And he came out firing today, finally calling out Republicans for the absurdity of trying to tackle the deficit without raising taxes, at least on the wealthy. While Obama had been preempted by a Boehner "tax hikes are off the table" assault on Tuesday, he nonetheless asked the million dollar question: who would you rather your tax dollars go to, the super-rich or the needy?
After all, the super rich are not reinvesting their tax dollars into the economy. Does a tax cut for Bill Gates create more jobs at Microsoft? Conversely, does raising taxes on Bill Gates damage Microsoft? The answer to both questions is no. Cutting into the deficit is going to require higher taxes (perhaps we should just call them normal taxes, since the current levels represent a tax cut). Everyone, including Republicans, knows this.
Democrats, as the President pointed out in his speech, have already made concessions. According to Representative Eric Cantor when he backed out of deficit talks last week the two sides had already agreed to trillions in spending cuts. Presumably, that means that Democrats agreed to massive cuts since - were it up to Republicans - the government would only spend money on the Military, Congressional salaries and giving money to big corporations.
For there to be any agreement, higher taxes AND lower spending have to be on the table. For their to be any REAL solution to the deficit problem, higher taxes and lower spending have to be on the table. Forget the politics of it all, we just are not going to be able to eliminate the deficit by only one means. There should be MORE spending cuts that tax hikes, but we are fooling ourselves if we think we can eliminate the deficit with only spending cuts...unless of course you are Paul Ryan or the Tea Party and you just think the government should stop spending money altogether and strip important benefits and programs from the people who need them most...then we could do with only spending cuts.
It is nice to see the President finally get involved. As I said in my last post I believe he and John Boehner have some kind of bizarre rapport and will figure out how to make this work. I actually think they like each other! And I have to say, I'm even starting to warm up to Boehner a bit. It is evident that he cares somewhat for the welfare of America and Americans and he is clearly smart enough to realize that the nation is headed for disaster if he lets those Tea Party folks run the show.
America needs strong leadership and I think Obama and Boehner can provide it. But we also need the facts, and the fact is, we cannot solve our deficit problems with budget cuts alone unless we are willing to sacrifice programs that, frankly, we are not willing to sacrifice and rightfully so. Higher taxes on the super rich will help, and any compromise is only that if BOTH sides are willing to give ground. Otherwise, any agreement will just be people with no new ideas forcing people with few new ideas to accept unnecessary spending cuts.
Wednesday, June 29, 2011
Friday, June 24, 2011
Trouble Brewing
Uh-oh, buckle up, debt limit talks are predictably snagged over disagreements on spending and taxing. BREAKING NEWS!
Yesterday, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor withdrew from budget talks over the issue of tax "hikes." This is probably more of a ploy to get President Obama and John Boehner involved in the negotiations than it is to actually jeopardize the process, but with the August deadline for raising the debt ceiling getting unsettlingly close, the impasse is a bad sign.
It seems as though the two sides have been able to agree on quite a few spending cuts, presumably this means that Democrats have made more substantial concessions that Republicans, but that is only an assumption. But we are faced with a huge deficit and only in Republican fairy land are we able to eliminate that deficit without raising taxes. No one is asking for or pushing for huge tax increases, and truthfully, letting the Bush tax cuts expire isn't a tax hike so much as it is a reversion to the 1990's norm, and let us remember that the 1990's norm was a booming economy (one in which Clinton RAISED taxes and still presided over growth) and that even in the 1990s, taxes were still comparatively low.
So then I find the following quotes very troubling:
President Obama needs to decide between his goal of higher taxes, or a bipartisan plan to address our deficit. He can't have both
Tax hikes are off the table. First off, raising taxes is going to destroy job.
These statements represent the Republican point of view that is both hypocritical and ignorant. If Obama wants a bipartisan plan to address the deficit then it should include raising taxes, otherwise it is not bipartisan but rather a Republican construction that will presumably slash important spending with little regard, similar to previous Republican proposals. It is hard to come off as being fair when you criticize the other guy for accepting all of your ideas but not being allowed to insert some of his own. Maybe that is the definition of cooperation being embraced by the current manifestation of the Republican party.
But hypocrisy aside, Republicans are determined that "tax hikes are off the table." While this is probably posturing, the fact that Republicans are mathematically incompetent is a problem when dealing with an issue like the budget. But their woeful lack of knowledge extends into other realms as well. Raising taxes is going to destroy jobs...well maybe in the current economic climate it would. And I've said before that I don't think raising taxes now is the right idea even though the notion that taxing the uber-rich more would somehow inhibit job growth is ludicrous. But raising taxes is going to destroy jobs? Taxes were far, far higher in the 1950's a decade that saw booming growth. President Clinton presided over nearly a decade of growth while RAISING taxes during the middle of the boom. John Boehner was actually one of the Republicans swept aside after Newt Gingrich's foolish decision to hold the welfare of the country hostage for political gain in his standoff with Clinton. One would think maybe Boehner would remember that. Apparently that is giving him too much credit.
