From January of 1995 until January of 2007, the Republican party had Congressional majorities (save for the odd period during which the Senate was equally divided). In 12 years, what did Republicans do with their majorities?
Health care was a problem in 1993. The Clinton administration proposed a reform plan modeled on Germany’s mix of public and private systems and regulated competition. Republicans did everything in their power to kill it, including engaging in a deliberate campaign of misinformation about the plan and what would happen if it passed (if by the way that sounds familiar it should).
The number of uninsured Americans continued to grow. By 2003, it was clear to most observers the US was facing a slow moving health care crisis – one in which costs were rising, health insurance bills rising and so forth.
At any time from 2003 to 2007, the Republican party could have proposed health care reform. At any time in those four years, Republicans could have proposed the plan they’ve spent the year pretending is an actual proposal and probably could have gotten it through Congress. They also had a Republican president who, if I recall correctly, was not overly fond of vetoing bills from his Republican congress.
In 12 years, Republicans had plenty of opportunities to propose health care reform legislation. They did not.
To my mind, we have two obvious interpretations of that inaction: either the Republicans did not believe that the US needed any kind of health care reform, that the status quo of million uninsured and costs rising faster than inflation were/are an acceptable state of affairs OR that the Republicans in Congress saw that the status quo and believed it was wrong, but refused to act to change it.
Whether you agree with the solutions being debated in Congress, whether you think the bills in question should be defeated and we should try to get a better bill by using a different legislative process, or whether you think we should pass them as they stand and work to improve them later, you cannot deny that a Democratic Congress and White House saw a major problem, identified potential solutions, debated them, negotiated with the various political factions and at long last arrived at a proposed solution.
That’s more progress in one year on health care than we got from the Republicans in 12 years.
#1 by Richard Warnick on December 27, 2009 - 12:36 am
The Republicans passed Medicare Part D, however that was a budget-buster, a corporate bonanza, and most of all a corrupt and cynical attempt to rake in some senior votes in the 2004 election.
Progressives could learn from the tough tactics Republicans such as Rep. Tom DeLay used to railroad Part D through, I think. Such powers could be used for good purposes, if only progressives had the will.
The current Senate health care “reform” bill is also a corporatist piece of legislation that does not try to control costs. Health insurance premiums are predicted to double within ten years. The bill does provide for some government subsidies, but these would be paid directly to the insurance companies and won’t help the vast majority of Americans.
If you still have an out-of-control health care crisis after the legislation takes effect, then it’s not reform.
#2 by Larry Bergan on December 27, 2009 - 1:03 am
I don’t think the Republicans wanted to take a chance on a decent debate about the issue. As it turns out, they didn’t need to worry, even with the Democrats in charge of all three branches of government…
or…
They were happy with things right where they were.
#3 by cav on December 27, 2009 - 8:36 am
In the GOP: Hypocrisy = Oxygen.
This may be something stem cell research could help with. I don’t know.
#4 by Glenden Brown on December 27, 2009 - 8:42 am
The funny thing is that if you look at the debate on the left of the political spectrum, the year has actually been marked by a vigorous and substantive debate about health care.
The distinction is between the DLC/Third Way contingent who believe that public goods – such as universal health care – can be achieved through private entities with government prodding and regulation. For these folks regulations – such as limiting the amount insurance companies can spend on administrative costs – and providing subsidies to individuals to buy insurance from private companies are means to achieving public goods while (theoretically) realizing the benefits of private entities; such programmatic responses are a way of mimicking a public program such as Medicare or the VA, both of which have lower administrative costs than the 15% the Senate bill provides without actually creating a public program.
The progressive wing of the party believes that public resources – such as scarce tax dollars – should be dedicated to public goods directly through public programs. For these folks, rather than use public resources to create private profits, we could simply use that money to extend coverage to more people.
If I were a cynic, I would suggest that “third way” pols have imbibed the free market kool-aid that teaches that the free market “always” produces better outcomes than public programs.
By contrast, from the right we’ve gotten death panels, kill granny, socialism, nazism, tea-baggers, complaints about how many pages are in the bill, and boatloads of uninformed screeching about “government takeover” of health care.
#5 by Bubba V. on December 27, 2009 - 9:22 am
I’m pretty disappointed with both the Democratic and Republican parties’ response to health care. If one side is caught up in inaction, and the other assumes any government action is a victory, there is a problem with both. But I don’t see the root cause in the parties themselves. The parties are limited in what they can propose and do by their constituencies’ understanding in a pragmatic two-party system. The greater the understanding and reflectivity of the public, the more effective the parties. So the root is in the rather poor reflective capabilities and shallow political education of the American public. Many conservatives are caught up in a feeling that big business represents American individualism, and what is good for big business is good for America (questionable notions). Many liberals believe the market is always suspect and any government action is beneficent and productive. Then the “moderates,” who believe in a public-private partnership, warm-fuzzy feeling, get legislation through which expands government to the benefit of big business. Bureaucracy and aristocracy expand at the expense of the general public. Sounds like the corporative fascist state to me.
#6 by Cliff Lyon on December 27, 2009 - 9:31 am
The Republicans became paralyzed by their own hand. The beginning of the end came when Rove decided to exploit the Christian Right.
By 2002, all you had to do to get on the Republican ticket was to stand up and announce yourself a man of God. Once elected on that premise, they became beholden to the Christian Right.
The problem came when people like Ralph Reed co-opted the Christian right but NOT to drive God’s agenda. These so-called Christians consolidated a new obedient voting block and began renting it out to Corporate America.
Now beholden to the Christian Right to keep their seats, Republicans began trying to out-pious one another while at the same time pandering to their Corporate constituents.
And since God and politics don’t mix very well in America, they became paralyzed because they needed to brand everything with God.
So they began to brand un-Christian policy with God and painted themselves into a corner.
Thats when greed was changed to individual responsibility and unfettered capitalism was changed to ‘freedom’ and the ideals of good government were construed as a threat to Christianity.
