New Gingrich is silly, or, as he would describe himself, "cheerful." Mitt Romney is "resolute" which is in fact just the opposite of what Mitt Romney actually is, chameleon-esque (I just made up a word!). Rick Santorum, the man who may just be the Republican front runner in a few days is downright scary.
The man isn't running a political campaign, he's running a crusade. He wants to set women's rights and gay rights back a century, and he's ready to impose his misplaced set of values on the entire country - there is something strangely gratifying about listening to these people lambast government involvement in our lives only to immediately follow it up with how they would make everything from sex to voting illegal...really the government should only be in our lives when it is being used as a tool to strip our rights rather than empower us.
Santorum's position as a Republican front runner is both exciting and terrifying. It's exciting because in all likelihood the man would lose in a landslide to Obama in November; it's terrifying because if he were somehow to win he would attempt to turn America into a backwards looking theocracy. As Maureen Dowd quoted Republican strategist Alex Castellanos in her column today, "Republicans being against sex is not good. Sex is popular."
Sex is not the only thing Santorum is against, today he came out against "indoctrination mills," er colleges. Blue collar, hard-working man that he is, Santorum is all about the American dream, but he is against having students go to college because that is the most certain way to ensure that Americans still have a chance at achieving the American dream. In the backwards, convoluted world of Republican theory it makes perfect sense; you just have to think about it for a very, very long time...
Now that you're done pondering that, spend just a moment on how Santorum has now come out strongly against two things wildly popular among Americans: sex and college. Before you know it he will be taking a stand against baseball, Budweiser, and probably amber waves of grain.
Mr. Cheerful is advocating for moon bases (it's seriously his only good idea, I mean that. Clown that he is, the moon base deserves more thought). Mr. Who-Am-I is currently trying his hardest to shoot himself in the foot in Michigan where he is on the warpath against the bailouts that not only saved but also completely revitalized the auto industry (thank you Mr. Bush and Mr. Obama for making the difficult and courageous decision to save the auto industry). Newt and Mitt make for good comedy, but Rick is scary. His social values belong in a time long past in the City-Upon-A-Hill. There is no place for his antiquated social views in today's public sphere. If he wants to be abstinent and home-schooled in private more power to him, but please try to keep the crazy at home.
I'm hoping for a Rick Santorum victory in Michigan's primary, but only because I still believe that Romney is Obama's greatest threat. After having observed the Republican candidates for the past few months I am now convinced that - among those remaining - Santorum is America's greatest threat. There are still a few good nuggets among the worn-out Republican economic ideas that all of the candidates rehash in monotonous, unimaginative terms day after day, but this country has nothing to gain from Santorum's extreme social conservatism. When you go to the polls whether in the primaries or the general election, please vote for sex, not Santorum.
Sunday, February 26, 2012
Thursday, February 23, 2012
The Circus Comes to Town
I used to think "the Situation" was an idiot, then I started following the Republican debates, the most recent of which took place last night in Arizona and was another shining example of the filth the Republican party is peddling.
You think that Americans would be sick of outdated economic ideology that has been tried and found wanting. The solutions being offered are actually the same prescriptions that led us down the toilet, but at least on the plane of economic theory, the candidates are able to bob and weave their way through a field with a measure of subjectivity. When it comes to objectivity and facts, the Republican field scrambles like there's an electric fire in the kitchen and they just tried to douse it with water. It's high comedy cloaking a "severe" lack of intellect and integrity.
How can Rick Santorum take the moral low road on an issue like contraception when he voted for bills that provided funding for contraception? How is it that Mitt Romney, job creator, was vehemently opposed to the bailouts that saved the auto industry? Can someone please give me an example of how Obama is "appeasing" Iran? And for god's sake fellas, if you're going to talk about repealing Obamacare can you at least cite one nonpartisan study, just one that shows that it will actually save money? I'll answer that one for you, no, you cannot, because all nonpartisan analyses of the law have concluded it will save the nation money.