So now we have reached an impasse and it is up to the President and Boehner to fix it. I would prefer that they had been involved from the beginning as I actually feel as though the two of them have developed some kind of bizarre rapport. Nevertheless, if Republicans want to talk about bipartisanship and if they want to get serious about deficit reduction then they need to stop holding the America's economic welfare hostage, they need to stop living in mathematical dream world, and they need to be wiling to accept the same types of sacrifices that they are demanding from Democrats.
Yesterday, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor withdrew from budget talks over the issue of tax "hikes." This is probably more of a ploy to get President Obama and John Boehner involved in the negotiations than it is to actually jeopardize the process, but with the August deadline for raising the debt ceiling getting unsettlingly close, the impasse is a bad sign.
It seems as though the two sides have been able to agree on quite a few spending cuts, presumably this means that Democrats have made more substantial concessions that Republicans, but that is only an assumption. But we are faced with a huge deficit and only in Republican fairy land are we able to eliminate that deficit without raising taxes. No one is asking for or pushing for huge tax increases, and truthfully, letting the Bush tax cuts expire isn't a tax hike so much as it is a reversion to the 1990's norm, and let us remember that the 1990's norm was a booming economy (one in which Clinton RAISED taxes and still presided over growth) and that even in the 1990s, taxes were still comparatively low.
So then I find the following quotes very troubling:
President Obama needs to decide between his goal of higher taxes, or a bipartisan plan to address our deficit. He can't have both
Tax hikes are off the table. First off, raising taxes is going to destroy job.
These statements represent the Republican point of view that is both hypocritical and ignorant. If Obama wants a bipartisan plan to address the deficit then it should include raising taxes, otherwise it is not bipartisan but rather a Republican construction that will presumably slash important spending with little regard, similar to previous Republican proposals. It is hard to come off as being fair when you criticize the other guy for accepting all of your ideas but not being allowed to insert some of his own. Maybe that is the definition of cooperation being embraced by the current manifestation of the Republican party.
But hypocrisy aside, Republicans are determined that "tax hikes are off the table." While this is probably posturing, the fact that Republicans are mathematically incompetent is a problem when dealing with an issue like the budget. But their woeful lack of knowledge extends into other realms as well. Raising taxes is going to destroy jobs...well maybe in the current economic climate it would. And I've said before that I don't think raising taxes now is the right idea even though the notion that taxing the uber-rich more would somehow inhibit job growth is ludicrous. But raising taxes is going to destroy jobs? Taxes were far, far higher in the 1950's a decade that saw booming growth. President Clinton presided over nearly a decade of growth while RAISING taxes during the middle of the boom. John Boehner was actually one of the Republicans swept aside after Newt Gingrich's foolish decision to hold the welfare of the country hostage for political gain in his standoff with Clinton. One would think maybe Boehner would remember that. Apparently that is giving him too much credit.
So now we have reached an impasse and it is up to the President and Boehner to fix it. I would prefer that they had been involved from the beginning as I actually feel as though the two of them have developed some kind of bizarre rapport. Nevertheless, if Republicans want to talk about bipartisanship and if they want to get serious about deficit reduction then they need to stop holding the America's economic welfare hostage, they need to stop living in mathematical dream world, and they need to be wiling to accept the same types of sacrifices that they are demanding from Democrats.
Wednesday, June 22, 2011
November 2012
Seems like it's a long way off, right? In fact it is a long way off, roughly 17 months away and yet, the way things work politically you would think it's right around the corner.
Democracy may be "the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried," but it certainly seems that one major shortcoming of our system is the fact that in order to do anything you have to convince people that you are worth having around, and in the age of mass media that has become a 24/7/365 endeavor. Unfortunately, all that campaigning seems to leave less time for governing. This is true for everyone in our national government regardless of which party he or she represents.
Our system has evolved into a monstrosity that promotes effective campaigning and often empty promises; if those promises go unfulfilled then it is clearly due to some kind of conspiracy or obstruction and certainly not indicative that the promises were unrealistic in the first place. Take abortion for example, how many Republican candidates have campaigned on a platform that includes being pro-life and banning abortion? Probably all of them. Yet in the years since Roe v. Wade, how many Republicans have been able to make abortion illegal? How many have actually tried? Similarly, how many Democrats have talked about stricter gun laws (fewer, but still many)? Rather than stricter gun laws, we now have laws in some states that allow people to buy assault rifles like they are at an arms bazar in Mogadishu.
Nevertheless, what we have come to expect from our politicians is 24/7 campaigning. After all, there are multiple news networks with 24/7 coverage and they can only show Lindsay Lohan and Paris Hilton so often. ESPN fills 24 hours with "sports" like NASCAR and bowling. CNN and FOX fill 24 hours with campaigns that begin in earnest 17-19 months before the election, and Wal-Mart fills six months of retail sales with Christmas (tangental). All this campaigning seems to leave precious little time for legislating, although it certainly makes for good "debates" that are destined to go nowhere: Democrats are going to kill grandma; Republicans are going to dismantle Medicare; lower taxes, no raise them; and worst of all, global warming is a hoax...