Frank finally figured out what I’ve been saying and wrote,
Here is my response (rant):
#7 by brewski on December 27, 2009 - 10:11 am
Another of Glenden’s half-truths.
The Dems owned Congress from 1954-1994 (40 years!) and what we got was a tax code which subsidizes debt and punishes savings, a welfare system which encourages fathers to leave their families, no national healthcare, the perpetual Ponzi scheme of social security, earmarks and goodies for their largest bribers….
Glenden, if you weren’t so serious I would think you were kidding. It would be funny but in your hands it is merely disturbing.
#8 by Cliff Lyon on December 27, 2009 - 10:17 am
At least the Democrats can govern. It should also be noted that the economy has done better and the deficit lower under Democratic Presidents.
Republicans can’t govern because they hate government, but they sure do love Jesus Christ. Yeahhh for them.
Republicans should just leave. Bye, bye.
#9 by brewski on December 27, 2009 - 11:18 am
I will take that to mean that you agree with my points.
It should be noted that the economy does best when the Congress and President are of different parties. Besides, the 90’s were the start of the bubble which started this mess, so the good economy was partially an illusion, as all bubbles are. The crash of 2000, when Clinton was still president is prima facie evidence of that. Sorry Cliff, facts get in the way sometime.
#10 by Larry Bergan on December 27, 2009 - 3:12 pm
Great thoughts about God, Cliff. It is the best scam ever: saying you are guided by an entity that cannot be questioned shuts down all debate.
In my opinion, it’s worse then that, because Rove has intertwined God with voting. You can steal an election that is not audited properly anywhere in the country and claim that people of God always show up at the polls and vote against gays, for guns and Republicans. Since the conventional wisdom these days, (whatever that is), says we are overwhelmingly Christian in this country, it’s always easy to convince everybody the elections were legitimate.
I’m not buying the myth that people voted for the worst screw-up in history because he was keeping us safer the Kerry would have and it’s not logical to change and hide exit polls that don’t reflect the way they SAY we voted.
#11 by Dwight Sheldon Adams on December 27, 2009 - 10:23 pm
Cliff–
This is the first really true thing about religion I’ve ever heard you say. Thanks. I agree entirely, which is why I’m a religious person who believes in separation of church and state.
I would add to you list of books Thomas Frank’s “What’s the Matter With Kansas?”, which provides a micro-view of the religious takeover of the Republican Party, and how the moderate Repubs are complicit with the conservative religiosity because it benefits them. Vote for pro-life? Get tax cuts for the rich. Vote for pro-gun? Get state subsidies for Boeing. Etc.
Thanks for the post.
As for your comments about Repubs hating government, I would complicate that statement, appropriately: Republicans perceive that government can’t do anything right. They say so frequently, and if they’re utilizing excessive hyperbole, they should cut it out or realize that they won’t be taken seriously. Until they prove their own stated perspective wrong, they will only ever exist in government to get rid of it. Considering their long insistence on staying in government rather than dissolving it, and on expanding laws rather than constricting their influence (it’s just their laws that are ok to make; Democrats can’t make laws without enlarging government), it seems that they never do accomplish their implied goals. Besides: why would you want somebody operating an institution which, by their own admission, they can’t possibly be a part of without either sabotaging its efforts or dismissing their own integrity?
Bubba–
What you’re describing is what I’ve referred to as “reverse fascism.” It has another, more official, name, but it escapes me at the moment. Simply put, it’s where corporations force their way into government rather than government meshing itself with corporations. Of course, what can we expect when enormous amounts of property and capital are in so few hands? Remember, the power of aristocracy was used to force the creation of the Magna Carta over the commands of the king and the needs of the people. What power might today’s aristocracy wield, and to what end?
Brewski–
Generally speaking. Of course, there does come the problem of the 1954-1994 period when Congress was “controlled” by Democrats, and yet deficit rose more during Republican presidential terms than Democrat ones in those years. Oh, wait–Clinton’s economic growth was just an illusion, a bubble, and had nothing to do with the diversity in Congress during most of his presidency. Darn it! Why do crashes have to happen in 2000, when the Executive is a Democrat and the Legislature is Republican? It just totally skews the split-control model!
I am waiting for you to admit how the last 8 years were such a mess because Repubs controlled both the Executive and the Legislative. Can you provide an analysis of the last eight years that shows how your statements are true? Congress changed hands in the 2006 Congressional election, yet the economic meltdown occurred anyway. Was that because of problems started during the Republican domination period over the prior 6 years? Anyways, just curious about how you can apply your rules at times when Republicans are in charge equally with when Democrats are in charge.
Sorry if the above seems sarcastic, brewski. I just would love an explanation of your claim, as it seems a little too axiomatic–possibly even dogmatic, and likely wouldn’t escape your lips during a Repub-Exec + Repub-Legis year (although, of this you may certainly prove me wrong). While it may be accurate as a very broad generalization, it hardly constitutes an actionable phenomena. Of course, if you can provide an explanation of how and why your statement is true, or perhaps a resource discussing why it’s true, I’d love to read it. Thanks.
Dwight Sheldon Adams
#12 by Glenden Brown on December 28, 2009 - 11:02 am
The “divided government” theory is appealing since it describes the political period we’ve just lived through – an unusual period of dealignment during which the previous party system collapsed but a new one did not arise to replace it.
#13 by Richard Warnick on December 28, 2009 - 11:12 am
Maybe slightly OT, Jane Hamsher calls attention to the Democratic Party’s efforts to demonize progressives opposed to the so-called health care “reform” bill.
They are dredging up the myth that Nader ruined the 2000 election for Gore (he didn’t), and implying that we have no right to try and stand in the way of the Obama administration’s massive corporatist giveaway– that we have to pay for!
#14 by Glenden Brown on December 28, 2009 - 11:40 am
Richard – I don’t think that’s off topic at all. One of the more toxic dynamics that has emerged this year, and paradoxically a dynamic that makes reform harder, has been the tendency of the Democratic office holders to perceive the party’s progressive base as the opposition. We see this dynamic all the time from Bush Dogs like Jim Matheson. It’s a self-defeating dynamic; even the Blue Dogs need the base to win elections.