I'm serious when I say that the best idea I've heard any of the Republican candidates offer is Newt Gingrich's moon base. There are about 100 reasons not to like Newt Gingrich, but at least on the moon base he's looking forward instead of backwards. It's the only fresh idea I've heard a Republican candidate offer during the whole process. Still, Gingrich, like the rest of the field is dismissible as the leader of the free world, or for that matter, as the leader of the local country club. I'm pretty sure the only place I'd follow any of the current Republican candidates is off a cliff which makes perfect sense since that is where they're trying to take the country anyhow.
There are reasons to be dissatisfied with Obama and the Democrats, there are Republican ideas that warrant more attention and respect than they are getting, and somewhere out in the intellectual and moral void that is the conservative there must be a few sane voices wondering what happened to their party. In fact I'd be willing to bet that there are quite a few of those people who are simply overwhelmed and drowned out by the idiots who have hijacked their party and stepped into the national media spotlight. I hope for America's sake that those people find the fortitude to take the Republican party back and start pushing for good Republican ideals. I'm looking at you Chris Christie, Mitch Daniels, and Mitt Romney circa 1994.
Until that happens or the nation sours on the far right's latest crop of loony toons, we'll be forced to endure more events like last night's farcical circus. I've said it before, and I'll say it again: America deserves better than the outdated and too often immoral ideas being peddled to us by the Republican party.
You think that Americans would be sick of outdated economic ideology that has been tried and found wanting. The solutions being offered are actually the same prescriptions that led us down the toilet, but at least on the plane of economic theory, the candidates are able to bob and weave their way through a field with a measure of subjectivity. When it comes to objectivity and facts, the Republican field scrambles like there's an electric fire in the kitchen and they just tried to douse it with water. It's high comedy cloaking a "severe" lack of intellect and integrity.
How can Rick Santorum take the moral low road on an issue like contraception when he voted for bills that provided funding for contraception? How is it that Mitt Romney, job creator, was vehemently opposed to the bailouts that saved the auto industry? Can someone please give me an example of how Obama is "appeasing" Iran? And for god's sake fellas, if you're going to talk about repealing Obamacare can you at least cite one nonpartisan study, just one that shows that it will actually save money? I'll answer that one for you, no, you cannot, because all nonpartisan analyses of the law have concluded it will save the nation money.
I'm serious when I say that the best idea I've heard any of the Republican candidates offer is Newt Gingrich's moon base. There are about 100 reasons not to like Newt Gingrich, but at least on the moon base he's looking forward instead of backwards. It's the only fresh idea I've heard a Republican candidate offer during the whole process. Still, Gingrich, like the rest of the field is dismissible as the leader of the free world, or for that matter, as the leader of the local country club. I'm pretty sure the only place I'd follow any of the current Republican candidates is off a cliff which makes perfect sense since that is where they're trying to take the country anyhow.
There are reasons to be dissatisfied with Obama and the Democrats, there are Republican ideas that warrant more attention and respect than they are getting, and somewhere out in the intellectual and moral void that is the conservative there must be a few sane voices wondering what happened to their party. In fact I'd be willing to bet that there are quite a few of those people who are simply overwhelmed and drowned out by the idiots who have hijacked their party and stepped into the national media spotlight. I hope for America's sake that those people find the fortitude to take the Republican party back and start pushing for good Republican ideals. I'm looking at you Chris Christie, Mitch Daniels, and Mitt Romney circa 1994.
Until that happens or the nation sours on the far right's latest crop of loony toons, we'll be forced to endure more events like last night's farcical circus. I've said it before, and I'll say it again: America deserves better than the outdated and too often immoral ideas being peddled to us by the Republican party.
Sunday, February 19, 2012
Basic Rights
Generally, I prefer to think of basic human and civil rights as political non-starters. We hold these truths to be self-evident, basic unalienable rights, governments instituted among men, etc. You know how it goes. The United States of America has been, still is, and should continue to be the world's moral beacon. When it comes to human rights there should not be a conversation because in this country we believe that all people are created equal. Right?
Not necessarily. Chris Christie, one of the few Republicans for whom I have a bit of grudging respect went a long way towards undermining that respect Friday when he vetoed a bill that would have legalized gay marriage in New Jersey. Christie, whose rhetoric makes it seem like he actually wanted to sign the bill but caved to political pressure, is just the latest example of someone who is willing to play politics with the lives and emotions of human beings.