These "debates"are perhaps somewhat substantive but they take up a lot of time and generate attention. So rather than addressing the issues, we talk about them in a watered-down, demagogued-up manner that fires people up with false promises and substantial demonizing of the enemy.
So with that I would encourage everyone to forget about November 2012 until maybe February or March of 2012. I realize that such a wish is my own little fantasy rather than a political reality, but imagine how great "the worst form of government except all the others" could be if we would let those governing do their jobs and stop demanding that they spend their entire elected term working on getting reelected.
Democracy may be "the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried," but it certainly seems that one major shortcoming of our system is the fact that in order to do anything you have to convince people that you are worth having around, and in the age of mass media that has become a 24/7/365 endeavor. Unfortunately, all that campaigning seems to leave less time for governing. This is true for everyone in our national government regardless of which party he or she represents.
Our system has evolved into a monstrosity that promotes effective campaigning and often empty promises; if those promises go unfulfilled then it is clearly due to some kind of conspiracy or obstruction and certainly not indicative that the promises were unrealistic in the first place. Take abortion for example, how many Republican candidates have campaigned on a platform that includes being pro-life and banning abortion? Probably all of them. Yet in the years since Roe v. Wade, how many Republicans have been able to make abortion illegal? How many have actually tried? Similarly, how many Democrats have talked about stricter gun laws (fewer, but still many)? Rather than stricter gun laws, we now have laws in some states that allow people to buy assault rifles like they are at an arms bazar in Mogadishu.
Nevertheless, what we have come to expect from our politicians is 24/7 campaigning. After all, there are multiple news networks with 24/7 coverage and they can only show Lindsay Lohan and Paris Hilton so often. ESPN fills 24 hours with "sports" like NASCAR and bowling. CNN and FOX fill 24 hours with campaigns that begin in earnest 17-19 months before the election, and Wal-Mart fills six months of retail sales with Christmas (tangental). All this campaigning seems to leave precious little time for legislating, although it certainly makes for good "debates" that are destined to go nowhere: Democrats are going to kill grandma; Republicans are going to dismantle Medicare; lower taxes, no raise them; and worst of all, global warming is a hoax...
These "debates"are perhaps somewhat substantive but they take up a lot of time and generate attention. So rather than addressing the issues, we talk about them in a watered-down, demagogued-up manner that fires people up with false promises and substantial demonizing of the enemy.
So with that I would encourage everyone to forget about November 2012 until maybe February or March of 2012. I realize that such a wish is my own little fantasy rather than a political reality, but imagine how great "the worst form of government except all the others" could be if we would let those governing do their jobs and stop demanding that they spend their entire elected term working on getting reelected.
Tuesday, June 14, 2011
What does Bipartisanship look like?
This question leaves me scratching my head in the same manner an eighth grader taking a quantum mechanics exam. What does bipartisanship look like? What does bipartisanship even mean? Are there actually people out there who are willing to make compromises for the good of our country? It is all very befuddling.
Fortunately, my man David Brooks from the Times has some insight. Actually, what he has is some good old fashion American protest. Brooks rightly points out that neither party has all the answers to our country's conundrum. As much as I find myself rabidly supporting Democrats, I'll be the first to say that they often have unsustainable ideas about our future. In fact the reason my support is so rabid is not because I agree with everything that Democrats have to say so much as I disagree with most of what Republicans have to say. Democrats, for all their flaws, at least have a vision of America in the future. As Brooks points out, Democrats offer us light rail and solar panels. Silly perhaps, but at least Democrats are thinking ahead. Republicans, as Brooks contrasts, have "taken a pragmatic policy proposal from 1980 and sanctified it as their core purity test for 2012." One party looking forward, one offering nothing new.
But that is only an explanation of my rationale. I'm not going to use this post to bash Republicans, but rather, like Brooks, to try and find some common ground. I'm going to attempt to figure out what bipartisanship could look like and how we can draw ideas from both parties to solve some of our problems.
Let's start with the deficit which isn't as big of a deal as it is made out to be but is nonetheless an issue that must be addressed. Republicans want cuts, Democrats want taxes, and somewhere in the Senate there is a lonely group of 5 Senators from both parties who understand that in order to fix the budget we need to have both. Democrats have to face some realities about entitlement reform. Obamacare is a step towards fixing these problems, but we cannot continue to make unsustainable entitlement commitments. Republicans have to face some realities about taxes; we can't reduce the deficit by making cuts alone, and even if we could we would have to cut so drastically that millions of Americans would be harmed. Tax rates are historically low and Republicans are largely to blame for the current as they took the unprecedented step of lowering taxes during two wars. We have to find some common ground on the issue of taxing and spending.
But the deficit is secondary in nature to the economy. After all if we can put people back to work and grow the economy, we can cut into the deficit somewhat without raising tax rates. It would therefore make sense to focus on reducing unemployment. After all, the welfare of Americans is the primary concern of all politicians right? So how about finding some common ground on fixing unemployment such as limiting welfare and unemployment benefits and using the money to reinvest in education or job training? After all, we cannot afford to give away money forever, but we should not expect people with little education and few skills to be able to support themselves. How about cutting wisely in order to invest wisely?