#15 by brewski on December 28, 2009 - 11:46 am
Dwight,
There are two separate points here.
The first was about Cliff’s uneducated claim about how the economy does better under Democratic presidents. I am sure he knows that the data is that the economy does best when the government is divided.
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=3088
http://online.wsj.com/public/article_print/SB122117691244025843.html
The second point is about the bubble and the 2 crashes which followed. The bubble started around 1994, then first crashed in 2000, then inflated again starting in 2003, then crashed again in 2007, and I would argue is inflating again as we speak. So this period spanned three presidents, periods of both GOP and Dem control of Congress, two Chairmen of the Fed, etc. So it is easy to conclude that both parties have the capacity to totally fuck things up, to use a technical term. Yes, the GOP did an awful job in oh so many ways in 2001-2007. And the Dems are doing a disasterously bad job right now as we speak. So not as a matter of theory, but as a matter of evidence, I would conclude that the divided government does the best governing.
The Reagan/Tip O’Neil era and the Clinton/Gingrich era were peiods when quite a bit of good stuff got done. But more importantly, those are periods when less bad stuff got done. The bad stuff happens when either party is in total control. It is pretty scary when GWB/Boehner push something through just as much when Obama/Pelosi pushes something through.
#16 by Dwight Sheldon Adams on December 29, 2009 - 11:29 am
Brewski–
The bubbles and the performance of the economy are not separate points–they’re linked and multi-layered, like cheese and crackers. Yum.
I generally agree with the statement about mixed party control, but I was taken aback by the context in which it was given. The data laid out on this thread so far indicates that there have been a couple of aberrations from that generalization–notable ones; aberrations which are apparently important enough for you to use to make your point. It was the acknowledgment of the 1994-2000 bubble that really got me, as Congress was dominated by Republicans from 1995-2007. That seems to indicate that mixed party control isn’t so much a factor–at least not recently.
I personally believe that mixed party control was advantageous at one time, but that was before the filibuster and absolute party fealty dethroned the rule of law. The very best, I suppose, would be mixed party control between the houses of Congress.
I don’t really trust the CATO Institute all that much–not since I caught them lying in a presentation to Congress. The article you provide is pretty reasonable. I can’t say I’m surprised by the dates of publication of these two articles. The CATO Institute is Libertarian, giving them a little more leeway (i.e. they don’t have to support Republicans or lose their funding). I don’t think it’s any coincidence that the WSJ article was published less than a month before the 2008 elections. The WSJ article does a lot of numbers magic, but comes to few reliable conclusions. Is the methodology equally shared throughout the whole process? Doesn’t seem to be. Oh well. Still fun to read.
Dwight Sheldon Adams
#17 by brewski on December 29, 2009 - 11:43 am
Yes it is true that the first bubble started in 1994 or so, right about the time that the government became divided.
What that shows is that bubbles are not all about Congress and the White House. The blame for that falls mostly on the Federal Reserve FOMC. So, my point was not that divided governments won’t preside over bad decisions by the Fed. It is that they are less likely to do other stupid things. Bill Clinton loves to toot his own horn about the alleged balanced budgets in the last couple of years of his 8 years. But I would argue that those alleged balanced budgets only occurred because the government was divided.
#18 by Dwight Sheldon Adams on December 29, 2009 - 12:16 pm
So what I’m seeing here is that you’re doing just what you’re accusing Clinton of doing–that is, giving credit based on a poor analytical model–but once evidence comes up contrary to your position, you retreat into opinion language.
Well, that’s fine. Economics is complex enough that we all have to do our best and ultimately admit that opinion is so much more than fact (fact being relatively unknown). I’m glad we’ve reached the point where the “proof” that divided government is best can be taken off the table and we can just talk concept. No more pretending.
I would say that a divided government is only necessarily superior if you assume that government action is inherently deleterious, or that the potential for such both outweighs the potential for beneficence and may not be mitigated sufficiently to balance the two potentialities. These assumptions are part of the libertarian perspective, which I don’t subscribe to.
There are so many established principles of our economy and government with which we must contend. I would say that, as a general rule, liberals have the government model on their side and conservatives have the economic model on their side.
Government is so often up against a wall in a capitalist economy. You can bet that most liberals would prefer to provide jobs for people rather than just money. That’s the way FDR set it up for most beneficiaries of the first and second New Deals. But any sustained ownership of means of production is “socialism,” so it’s a no-no. The best we can do is just give money to corporations and trust them to not use it to outsource (which they frequently do) or give money to people and trust them to try to get a job–if the corporations in their area haven’t already outsourced the jobs. Not much choice. Thus is the state of welfare and wealthfare today.
Dwight Sheldon Adams
#19 by Glenden Brown on December 29, 2009 - 2:03 pm
The policies that made the CCC and WPA so effective were straightforward – the WPA asked states and locales to identify public works projects and send the list to DC to be funded. The WPA admin offices in various places hired people, sent them off to work and then paid them. What happened, then, was that every time one of those WPA workers went past the school or a playground or the public park or walked on the sidewalks, he/she felt a sense of pride and ownership – they had improved those places and made their communities better.
The conservatives of the 1930s objected – in much the same way today’s conservatives object – that such programs are inherently wasteful; public parks, public schools and so on are an affront because they compete with private institutions. Today’s conservatives argue that private institutions are inherently more efficient, effective and desirable, even though the real world evidence disproves such an assertion (both Medicare and the VA have far lower administrative costs than any private insurer in the US); conservative opposition to government solutions is central to contemporary movement conservatism as an ideological position but not in practice. More fundamentally, conservatives seem to believe that markets are naturally occurring rather than created by people. As a result, they offer the argument that any government action distorts the “natural market.” Thus, if government creates a jobs program ( a WPA or CCC) it is distorting the natural way the job market should work.