That gay marriage is some sort of contentious topic is a national embarrassment to begin with; imagine someone posed the question "should we legally discriminate against people based on the color of their skin?" Would you even consider the question? Should we legally discriminate against people based on their gender? Their religion? Should we legally discriminate against certain people for ANY reason? I can't think of one. Perhaps we should legally discriminate against bigots.
Sadly however, in most of America, we do legally discriminate against gay people. There are only seven states in which gay marriage is legal. Even if Christie hadn't cowardly and deplorably vetoed the bill legalizing gay marriage in New Jersey, that state still would have only been the eighth in which gay marriage would have been legal. Seven of 50 states. That's 14%. In 14% of America are gay people allowed the same rights as straight people. That is a national embarrassment.
This isn't a conversation we should be having. Unemployment is still through the roof; we need to speed up the economic recovery, reduce the deficit, reinvest in infrastructure and education, becoming energy independent, and address an array of national security threats, but instead we are wasting our time arguing about whether or not gay Americans should have the same basic rights as the rest of us.
I understand that much of the uproar against gay marriage comes from conservative religious communities. I believe that those who oppose gay marriage on religious grounds have sincere and closely held beliefs. I believe that they are entitled to those beliefs, and I believe that they should be allowed to express those beliefs. Never, ever, not in a million years should we let those beliefs, no matter how sincere they are, effect policy that creates a subgroup of citizens. If a devout religious person wants to buy a van and take it on a nationwide "God Hates Gays" tour, so be it. In America, we protect the right to free speech just as we should be protecting the right of all people to get married. We should not allow those religious beliefs to effect policy that strips people of rights based on their sexuality.
During the height of the Civil Rights Movement in the 1960s Americans debated whether or not we should discriminate against certain Americans because of the color of their skin. When I reflect upon that time in my nation's history I find myself in awe of the heroes who risked their lives for equality, but I also view the whole episode as an ugly blight in American history. People actually had to die in order for this country to treat African Americans as equal citizens? We actually had this debate? There was a time, not even that long ago, in which we legally discriminated against people because of the color of their skin? This is abhorrent. My parents, who lived through the 1960s struggled to explain to me when I was a child why it was that America once allowed racial segregation. One day I am going to have to explain to my children why it was that America once denied people equal rights based on their sexuality. I'm sure when that day comes, my children will be just as confused about it as I was as a kid trying to understand why we ever treated African-Americans as second class citizens.
Gay marriage is a non-starter. There is no other side to the issue. All Americans deserve the same basic rights. There's nothing more to be said.
Not necessarily. Chris Christie, one of the few Republicans for whom I have a bit of grudging respect went a long way towards undermining that respect Friday when he vetoed a bill that would have legalized gay marriage in New Jersey. Christie, whose rhetoric makes it seem like he actually wanted to sign the bill but caved to political pressure, is just the latest example of someone who is willing to play politics with the lives and emotions of human beings.
That gay marriage is some sort of contentious topic is a national embarrassment to begin with; imagine someone posed the question "should we legally discriminate against people based on the color of their skin?" Would you even consider the question? Should we legally discriminate against people based on their gender? Their religion? Should we legally discriminate against certain people for ANY reason? I can't think of one. Perhaps we should legally discriminate against bigots.
Sadly however, in most of America, we do legally discriminate against gay people. There are only seven states in which gay marriage is legal. Even if Christie hadn't cowardly and deplorably vetoed the bill legalizing gay marriage in New Jersey, that state still would have only been the eighth in which gay marriage would have been legal. Seven of 50 states. That's 14%. In 14% of America are gay people allowed the same rights as straight people. That is a national embarrassment.
This isn't a conversation we should be having. Unemployment is still through the roof; we need to speed up the economic recovery, reduce the deficit, reinvest in infrastructure and education, becoming energy independent, and address an array of national security threats, but instead we are wasting our time arguing about whether or not gay Americans should have the same basic rights as the rest of us.