Democrats and Republicans may never fully agree on social issues (which in my opinion is why the Republican party already has one foot out the door) but surely they can find common ground on economic and fiscal issues. This is going to take some hard bargaining and perhaps even some tough to swallow compromising by both sides, but we need to take serious steps to fix our nation's economy and both sides do have ideas to bring to the table.
Bipartisanship is difficult while ideological purity and demagoguery are easy. Compromising on the other hand is difficult because it involves giving up some of what you believe in and some of what you think is best. I believe Democrats have more good ideas but I don't think the Republican party is devoid of them and I sincerely hope - on behalf of all rational and intelligent Americans who are worried about our country's future - that the two sides can each come to the table armed only with their good ideas and a resolve to make America better.
Fortunately, my man David Brooks from the Times has some insight. Actually, what he has is some good old fashion American protest. Brooks rightly points out that neither party has all the answers to our country's conundrum. As much as I find myself rabidly supporting Democrats, I'll be the first to say that they often have unsustainable ideas about our future. In fact the reason my support is so rabid is not because I agree with everything that Democrats have to say so much as I disagree with most of what Republicans have to say. Democrats, for all their flaws, at least have a vision of America in the future. As Brooks points out, Democrats offer us light rail and solar panels. Silly perhaps, but at least Democrats are thinking ahead. Republicans, as Brooks contrasts, have "taken a pragmatic policy proposal from 1980 and sanctified it as their core purity test for 2012." One party looking forward, one offering nothing new.
But that is only an explanation of my rationale. I'm not going to use this post to bash Republicans, but rather, like Brooks, to try and find some common ground. I'm going to attempt to figure out what bipartisanship could look like and how we can draw ideas from both parties to solve some of our problems.
Let's start with the deficit which isn't as big of a deal as it is made out to be but is nonetheless an issue that must be addressed. Republicans want cuts, Democrats want taxes, and somewhere in the Senate there is a lonely group of 5 Senators from both parties who understand that in order to fix the budget we need to have both. Democrats have to face some realities about entitlement reform. Obamacare is a step towards fixing these problems, but we cannot continue to make unsustainable entitlement commitments. Republicans have to face some realities about taxes; we can't reduce the deficit by making cuts alone, and even if we could we would have to cut so drastically that millions of Americans would be harmed. Tax rates are historically low and Republicans are largely to blame for the current as they took the unprecedented step of lowering taxes during two wars. We have to find some common ground on the issue of taxing and spending.
But the deficit is secondary in nature to the economy. After all if we can put people back to work and grow the economy, we can cut into the deficit somewhat without raising tax rates. It would therefore make sense to focus on reducing unemployment. After all, the welfare of Americans is the primary concern of all politicians right? So how about finding some common ground on fixing unemployment such as limiting welfare and unemployment benefits and using the money to reinvest in education or job training? After all, we cannot afford to give away money forever, but we should not expect people with little education and few skills to be able to support themselves. How about cutting wisely in order to invest wisely?
Democrats and Republicans may never fully agree on social issues (which in my opinion is why the Republican party already has one foot out the door) but surely they can find common ground on economic and fiscal issues. This is going to take some hard bargaining and perhaps even some tough to swallow compromising by both sides, but we need to take serious steps to fix our nation's economy and both sides do have ideas to bring to the table.
Bipartisanship is difficult while ideological purity and demagoguery are easy. Compromising on the other hand is difficult because it involves giving up some of what you believe in and some of what you think is best. I believe Democrats have more good ideas but I don't think the Republican party is devoid of them and I sincerely hope - on behalf of all rational and intelligent Americans who are worried about our country's future - that the two sides can each come to the table armed only with their good ideas and a resolve to make America better.
Thursday, June 9, 2011
Growing and Going Green
It has been quite a while since I talked about the environmental and economic importance of growing a green economy. With all that has been going on abroad and in DC (which is sometimes so disconnected from the plight of Americans that it may as well be abroad) I haven't had the time to focus on something that I am passionate about - going green.
But a recent NYTimes article about the lack of green growth in America makes it painfully obvious about how much America is doing to shoot ourselves in the foot in the next great realm of economic growth and sustainable energy.
As the article highlights, the United States is already woefully behind European and Asian countries in terms of investment in clean technology. With that in mind, there is particularly appalling statement on which I would like to focus. First of all, much of the growth in Europe and Asia have come as a result of government policies that foster innovation and growth. Much like we incentivize oil companies (why?), other governments incentivize clean tech. So why are we not doing that? Sadly the answer lies in the article: Congress is "deeply divided over whether climate change is real."
There are so many things to say right now that I am overwhelmed. But let's forget about the fact that half of the politicians in the nation are vehemently denying science. Let's pretend that Republican ignorance and demagoguery isn't an impediment. Shoot, we can even pretend that in some fantasy world, climate change isn't real because we still have to address the issue of sustainability.
