Tuesday, March 3, 2009

King of the GOP


Bas Relief
Originally uploaded by paynehollow
GOP chairman Steele backs off Limbaugh criticism

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- In comments that were broadcast over the weekend, Republican Party Chairman Michael Steele called Rush Limbaugh's rhetoric "incendiary" and "ugly" and insisted that he is in charge of the GOP.

On Monday, however, after a blistering response from the conservative talk-radio kingpin, Steele told the online journal Politico that he "was maybe a little bit inarticulate."

"There was no attempt on my part to diminish his voice or his leadership," Steele said. He added, "There are those out there who want to look at what he's saying as incendiary and divisive and ugly. That's what I was trying to say. It didn't come out that way."

=======

So, there was a stand off between Michael Steele - leader of the Republican Party - and Rush Limbaugh - entertainment clown - and Steele blinked and Rush was crowned King. Tis a shame that this is the level to which the Party of Lincoln has devolved.

Hail, Limbaugh, last King of the GOP
.

49 comments:

Michael Westmoreland-White said...

This at a time when new polling shows that MOST of America has a lower opinion of Rush than of W or Jeremiah Wright! Tone-deaf much, GOP?

But I worry that Democrats are giving too much spotlight to Rush and magnifying his influence--even if just among the GOP. However, they are doing it cleverly--forcing Repubs to either choose distancing themselves from Rush (infuriating their base) or defending Rush/kissing Rush's, er, feet--which alienates the independents without which the GOP has little or no chance of making a comeback. The GOP did this in the '80s by tying all Dems to Jimmy Carter (blamed for the Iran hostage crisis and the gas lines) or Jesse Jackson. They are trying this now with Nancy Pelosi--but her poll numbers are going UP.

What is most disturbing to me, a former academic who enjoys spirited debate with intellectual opponents, is that the know-nothings like Rush, Michael Savage, Jonah Goldberg, Michelle Malkin, Ann Coalter, etc. now run the GOP. Except for Newt Gingrich, none of the current GOP "leaders" are people who have IDEAS or who read widely.

Before, you could disagree with Republicans but be forced to debate seriously. That's good for the country. If the GOP ceases to have any serious ideas, then it will mean short term gains for Democrats (and the country), but long term the Dems will become lazy and sloppy. No one benefits when the loyal opposition is stupid.

Alan said...

It's hard not to enjoy watching the implosion.

Though, I agree with Michael, I'd honestly much rather have a strong opposition instead of the Party of No ... er ... the Party of Rush. They've become bad saturday morning cartoon villains.

Amazing that Rush holds so much power that the head of the GOP must bow and scrape before him. Why bother with having someone else heading the GOP if they're just a puppet?

Michael Westmoreland-White said...

WH Press Secretary Robert Gibbs challenges people to ask individual Republicans if they agree with Rushbo that they want Obama's economic policies (and, thus, the country) to fail. Here's some other Rushbo statements we should force Republicans to take a stand on: yes or no, no hedging:

* "If Barack Obama were Caucasian, they would have taken this guy out on the basis of pure ignorance long ago." (Is "taken out" a violent euphemism?)

* "Hey, Barack Obama has picked up another endorsement: Halfrican American Halle Berry. "As a Halfrican American, myself, I am honored to have Ms. Berry's support, as well as the support of other Halfrican Americans," Obama said. Well, he didn't say it, but . . ."

* "The NAACP should have riot rehearsals. They should get a liquor store and practice robberies."

*Now I got something for you that's true[Note: When Rushbo says that phrase, he's about to make something up out of thin air.]--1972, Tufts University, Boston. This is 24, no 22, years ago. 3 year study of 5000 co-eds and they use a benchmark of bra size 34C. They found that--now wait, it's true. The larger the bra size, the smaller the IQ." (No such study was ever conducted, of course.)

* "One of the things I want to do before I die is conduct the Homeless Olympics. [Events would include] the 10 meter shopping cart relay; the Dumpster Dig; the Hop, Skip, and Trip."

*"If we are going to start rewarding no skills and stupid people . . . let stupid and unskilled Mexicans do that work."

This is a tiny sample. I say MAKE people either defend or reject these Rushbo statements in public. And if they crawl back to Rushbo, publicly humiliate them--and run the commercial in their next campaign for office. This meathead has been on the air for too long and we need to target his advertisers. He's poison in the body politic.