I understand that much of the uproar against gay marriage comes from conservative religious communities. I believe that those who oppose gay marriage on religious grounds have sincere and closely held beliefs. I believe that they are entitled to those beliefs, and I believe that they should be allowed to express those beliefs. Never, ever, not in a million years should we let those beliefs, no matter how sincere they are, effect policy that creates a subgroup of citizens. If a devout religious person wants to buy a van and take it on a nationwide "God Hates Gays" tour, so be it. In America, we protect the right to free speech just as we should be protecting the right of all people to get married. We should not allow those religious beliefs to effect policy that strips people of rights based on their sexuality.
During the height of the Civil Rights Movement in the 1960s Americans debated whether or not we should discriminate against certain Americans because of the color of their skin. When I reflect upon that time in my nation's history I find myself in awe of the heroes who risked their lives for equality, but I also view the whole episode as an ugly blight in American history. People actually had to die in order for this country to treat African Americans as equal citizens? We actually had this debate? There was a time, not even that long ago, in which we legally discriminated against people because of the color of their skin? This is abhorrent. My parents, who lived through the 1960s struggled to explain to me when I was a child why it was that America once allowed racial segregation. One day I am going to have to explain to my children why it was that America once denied people equal rights based on their sexuality. I'm sure when that day comes, my children will be just as confused about it as I was as a kid trying to understand why we ever treated African-Americans as second class citizens.
Gay marriage is a non-starter. There is no other side to the issue. All Americans deserve the same basic rights. There's nothing more to be said.
Monday, February 13, 2012
Bringing back Communism
The Republican party isn't much for fun unless one thinks old white men and sweater vests constitute a good time. When the stodgy and the clueless get together one of their favorite pastimes is peddling to Americans outdated ideology dominated by the looming specter of "communism" which is currently embodied by President Obama and occasionally by his shape-shifting foil Mitt Romney.
Communism is scary! I don't really know why, but it is. I, for one, live in constant fear of Cuba, and I take a few minutes everyday to remind myself how incompatible "communism" is with our rigidly defined and unwavering set of American values.
Sometimes, just for fun, I like to take the time to reflect on how bizarre it is that the Republican party spends so much time ranting and raving about it while simultaneously trying to enact policies that almost seem designed to create an American proletariat.
Most recently there has been outrage over the provision in the new Obamacare law which stipulates that non-profits affiliated with religious institutions (Catholic hospitals) must over insurance plans that cover contraceptives. This is very offensive to the Catholic establishment, and I accept that their strong feelings are legitimately based in their religious beliefs and sense of morality. Nevertheless, that does not make them right.
But this post is not about the specifics of Catholics and their views on contraception. Rather it is about how both the real and faux conservative outrage over contraception are just one more example of the Republicans' grand scheme to bring communism back. Now that we got bin Laden, Republicans are looking for something to scare us with. It's time for Red Scare the remix.
The first step in bringing back communism is to create a permanent underclass within American society. This is achieved through multiple Republican policy proposals such as outlawing abortion leading to a surging birthrate among those with the fewest resources. Step two involves cutting all funding for education, family planning, and early childhood development as well as cutting the social safety net - Mitt Romney cares not for our poor. With soaring birthrates, no resources or opportunity for education or healthcare, and a gutted safety net America's lower class will grow larger and larger and have fewer and fewer opportunities. Voila, an American proletariat! Communism is back.
While that was a fun little exercise for me, I obviously don't believe Republicans are trying to bring back communism. Having said that, I don't know what Republican policies are designed to do. The role of government is to provide for the people, and while the American right may not be trying to create the American proletariat, they aren't really offering any policies that would help give birth to a new American middle class either. The only Americans truly benefitting from Republican policies are those who need the least help.
As I follow the Republican primaries, I become more and more optimistic about the nation's next four years under President Obama. The more opportunities we have to see Mitt, Newt, Rick and Ron - it almost sounds like they're the guys from "Super Troopers" - up close the more we'll see that Republican policies, while perhaps not designed to hurt Americans, certainly don't seem to be helping many folks either.
Communism is scary! I don't really know why, but it is. I, for one, live in constant fear of Cuba, and I take a few minutes everyday to remind myself how incompatible "communism" is with our rigidly defined and unwavering set of American values.
Sometimes, just for fun, I like to take the time to reflect on how bizarre it is that the Republican party spends so much time ranting and raving about it while simultaneously trying to enact policies that almost seem designed to create an American proletariat.