Pretend for a moment that science deniers are not idiots. Pretend that all the damage that we have done to our planet is not affecting weather patterns, ecosystems and crop growth (not to mention a plethora of other things). Pretend for a minute that we can continue to pump oil and coal into the atmosphere indefinitely without doing a bit of harm. Wait, don't pretend that we can do that because we can't, there is a limited supply of oil and coal. Maybe we have enough oil and coal to last another 200 years, maybe just enough for another 30; I won't pretend to know when we are going to run out of fossil fuels. But at some point we will so instead of waiting for that moment, why not get a head start of the future? Why stay up until 4 AM writing our thesis the morning before it is due when we could have started chipping away at it months before?
Now step back to reality: we ARE destroying our planet. I'm not going to go all Dr. Doom/Harold Camping on you and predict when mother nature is finally going to say enough, but it is going to happen. Say we have 200 years worth of oil left, we absolutely do not have 200 years worth of polluting left. So all fantasies about our impact on the environment aside, we have both an environmental and economic prerogative to go green.
This is America, with the right policies we can spur our own green revolution. It is not too late, but it is still past time. We have spent the last century importing energy from the Middle East. If we don't get our act together soon we will spend the next century importing our energy from China and Europe. With that in mind, it is hard to understand how Republicans - the party of the economy - is in denial of scientific facts that will undermine the American economy and American jobs. As if we can afford to increase the trade deficit with China, as if we can afford to lose more jobs overseas, as if we can afford to be importing the technology of the future instead of making it and selling it ourselves.
It is quite a travesty that there is an organized political movement willing to deny facts. It is quite a travesty that their motivation for denying facts is to increase their political power. And it is quite a travesty that by denying these facts they are causing irreparable harm to our world and unnecessary damage to our economic growth.
The rest of the world has seen the future and they are taking steps towards reaching it. Many in America are ready to rise to the challenge, are ready to innovate, are ready to build, are ready to do what is best for the Earth and the American economy. If only we could get Republicans on board.
But a recent NYTimes article about the lack of green growth in America makes it painfully obvious about how much America is doing to shoot ourselves in the foot in the next great realm of economic growth and sustainable energy.
As the article highlights, the United States is already woefully behind European and Asian countries in terms of investment in clean technology. With that in mind, there is particularly appalling statement on which I would like to focus. First of all, much of the growth in Europe and Asia have come as a result of government policies that foster innovation and growth. Much like we incentivize oil companies (why?), other governments incentivize clean tech. So why are we not doing that? Sadly the answer lies in the article: Congress is "deeply divided over whether climate change is real."
There are so many things to say right now that I am overwhelmed. But let's forget about the fact that half of the politicians in the nation are vehemently denying science. Let's pretend that Republican ignorance and demagoguery isn't an impediment. Shoot, we can even pretend that in some fantasy world, climate change isn't real because we still have to address the issue of sustainability.
Pretend for a moment that science deniers are not idiots. Pretend that all the damage that we have done to our planet is not affecting weather patterns, ecosystems and crop growth (not to mention a plethora of other things). Pretend for a minute that we can continue to pump oil and coal into the atmosphere indefinitely without doing a bit of harm. Wait, don't pretend that we can do that because we can't, there is a limited supply of oil and coal. Maybe we have enough oil and coal to last another 200 years, maybe just enough for another 30; I won't pretend to know when we are going to run out of fossil fuels. But at some point we will so instead of waiting for that moment, why not get a head start of the future? Why stay up until 4 AM writing our thesis the morning before it is due when we could have started chipping away at it months before?
Now step back to reality: we ARE destroying our planet. I'm not going to go all Dr. Doom/Harold Camping on you and predict when mother nature is finally going to say enough, but it is going to happen. Say we have 200 years worth of oil left, we absolutely do not have 200 years worth of polluting left. So all fantasies about our impact on the environment aside, we have both an environmental and economic prerogative to go green.
This is America, with the right policies we can spur our own green revolution. It is not too late, but it is still past time. We have spent the last century importing energy from the Middle East. If we don't get our act together soon we will spend the next century importing our energy from China and Europe. With that in mind, it is hard to understand how Republicans - the party of the economy - is in denial of scientific facts that will undermine the American economy and American jobs. As if we can afford to increase the trade deficit with China, as if we can afford to lose more jobs overseas, as if we can afford to be importing the technology of the future instead of making it and selling it ourselves.
It is quite a travesty that there is an organized political movement willing to deny facts. It is quite a travesty that their motivation for denying facts is to increase their political power. And it is quite a travesty that by denying these facts they are causing irreparable harm to our world and unnecessary damage to our economic growth.
The rest of the world has seen the future and they are taking steps towards reaching it. Many in America are ready to rise to the challenge, are ready to innovate, are ready to build, are ready to do what is best for the Earth and the American economy. If only we could get Republicans on board.