TAO said...

I actually believe that this whole episode has been staged to draw away as much support from the Republicans as possible.

Limbaugh will always have his followers but the strategy is to separate them from the Republican Party. Lets be truthful, the Republican Party has never represented the views of Rush and his group. Eventually Rush is either going to have to get along with the party or he is going to have to take his dittoheads to a third party.

With Rush's ego...bet on a third party.

Republicans are no more for smaller government, less taxes, and no earmarks than any moderate democrat.

Michael Westmoreland-White said...

6 pf the top 10 earmarkers are Republicans.

John said...

Michael, why do you consider Jonah Goldberg to be a "know nothing"?

Michael Westmoreland-White said...

John, that's off-topic and I don't want to hijack this thread. Briefly, Goldberg's book, Liberal Fascism is so full of inaccuracies as to be either written by someone who is an idiot or by someone who knows he is being intellectually dishonest. I counted 143 factual errors and 75 major logical fallacies in the opening chapter before I simply quit reading in disgust.

Geoffrey Kruse-Safford said...

First, on Rushbo as Dear Leader - I stand by my contention that this is the reality, not some Democratic-created tempest to distract the people. Members of Congress and even the head of the RNC have to bow and scrape to this drug-addled sex-tourist without any help from Robert Gibbs. While I agree with both Michael and Alan that a serious robust opposition party would be nice, but right now it isn't happening.

There is a cottage industry that is focused on making fun of Jonah Goldberg; his role as editor of NRO aside - and one he got through his mother's connections (publisher Lucianne Goldberg) - he has nothing to offer but hilarity.

John said...

Really? I've been meaning to read his book. I'm a big fan.

Edwin Drood said...

everyone should listen to those famous liberal radio talk show hosts instead. Who are they again? Oh that’s right liberals don't the attention span for talk radio. Oh well I guess you’ll always have the Daily Show

Edwin Drood said...

one more thing, Jonathan Martin from the Politico thinks this is a distraction dreamed up by the Obama administration to take peoples attention off the real issues. For the first time ever Rush and Gay Marriage have something in common.

that is change.

Dan Trabue said...

Yes, the Clown King's domination of the GOP is a plot by Obama, that makes sense.

Oh that’s right liberals don't the attention span for talk radio.

Actually, it's more the case that we're too busy working to sit around and listen to the radio all day. Justice takes work, you know.

Alan said...

LOL Oh, Eddie, you do make me laugh.

Somehow Obama made Rush a twit, and somehow he forced Steele to call Rush "ugly" and "incendiary". And liberals are the ones who think Obama is a god? ROFL.

You keep Rush, I'm happy enough with the Daily Show and Colbert, and pretty much all other media. Radio .... it's so ... quaint. But I'm guessing that it's the only device simple enough for Dittoheads to operate. They probably buy their radios pre-tuned to the Dear Leader's radio station.

Edwin Drood said...

Liberals are too busy working so they cant listen to the radio. HA HA HA HA HA [picking myself up off the ground]

most people listen the radio while at work, on their way to work or on their way home from work. That is why talk radio is 100% conservative.

the liberal work-force HA HA HA HA HA HA HA that as amusing as Alan's shirt

Alan said...

"that as amusing as Alan's shirt"

Really? That's the best you can do? LOL.

Fail.

Dan Trabue said...

Behave, fellas.

Drood, on a slightly more serious note, would you really prefer Limbaugh to Stewart? Aside from their individual politics, just on a pound for pound humor, entertainment and intelligence basis, you'd pick Limbaugh?

Y'know, I used to listen to Limbaugh a good bit back in the early Clinton years. At first, I thought he was an Onion-like spoof of conservatives, then I realized he was (sort of) serious. he was much more humorous when I thought he (or especially his followers) wasn't taking himself seriously.

Edwin Drood said...

Well like Rush I hope Obama fails and I also hope the bi-partisan republicans fail. It was Obama who called Rush the leader of the RNC when republicans wouldn't sign the "stimulus" bill without reading it (even though Obama did)

Steal disagrees with Rush on some points, in the Republican Party that is allowed. Rush represents conservatives and entertains them everyday by pointing out the lunacy of the left. The left hates it because they can’t defend themselves. That’s why you and many others refer to name-calling and distractions.


