Daily Kos: "President Gimmick" and "Freezing Pay = Losing Votes "

Two front page posts. I have to agree with both. Mr. President, what in the hell are you doing?

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2010/11/29/923953/-President-Gimmick

What a lede:

WASHINGTON -- President Obama plans to announce a two-year pay freeze for civilian federal workers later Monday morning in his latest move intended to demonstrate concern over sky-high deficit spending.

So...instead of actually doing something real about "sky-high deficit spending" (like pulling out of Afghanistan and Iraq ahead of schedule), we get a symbolic gesture that will reduce federal spending by less than 0.05 percent.

And with that symbolic gesture we witness President Obama's unfortunate alter-ego, President Gimmick. President Gimmick isn't serious about solving any of our problems, he's only serious about demonstrating his desire to solve our problems.

President Gimmick doesn't offer up plans designed to do anything, he only offers up plans designed to give him zingers for his 2012 debates.

(end snip)

and

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2010/11/29/923939/-Freezing-PayLosing-Votes

As Barb already discussed, the Obama administration has endorsed a two-year freeze in federal employee pay. The proposed freeze will run through December 31st, 2012, less than two months after the 2012 elections.

Freezing the income of millions of federal employees will have negative effects on President Obama’s re-election campaign. And no, this is not because it will anger left-wing groups or discourage the activist base. Rather, it’s because this policy move will reduce the real disposable income of millions of voters through the 2012 elections.

Among all economic indicators, annual changes in real disposable income have the strongest correlation to electoral outcomes. A pay freeze would mean declining real disposable income, which is seriously bad news for an incumbent party’s electoral chances:

"In presidential elections," Princeton political scientist Larry Bartels says, "a 1 percent boost in election-year income growth has typically increased the incumbent party's vote share by about 2 percent. So an incumbent party that won 51 percent of the vote in an average economic year like 2004 would be expected to win only 46 percent in a recession year like 2008." Which is, as you may remember, pretty much exactly what happened.(...)

"A policymaker reading polls who finds that people are concerned about the deficit and says I should rein in spending and I'll get credit for that, I don't think there's evidence that'll move voters," the University of Denver's Seth Masket says. "You want to get as much money in voters' hands in the months before the election as possible."

(end snip)

But that was the deal, wasn't it Mr. President?

Talk about bi-partisan support :puke:

Which will all but assure we lose the WH. It is as though he turned his instincts and his considerable intelligence off and is relying on his advisers, unquestionably to set the course.

This is a fucking farce.

the underemployed? what about the employed in the private sector who have had their wages frozen for two years or more?
what about the gainfully employed who have seen their raises eaten up by inflation?

I am not saying that some of these people deserve a raise. I am just asking how are we, as a nation, supposed to do this?

fuck the lesser people, we aren't needed for about 2 more years.

That is exactly what the corporations (who made record profits) wants. Attack working people's wages and make the unemployed hate them for getting paid at all.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

raise in my Social Security check. That started with Bush. That is my only income but if it helps I will not gripe about it. I figure Obama has enough on his plate without my input.

that save?