Tuesday, June 7, 2011
Pawlenty's promise, a doofus's doo-doo
Have you heard about Tim Pawlenty's promise? I'm sorry, I'm over-eager. Have you heard about Tim Pawlenty? He is some doofus who serves as governor of Minnesota and now he has decided to run for president. Now that you know who Tim Pawlenty is, let's talk about his promise.
In a speech Tuesday, described by aides as a - get this - "major economic policy address" Tim Pawlenty promised economic growth of five percent while simultaneously cutting spending and taxes!! Can you believe that!? Why haven't we thought about this plan already? Tim Pawlenty can make the economy grow at 5% annually while cutting spending and taxes!? It's like Ronald Reagan hadn't already tried this and failed! What a fresh idea for America! I'm voting for this doofus! In case you aren't familiar with the term, a doofus is someone who is "relatively low performing."
Regardless, Tim Pawlenty has some good ideas...and by good I mean ideas that failed when Reagan was president, but that's not the point. The point is that Pawlenty has some ideas and ideas are good, except when they are not good and Tim Pawlenty's ideas are doo-doo.
For some reason, it is still in vogue to use magic math to explain away a deficit. Clinton balanced a budget and oversaw economic expansion while raising taxes, Reagan ran away with the deficit and Bush cut taxes while fighting two wars, and yet somehow, Republican ideas still carry some weight. In magic math world, we can not only cut taxes but basically eliminate them and still pay for...the Army! In magic math world, we don't care about Americans but we care about taxes and there is no room for taxes in magic math world because in magic math world you can pay for things without having the money to afford them.
Problematically, Pawlenty's magic math world (and it's not fair to put all the blame on Pawlenty) does not exist and even worse, it has been linked to the survival of the free market. In magic math world, failure to cut taxes and make the deficit worse is not only unpatriotic, it's Communist. That's right, in magic math world, doing the right thing makes you Stalin. For some reason, simple economic policy and the American way are not congruent in the minds of Republicans. We can't fix the economy and still believe in American values. We can't help put people back to work and help stimulate demand unless the government takes over the economy and all that jazz. It has become unacceptable to believe that anything but "the market" can fix America's problems and so we fail to address things because when left alone, things tend to work themselves out. Sure and in the meantime we will watch Americans suffer without jobs and America slip as other countries out educate us and invest in their future. Meanwhile, unemployment benefits = communism. You would think the government was taking over EVERYTHING. You would think that there was someone out there advocating for that! But there isn't. There are Democrats who want the government to be a tool to make the country better while leaving entrepreneurial Americans to innovate and create and push our nation forward for the benefit of all. There are also doofuses who think that any involvement by the government in our lives is a bad thing and who would rather have average folks suffer so rich people can pay less in taxes. And even though rich people know that is a bad idea, those doofuses...eh, Republicans...are dead set on running the nation's economy even further into the ground than they've already managed to drive it.
So Tim Pawlenty has a promise, a promise rooted in failed ideas and a promise with no vision for America's future except what failed in America's past. It is a promise of high deficits, high unemployment and a goshdarn impressive military. It is a promise for rich people who will pay less in taxes and have more to spend on leer jets and a promise for poor people and a shrinking middle class who will find themselves stripped of benefits so that we can eliminate capital gains taxes. But it's a promise and it's an idea and Tim Pawlenty isn't just any doofus so why not?
Because America deserves better and Tim Pawlenty isn't just any doofus, he is a specific kind of doofus, one who believes in a failed system and one who wants to watch America slip away. America is a country of free people and fee ideas. Our country has been driven by the innovation of individuals and no one wants to change this. But one party wants to empower individuals and make the country a sustainable and vibrant place for everyone; the other party wants rich people to pay less in taxes...
In a speech Tuesday, described by aides as a - get this - "major economic policy address" Tim Pawlenty promised economic growth of five percent while simultaneously cutting spending and taxes!! Can you believe that!? Why haven't we thought about this plan already? Tim Pawlenty can make the economy grow at 5% annually while cutting spending and taxes!? It's like Ronald Reagan hadn't already tried this and failed! What a fresh idea for America! I'm voting for this doofus! In case you aren't familiar with the term, a doofus is someone who is "relatively low performing."
Regardless, Tim Pawlenty has some good ideas...and by good I mean ideas that failed when Reagan was president, but that's not the point. The point is that Pawlenty has some ideas and ideas are good, except when they are not good and Tim Pawlenty's ideas are doo-doo.
For some reason, it is still in vogue to use magic math to explain away a deficit. Clinton balanced a budget and oversaw economic expansion while raising taxes, Reagan ran away with the deficit and Bush cut taxes while fighting two wars, and yet somehow, Republican ideas still carry some weight. In magic math world, we can not only cut taxes but basically eliminate them and still pay for...the Army! In magic math world, we don't care about Americans but we care about taxes and there is no room for taxes in magic math world because in magic math world you can pay for things without having the money to afford them.