By the way, did I mention that I hope Obama fails.

Alan said...

"That’s why you and many others refer to name-calling and distractions. "

You mean name-calling like "Feminazi" or "moonbat", etc., etc., etc.?

When it comes to name-calling, Rush dishes it as much as he gets it.

TAO said...

My brother in law is a staunch Wingnut...

He listens to Limbaugh at work all day long (radio is played over the plant floor and not in the offices, which might explain why their are no liberal talk show hosts) then he goes home and turns on the television and watches Fox News...

My sister tried to interest him in Sterwart and Colbert...but he said, "News is serious business and it is not something to make fun of...."

And he wonders why he is always in a bad mood and depressed all the time.

Its your "news" sources

Dan Trabue said...

Drood said:

Well like Rush I hope Obama fails and I also hope the bi-partisan republicans fail.

I wonder what you mean by this. Do you mean that you hope Obama fails in his every endeavor? That he fails as commander-in-chief? Do you hope we get attacked again and on a much larger scale? Do you hope that Obama fails in reducing terrorism and that terrorism increases, causing more deaths everywhere?

Do you hope Obama fails in trying to end our tough economic times? That more businesses end up bankrupt and more people out of work? Do you hope that Obama fails in trying to make our health care system more effective and more people get sick and die?

Do you hope Obama fails in trying to unite our nation and we end up a balkanized nation, with conservatives moving off to Montana and Utah and seceding (if not succeeding)?

What does it mean when you say you hope he fails and do you really mean that? Is that the totality (as it seems) of the Republican/conservative plan to regain power? To hope for failure?

Pardon my saying, but it seems like a pretty stupid plan.

John said...

TAO wrote:

My sister tried to interest him in Sterwart and Colbert...but he said, "News is serious business and it is not something to make fun of...."

I used to feel this way, but dropped the attitude more than a decade ago when I kept on getting my hopes dashed. Now I only look to politics as a spectator sport for my own amusement.

I only listen to NPR these days. I never got into conservative talk radio. NPR is just as biased, but I don't feel stupider after having listened to it -- even someone I vehemently disagree with.

Dan Trabue said...

John said:

NPR is just as biased, but I don't feel stupider after having listened to it -- even someone I vehemently disagree with.

? Do you really think this? I mean, I could understand someone saying that NPR is biased in a similar sort of way as Fox News is biased, but neither one compares to talk shows like Limbaugh. Those are entertainment shows, not news shows that make a (failed) attempt to be relatively unbiased.

I could see comparing NPR to Fox News or Limbaugh to Stewart (no contest, in my opinion, on either front, but I can at least understand the assertion), but you're not really making the suggestion that NPR is comparable to Limbaugh, et al, when it comes to objectively reporting news?

Michael Westmoreland-White said...

It's true that rightwing nut jobs dominate talk radio--mostly because huge organizations like Clear Channel corner the market. But there is Air America and Pacifica Radio.

It's also true that liberals and progressives tend to surf the net more than listen to talk radio.


I heard some wingnut say that El Rushbo the drug-addict, 3 wives family values man was parallel to Michael Moore for the left. Really? Well, both are VERY overweight, but that's about where the similarity ends. Moore has never claimed to speak for either the progressive movement or for Democrats and no elected Democratic official (or head of the DNC) has ever had to come begging and pleading for Michael Moore's forgiveness.

Also, Moore may be right or wrong on his claims, but his films DO try to document things. He shows the documents on the film itself. Rush and his ilk just make sweeping claims with no attempt to fact check--and they contradict themselves and never notice.

On the last bit, let me give a HUGE example I could never get people to pay attention to during the run-up to the Iraq invasion: Rush gave the Bush talking point that Saddam needed to be overthrown because of his gassing of the Kurds years before. Now, whether or not this was a logical cause for war in 2003, that horrendous act by Saddam DID happen. But Rush formerly DENIED It. Back when it happened in the late '8os, Saddam was a friend of Ronald Reagan and considered a U.S. ally against Iran. So, when the gassing of the Kurds happened during the Iraq-Iran war, RUSHBO accused "the liberal media" of making it up to MAKE REAGAN LOOK BAD.

He has never said, "I goofed" about ANY of these stupid comments. He just counts on his listeners being too brain dead to notice. Which is why he openly mocks his own cultish followers as "dittoheads,"--because they can't think for themselves.