The liberal perspective, however, holds that markets are a human creation (thus there is no such thing as a free market – laws, institutions, governments and so on create the market) and as such can fail and can be corrected by human action. Thus, if the market left to its own devices fails to create sufficient jobs or to provide needed services, the government can and should intervene. At its core, however, liberalism understands that such interventions should be strictly confined within a set of predefined rules and regulations which limit dishonesty, abuse and corruption. The New Dealers had an absolute passion for honesty and transparency. They set up committees as part of the design of the New Deal to root out and end any corruption or dishonesty (and it worked!).
#20 by brewski on December 29, 2009 - 2:04 pm
Absolutely not.
If I am making the argument that A is good and B is bad, it does not mean that all good things are caused by A and all bad things are caused by B. One has to be precise in one’s thinking as well as in one’s speaking.
My argument about the
benefits of divided government does not dilute my argument about the mistaked by the FOMC.
I am sticking with the view that divided government is good. The evidence is what it is and if you don’t like Cato then you can go look at the data. It is all emperical.
As a matter of instinct it would be easy to imagine what would happen if the GOP had unfettered ability to run everything just as easy it is to imagine what would happen if the Dems had the same power. So you get to pick between drilling willy nilly for gas all over Utah’s wilderness or the worst health care bill imaginable with carve outs for certain unions and boob-job doctors.
I don’t think that all government is inherently bad, it’s just that government run only by one point of view leads to excesses. There is a reason our system has checks and balances, and having a divided government enforces that balance.
I am not sure where you are going with this
It isn’t the governments’ money to give. Money doesn’t come from the government. Money has existed long before there were governments and existed in the US long before there were Federal Reserve Notes.
The best we can do is let people do with their own money what they decide is best for them, while providing a simple and enforcable system to prevent negative externalities and provide an efficient and objective social safety net. Then get out of the way. That’s the tricky part.
#21 by brewski on December 29, 2009 - 2:15 pm
Glenden,
Show me someone today who says:
#22 by brewski on December 29, 2009 - 2:19 pm
Glenden:
Explain the Longshoremen’s exclusion to the Cadillac plan tax in context of your assertion that:
#23 by Glenden Brown on December 29, 2009 - 2:31 pm
I would refer you to school voucher proponents for objections to public schools.
#24 by Glenden Brown on December 29, 2009 - 2:32 pm
It’s not corrupt, dishonest or abusive.
#25 by Anonymous on December 29, 2009 - 2:39 pm
Actually, there is no need to imagine (as a matter of instinct or otherwise) when memory will serve – cf 2001-2006.
#26 by brewski on December 29, 2009 - 2:42 pm
I would say the Longshoremen’s exception is entirely corrupt, dishonest and abusive. It is the worst form of corruption, dishonesty and abuse which undermines democracy itself. If you don’t think so then go back and read all of Obama’s speeches about not having special interests writing legislation. He was right then and Reid is wrong now.
Supporting school vouchers is in no way shape or form similar to saying that public schools are an affront. What is a moral affront is the liberal postition that rich people get school choice but poor people don’t.
#27 by Glenden Brown on December 29, 2009 - 3:16 pm
brewski – have you actually read what the pro-voucher people think of public schools? Your comment demonstrates that you don’t know the liberal position – the liberal position on public schools is, simply, that they should provide top knotch education such that all students receive an excellent education, that public funds (i.e. taxes) should be reserved for public institutions – taking tax dollars and funnelling them to private schools through vouchers fundamentally misallocates those scarce dollars; additionally, once those dollars leave the public system, the public can no longer account for them or hold those who spend them accountable. Since the mechanisms by which private schools could be held accountable are anathema to voucher proponents, vouchers are doubly problematic (Canada’s voucher system, for instance, requires private schools to use the same curricula used in public schools – meaning private schools can’t teach creationism and call it science). That public school education is not uniformly good is not an argument against it – public schools can do succeed all the time.
I hope this doesn’t sound insulting brewski because I don’t mean it that way, but with regard to health care reform, you are really coming across as an idealistic purist. The process of legislation in the real world is ridiculously messy and always has been. Do I have a problem taxing the bloody hell out of a plan that benefits bond traders or bank executives? Nope. But Longshoremen do hard work – they work their asses off and if they managed to negotiate a great plan for themselves and their families, taxing the hell ouf of it punishes working class Americans and if we’re not getting a single payer plan, then we should be protecting the working class, shouldn’t we?
#28 by brewski on December 29, 2009 - 3:46 pm
Where to begin?
The liberal position is not as you state it. The liberal position also states that schools and teachers should not be held accountable for actually teaching their students anything. Their answer for schools which spend the most and teach the least is to give them more money with no accountabilities.
Also, there is patently false to say that if public funds were used in private schools that there is no accountability as to how those funds are spent. We use public funds to in private hospitals, private colleges, private drug companies, private airplane manufacturers, private farmers, private road contractors, private pretty much everything. So using public funds for pretty everything but drawing some ideological line at schools only reveals your partisan view of this. As a taxpayer, I would support the use of public funds to go a good job educating children the same way I want my money used to do a good job building roads or picking up my garbage by a private company. Accountability and measurement is just called management.
When it comes to corruption I am a purist. I do not think it is moral for unions to make big donations to politicians and then magically those same donors get special expcetions from particular taxes that non-donors have to pay. That is called a bribe. It is not messy. It is corrupt and Obama specifically ran on the platform of ending the influence of special interests. So much for “change”.
And then your discussion comparing different tax treatment between bond traders and longshoremen is an obvious opportunity for abuse, corruption, politics and farvoritism. Regardless of your class warfare sensibilities, it is simply unworkable to write a tax and have it apply differently to different people depending on their job description. One you start the exception process, that invites more bribes/donations by every other organization to get their industry on the list. Why just longshoremen? Let’s throw in teachers, auto workers, construction, meat packing, utility companies, oil drillers, teachers, doctors, etc e etc etc or whomever else has a checkbook. It also invites gameplaying where Goldman Sachs could buy a small shipping company and claim that they are in fact longshoremen now. Your third grade advocacy of the working man vs. those bad bond traders is naive and impractical, at best.