Problematically, Pawlenty's magic math world (and it's not fair to put all the blame on Pawlenty) does not exist and even worse, it has been linked to the survival of the free market. In magic math world, failure to cut taxes and make the deficit worse is not only unpatriotic, it's Communist. That's right, in magic math world, doing the right thing makes you Stalin. For some reason, simple economic policy and the American way are not congruent in the minds of Republicans. We can't fix the economy and still believe in American values. We can't help put people back to work and help stimulate demand unless the government takes over the economy and all that jazz. It has become unacceptable to believe that anything but "the market" can fix America's problems and so we fail to address things because when left alone, things tend to work themselves out. Sure and in the meantime we will watch Americans suffer without jobs and America slip as other countries out educate us and invest in their future. Meanwhile, unemployment benefits = communism. You would think the government was taking over EVERYTHING. You would think that there was someone out there advocating for that! But there isn't. There are Democrats who want the government to be a tool to make the country better while leaving entrepreneurial Americans to innovate and create and push our nation forward for the benefit of all. There are also doofuses who think that any involvement by the government in our lives is a bad thing and who would rather have average folks suffer so rich people can pay less in taxes. And even though rich people know that is a bad idea, those doofuses...eh, Republicans...are dead set on running the nation's economy even further into the ground than they've already managed to drive it.
So Tim Pawlenty has a promise, a promise rooted in failed ideas and a promise with no vision for America's future except what failed in America's past. It is a promise of high deficits, high unemployment and a goshdarn impressive military. It is a promise for rich people who will pay less in taxes and have more to spend on leer jets and a promise for poor people and a shrinking middle class who will find themselves stripped of benefits so that we can eliminate capital gains taxes. But it's a promise and it's an idea and Tim Pawlenty isn't just any doofus so why not?
Because America deserves better and Tim Pawlenty isn't just any doofus, he is a specific kind of doofus, one who believes in a failed system and one who wants to watch America slip away. America is a country of free people and fee ideas. Our country has been driven by the innovation of individuals and no one wants to change this. But one party wants to empower individuals and make the country a sustainable and vibrant place for everyone; the other party wants rich people to pay less in taxes...
Monday, June 6, 2011
The United States of Pakistan
According to Nicholas Kristof, the United States of Pakistan is where we are headed if Republicans get their way. As Kristof rightly points out, Boehner et al aren't trying to turn DC into "Islamabad-on-the-Potomac," but his funny comparison and analysis does highlight some important points about the direction Republicans are trying to turn America.
For starters, let's deal with fiscal issues: Republicans want low taxes. So do I, so does everyone. But taxes are already low; in fact tax rates now are remarkably low, and we have a huge budget deficit. Why make them lower and make the budget bigger? In Pakistan only 2% of the population is paying taxes and look how well they are doing economically! Oh you didn't see them on the list of countries by GDP? Sorry, I should have told you, you have to scroll down to 179...
Maybe GDP isn't a fair way to judge Pakistan though, after all, a lot of people live there. But that's just the problem, as funny as Kristof's comparison is (and as he points out, the United States is no closer to becoming super conservative Pakistan than we are to becoming super liberal Sweden), there is a problem with a gross gap between the rich and the poor.
We can learn from the lessons of history; when a fraction of the people control most of the wealth (as is already the case in America), the whole country suffers. Sure rich people can buy a lot, but they can't buy enough to support the economy which is propped up by domestic consumption. If most of the people can't afford to buy the X-Box 360 it doesn't matter if Bill Gates has 40 of them. He can't support the economy by himself. Conservatives label Obama as a socialist saying he wants to redistribute wealth; in fact, conservatives say that about all Democrats. But rich people know just as well as Democrats that it is in their best interest for people to have enough money to buy things. It's no good to produce a bunch of stuff if there is no consumer base for it. The way Republicans talk about it you would think everyone was going to have the exact same income. In fact, Democrats are the ones who should get credit for encouraging the accumulation of wealth because no one gets rich if everyone is too poor to buy.
This doesn't mean we are communists. Far from it. In a working system like the one we've got, rich people will profit greatly if there is a thriving middle class to buy things. In fact, that is how the American economy got to where it was before the latest recession, on the back of a large and prosperous middle class. That middle class is disappearing and any attempts to revive it (as well as alleviate poverty which is also a drain on our tax dollars) is met with cries of Communist!
Ok, fine then, let's stop taxing people altogether and become Pakistan, a country with no taxes and no GDP; a country in which extreme poverty breeds violence and the handful of wealthy people pay for their own power generators and bodyguards instead of paying taxes for electric grids and a police force.
Obviously we are in no danger of becoming Pakistan, but the funny comparison has real parallels and perhaps the laughable extreme of the United States of Pakistan will make people think twice about the future that the Republican party envisions for America.
Friday, June 3, 2011
Conspiracy Theories are Fun
So with that in mind, I'll offer one...here goes it...
Republicans have convinced Americans that they are the party of the economy which couldn't be further from the truth. Classic Republican economic theory lays battered in the dirt and current Republican "ideas" for fixing the economy involve devastating spending cuts at a time when they would derail our recovery and increase joblessness. Joblessness is a huge issue of course since the unemployed are both suffering and not paying taxes.