And now, he is leading the GOP further into the minority. I repeat: Rush has huge ratings, but is not well liked by the majority of Americans. His current approval ratings are lower with most Americans than JEREMIAH WRIGHT or George W. Bush. But Republicans want to pledge allegiance to Rush?
What a great way to continue to lose elections like they just did.

This was a trap--and Republicans fell for it. As I said, it was similar to when the GOP in the '80s could brand every Dem with "Jimmy Carter" and "Jesse Jackson." (But at least Carter and Jackson had ideas and not just hot air.)

John said...

Dan wrote:

? Do you really think this? I mean, I could understand someone saying that NPR is biased in a similar sort of way as Fox News is biased, but neither one compares to talk shows like Limbaugh. Those are entertainment shows, not news shows that make a (failed) attempt to be relatively unbiased.

I could see comparing NPR to Fox News or Limbaugh to Stewart (no contest, in my opinion, on either front, but I can at least understand the assertion), but you're not really making the suggestion that NPR is comparable to Limbaugh, et al, when it comes to objectively reporting news?


Good correction. I misspoke. NPR is biased in the way that Fox News is biased, but not in the way that conservative talk radio is. I'm not sure what I was thinking when I wrote otherwise.

Dan Trabue said...

Ahh, yes, that makes a bit more sense. I suspected as much.

I would disagree, understand, but at least I think that's an argument one could make in the real world...

Geoffrey Kruse-Safford said...

Setting aside the name calling, I have to ask:

Who cares that conservatives dominate talk radio? I mean, really. Conservatives have talk radio while Democrats and liberals have Congress and the White House. I'll take the trade off.

Furthermore, on the whole "I hope Obama fails" thing. Anyone who really wishes that wants not just a failure of his policies, which would be bad for the country, but a failure of leadership, which could lead to anarchy. I want to know if those folks who wish failure, for example, of the stimulus package, if they are unemployed would they refuse a job that was funded in part or whole by the stimulus package?

If the economy rebounds in the second half of this year, will they give any credit at all to the President or the Congressional Democrats? Will there be any consistency at all in their approach to commenting on current events?

I know the answers to these questions already, but I would prefer some kind of confirmation.

Michael Westmoreland-White said...

The most optimistic projections don't see any significant economic growth until early next year. However, if everything goes right (the stimulus, plus the budget, plus the mortgage plan, plus rescuing the banks from their own years of idiocy and greed, plus universal health care coverage) the bleeding should stop by mid-summer and we begin to build toward growth in 2010.

But that's a very optimistic picture. Most economists think the recovery will be slower, not really taking off until late 2010 or early 2011. If that's the case, the GOP will probably make gains in House seats in the mid-terms--even if they are just the party of "no,"--but Obama will win a 2nd term in a landslide.

(The Senate is more complicated. Because of GOP retirements, Democrats have a better than average chance of a net gain 3-6 more Senate seats in 2010 unless EVERYTHING goes bad for them. However, in 2012 there are 24 Democratic-held Senate seats up for re-election and only 6 GOP seats up for the same. Therefore, unless the GOP continues to follow Rushbo over a cliff, even if 2012 is a fantastic year for Democrats, the GOP should make some Senate gains--but probably NOT enough to retake the majority.)

John said...

Geoffrey wrote:

Furthermore, on the whole "I hope Obama fails" thing. Anyone who really wishes that wants not just a failure of his policies, which would be bad for the country, but a failure of leadership, which could lead to anarchy. I want to know if those folks who wish failure, for example, of the stimulus package, if they are unemployed would they refuse a job that was funded in part or whole by the stimulus package?

Well, I hope that Obama fails. I hope that he is unable to pass the legislative changes that he wants, because they will be a disaster for this country, in terms of economic freedom and economic prosperity. But if they pass, I hope that I am wrong and that Obama's plans succeed. I just can't envision a scenario in which they succeed.

Alan said...

I'll be happy to take your tax cut, John! :)

Geoffrey Kruse-Safford said...

Since most folks who actually know something about economics and public policy think Obama isn't doing enough, isn't spending enough, isn't prepared to nationalize the banks in order to socialize the benefits and privatize the costs (every plan they come up with does the opposite, as Krugman pointed out in a column on Friday, and every one of those plans gets shouted down before it can gain much oxygen), I guess I would like to know, John, if you think doing nothing, or worse a la John Boehner's proposed spending freeze in the face of declining demand, the on-going credit freeze, and the threat of deflation is such a hot idea.