#29 by Glenden Brown on December 29, 2009 - 4:14 pm
Your strawman version of liberalism is cute, and I’m sure that Karl Rove would approve.
The important distinction you are missing is that public education is a public good. The corruption you claim to deplore is widespread in the military industrial complex, what Andrew Bacevich calls the national security state, in which we throw good money after bad in endless attempts to get private companies to make ever better means with which we can kill people and the fact that those companies own the Republican party lock stock and barrel seems oddly not to bother you.
Why is it when liberals worry about what helps working class Americans its class warfare but when conservatives deliver tax cuts to benefit the rich it’s called supply side economics?
#30 by brewski on December 29, 2009 - 4:40 pm
Your cartoonish depiction of conservatism is ignorant. Castro would approve.
There is no distinction. We use public funds to pay private hospitals and private doctors to treat Medicare patients. Period. Explain to me how it is ok for Medicare and not for schools.
Your “tax cuts to benefit the rich” maintained a system where the poor don’t pay any taxes at all, and “the rich” still pay far higher rates than the middle class. It also maintained a system where the US has higher rates than the liberal democriacies of Europe that you admire so much for their liberal policies. It isn’t supply side economics. Its an acknowledgement that marginal rates matter.
#31 by Larry Bergan on December 29, 2009 - 6:06 pm
brewski:
I can name somebody who was against public parks: James Watt; Reagan’s oil lawyer Secretary of the Interior. He called our National Parks, “playground parks”, because he wanted to give them away to oil interests.
Amazingly, he also said: “We don’t have to protect the environment, the Second Coming is at hand.”
#32 by brewski on December 29, 2009 - 6:16 pm
Watt was certifiably crazy. Congratulations for reaching back 27 years to quote a nut. With Obama’s team we only need to go back 27 minutes.
#33 by Larry Bergan on December 29, 2009 - 7:08 pm
Watt may have been certifiably crazy, but he was a harbinger of things to come out of the right wing. There are technically a thousand James Watt’s working for the republican party right now. For crying out loud; Sarah Palin was going to be the vice president!
Nobody in Obama’s cabinet, which seems to have been thrust on him, has said anything close to what Watt said, but people on the republican side are always saying things like that.
Stop it!
#34 by brewski on December 29, 2009 - 7:25 pm
– Barack Obama
#35 by Glenden Brown on December 29, 2009 - 8:02 pm
This sentence sounds like the brewski of old – its a provocative line of inquiry. In what ways are health care and education the same and different?
The short answer is that health care isn’t education and vice versa – what works for one doesn’t necessarily work for the other. There’s that old word game – all boys are children but not all children are boys (half of all children are you know girls). Universal health care and universal public education are both public goods but very different sorts of goods that have to be managed and delivered very differently.
If both are universal and high quality, they benefit both individuals and society at large, both lead to improvements in the quality of life. I grant I’m tired tonight and not feeling creative, but the way health care is needed and delivered would not work for education and vice versa. Health care is by its nature more specialized than education – you can take 30 people put them in a room and teach them, you can use a variety of pedagogical methods and assign small groups, experiments, individual reading and teach. By contrast, health care requires one on one diagnosis and treatment of each patient individually.
In the UK both education and health care are run by the government – they are public goods, receiving public funds and who can receive them and what they can use them for is strictly limited. In Canada, the single payer system centralizes who pays and how much and for what. In that sense, just as they create accountability for private schools accepting vouchers, they are able to manage how public funds are used for health care. One example might be a single payer system that does not fund acupuncture because it isn’t scientifically proven to work. In that sense, then, even though private entities are receiving public funds, they are not absent public accountability and oversight. As I said before, one of the fundamental problems with voucher proposals is that the mechanisms by which we would create accountability are anathema to voucher proponents.
Your statement about taxation is arguably nutty. You may be the only conservative in history who has ever suggested that Europe social democracies have lower taxes than the US. Here’s the thing: the broad consensus in most Western European nations has long been for the creation of a secure social welfare state – one supported by relatively high taxes but also characterized by the intentional creation of a broad middle class society, one in which there is relatively low economic disparity and in which there is a very secure safety net. The US, starting in the 1930s, followed a similar path and created in the 1950s and 60s a broadly middle class society; since then, the US has pursued a path of cutting marginal rates quite deeply and leading to vast economic disparity – perhaps the greatest in modern history. It seems to me such disparity is not the sign of a healthy society. A progressive tax code is a system to transfer wealth from the upper tiers to the rest of society. The rich receive in return a more stable society, one in which they can feel confident of reliable returns on their investments. Paradoxically, as the US has pursued supply side solutions – beginning in the 1980s – we’ve seen our economy become far less stable – we’ve had successive bubbles burst, leading to things like the S&L meltdown and the stock market crash of 1987. Such economic instability isn’t just bad for the rest of us, it’s bad for the wealthy.
The problem with the conservative argument about taxation is the narrow focus on marginal tax rates divorced from a discussion of the need to pay for necessary services. This is an area in which the liberal position is ultimately very pragmatic – the 90% top marginal rate in the 1950s was too high, but today’s 35% is far too low. The Reagan administration raised taxes covertly a number of time – claiming they were closing loopholes or such. The first Bush administration back tax increases to balance the budget. The Clinton administration followed suit (and did so without a single Republican vote so maybe your theory about divided gov’t needs some work).
#36 by Uncle Rico on December 29, 2009 - 8:21 pm
What’s your point?
#37 by brewski on December 29, 2009 - 8:58 pm
Glenden, those crazy right wingnuts in Sweden with all of their socialized healthcare and generous social safety net have figured it out:
Admit it, you don’t have any legitmate reason why the government can pay private organizations to provide healthcare, run universities, build and maintain roads, build airplanes and just about everything else. Your objection to school vouchers is nakedly partisan with no basis in evidence.
And yes, there are several countries in the OECD where the top marginal tax rate is lower than in the US. Norway for one.
And I have no idea what you are getting at discussing marginal tax rates and the S&L crisis and other fuckups. You may be the first person to link the two. I have explained before what caused that and other bubbles and crashes. It wasn’t marginal tax rates.
