Digby:
"Had the administration and the Democrats tried to fight off deficit fever when it first struck with different policies they might have succeeded in persuading the people that it's the government's job to fix the economy when the private sector fails. One wonders what would have happened if Democrats had used a different metaphor such a Krugman's, which says that when the private sector is bleeding jobs, the government steps in with a transfusion -- and that the deficit hawks in both parties are like medieval doctors applying leeches to a hemorrhaging patient. Maybe they could have shown that the function of the government is actually quite different than 'daddy' worrying about how to pay the bills. But some focus group somewhere obviously 'responded' to the family metaphor and so it goes."
Reich:
"I'm told White House political operatives are against a bold jobs plan. They believe the only jobs plan that could get through Congress would be so watered down as to have almost no impact by Election Day. They also worry the public wouldn't understand how more government spending in the near term can be consistent with long-term deficit reduction. And they fear Republicans would use any such initiative to further bash Obama as a big spender.
So rather than fight for a bold jobs plan, the White House has apparently decided it's politically wiser to continue fighting about the deficit. The idea is to keep the public focused on the deficit drama -- to convince them their current economic woes have something to do with it, decry Washington's paralysis over fixing it, and then claim victory over whatever outcome emerges from the process recently negotiated to fix it. They hope all this will distract the public's attention from the President's failure to do anything about continuing high unemployment and economic anemia."
