectives about the era that ended with the 2008 election, economic historians will undoubtedly credit George W. Bush with almost single-handedly moving the country to embrace extremist conservatism. It’s a simple storyline: Cowboy president drives bewildered American herd over laissez-faire cliff. What such reductionism will ignore, though, is what we must remember now: namely, that Congress also played a decisive role in the stampede.

As former House Republican leader Tom DeLay said, he and his colleagues deliberately started “every policy initiative from as far to the political right” as possible, so as to shift “the center farther to the right.” The formula emulated Franklin D. Roosevelt’s fabled admonishment to allies: “I agree with you, I want to do it, now make me do it.”

Of course, that triumph was the country’s loss, as Republican policies thrust the political center off a conservative precipice and America into an economic freefall. And as we plummet, we are desperately groping for a lifeline.

If we are lucky and we end up snagging one that saves us – a huge if – it will be one that is strong enough to snap the center back from the conservative brink. This super-durable bungee cord must have the force of law, meaning it will be woven by Democratic legislators now exerting as much pressure on President Obama’s left as congressional Republicans focused on President Bush’s right.

When, for instance, Obama hedged on his promise to revoke $226 billion worth of Bush’s upper-income tax cuts, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-San Francisco, pushed him to fulfill the pledge and put the money into programs that better guarantee job creation.

When Obama initially offered up a stimulus bill filled with discredited business tax breaks, Democratic senators forced him to back off. Reps. David Obey, D-Wis., and Jim Oberstar, D-Minn., then argued that the president’s proposed infrastructure investments were too small to boost the economy. That led House Democrats to increase Obama’s spending targets.

As stimulus negotiations continued, Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., tried to add provisions letting courts renegotiate banks’ primary-residence mortgages so as to prevent more foreclosures. It’s a commonsense proposal: Judges already have the power to renegotiate vacation-home mortgages, and the New York Federal Reserve Bank says existing bankruptcy laws are exacerbating the foreclosure crisis. While Obama opposed the initiative out of fear that banking industry opposition might slow the underlying stimulus bill, Conyers’ effort ultimately made the president commit to supporting the reforms in future legislation.

Then there was the progressive reaction to Obama’s demand for more financial bailout money. Turning a routine committee hearing into a modern-day incarnation of the Great Depression’s Pecora Commission, Rep. Alan Grayson, D-Fla., upbraided a Federal Reserve official for refusing to disclose which banks are receiving taxpayer dollars. The spectacle was one of many that whipped the House into passing a bill attaching strings to the funds. Obama responded by committing to enact some of the restrictions by fiat.

At once complementary and adversarial, this intragovernmental squabbling probably makes the conflict-averse Obama uncomfortable. But the “make him do it” dynamic could finally bring the center of Washington’s political debate closer to the progressive center of American public opinion. Even more important, it is precisely what will help the new president avert an economic disaster.

David Sirota is the best-selling author of the books “Hostile Takeover” (2006) and “The Uprising” (2008).