By the way, marginal tax rates are a big deal. It is not a narrow focus. Marginal tax rates matter and average tax rates don’t since taxpayers make decisions on the next dollar earned and taxed and not dollars already earned and taxed. So if I have a 50% marginal tax rate but an average tax rate of 25% due to various exemptions, exclusions, deductions and other things I bought from my senator, then I will pay 50% of the next dollar earned in taxes and I will make decisions accordingly. Getting to keep 50% of what I earn next is a lot different than keeping 25% of what I earn next. That will affect how I will save, invest and work. That is why marginal rates matter. In fact, in the worst designed cases, the marginal tax rate for some people exceeds 100% (when combined marginal taxes and incremental lost benefits are totalled) such that people lose money to go to work. It’s a big deal.
#38 by Dwight Sheldon Adams on December 30, 2009 - 8:29 am
Brewski, you know full well that is not the liberal position. Your blatant insistence on unmitigated straw men is getting annoying. But, as long as you’re going to carry an idealistic goal to its real-world end and then blame it on the idealist, let’s get dirty:
What is a moral affront is that conservatives would rather let children die of starvation, cancer, and exposure than charge the wealthy a little bit more of their excess in taxes.
What is a moral affront is the conservative position that ending preteen sex slavery is less important than keeping prices on clothing low.
What is a moral affront is the conservative position that rich people have to be paid to be encouraged to be good while poor people have to be punished if they’re not good.
What is a moral affront is the conservative position that stealing a $2 loaf of bread is theft while skimming millions off of your workers’ potential wages isn’t.
What is a moral affront is that conservatives give to charities for their own pride while they bash the very people who receive the funding.
In short, what is a moral affront is that conservatives believe that the freedom to buy a yacht is more important than the freedom to live without fear of circumstance–that those who already have a safety net are more important to protect than those which don’t.
Are we done with the straw men yet? Pointing out the natural or likely end of a policy position is fine and dandy, but accusing the idealists who promote the position of wanting that end is another thing entirely–especially when the end of which you speak is actually the combined product of the idealists’ and the money-grubbers’ actions. It may be possible for the idealists’ idea to work, but the critics are standing in the way of success.
Case in point: the current healthcare bill. If Senate Republicans hadn’t relied on filibuster politics, then the Democrats wouldn’t have had to suck up to the last 10 people to get them to support the bill. The passing of the bill being inevitable at that point, the Repubs should have backed off of the filibuster. But it seems they would rather have a pork laden, corrupted bill than a good one–as long as “Democrat” is the label on the bill. The idealists, naturally, will take the blame, while the obstructionists will pick up the “I told you so” bell and and march up and down the streets, loudly proclaiming their outrage at an end which they helped create. They’ve told the Democrats: “Fail entirely or be sabotaged. It’s up to you.”
Dwight Sheldon Adams
#39 by Dwight Sheldon Adams on December 30, 2009 - 8:36 am
Let me amend straw man #3:
What is a moral affront is the conservative position that rich people have to be paid to not be bad while poor people have to be punished if they’re not good.
#40 by Glenden Brown on December 30, 2009 - 9:24 am
brewski – Of course, your argument misses the point. Let me repeat this and see if you get it. If you take public funds, you are accountable to the public for how they are spent – that means the public has a right to say, “You can’t use public funds to teach creationism, we don’t care if you are a Christian Academy.” Such accountability has been opposed by voucher proponents in the US. Notice, also, the controls in place in Sweden – “Restrictions prevent private schools from charging top-up fees or selecting students, creating true equality of access.” So the goal is to create an educational system which reaches all students. Voucher proposals in the US have had the disadvantage of hurting the public school system without producing sufficient offsetting goods to make it worthwhile.
Your focus on marginal tax rates is mistaken. The overall tax burden in Norway is higher than in the US – it’s not just marginal tax rates that matter. Marginal tax rates are only one aspect of supply side economics – reducing regulatory structures is another. You reduce regulation, you get things like the S&L crisis.
#41 by brewski on December 30, 2009 - 9:50 am
Speaking of straw men, opposing any notion and any structure of any voucher idea because some voucher proponents (please provide evidence) want public money with no accountability. I am sure you could find a road contractor who wants public money to build a road and not actually be held accountable to actually build a road. I am sticking with the Swedes on this one. They sound like they got it right.
And yes, Dwight, I do frame the liberal position in the actual real world result. The liberal position does result on the actual planet that we live on so that only rich people have school choice. They may say they don’t. But that’s the way it is. Tell Sasha and Malia’s classmates why they can’t go to Sidwell anymore and then tell them you didn’t really mean it.
And yes Glenden, I do understand that Norway has lower marginal income tax rates and a higher overall tax burden. They got it right. They figured out how to collect taxes to pay for services while minimizing the impact and marginal decisionmaking. Don’t tell me I am mistaken when you are way out of your depth on this topic. And mixing marginal tax rates with the S&L fiasco advertizes your lack of education on this topic. Let me know if you want to give you a primer on the S&L fiasco.
By the way Glenden, you have yet to provide me with one single example of any person who calls public schools an affront. You can retract your statement as an alternative.
#42 by Glenden Brown on December 30, 2009 - 10:00 am
brewski – apparently you have forgotten how to read today.
We reduced regulation, we got the S&L meltdown.
Let me repeat for you: focusing on marginal tax rates is too narrow. Economic growth in 20th century in the US was the highest when marginal tax rates were their highest. As we’ve lowered marginal tax rates, economic growth has slowed. If marginal tax rates are as central as you claim, then we should return to 1950s tax rates. If tax rates are so important, shouldn’t a state like Wyoming which has one of the lowest tax burdens – and no state income tax – have a huge population and constant in migration? The real world doesn’t work as you says it works (and supply side economics has been a bust as well).
#43 by brewski on December 30, 2009 - 10:56 am
Glenden, you are replacing education with confidence, never a good idea. This statement is sort of the Dan Rather news 8 seconds understanding of what happened. Which is different from what actually happened.