As it stands, the idea that Obama's policies will somehow be "bad for America" only makes sense if one thinks they don't go far enough. So, John, what would you do?

Michael Westmoreland-White said...

John, we don't have to "imagine" what will work and what won't. History is the laboratory of ideas and we've been here (in some ways) before. The do nothing approach was tried by Hoover. Then, after 3 years of Depression, Hoover tried the spending freeze and balanced budget approach--and things got worse.

You've heard of the law of supply and demand, right? In a recession or depression there is plenty of supply and little demand. And, with the liquidity of banks used up the ONLY one with the money to create demand by being the spender of last resort. So, government spending uses up supply, creating jobs, which puts money back into the system, etc.

We also know that FDR was too cautious and that's why the Great Depression dragged on. WWII, however, created a MASSIVE government jobs program and a full employment economy and that brought us the rest of the way out of Depression. Now, as Geoffrey says, Obama also seems too cautious: The stimulus aims (plausibly) to create 3.5 million jobs--but we've ALREADY LOST 4.4 million jobs. So, we will probably need another stimulus--although the Obama budget will get some of this.

Bank nationalization, TEMPORARY, is also the best way to stop the banking crisis. Here, too, we have history to guide. In the '90s, Sweden, Norway and Japan (among others) had similar crises. Sweden and Norway temporarily nationalized their banks and saved their economies. The '90s were the "lost decade" for Japan. I think Obama wants to go this route (I could be wrong--Geithner and Summers seem to block all consideration!), but knows he doesn't have the votes in Congress, yet. I think he's waiting till the chorus for nationalization is huge.

His mortgage cramdown plan is a good one, but is being held up in Congress.

After the economy is stabilized, we need re-regulation. This crisis was created by greed and huge banks using lobbyists to dissolve the rules that would have prevented this kind of crisis. Such as the abolition of Glass-Steagall which created barriers between ordinary banks and investment banks--that way when high risk investment banks screw up they don't take our money with them. Keith Olbermann had a great piece on the steady erosion of such rules which led to our current crisis. We have to re-regulate. Markets are good; DE-REGULATED markets create a wild west atmosphere that threatens to sink everything.

So, read economic history and you won't need imagination to see that the GOP "plans" are absurd and at least SOME of Obama's plans are on target.

Dan Trabue said...

Everyone, I would remind you that John is one of the good guys and request that you please speak respectfully. And maybe you are, there is just a bit of a snippy "tone" in what I'm reading, but perhaps that's my imagination. John is fairly well-versed in history, I have no doubt.

Thanks for the great points, though.

John said...

Geoffrey wrote:

Since most folks who actually know something about economics and public policy think Obama isn't doing enough

What is your definition of "folks who actually know something about economics"?

Geoffrey Kruse-Safford said...

Let's start with Paul Krugman, move on to Robert Reich - two men who define "public intellectual" in our current historic moment.

Michael Westmoreland-White said...

Returning to the original theme of Limbaugh as the head of the GOP and the GOP's devolution: 1. So far the only Republican who has been in public office (and plans to return) to stand up to Limbaugh is fmr. House Speaker Newt Gingrich. But Newt still offers no new ideas--nothing but the same failed policies. But talk about reinventing yourself! The "bombthrower" (as he cheerfully called himself) of the GOP of the '80s and '90s is now the voice of the adults??!!!

2. In many ways, however, Newt and Rush are still brothers: Both preach "family values" while on their 3rd wives--and they had the affairs which led to the divorces. Newt divorced one wife while she was in the hospital with cancer. He was cheating on his 2nd wife while calling out Bill Clinton for immorality. Both show no mercy to those with addictions--but plead for mercy for themselves when caught with addictions. Both are subject to public tantrums. Both contradict themselves and expect people not to notice. Both are masters of intimidation and love the limelight.

