BusinessWeek: Competing versions of big government

[Winehole23]

In 2012, the United States is at the end of a decade-long experiment in borrowing money to push into the economy. Now each candidate for president would like for us to believe that he is going to put an end to this profligacy. We are told that this election presents voters with a stark choice between two very different visions of government: one that is active on behalf of its citizens, and one that gets out of the way. That’s true. Yet neither offers a credible way to stop borrowing money to pay for what he wants to do.


Instead, voters must choose between a Democrat with a detailed budget plan that can’t pass in Congress—and doesn’t really attempt to unwind the spending—and a Republican challenger with a budget plan that lacks details, can’t pass in Congress, and unwinds the spending with magic. Both candidates fear the public will punish anyone who takes away what has been given so freely for the last 10 years. Obama addresses this by not doing it. A best guess at Mitt Romney’s and Paul Ryan’s budgets shows that they will address this by pretending to do it. Both would have us continue to amass debt to enact their ideas of what the economy needs—tax cuts or investment. In that way, our stark choice is really between two different versions of large government.
http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-08-17/one-thing-romney-and-obama-agree-on-big-government

[Winehole23]

There is no mystery, in Washington or anywhere else, about what actually needs to be done to bring government spending under control. One option is to do nothing. In its long-term budget outlook for 2012, the CBO presents a future it calls the “baseline scenario.” This is simply what would happen if Congress passes no new spending bills before January. The Bush tax cuts will expire. Automatic cuts to defense, Medicare, and discretionary spending will go into effect. To a pure deficit hawk, it looks pretty good. According to the CBO, it starts reducing debt as a percentage of GDP in 2016, and by 2022 it’s down to 61 percent (the same target the Ryan plan aims for). But there’s a reason the baseline scenario is often referred to as the “fiscal cliff”: It will limit growth in real GDP next year to half a percent.


This abrupt timeline will be destructive to the economy and terrible for jobs. Yet whether we make them soon or make them later, eventually cuts of this size will be necessary. This is fifth-grade math. No further study is needed. No panel of experts needs to be assembled. The baseline scenario, of course, won’t happen. Both parties are now negotiating under the shared assumption that neither can tolerate it. But as it in fact eliminates spending, it serves as a useful comparison. Any politician trying to sell a plan needs to prove that it’s better than doing nothing.
same

[mercos]

Good question for everyone. Is the fiscal cliff actually better than BOTH candidates economic plans, at least in terms of getting the government's finances in order?

[boutons_deux]

The Fiscal cliff is a figment of the Congress. They created it as way NOT to do their jobs, they can destroy it.

[DarrinS]

I thought Obama was the most frugal POTUS evah

[Winehole23]

who said so?

[Winehole23]

the OP emphasizes how both candidates essentially float big government by adding to debt.

[Winehole23]

that's not frugality

[SnakeBoy]

Yet neither offers a credible way to stop borrowing money to pay for what he wants to do.

Not suprising since americans on both sides wouldn't accept a plan that really did that.

[Winehole23]

how true. nobody wants to take away the goodies. that gets punted ahead a decade.

[boutons_deux]

"Yet neither offers a credible way to stop borrowing money to pay for what he wants to do."

False. Obama wants to reduce the deficit (borrow less money) by raising taxes on $250k+, while Gecko/Ryan want to cut taxes on the 1% and raise on the 99%, with no regard for the deficit.

"fixing" the unbroken SS is easily fixed by removing the cap on SS and applying it also to unearned income.

ACA reduces payments (debt) to for-profit Medicare services, while Gecko/Ryan keeps those payments at same level but denies care to and increases payments by Medicare patients.

[Winehole23]

sounds like Obama's your man, boutons.

[boutons_deux]

not really, as disappointed as many of his followers, but Gecko/Ryan would be more long-term disasters for the 99%, like the ones we are still suffering from and paying for from the dubya/dickhead/Repug Reign of Error, 2001 - 2008.

[Winehole23]

Obama's been a fairly reliable continuation of the foregoing, yes

[SnakeBoy]

how true. nobody wants to take away the goodies. that gets punted ahead a decade.

Which is why I hope Romney wins. They both take us down the same road but Romney might give us some economic bubbles along the way.

[Winehole23]

not seeing it. how?

[Winehole23]

you like the prospects for investors such as yourself, or something like that?

[boutons_deux]

Obama's been a fairly reliable continuation of the foregoing, yes

I said during dubya's rain of shit on us that his policies and their costs would live long after him, and they have.

How does anybody stop $100Bs going into Iraq and Aghanistan?

How to stop paying for decades of Repug war vets care?