You also have no understanding of the difference between correllation and causation. Under your theory since the 1950’s had legal segregation and men used Brylcreem, we should bring those back too so that we could have higher economic growth.
Also, believe it or not, people make decisions on where to live on things other than taxes. So Wyoming’s desirability as a place to live just might have something to do with the fact that much of the year it is a very windy cold bleak place. Texas and Florida also have no income tax and have had much higher growth than the rest of the country for the last 30 years.
#44 by Glenden Brown on December 30, 2009 - 11:16 am
brewski – since you just repeated the point I’ve been making, I’m not sure what it is you think you’re saying.
#45 by Dwight Sheldon Adams on December 30, 2009 - 12:20 pm
Brewski–
Your FOMC comment and marginal tax rate dialogue with Glenden simply indicate to me that your rules only apply when they serve your position–and that there’s always an alternate explanation when they don’t. I can find alternate explanations to every bit of data which supposedly proves the superiority of mixed control, just as you have found alternate explanations to data which disproves it. So stick with the view. No prob. I’m just glad you admitted that you’re sticking to “the view” and not “the facts.”
In the spirit of examining your tendency towards analyses of insufficient rigor, I would like you to explain the mechanics of your “simple and enforcable. . .social safety net.” What do you propose? And how do we “get out of the way”? It seems to me that a social safety net has to keep up with the times–in other words, it has to keep in step, not “get out of the way,” or risk becoming obsolete. Then government will be forced to get in the way a lot more than if it just attempted to malleate along with society.
Dwight Sheldon Adams
#46 by Dwight Sheldon Adams on December 30, 2009 - 12:29 pm
As one who uses substitution instances frequently, I resent your poor use of it here. The correlation between Brylcreem, legal segregation, and economic growth exists as historical artifacts and little else. The impact of marginal tax rates on the success of economy, on the other hand, is one of the central tenets of conservatives’ historical and conceptual proof for low marginal tax rates. Once again, you refuse to use your own rules, as you implied previously in no uncertain terms that marginal tax rates are of chief significance in determining financial choices. Yet, somehow, the relationship of economy and marginal tax rates breaks down in regards to the 50s, even though it’s perhaps the most pronounced example. Maybe you don’t understand the difference between causation and correlation.
Causality is rarely the prime determinant in relationships, as causality is so frequently imperceptible. As a matter of fact, causality is a kind of correlation, and correlative relationships are frequently cited as a clue to a potential causal relationship (or a relationship in which causality is one of many factors).
What I gather from our discussion is that you may employ absolutism and causality whenever it serves your argument, but we may not. If nothing proves your point, you can retreat into ambiguity and opinion. Sorry, but you are one of the definers of this argument’s terms, and you can’t escape what you define without looking intellectually dishonest or stupid.
Dwight Sheldon Adams
#47 by Dwight Sheldon Adams on December 30, 2009 - 12:39 pm
Furthermore:
My statement about giving money to corporations or to people was in reference to my prior claim that “Government is so often up against a wall in a capitalist economy.” My point is that government can’t operate in those ways which are both legitimate and necessary to provide resources for those who can’t provide sufficiently for themselves. It can’t legitimately appropriate resources or manage property or create government businesses or industries to make up for the deficiencies of the capitalist system, as doing so is considered “socialist.” So it does what it can–by giving money to corporations to promote job growth or by giving money to the poor so they can afford necessities. Sustained, intentional efforts to provide jobs will generally fail because they take away the supposedly inherent and superior freedom of the free market. This failure, although produced by capitalist obstruction, is then noted by conservatives as proof that liberals just want to throw money at problems. Well, I would remind conservatives of just how willing they have proven to be to catch any that’s thrown.
I agree with the need for balance, and that divided power provides it. I’m not so sure our modern system facilitates that so much as obstructs it and forces dictatorial power-grabs for anything to get done. The two-party system is surely part of the problem. James Madison said that the existence of many disagreeing factions was the only way that freedom would be preserved–many, many factions.
Au contrair. Those monies which the government seizes under the power of the collective will of the people and in contract with the individual for whom tax obligations are exchanged for the protection of rights become the government’s authority to distribute according to the mandates and privileges of the contract. I.e. once it’s taxed, it’s the government’s to spend how it sees fit within the bounds of constitutional law. Remember that balance of power thing? That’s what elections are for. If you don’t like how taxes are spent, then vote.
Furthermore, it doesn’t matter where money came from before. Where does it come from now? Without the printed (or minted) money which the government (and governments in general) have long provided (since before the U.S. existed, in fact), we would be left with a barter and credit system, where you either exchange goods and services for goods and services, or you use money provided on condition of trust–usually with no oversight or real awareness of the trustworthiness of the provider. The fortunes of Americans–our excess, our social benefits, our privileges–are primarily the product of the vast social network of which we are a part, and of the government which facilitates that network. All of the industrialization and commercialization doesn’t protect the workers, doesn’t facilitate cross-country trade, and doesn’t make the poor man anything more than chattel. Governments which possess the egalitarian perspective and the democratic meme are the source of so much, and the modern man can scarcely claim to be self-made anymore. I suspect that “self-made” was always a myth, but the rhythms of modern circumstance are so variable that no man can be self-made but he which was made by his environment to be so.
So, no, the concept of money doesn’t come from the government. But the tool which you carry in your pocket which gives you the potential to buy what you want when you want and makes luxury markets far more available to the common man than they would be is not just money, not in the terms which you are using. It’s a device used to facilitate economy–to expand the possibilities of exchange and expenditure which used to be (before government) too restricted for modern benefits to have come to be without it.
“their own money”? I refer you to my statement above about the self-made man. Your money is not your own. Or, conversely, somebody else’s money is actually yours. We have such a screwed up valuation system: if you can direct money towards yourself, you deserve it. The natural consequent of this logic is that if you can’t direct money towards yourself you are undeserving of luxuries and/or necessities.