Most recently there has been outrage over the provision in the new Obamacare law which stipulates that non-profits affiliated with religious institutions (Catholic hospitals) must over insurance plans that cover contraceptives. This is very offensive to the Catholic establishment, and I accept that their strong feelings are legitimately based in their religious beliefs and sense of morality. Nevertheless, that does not make them right.
But this post is not about the specifics of Catholics and their views on contraception. Rather it is about how both the real and faux conservative outrage over contraception are just one more example of the Republicans' grand scheme to bring communism back. Now that we got bin Laden, Republicans are looking for something to scare us with. It's time for Red Scare the remix.
The first step in bringing back communism is to create a permanent underclass within American society. This is achieved through multiple Republican policy proposals such as outlawing abortion leading to a surging birthrate among those with the fewest resources. Step two involves cutting all funding for education, family planning, and early childhood development as well as cutting the social safety net - Mitt Romney cares not for our poor. With soaring birthrates, no resources or opportunity for education or healthcare, and a gutted safety net America's lower class will grow larger and larger and have fewer and fewer opportunities. Voila, an American proletariat! Communism is back.
While that was a fun little exercise for me, I obviously don't believe Republicans are trying to bring back communism. Having said that, I don't know what Republican policies are designed to do. The role of government is to provide for the people, and while the American right may not be trying to create the American proletariat, they aren't really offering any policies that would help give birth to a new American middle class either. The only Americans truly benefitting from Republican policies are those who need the least help.
As I follow the Republican primaries, I become more and more optimistic about the nation's next four years under President Obama. The more opportunities we have to see Mitt, Newt, Rick and Ron - it almost sounds like they're the guys from "Super Troopers" - up close the more we'll see that Republican policies, while perhaps not designed to hurt Americans, certainly don't seem to be helping many folks either.
Wednesday, February 8, 2012
Got Keystone?
I remember an abundance of it from my college days, but now I can't find any except in the headlines. There seems to be some debate going on about whether or not it is a good idea to build a pipeline from Canada to the Gulf of Mexico. I've read quite a bit about this, but I can't seem to find the point of contention. Of course it is a good idea to build a pipeline through which Canadian oil can reach American refineries!
I'm receptive to the criticisms - America should be trying to wean itself off of dirty fossil fuels, and putting an oil pipeline under an aquifer - as initially proposed - doesn't seem like the best idea. If the Keystone Pipeline is going to be built - and it should be - there need to be serious regulations in place. But much like fracking, another contentious environmental/energy-related process, the pros of the Keystone Pipeline outweigh the cons.
For starters, while America does need to be investing in renewable energy sources, our need for oil isn't going to disappear in the foreseeable future. Canada has an abundance of oil reserves; according to the Energy Information Administration, Canada has the world's third largest oil reserves behind only Saudi Arabia and Venezuela. Who would you rather give your money to: a Wahabi King; a South American dictator; or the friendly guys up north making French Fries smothered in gravy and cheese? Canada gets my vote.
The Canadian-American partnership, already strong, would only grow strong as a result of the mutually beneficial project that would be the Keystone Pipeline. Canada wants to sell us their oil! We want the oil! Let's find a way to get it from Alberta to the Gulf Coast. The Keystone Pipeline will make America's energy future far more secure, and will even help us become more energy independent. Again, would we rather be sending billions to Saudi princes or to Canada? This is a no-brainer.
If the desire to receive affordable oil from a friendly neighbor isn't quite enough to convince you that the pipeline should be built then perhaps you will be swayed by the jobs argument. America should be building because labor is cheap. This is a chance to undertake a substantial building project that would put some American laborers back to work. While I'm skeptical of the astronomical Republican claims about how many construction jobs would be created by building the pipeline, there is no denying that construction requires labor and this would be quite a large project.
Energy independence through alternative and renewable sources should be the goal of any government energy plan. But change is incremental, and in working towards that goal we would be wise to take advantage of the natural resources at our disposal such as natural gas, and friends who want to share their natural resources with us, like Canada. Environmental concerns must be addressed, but if there is an environmentally-safe way to build the Keystone Pipeline - and I believe there is - then America should press forward with a project that will create jobs and help us secure our energy future.
