|
|||
|
The Money Melodrama in WashingtonPosted on Jul 26, 2011
Stating the obvious: Politicians know politics; that’s their business. Business is not their business, and any discussion about American presidents and economics has to begin with this discouraging word: American politicians, with a very small number of exceptions, don’t know anything about economics. In Washington, during the deficit debates for the past few weeks, politicians are guessing—as I think most economists and pundits are—and they seize on almost any deficit idea that sounds good at the time. It has been ever thus: A mainstream American conservative, Richard Nixon, blurts out that we are all Keynesians now, and a mainstream American liberal, Bill Clinton, declares that the era of big government is over. And a more fundamental conservative, Ronald Reagan, grabs onto the thinking of an unknown economist able to write everything he knows on a napkin. When President Reagan, who loved to brag that he was an economics major in college, picked up Arthur Laffer’s “supply side” napkin—a sort of fortune cookie that said the lower marginal tax rates are, the higher government revenues will be—both Reaganomics and our current econochaos were born. Instinctively, Reagan, one damned good politician, realized that there was something on the table that looked very much like a free lunch. Once upon a time it had been called “trickle-down economics”—if the rich got richer, everyone else would play in the crumbs under the table. That was really no different from John F. Kennedy’s idea that a rising tide lifts all boats. His single change to a budget proposal by Walter Heller, his house economist, was to make the cover of the printed program a darker blue. Usually, hopeful words and rosy budget scenarios satisfy the public, at least until after the election. Advertisement After four months in office, Reagan told the Congress: “High taxes and excess spending created our present economic mess. More of the same will not cure the hardship, anxiety and discouragement it has imposed on the American people.” So, a man who made his political reputation by attacking “tax-and-spend” Democrats became president and invented “borrow-and-spend” Republicanism. This was called Reaganomics. Unfortunately, it did not work. When Reagan became president—and began to cut taxes—the federal deficit was 2.5 percent of the national economy. When he left, eight years later, the deficit was 5 percent of the economy. Interest payments on the debt jumped from $69 billion in 1981 to $169 billion in 1988. At the time, those were astonishing numbers, and they have exploded since. That’s where we are now. The leaders of Reagan’s party—he would be a left-wing Republican now—seem to truly believe that they, and they alone, know the secret other politicians have sought: Reduce the deficit, balance the budget and save the republic. That’s quite a reversal from only a few years ago when Vice President Richard Cheney said that, politically, Reagan had proved that deficits don’t matter. After all, Reagan ran up more debt than any of his predecessors and easily won re-election. This time they matter mightily, at least until 2012. In the middle of Reagan’s 1984 campaign against Walter Mondale, James Baker, Reagan’s chief of staff, passed him a memo saying: “The goal is to win re-election. ... That’s the big picture. Everything else is small picture. ... Taxes are a big-picture issue. If we want to win—and win big—the exigencies of the election force us to solemnly swear that Mondale is the tax-increase candidate and Ronald Reagan is the no-tax-increase candidate.” Then he ended the note by saying that after the election, Reagan could do whatever he wanted to do about abstractions like the deficit. What Reagan did after the election was make Baker his secretary of the Treasury. © 2011 Universal Uclick New and Improved CommentsWe are launching a major overhaul of our comments section. In addition to more robust spam filtering and moderation, new features include the ability to rate other comments, sort how they are displayed and respond directly via e-mail or in a thread. Unfortunately, commenters will lose their existing Truthdig identities. It's a pain, we know, but on the plus side you will now be able to log in with a plethora of options, including Google, Twitter, Facebook and Disqus accounts. Before launching this system we spent months in discussion with our top commenters. We listened to the feedback and we hope you like what we've come up with. Please direct any problems or concerns to us via our contact page. |
By gerard, July 31, 2011 at 7:27 pm Link to this comment
Such fiascos have little or nothing to do with “understanding economics.” They have everything to do with manipulating the ignorant and lethargic public so they are unable to participate in the “debate.” Such prolonged political wrangling is totally destructive, not only of resources but of truth and morality.
Any country that spends the enormous amount of public money on killing people in other countries, as a mere matter of business, deserves to run into big trouble. That money would have been more than enough to keep the US economy on an even keel and at the same time help deprived areas of the world “level up” to a minimum standard that supports decent human existence. Every penny spent on war is stolen from legitimate human needs. A plague on such a system!
Report thisThe entire “debt crisis” was and is a huge smoke screen to support privilege and waste.
By Marian Griffith, July 27, 2011 at 10:50 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
@inherit the wind
I do not think that the republican party powerbrokers ‘understand’ economics as such, nor that they care to. They understand -politics- far better than the democrats. The understand that they need to convince the voters that they understand economics. As long as they can keep up that charade the voters who realise that economics are important for their income but now how will keep returning them to power with only the occasional ‘republicat’ opposition as a slap on the wrist when they make their greed and ignorance too difficult to ignore.
It is really ironic that for a country that has such a large percentage of its population rejecting evolution theory is stuck on social darwinism. So many Americans believe deep down that anybody who is poor -deserves- to be so, and will never be fully comfortable with concepts like altruism and community. As long as the Democrats continue presenting themselves as the party who wants to aid the poor they put themselves at a disadvantage to the republicans who have no compunction to do anything, including totally wrecking the economy, as long as it returns them to power.