How to give people back their houses that were stolen by the banks?

How do you reverse the huge, deficit-producing, inequality-increasing dubya tax cuts?

How does the dubya housing/credit bubble Banksters Great Depression get turned around from so deep in a couple years?

Then remember Bitch O'Connell's priority for the Repugs was to defeat Obama, to deny and/or trash any success, NOT jobs, NOT the economy, NOT the deficit, NOT any big issue, just STOP OBAMA, automatically obstruct him and Dems as not being legitimately worth of governing.

[SnakeBoy]

you like the prospects for investors such as yourself, or something like that?

Exactly. I don't see Obama reinflating the housing boom, creating an energy boom, etc. More likely is 4 more years of flat or declining economy imo. Perhaps Romney will strip away regulation, spend lot's of money, and create a new bubble that I can benefit from.

What more can I ask from a candidate if the people won't accept real solutions.

[Homeland Security]

America is really about 20% poorer than what is reflected in people's standard of living. Americans have a choice:
A) reduce their standard of living by 20%, meaning a horrible depression and probable political instability resulting in loss of the Republic and splintering into successor states, or
B) continue to borrow to maintain the present standard of living as long as possible, until the inevitable collapse resulting in loss of the Republic and splintering into successor states.

Frankly, the best decision is probably B. It's like a death row inmate deciding whether he wants his last meal to be A) a small dinner salad or B) a big-ass multi-course buffet of his favorite foods. Yeah, A is probably healthier, but what fucking difference does it make?

Either way, people like me win in the end.

[Winehole23]

and the little guy gets squashed like a worm. cool story.

[boutons_deux]

Analysis: Paul Ryan Voted to Add $6.8 Trillion to the Federal Debt

– Beginning with the Bush tax cuts, since 2001 Ryan has voted to add $2.5 trillion worth of tax cuts to the deficit.

– In the last 11 years, Paul Ryan voted for every bill that called for an increase in defense spending. In total, this has added $1.9 trillion to the deficit.

– Paul Ryan also voted to increase non-defense discretionary spending — the very thing he is pushing to cut now. He voted to spend $270 billion on Medicare Part D (all of which was unpaid for). He also added $80 billion to the deficit by voting for an agriculture bill in 2002, and he added another $20 billion in 2003 when he voted for changes to military retirement. Lastly, he voted for increased borrowing authority for flood insurance, adding yet another $17 billion to the deficit.

http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/ryandeficitvotes.png

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/08/17/708191/analysis-paul-ryan-votes-deficit/

[Homeland Security]

and the little guy gets squashed like a worm. cool story.
Worms need to accept that they are just worms.

[SnakeBoy]

Either way, people like me win in the end.

How do you win?

[Winehole23]

Worms need to accept that they are just worms.delusion dies hard. ever read the Quixote?

[Homeland Security]

How do you win?

That's classified.

[Winehole23]

Exactly. I don't see Obama reinflating the housing boom, creating an energy boom, etc. More likely is 4 more years of flat or declining economy imo. Perhaps Romney will strip away regulation, spend lot's of money, and create a new bubble that I can benefit from.
lol yr "hey, big spender" take :lol

I could see Romney reeling back regs considerably. If elected, he can basically do that by appointment.

[SnakeBoy]

lol yr "hey, big spender" take :lol



He's a good looking guy.

[Winehole23]

the effect of Romney's squarish good looks on other men, is apparently not negligible, yes.

[Clipper Nation]

Which is why I hope Romney wins. They both take us down the same road but Romney might give us some economic bubbles along the way.

Yeah, because Fed-created bubbles have been SO great for the goal of building a stable economy.... :rolleyes

[boutons_deux]

Bill Black: Romney Takes His Political Inspiration from Europe’s Worst Mistakes



1. Austerity. European austerity has promptly forced the Eurozone back into recession. Romney, channeling Germany’s Prime Minister Merkel, claims that deficits are “immoral” and must be ended. Austerity is pro-cyclical policy that makes recessions far more severe. It has pushed several European nations into Great Depression levels of unemployment, which has reduced income and tax revenues and increased budget deficits. The EU’s Stability and Growth Pact (an oxymoron designed by regular morons) produces instability and negative growth by banning EU nations from using effective counter-cyclical fiscal policies that have proven successful for decades in reducing the severity and length of recessions.

2. Slashing working class wages. Ryan is an implacable opponent of unions and wants to end the minimum wage. Merkel is demanding the repeal of European laws protecting workers and is coercing the periphery to reduce working class wages. Unemployment rates are roughly 25% in Spain and Greece and the unemployment rate for the young is nearly 50%. The old sick joke is true again in Ireland – its leading export is the Irish. Real wages in Europe has fallen and unemployment has increased sharply.