But what if I'm shorting the Republicans here? What if their goal isn't to fix the economy at all? What if they actually want to further derail the economy in order to win back the White House. What if, in their heart of hearts (some of which seem Grinchesque), Republicans are looking at the economic situation and thinking, we know how to fix this, we know what needs to be done, but if we do it Obama will be reelected. After all, I've said in previous posts that Republicans are good politicians even if their policy is usually underwhelming. Maybe this whole cut spending disastrously is just a ploy to increase unemployment and get Mitt Romeny or some other bum elected next year. Of course if Romeny were president the country would be much better off because we would be led by a man who would immediately undo for America what he successfully implemented in Massachusetts. Way to pick a winner!
Anyhow conspiracy theories are just that, theories. Unless of course they are real conspiracies!
Republicans have convinced Americans that they are the party of the economy which couldn't be further from the truth. Classic Republican economic theory lays battered in the dirt and current Republican "ideas" for fixing the economy involve devastating spending cuts at a time when they would derail our recovery and increase joblessness. Joblessness is a huge issue of course since the unemployed are both suffering and not paying taxes.
But what if I'm shorting the Republicans here? What if their goal isn't to fix the economy at all? What if they actually want to further derail the economy in order to win back the White House. What if, in their heart of hearts (some of which seem Grinchesque), Republicans are looking at the economic situation and thinking, we know how to fix this, we know what needs to be done, but if we do it Obama will be reelected. After all, I've said in previous posts that Republicans are good politicians even if their policy is usually underwhelming. Maybe this whole cut spending disastrously is just a ploy to increase unemployment and get Mitt Romeny or some other bum elected next year. Of course if Romeny were president the country would be much better off because we would be led by a man who would immediately undo for America what he successfully implemented in Massachusetts. Way to pick a winner!
Anyhow conspiracy theories are just that, theories. Unless of course they are real conspiracies!
Thursday, June 2, 2011
What Would China Do?
It's not so much what would China do that is the question as what would China want us to do? Furthermore, why should we do what China wants us to do? When it comes to America's budget deficit, what would China, a nation that probably holds most of our debt, want us to do about our deficit? After all, our debt is China's problem too right? They bought it, so we owe them. Our failure to pay is a problem for China.
So what does this have to do with American policy and American problems? It is quite simple really, China, like sensible Americans, realizes that fixing our economy is more of a priority than fixing our deficit, and that ultimately, an economic recovery will go a long way towards reducing the deficit. China understands that short term cuts derail our economic recovery and China understands that defaulting on our debt would be "catastrophic" both for China and for America.
Given that I don't often have much good to say about China, a country that keeps its currency artificially low and flaunts copyright laws while pirating technology, (and intimidates its neighbors and refuses to crackdown on North Korea) I find that I'm a little mystified with myself for agreeing with them on this issue. But it makes sense that leaders of the world's most rapidly growing economy have at least a little grasp of economic issues, more so, it seems that the Republican party that led us into recession and is trying keep us there.
What does it say about the state of the nation when China's leaders want what is best for America and Republicans do not? Or least when China's leaders understand what is best for America and Republican do not...You would think that if America's debt was about to ruin our nation then the people holding much of that debt would be terrified, but they're not. They realize that our fiscal problems - while big - are long-term problems that are secondary in nature to our economic woes and will be partially resolved if we can fix the economy.
Maybe this is the big secret though, maybe Republicans know fixing the economy will alleviate the deficit which means they won't be able to implement Paul-Ryan-No-Care and cut other services that make our lives better. Of course, you have to wonder why Republicans would want to cut those services in the first place, but that is a whole different issue.
So what does this have to do with American policy and American problems? It is quite simple really, China, like sensible Americans, realizes that fixing our economy is more of a priority than fixing our deficit, and that ultimately, an economic recovery will go a long way towards reducing the deficit. China understands that short term cuts derail our economic recovery and China understands that defaulting on our debt would be "catastrophic" both for China and for America.
Given that I don't often have much good to say about China, a country that keeps its currency artificially low and flaunts copyright laws while pirating technology, (and intimidates its neighbors and refuses to crackdown on North Korea) I find that I'm a little mystified with myself for agreeing with them on this issue. But it makes sense that leaders of the world's most rapidly growing economy have at least a little grasp of economic issues, more so, it seems that the Republican party that led us into recession and is trying keep us there.
What does it say about the state of the nation when China's leaders want what is best for America and Republicans do not? Or least when China's leaders understand what is best for America and Republican do not...You would think that if America's debt was about to ruin our nation then the people holding much of that debt would be terrified, but they're not. They realize that our fiscal problems - while big - are long-term problems that are secondary in nature to our economic woes and will be partially resolved if we can fix the economy.
Maybe this is the big secret though, maybe Republicans know fixing the economy will alleviate the deficit which means they won't be able to implement Paul-Ryan-No-Care and cut other services that make our lives better. Of course, you have to wonder why Republicans would want to cut those services in the first place, but that is a whole different issue.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)