Report thisBy MarthaA, July 27, 2011 at 7:08 am Link to this comment
Excerpt From Harvard Graduate Alan Grayson’s Truthdig Radio
Interview with Peter Scheer:
Alan Grayson: “It’s farcical to say that the war in Iraq is somehow over when we still have 50,000 troops there. The one ray of hope is that the Iraqis are starting to put their foot down; they don’t want to be an occupied country any longer, and they’ve told the U.S. troops that they have to get out, and somehow or other we feel like arguing with them about it. So the Iraqis have said all troops have to be gone by the end of the year, and the Defense Department and the State Department are both sort of trying to weasel out of it. We’ll see what happens. We’re still paying the bills; we spent $157 billion last year on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, at a time when unemployment was close to 10 percent. In Florida it’s, oh, it’s about 13 percent. We spend $500 for every single man, woman and child in America on the war in Iraq. And that’s just the appropriated funds; the non-appropriated funds are even more than that. They’re more than the appropriated funds. Joe Stiglitz, who’s a Nobel Prize winner, calculated the cost of the war in Iraq already at $4 trillion. That’s $13,000 for every man, woman and child in America; and you know, for my family of seven, that’s almost $100,000. I want my money back.”
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/alan_grayson_tells_it_like_it_is_20110721/
Report thisBy angelad888, July 27, 2011 at 7:04 am Link to this comment
The problem with the American economy is that the American people are so
caught up in achieving what they believe to be the American dream: material
things will buy happiness along with make a statement to the world that I can
afford such luxuries so as a result i will do whatever job makes the most money
in the shortest amount of time. Unfortunately, the majority who follow this
dream are only dreaming. The American dream is about having the freedom
and support of your government to acquire the ability to be able to obtain a
career, not a “job”, that makes a person happy about his/her self.
Today, there are too many people in “jobs” they hate which prevents people
who have a talent/interest in that career field to have more difficulty entering
the career field they desire which causes them to lose interest and settle for any
job. Therefore, if Americans would stop demanding lower taxes and
government aid to save money for their personal obsessions with obtaining
material items and instead devote their whole life to what makes them
personally happy, perhaps they’re feelings about themselves will improve and
people will actually exceed in their careers causing the economy to slowly
revamp itself. Then, with society more focused on their career that fills their
happiness void, less focus will be on the demand of money which would slowly
allow the government to do away with welfare programs without the majority of
people on welfare programs even realizing the programs are gone since the
love of their career would distract them. Government funds could be
redistributed to aid lower income people in achieving the career they’re best at
that fulfills their happiness level.
Additionally, the US Department of Education needs to be dramatically reduced
and give the power back to the states. All students are different and learn in
different ways. There is no such thing as a standardized test. The national
education should only focus on making sure children receive the basics in
primary school and then in the middle grades begin to slowly refocus them on
what skills they’re good at and like to perform so that they can be the most
beneficial to society and still fill encouraged to continue pursuing their
education. The national education should only demand that history and political
science be stressed every year of school so that society will actually begin to
understand what the government does and why taxes and such are needed.
Americans are too focused on the individual instead of the collective good.
Eventually American patriotism is going to fall because more and more young
adults are losing faith in their government. Once citizens no longer feel a pride
towards their country and fellow Americans, there is no longer a team of people
to call themselves a nation.
It will take a united political party to accomplish this, not one person over the
Report thiscourse of four years. If a political party can provide the electorate with true
happiness and help them to understand the situation, then campaigning would
not be such b.s.
By TDoff, July 27, 2011 at 6:42 am Link to this comment
It does not surprise that ‘American politicians, with a very small number of exceptions, don’t know anything about economics’. Neither does the American public.
Nor, for that matter, do economists.
Report thisBy TDoff, July 27, 2011 at 6:31 am Link to this comment
ITW said it all, and said it correctly.
Report thisBy mrfreeze, July 27, 2011 at 6:30 am Link to this comment
Inherit the Wind - You couldn’t be more correct. Nicely said.
I’ve said this time and time again: The wealthy and their puppets (congress) don’t give a shit about solving our problems. Period.
What’s so absurd is that regular folk have simply rolled-over and allowed this to happen. As George Carlin so brilliantly put it: “Never underestimate the stupidity of the American people.”
Report thisBy Inherit The Wind, July 27, 2011 at 5:00 am Link to this comment
Richard,
I disagree. I think the Republicans understand economics perfectly. But the object of the game is to win unlimited power that cannot be stemmed and to ensure the continued backing of the pseudo-nations, the multinational corporations.
What they SAY is nothing but propaganda. I don’t think Boehner or McConnell believe one word they are spouting. They don’t give a shit about jobs. They don’t give a shit about the welfare of the American people. They want what Tom DeLay called “a perpetual majority”—in other words, absolute power.
It doesn’t matter if the economy is strong or weak: Just make sure the C-levels and banks get richer and become more and more impervious to challenges. For them, the IDEAL society is a “capitalist” version of Stalinism: Orwell’s 1984, with them at the top.
You assume they want the same things you and I and, I think most Republican voters want but don’t understand: A healthy economy full of jobs that allows people to prosper on their own merit.
But they don’t. McConnell and Hatch in rare moments of honesty have told us that the wealthiest need to be protected, we need to subsidize Exxon/Mobil, the richest corporation on earth, and that the poor have to sacrifice.
Their goal is a 21st century version of feudal society where the “Gentry”, the “Elite” live in unimaginable luxury for themselves and their families, and the rest live to serve them. They understand this perfectly, and will say ANYTHING, no matter how outrageous and absurd and contradictory, to get it.
Report thisBy Billy Pilgrim, July 27, 2011 at 4:44 am Link to this comment
I’m sick and tired of being sick and tired of our
Report thisstupid country and the idiots we elect to public
office. The founders rebelled against George III for
insults far less extreme than what is being hurled at
the American public by the so called Tea Party and
their corporate enablers.