2. The GOP likes to call itself the "Party of Lincoln." But now prominent members are calling for secession! From the party which thought refusing to let the union break up was worth civil war! Todd Palin (husband to Alaska's governor) is (or possibly was) a member of the (armed) Alaska Independence Party--a secessionist group which has advocated terror tactics. Chuck Norris, actor and prominent supporter of fmr. Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee's presidential ambitions, is advocating Texas secession because of the supposed "illegitimacy" of Obama as president. So is Glenn Beck, formerly of Headline News and now at Fixed Noise. Former GOP Sen. Majority Leader Trent Lott had ties to Southern Secessionists (who grew out of the old White Citizens Councils).

GOP Rep. Michelle Bauckman(R-MN) wants "non-American" members of Congress investigated.

This is not advocating civil disobedience but incitement to sedition. Congress condemned MoveON.org for a commercial which merely made a wordplay on Gen. Petraeus' name (stupid ad, but not the point)--but why aren't they saying anything about these borderline treasonous actions?? Oh, right, because it's always ok for Republicans to do things which, if Democrats did them, would get them locked up in Gitmo overnight. When Republicans do them no one even questions their patriotism.

Michael Westmoreland-White said...

One last comment on this thread:

I as a liberal/progressive Democrat should be thrilled by this self-destruction by the GOP. It is certainly entertaining at times. But I'm not thrilled. I don't think this is good for our democracy in the long run.

Also, I am nostalgic for a different Republican Party. My grandparents were Eisenhower/Rockefeller Republicans and proud to be so during the era when Southern Democrats were segregationists. My parents left the GOP over Goldwater and Nixon, but assumed both were aberrations. They were (and my Dad is) centrist Dems who sometimes voted Republican and taught me and my sibs about great people in both parties.

All that began to die in 1980-'81, but remnants of the old form of Republicans hung on. Now, with the exception of Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-ME) and the partial-exceptions of Sens. Susan Collins (R-ME), Arlen Specter (R-PA), & Richard Lugar (R-IN), that kind of Republican is all but disappeared. And yet that kind of centrist, pragmatic Republican is essential to the survival of the Party of Lincoln--and Teddy Roosevelt and Mark Hatfield and Chuck Hagel and Ike and Harold Stassen. On domestic policy, even Nixon would look liberal by today's GOP standards. That's just freaking nuts--and deeply troubling even for a liberal Democrat whose party is benefitting by this Limbaugh hi-jacking.

Sigh. C'mon, GOP, come to your senses--not for the sake of "bipartisanship," but for the sake of the nation.

John said...

I would much prefer that the GOP show at least lipservice to actual small government principles, if not activity, than to bow down before the god of bipartisanship.

The unanimous House GOP stand against the stimulus bill was a great moment of principle triumphing (however briefly) over political expediency.

Michael Westmoreland-White said...

It would be nice if "principle" was rooted in reality. Republicans have NEVER believed in "small government." When they have been in power, they have ALWAYS grown the government even while campaigning on small government. The ONLY president who shrank government in recent history was Bill Clinton with Al Gore's "reinventing government" program.

The time for the House GOP to have "stood on principle" would have been when Bush was spending like a drunken sailor, NOT during a recession. To rail against government spending for jobs during a recession is not "principle," but STUPIDITY!!!!!

John said...

The time for the House GOP to have "stood on principle" would have been when Bush was spending like a drunken sailor, NOT during a recession. To rail against government spending for jobs during a recession is not "principle," but STUPIDITY!!!!!

Other than the amount, what exactly is the difference between Bush's spending habits and Obama's?

The GOP is hardly in a position to lecture anyone on being thrifty with taxpayers' dollars, but how does their lack of financial prudence justify wilder and greater spending by a Democratic administration?

Dan Trabue said...

Seems to me the GOP wild spending has been of a sort that we did not need that has led to a lot of the needed spending today. A bloated military used for liberal world policing, inserting our presence expensively around the globe has not been a wise investment of funds.

Due (at least partially) to so much spending there, we have not been investing in our infrastructure sufficiently for years. We are wildly behind on maintaining our roads, bridges, water, sewers, etc. So, to the extent that Dems are spending on these areas, it's a good and needed thing. It only seems "wild" by comparison and due to the deep need caused by decades of neglect.

We are wildly behind on finding a more sustainable energy system and way of life. That may require some investments there, as opposed to investments in propping up Big Oil and Big Coal companies and in providing welfare to individual motorists.

So that would be at least a few differences, from where I sit.

John said...