3. Ryan wants to remove the Federal Reserve’s statutory mandate to seek full employment consistent with price stability and have it subject to a solitary mandate to maintain price stability. That mimics the disastrous single mandate of the European Central Bank (ECB). The ECB lacks the legal authority to help the nations of Europe respond to the worst economic catastrophe since the devastation caused by World War II. It is an insane policy. The ECB’s crippled mandate meant that our Federal Reserve had to intervene in Europe to save several European Central Banks from collapse, which could have led to a global depression. Ryan wants to adopt a European policy that has proven grotesquely self-destructive.

4. Romney wants to end any vigorous financial regulation. He is inspired by the now infamous European “lite touch” regulation. The United Kingdom (UK) epitomized lite touch regulation. The failure of most of the UK’s largest banks, the Libor, HSBC, and Standard Chartered scandals and the allegedly rogue operation of JPMorgan’s Chief Investment Office in the City of London constitute a record of failure and scandal without equal. Romney and Ryan oppose any serious regulation of banking and call for the immediate repeal of the Dodd-Frank Act in its entirety and the re-adoption of European-style “lite touch” regulation.

5. Romney’s lead economic advisor, N. Gregory Mankiw, continues to champion the regulatory “competition in laxity” that produced the “race to the bottom” that simultaneously destroyed effective financial regulation throughout the developed world. This perverse dynamic has created the criminogenic environments that drive our recurrent, intensifying financial crises. Mankiw is pushing the “need” for the U.S. to win that race to the bottom against the City of London. The only way to “win” a race to the bottom is to refuse to race, but Mankiw takes his policy inspiration from Europe and the City of London. Mankiw’s advice has caused Romney to ignore the recurrent disasters and the warnings of effective regulators, economists, and white-collar criminologists that his European-inspired anti-regulatory policies are criminogenic.

http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2012/08/bill-black-romney-takes-his-political-inspiration-from-europes-worst-mistakes.html#1wxab8pZYMFii5Up.99

[symple19]

Quick question..who was the last republican president to actually shrink the government?

[Winehole23]

Nixon retreating from Vietnam, I think I read somewhere. In terms of real spending anyway . . . dunno about the payroll.

[Winehole23]

With the Romney campaign’s selection of Paul Ryan for the VP slot, the pundits have naturally focused again on the Fiscal Year 2013 House Budget Resolution (http://budget.house.gov/fy2013prosperity/), or what is popularly known as “the Ryan Plan.” Progressive critics deride the proposal as a merciless product of Randian thinking, but in reality it is quite timid. Even if everything happened exactly as called for in the Ryan Plan, the federal budget wouldn’t be balanced for another twenty-seven years. Indeed, if Romney and Ryan are elected and can implement the Plan with no opposition, they will still add far, far more debt in their two terms than Bill Clinton did. Is this really the work of a serious policy wonk who understands how dire our fiscal situation is?


Before diving into the numbers, let’s refresh our memories as to the reaction from many on the left when the news first broke. To take just one example, here is Ryan Lizza in a New Yorker post (http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2012/08/looks-like-ryan-mitts-pick.html) from August 11, 2012, the morning of the announcement:

Presumably, Romney’s main reason for picking Ryan is … his more recent rise to celebrity as a crusading policy wonk determined to tame the federal government. Romney, who has been extremely vague about what he would do if elected, will now own Paul Ryan’s ideas, which include privatizing Social Security, turning Medicare into a voucher program, bloc-granting and drastically cutting Medicaid, and reducing discretionary spending to levels that would affect every popular government program. This Ryan agenda will now fill the vacuum created by Romney’s unwillingness to lay out the specifics of his own plan. Even before this (apparent) announcement, Democrats were planning on tying Romney to Ryan’s policy platform. Now Romney has done it for them.
Yet the most Absurd Quotation award goes to Jacob Weisberg, whom Paul Krugman cited (http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/08/13/the-ryan-role/) when Romney picked Ryan. Back in 2011 in his Slate column, Weisberg originally had thought Paul Ryan was a serious policy wonk, but then apologized to his readers (http://www.slate.com/id/2291706/) for being hoodwinked by the Congressman and dishonest right-wingers:

After my last column (http://www.slate.com/id/2290509/), I got pummeled (http://www.tnr.com/blog/jonathan-chait/86312/the-counterintuitive-liberal-case-ryan-too-counterintuitive) in the liberal blogosphere for asserting that the Ryan budget represented a big step in the direction of conservative honesty. I deserved some of the abuse. Though I criticized Ryan for his unsupported rosy assumptions (shame on you, Heritage Foundation hacks (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/18/opinion/18krugman.html?ref=heritagefoundation)), I reacted too quickly and didn’t sort out just how laughable Ryan’s long-term spending projections were. His plan projects an absurd future, according to the Congressional Budget Office (http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3453), in which all discretionary spending, now around 12 percent of GDP, shrinks to 3 percent of GDP by 2050. Defense spending alone was 4.7 percent of GDP in 2009 (http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/MS.MIL.XPND.GD.ZS). With numbers like that, Ryan is more an anarchist-libertarian (http://www.slate.com/id/2267685/) than honest conservative.
So, is this analysis right? Is Ryan’s budget plan so fiscally conservative, that it actually crosses over into “anarchist-libertarian” territory?


Hardly. The first jaw-dropping fact—in light of the commentary above—is that Ryan’s plan doesn’t even call for a balanced budget until the year 2040. Don’t believe me? Read it for yourself on page 84 of the actual proposal [.pdf] (http://budget.house.gov/uploadedfiles/pathtoprosperity2013.pdf). There, the analysis proudly declares: “The CBO estimates that this budget will produce annual surpluses by 2040 and begin paying down the national debt after that.”
Indeed, if you look at Table S-1 (p. 88), you will see that the Ryan budget estimates that over its first ten years, it will add $3.1 trillion to the federal debt held by the public. Over that decade, the [I]lowest the deficit gets (in absolute dollar terms) is $166 billion in Fiscal Year 2018, and at the end of the decade—i.e., in FY 2022—the Ryan Plan projects the federal budget deficit will have risen back up to $287 billion. Remember everyone, this estimate of a $287 billion federal budget deficit occurs in the tenth year after the Ryan Plan kicks in.


Another interesting fact: Over the first decade of reform, the Ryan Plan calls for federal spending to average 20.0% of real GDP. Yet as the below chart from the St. Louis Fed shows, the ratio of Net Federal Outlays over GDP has typically been far less:


http://www.theamericanconservative.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/Untitled1.jpg (http://www.theamericanconservative.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/Untitled1.jpg)


As the chart shows, federal spending exceeded 20 percent of GDP from the Carter years onward, with the notable exception of the Bill Clinton presidency (perhaps because of the Republican Congress). Speaking of the Clinton years, during his tenure (from FY 1993 to FY 2001), the federal debt held by the public increased a grand total of…$72 billion. (See Appendix F in the CBO’s recent fiscal outlook (http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=12699). Remember that there were a few on-budget surpluses during these years.) Compare this to the Ryan Plan, which during its first eight years calls for an increase in the public debt of $2.7 trillion.


In conclusion, regardless of whether the Ryan Plan is specific enough about its revenue forecasts and spending provisions, the simple fact is that even on its own terms the budget resolution is woefully inadequate. It doesn’t even pretend to balance the budget for almost three decades. Far from being “anarchist-libertarian,” it shouldn’t even qualify as serious or conservative.
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/how-draconian-is-the-ryan-plan/

[boutons_deux]

"shouldn’t even qualify as serious or conservative"

AC sounds just like Krugman who also said Ryan was unserious (but his article on Ryan was much more aggressive and deNIGRAting).

Ryan is being welcomed as great financial/policy guru by Repugs (but they always push fraud and lies).

Ryan himself admits he "hasn't run the numbers" :lol

[boutons_deux]

AC is itself a joke because it concentrates on the deficit rather than how Ryan increases the deficit by $5T+ while cutting 1%/corporate taxes by about the same $Ts, pushing Gecko taxes (on declared income, not the evaded stuff overseas) down to about 1%.

[Winehole23]

so then, you agree to agree with AC, which btw mentions the swelling deficit under the Ryan plan in the posted.

[symple19]

Nixon retreating from Vietnam, I think I read somewhere. In terms of real spending anyway . . . dunno about the payroll.

exactly, and if not for the war you'd probably have to go back further...Point being that there really aren't any choices anymore in terms of a republican president who would actually shrink government

It seems that government will perpetually grow, regardless of who is in power.

And right-wing hacks continue to talk about small government, reducing this and reducing that, when none of those things actually happen. Or, if they do, they're offset by expansions in other areas. It's appalling to me, and why I can't see myself ever voting republican again.

What happens to a balloon if you keep filling it with air and it keeps expanding?