Thursday, February 2, 2012
Mitt Romney Cares Not for Our Poor
Though he hasn't yet commented on our tired or our huddled masses, Mitt has made it explicitly clear that he is not "is not concerned about the very poor." Strangely, Mitt is also not concerned about the very rich, which should be troubling to the handful of billionaires who are funding his campaign not to mention his own family.
But it is Romney's callous attitude towards America's poor that is morally and economically troubling, not to mention statistically unsound. Let's explore further.
First off, Mitt claims that 90-95% of Americans are both middle class and struggling. The assertion that 90-95% of Americans are struggling, even in hard economic times, is absurd as a stand alone comment, but in the context of what else Romney says it makes even less sense. For one thing Mitt's numbers are all wrong. According to census data, the percentage of Americans living in poverty in 2010 was 15%, not the 5% Romney is talking about. And if Romney truly cares about struggling Americans he should care about that 15% of the population. His given reason for ignoring their plight is "There is a safety net there. If it needs repair, I'll fix it." This is probably true since Romney is a moderate, but it's a bizarre political comment for a man who is trying to depict himself as a conservative, especially when one considers that the current conservative mantra is to cut all spending that would help impoverished Americans.
What the Republican party once knew but seems to have forgotten is that Americans make America great. The government has a responsibility to help all citizens, especially those who need it most. It is a moral failing and a national embarrassment for a man hoping to lead the world's greatest nation to dismiss the plight of 15% of the population. Furthermore, from an economic standpoint - supposedly Mr. Romney's strong suit - the more income inequality there exists in America, the more unsustainable our economic future looks. If a significant percentage of the population cannot afford to consume the goods and services we are providing then we are only hurting ourselves. Not worrying about the very poor isn't just morally wrong, it's economically backwards. If Romney truly cared about the middle class, he would be very worried about poor Americans; he would be worried about finding ways to get them into the middle class.
Mitt Romney should know better, but Mitt Romney doesn't seem to know who he is or what he stands for so I can't say I'm completely surprised. The reason Romney seems to be so out of touch with average Americans is because he is. The man seems to never have met a position his audience didn't like. Mitt Romney the moderate would be a good president, but Mitt Romney the candidate is out of touch with Americans, average, poor, and probably rich as well.
But it is Romney's callous attitude towards America's poor that is morally and economically troubling, not to mention statistically unsound. Let's explore further.
First off, Mitt claims that 90-95% of Americans are both middle class and struggling. The assertion that 90-95% of Americans are struggling, even in hard economic times, is absurd as a stand alone comment, but in the context of what else Romney says it makes even less sense. For one thing Mitt's numbers are all wrong. According to census data, the percentage of Americans living in poverty in 2010 was 15%, not the 5% Romney is talking about. And if Romney truly cares about struggling Americans he should care about that 15% of the population. His given reason for ignoring their plight is "There is a safety net there. If it needs repair, I'll fix it." This is probably true since Romney is a moderate, but it's a bizarre political comment for a man who is trying to depict himself as a conservative, especially when one considers that the current conservative mantra is to cut all spending that would help impoverished Americans.
What the Republican party once knew but seems to have forgotten is that Americans make America great. The government has a responsibility to help all citizens, especially those who need it most. It is a moral failing and a national embarrassment for a man hoping to lead the world's greatest nation to dismiss the plight of 15% of the population. Furthermore, from an economic standpoint - supposedly Mr. Romney's strong suit - the more income inequality there exists in America, the more unsustainable our economic future looks. If a significant percentage of the population cannot afford to consume the goods and services we are providing then we are only hurting ourselves. Not worrying about the very poor isn't just morally wrong, it's economically backwards. If Romney truly cared about the middle class, he would be very worried about poor Americans; he would be worried about finding ways to get them into the middle class.
Mitt Romney should know better, but Mitt Romney doesn't seem to know who he is or what he stands for so I can't say I'm completely surprised. The reason Romney seems to be so out of touch with average Americans is because he is. The man seems to never have met a position his audience didn't like. Mitt Romney the moderate would be a good president, but Mitt Romney the candidate is out of touch with Americans, average, poor, and probably rich as well.