Due (at least partially) to so much spending there, we have not been investing in our infrastructure sufficiently for years. We are wildly behind on maintaining our roads, bridges, water, sewers, etc. So, to the extent that Dems are spending on these areas, it's a good and needed thing. It only seems "wild" by comparison and due to the deep need caused by decades of neglect.

We are wildly behind on finding a more sustainable energy system and way of life. That may require some investments there, as opposed to investments in propping up Big Oil and Big Coal companies and in providing welfare to individual motorists.


How do you propose that we pay for all of this?

Dan Trabue said...

Taxes? User taxes, in some cases. Increased gas taxes would be one way of making motorists pay for the roads which they use. Increased gas taxes would have the benefit of discouraging driving, meaning we would need the roads, etc, in smaller sizes, which means cheaper.

Increased gas taxes might also have the benefit of encouraging less shipping via trucks and more buying local and/or shipping via rail, which is more sustainable.

In short, though, we pay for these things the way we always pay for our common needs - through common taxation and, ideally, mostly from the users of the end products (roads, technology). How else?

Dan Trabue said...

Which is not to say that private enterprise can't plug itself in, that is obviously a great solution in some instances - specifically technology to wean ourselves off of fossil fuels.

It seems to me, the sooner we quit subsidizing petrol-based solutions (which we do now), the sooner market solutions can present themselves, as well as having personal responsibility kick in.

John said...

Well, Obama seems to disagree with you there. Instead of raising taxes, he's borrowing the money. He's quadrupling the federal budget deficit in a single year. That strikes me as a bad a idea in a good time, and a terrible idea in a recession.

Obama has bet a whole of money that we don't have, so his stimulus package had better work, or we're all screwed when the bill comes due.

Michael Westmoreland-White said...

Actually, Obama is letting the Bush tax cuts expire. That pays for some things. Next is ending the wars (not fast enough). A cap and trade emissions policy shifts taxation more to pollution which not only produces revenue, but spawns innovation to reduce emissions.

He is increasing the capital gains and windfall profits taxes, too, as the economy recovers.

But I don't think enough of his plans are paid for. Obama's tax cuts for the "Middle Class" (calling people who make between 100K and 250K Middle Class when the Median Income pre-recession is 75K is ridiculous) need to be rolled back. I would overhaul the whole tax code and raise taxes somewhat on everyone making 75K and above--with steep increases in the upper 5%. That's how Eisenhower did it and it led to a period of huge middle class prosperity.

Currently income from dividends (made without work mostly by the financial idiots who have wrecked the economy) is taxed at a far lower rate than income from labor--payroll. I'd change this.
I'd also cut the military budget as Ike also did.

I'd start with a 15% cut focusing on obsolete weapons systems like Star Wars and some of our nuclear arsenal and the B-52 Bombers which cost huge $ in maintainance because they are so old. But I would increase this--the Center for Defense Information says that the military budget could be cut in HALF without lowering our defensive capabilities one bit--and the CDI was founded by high-ranking former military types, not pacifists like myself.

Waste can be cut: For instance, why do we need a Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco Firearms (ATF)? Can't this agency be eliminated and its resources shared by the FBI and DEA? Isn't it redundant?

You can also remove the cap on Social Security (FICA) and it is suddenly solvent again. Medicare and Medicaid need major overhauls--the easiest of which would be to combine them into a single payer health care system: Medicare for ALL. The savings would be huge.

This is investment for growth that leads to balanced budgets later on.

By contrast a stupid spending freeze during a recession turns it into a depression. Again, we've seen this movie. History proves it.

John said...

Michael wrote:

Next is ending the wars (not fast enough).

And:

I'd also cut the military budget as Ike also did.

And:

I'd start with a 15% cut focusing on obsolete weapons systems like Star Wars and some of our nuclear arsenal and the B-52 Bombers which cost huge $ in maintainance because they are so old. But I would increase this--the Center for Defense Information says that the military budget could be cut in HALF without lowering our defensive capabilities one bit--and the CDI was founded by high-ranking former military types, not pacifists like myself.

But a few comments ago, he wrote:

WWII, however, created a MASSIVE government jobs program and a full employment economy and that brought us the rest of the way out of Depression.

So are wars good for the economy or bad for the economy? Which is it?