Dwight Sheldon Adams
#48 by brewski on December 30, 2009 - 1:05 pm
There are plenty of books out there dealing with the FOMC of the last 15 years and how we got into this mess. It is not insuffient rigor.
http://www.amazon.com/GREENSPANS-BUBBLES-IGNORANCE-FEDERAL-RESERVE/dp/0071591583/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1262202298&sr=1-3
I wish we lived in a world of one independent variable and one dependent variable. But we don’t. Believe it or not, the FOMC and the whims of Congress don’t act in unison. So, for the asset bubble to begin around 1994 in the middle of Greenspan’s reign, which was also the time when the government became divided, is not remarkable. It would be nice to be able to run little experiements where we get to move just one variable and ceteris paribus, but we can’t.
There are something in the world which are pretty much objective and other things which are more subjective. The cause of the bubble is pretty objective and the virtues of divided government are pretty subjective. One can try to support one’s point on subjective things, but it is not scientific. The bubble(s) are pretty measurable.
There are lots of examles of governments not getting out of the way. Postwar UK pre-Thatcher was a total mess. Government ownership of various industries, the country being held hostage by endless strikes, inflation, debt, etc. It was a total disaster. When I was there on one visit before the privatization of BT, I was talking to one shopkeeper who didn’t have a phone. He told me it took at least 3 months just to get a phone installed. So much for the comparison of private vs state organizations.
What do I propose?
Total overhaul of our taxes to make them “simple and enforcable”. No deductions of any kind for individuals. No double taxation of corporate earnings. No special credits for favored industries or favored activities. No payroll taxes (taxing the hiring of people, what were they thinking?). Simple and large GHG tax on carbon, methane, etc. End cash subsidies for farmers for the 4 favored crops. If gas isn’t $8/gallon then it isn’t working. If electricity isn’t $0.15/kwh then it isn’t working. Tax outdoor use of water, especially in Utah.
Social safety net:
Swiss style health plan.
Get rid of Medicare, Medicaid, etc.
Eliminate connection between job and health.
Replace WIC, unemployment, SS and all the various aid band-aids with one plan. Nixon considered it when it was called a “negative income tax”. It’s in all the textbooks. Not rocket science.
Every kid gets the same amount of tax money to use where his parents see fit. The catch is all kids have to take the same exams like the English A-levels.
#49 by brewski on December 30, 2009 - 1:22 pm
Dwight,
I admit that the 1950’s is a conundrum. While you will certainly accuse me again of dodging the facts when it doesn’t fit my theory, there are a couple of important factors to consider when explaining the 90% top marginal tax rates and the high growth rate of the 1950’s.
1. The 90% bracket didn’t kick in until income levels that in today’s dollars would be $3.2MM per year. So few people were at that level so few people’s decisonmaking was affected by that rate.
2. There was pretty much no competition from Japan, China, Europe, anywhere. This decade was a once in a thousand years historical abberation where the whole planet is on its back other than us. No wonder Michael Moore looks back so fondly at that time. It was great while it lasted.
3. The returning US soldiers, the explosion of babies, the manufacturig capacity which had been created during the war all set up a perfect consumption/manufacturing orgy also unlikely to be seen again.
#50 by Dwight Sheldon Adams on December 30, 2009 - 1:54 pm
Brewski–
As a matter of fact, I agree with most of what you say about the cause of the bubble and marginal tax rates. But the 50s conundrum makes a good point: that marginal tax rates (which you afforded essentially limitless significance) are not so important after all; society, despite the very most productive members of society being so incredibly stifled, survived and thrived. Internal and external circumstance mitigated the supposed common-sense results of taxing the rich.
Its you’re wishy-washy approach to your own ideas that bothers me so: marginal tax rates are the most important thing except when they’re not; divided government is best except when it’s not; The Federal Reserve has more effect on the economy than the government except when it doesn’t. That’s the lack of rigor, so you’ll excuse me if I perceive that you’re perceptions seem a bit too malleable to be trustworthy. There’s a common tendency among people to stop inquiring once their own perspective is served.
There are a lot of reasons why the economy boomed in the 50s; why things tanked over the next couple of decades; why the economy recovered and boomed again; and why the melt-down occurred. My concern is how to craft a sustainable society where greed and excess aren’t the means to security and prosperity for the common man–or where they’re so valued that the common man can’t hope to be prosperous. I believe that government working in tandem with the people–not controlling them or “get[ting] out of the way”–is the best way to accomplish this. If redistributing some of the money when the free market distributes it according to the manipulations of private interests is what accomplishes this goal, then so be it. I see no reason why private citizens may invest in corporations to their benefit but government can’t engage in industry to the benefit of the people it represents and protects.
I agree with your proposals, in general, but I have to add to them a dynamic limitation on personal income and dividends and the use of government to establish and facilitate an organizational network between social networks, groups, sub-groups, and single entities. The purpose of this would be to allow people ease of access to cooperative unions and resource management tools that would allow them to compete on the same level with currently existing corporations. I.e. to remove the hegemony that already exists in a voluntary manner.
Dwight Sheldon Adams
#51 by brewski on December 30, 2009 - 2:40 pm
Call it lack of rigor or just anecdotal, but when the GOP had all three entities it was not pretty, and right now is not pretty either. The Reagan/O’Neil era and the Clinton/Gingrich eras seemed much more legislatively productive. I would have more confidence in a McCain/Pelosi plan than an Obama/Pelosi plan if for no other reason than each side moderating each other’s worst tendencies.
I can tell you that corporations care about tax rates a lot. If you are Nestle and you are thinking about spending a billions dollars to build a plant and hire 10,000 people, the decision is made on total project economics, of which tax rates is an important part. It is certainly not the only thing, but it is a big deal. So if you are looking at a plant in Texas or a plant in Calfornia and you run a spreadsheet with labor costs, insurance costs, land costs, benefit costs and taxes, that taxes do matter. Money is movable, people are movable and all plants that don’t yet exist are very movable. So even if you do have redistributionist tendencies, you will be shooting yourself in the foot if you chase away money, jobs and people.