Wednesday, February 1, 2012
Economics and the IMF
The International Monetary Fund strikes me as an organization with some collective economic wisdom, but then again I'm not a Ron Paul supporter who thinks we should abolish institutions wholesale and return to the gold standard.
So I wasn't surprised at all to read the IMF's September 2011 report on the economic dangers of austerity, aptly titled "Painful Medicine." Conventional conservative wisdom - or rather current conservative ideology - believes that the best way to encourage economic growth is to cut government spending. This is, of course, silly, because consumer spending is already depressed. Economies feed on cash, when none is being spent, economies suffer. Cutting public spending when private spending is already in the gutter is not only a bad idea, it is bad practice as evidenced by the austerity experiments in Europe. Despite the fact that we've let the Eurozone be our guinea pig, and despite the fact that the austerity experiment they conducted for us has been a huge failure of economic policy, we are still promoting spending cuts at a time when we should be promoting economic recovery.
The experts at the IMF, as well as those from numerous other organizations, have made this point repeatedly, but it has fallen on the ears of the ideological, deaf to reason that is not their own. Current Republican dogma got America into this recession and will do nothing to pull us from the economic doldrums in which we flounder. Smart people know this. Smart people are not running the Republican party.
So while the IMF and economists tell us that we need to reinvest in America - much as President Obama has articulated - we will refuse to; we will continue to pretend like the deficit, not the economy is the country's biggest problem, and in doing so we will fail to fix either. Economic recovery will lead to deficit reduction, but economic recovery requires sound policy, not policy geared towards stalling the economy until Mitt Romney has a chance to win the White House. Sadly, Republicans care more about Republican political prospects than they do about average Americans or the American economy. Maybe I've had this all wrong and I should be hoping for President Romney. While the man lacks a conscious, he is clearly a moderate. Coupled with Republican Congressional support for a Republican president and Democratic support for policies that will help Americans, a President Romney might be able to enact moderate policies that will spur economic growth.
I have little faith that this will be the case. The best case scenario for America involves an Obama victory and a sweeping away of the far right demagogues who have shackled sensible Republicans to an ideology of economic ruin. Like the IMF, economists, and most Americans, I am hoping for policies that will stimulate our economy. Right now, only one party is interested in achieving that end.
So I wasn't surprised at all to read the IMF's September 2011 report on the economic dangers of austerity, aptly titled "Painful Medicine." Conventional conservative wisdom - or rather current conservative ideology - believes that the best way to encourage economic growth is to cut government spending. This is, of course, silly, because consumer spending is already depressed. Economies feed on cash, when none is being spent, economies suffer. Cutting public spending when private spending is already in the gutter is not only a bad idea, it is bad practice as evidenced by the austerity experiments in Europe. Despite the fact that we've let the Eurozone be our guinea pig, and despite the fact that the austerity experiment they conducted for us has been a huge failure of economic policy, we are still promoting spending cuts at a time when we should be promoting economic recovery.
The experts at the IMF, as well as those from numerous other organizations, have made this point repeatedly, but it has fallen on the ears of the ideological, deaf to reason that is not their own. Current Republican dogma got America into this recession and will do nothing to pull us from the economic doldrums in which we flounder. Smart people know this. Smart people are not running the Republican party.
So while the IMF and economists tell us that we need to reinvest in America - much as President Obama has articulated - we will refuse to; we will continue to pretend like the deficit, not the economy is the country's biggest problem, and in doing so we will fail to fix either. Economic recovery will lead to deficit reduction, but economic recovery requires sound policy, not policy geared towards stalling the economy until Mitt Romney has a chance to win the White House. Sadly, Republicans care more about Republican political prospects than they do about average Americans or the American economy. Maybe I've had this all wrong and I should be hoping for President Romney. While the man lacks a conscious, he is clearly a moderate. Coupled with Republican Congressional support for a Republican president and Democratic support for policies that will help Americans, a President Romney might be able to enact moderate policies that will spur economic growth.
I have little faith that this will be the case. The best case scenario for America involves an Obama victory and a sweeping away of the far right demagogues who have shackled sensible Republicans to an ideology of economic ruin. Like the IMF, economists, and most Americans, I am hoping for policies that will stimulate our economy. Right now, only one party is interested in achieving that end.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)