Paul Krugman says “These spending cuts are going to worsen unemployment…There is no light at the end of this tunnel.” And he’s certainly right that the debt deal has no spending that will help the economy. (Interest rates are plenty low already so there’s no relief in that respect.) The Washington Post thinks this deal might be a win for Obama, but I think the depressed economy next November will more than offset any temporary change in his image among centrists.

The deeper question I’m left wondering is: Could progressives have changed this outcome? Crucially, economic stimulus (or “investment” if you want to be on-message) was not even on the table. There was no concerted effort by left-wing groups to put it on the table. While I can’t be sure, I think a big reason that progressives didn’t even try to force a deal that included short-term spending and long-term savings was the President’s stance. Fostering economic growth via this round of dealmaking seems like a lost cause when the chief negotiator on your side says:

Government has to start living within its means, just like families do. We have to cut the spending we can’t afford so we can put the economy on sounder footing, and give our businesses the confidence they need to grow and create jobs.

So while I’m not sure what we (progressives) could have done differently in this round, I know our goal for the next round: make sure the President uses his veto-power leverage on the expiring Bush tax cuts to spread out the burden of “living within [our] means” (i.e., revenue increases via the wealthy). Which, unfortunately, still won’t help our flagging economy much. Welcome to America’s lost decade.