I've read different figures, such as that Obama's budget assumes that the U.S. economy will grow at an annual rate of 4% from 2010 to 2013. That's incredibly wishful thinking, and is quite like buying a new luxury car under the assumption that you're about to get a raise at work -- and you'd better, because that's the only way that you're going to be able to pay for it.

Michael Westmoreland-White said...

Wars are almost always bad for an economy. WWII was an exception for 2 reasons: 1 good and 1 bad.

Good: Because WWII was a global war, it had to be fought with ALL the government resources available. There could be no thought about spending problems (although then-Sen. Harry Reid made his bones keeping waste, fraud, and war-profiteering out of it--and going after those who would profit at the nation's expense). It created a full employment economy, starting up closed factories. The draft put most of the men to work in the armed forces and, for the first time, a large % of women went to the work force. This massive spending created the demand that brought us the rest of the way of the Depression.

The bad reason that WWII didn't cause harm to the economy was the Cold War. Usually there is a recession when a war is over because the spending is cut, the troops are demobilized, etc. If the women had stayed in the workforce in large numbers, we'd have had massive numbers of unemployed veterans. The GI Bill got them to college--the first time college was available to the masses. So, they helped fuel the post-war tech boom.
The Marshall Plan (more govt. spending) rebuilt Europe and then Europe became a major market for post-WWII U.S. goods. So did Japan.

Without those factors, the U.S. would have gone into recession after the war.

But the Iraq War and the massive military budget weren't during a recession. They took budget surpluses and created massive debts. WWII could have done that if the economic growth had slowed after the war. It happened after Korea and Vietnam and Gulf War I.

In my charitable moments (I have others) I think (hope?) that one reason Obama is drawing down Iraq slowly is to give time for the economy to recover before dumping newly discharged vets on it and increasing unemployment.

But you didn't ask if military spending would help the current recession. It might, although I think infrastructure, schools, green jobs, etc. are better. You asked how we should PAY for that spending as/after the economy recovers. THAT's when I would start cutting military spending--beginning 2011, just when the Bush tax cuts expire.

The moves it takes to get out of a recession ARE NOT THE SAME as the moves it takes to balance the budget and keep from having longterm problems with inflation, interest rates, foreign debt, trade deficits, etc. Those are all separate problems requiring separate solutions--and it is not clear if they can all be worked on at once or not.

There are parts of economics that are very hard to understand. But this is Econ 101. If Republicans and conservatives can't get these basics, they should never be put in charge of anything economic!

John said...

There are parts of economics that are very hard to understand. But this is Econ 101. If Republicans and conservatives can't get these basics, they should never be put in charge of anything economic!

How about a simple, albeit long-term test to see which understanding of economics is correct:

If the US economy grows at least 4% a year from 2010 to 2013, Obama and the Keynsians are correct. If it grows slower, or actually contracts during those years, the freemarketeers are correct. Deal?

Michael Westmoreland-White said...

No deal because GDP is only a part of the story. Economic health is also determined by how well ALL sectors of the economy are doing, whether the Middle Class is growing or shrinking, if poverty is small or obsolete or large and growing, etc.

That 4% growth during the Bush years included the ridiculous concept during '01-'03 of "jobless recovery." The growth was entirely in the top 5% with most in the top 1%. The Middle Class LOST ground.

Groups like the Economic Policy Institute give the kind of broad based indicators which tell the real story. These folks and others (including garbage collectors watching people throw out much less--and not out of ecological concern--) were warning that we were in a recession while the idiots on CNBC (along with Phil Gramm) were saying that everything is all right.

The "growth" of the last 8 years was mostly illusion based on the "credit default swaps" that used to be illegal and are destroying us and on the housing bubble.

Why is GDP not a sufficient evidence of economic health (necessary, but not sufficient)? Because its like measurements of MEAN income vs. MEDIAN income. Mean is misleading. If 4 blue collar workers who make about 45K per year are in a bar and Bill Gates walks in, the MEAN income shoots way up, but its still 4 average joes and Bill Gates.

Better measurements would be if the middle class grows during the next 4-8 years, unemployment falls, homelessness declines, the trade deficit falls, New Orleans is rebuilt, the auto industry rebounds in a greener fashion, we get universal healthcare, infant mortality falls, drop out rates fall, education rates soar, etc.

If those things all happen, the country will be better off even if GDP growth was only about 2% overall.

But I worry that conservative Democrats will join forces with the GOP to derail most of this.