[boutons_deux]

so then, you agree to agree with AC, which btw mentions the swelling deficit under the Ryan plan in the posted.

but they don't mention his $5T in 1% + corp tax cuts (aka, a "revenue problem"), which AC supports without hesitation. they only hawk about the "spending" and deficit problem.

[LnGrrrR]

I'd say that any plan that projects 30 years out should be laughed at on principle. What plan lasts even 10 years, let alone 30, in Congress?

[boutons_deux]

we can look at the last 10 years of Repug tax cuts and how they have cratered the deficit with a revenue problem, and easily, reliably predict that Ryans' $5T in tax cuts will make the deficit worse.

[TeyshaBlue]

Easily.http://homerecording.com/bbs/images/smilies/facepalm.gif

[Winehole23]

but they don't mention his $5T in 1% + corp tax cuts (aka, a "revenue problem"), which AC supports without hesitation. they only hawk about the "spending" and deficit problem.bullshit. i'll need a cite for that. AC is down on corporate welfare, bot.

[TeyshaBlue]

bot's don't cite. Just cut n paste parrot food.

[boutons_deux]

bullshit. i'll need a cite for that. AC is down on corporate welfare, bot.

bullshit, I'll need a cite for that.

[TeyshaBlue]

lol deflection.

You made the initial assertion...up to you to support it.


We know you can't, tho. So, don't bother.

[TeyshaBlue]

Here. Use this: http://www.essaygenerator.com/

It's quick and makes more sense than your usual mishmash of blog points.

[Wild Cobra]

The thing with that chart. Historical numbers tell us that 18.3% is the level at which we can run no deficit.

[Winehole23]

The thing with that chart. Historical numbers tell us that 18.3% is the level at which we can run no deficit.if we grant that for the sake of argument, what does it tell you that Ryan plans to cut spending to 20% of GDP and no further?

[Wild Cobra]

bot's don't cite. Just cut n paste parrot food.

LOL...

Good one...

Parrot food...

[Wild Cobra]

if we grant that for the sake of argument, what does it tell you that Ryan plans to cut spending to 20% of GDP and no further?

We are still in trouble then.

We need a plan to get below the 18% level and start paying down the debt.

[Winehole23]

I don't guess you'd rethink the correlation in light of the growth of Medicare/Medicaid/SS obligations, would you?

[Winehole23]

Good question for everyone. Is the fiscal cliff actually better than BOTH candidates economic plans, at least in terms of getting the government's finances in order?according to Bruce Bartlett, yes (with a caveat)


But given the propensity of Republicans in the Senate to filibuster (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/f/filibusters_and_debate_curbs/index.html?8qa) anything they don’t like, no matter how trivial, and the fact that virtually all have signed a “taxpayer protection pledge (http://www.atr.org/taxpayer-protection-pledge)” vowing never to raise taxes for any reason, the likelihood of compromise without severe external pressure is unlikely.


A better idea, in my opinion, is to let the fiscal cliff occur as scheduled and enact a fix retroactively, as soon as possible. This is an idea that the former director of the Office of Management and Budget, Peter Orszag (http://www.democracyjournal.org/25/the-looming-showdown.php?page=all), and the Brookings Institution economist William Gale (http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/12/opinion/gale-tax-cut/index.html) have been promoting for several months.


The virtue of the Orszag-Gale strategy is that it changes the political dynamics. Once taxes have risen on everyone, legislation restoring the status quo ante for all except the wealthy would be scored as a tax cut. While doing this before Dec. 31 would be a violation of the pledge, doing so after Jan. 1 would not.


Similarly, negotiating some alternative to the automatic budget sequestration (http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42050.pdf) on the spending side — which everyone agrees is a stupid way to reduce spending — will proceed much more easily, because Republicans will be under intense pressure to negotiate in good faith for a change and avoid filibusters.


It goes without saying that in a world without tax pledges and filibusters, it would be in everyone’s interest to negotiate a sensible alternative to the fiscal cliff in the lame-duck session; indeed, it should have been done before Congress left town.
But we don’t live in such a world. Therefore, extreme and unpleasant tactics may be necessary to do what needs to be done.


My advice to President Obama: have your staff prepare an alternative to the fiscal cliff that can be sent to Congress as soon as it reconvenes this year, prepare for Republicans to reject it and then hope to negotiate something that can be enacted as soon as possible in the next Congress.


Kicking the can down the road is unacceptable and should be rejected out of hand.

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/10/02/the-fiscal-cliff-opportunity/

[LnGrrrR]

Everyone says that the cliff is a horrible idea, will hurt the economy, etc etc. The problem is that when the economy is good, politicians will just spin that as a reason why we don't have to pay down the debt anyways. I'd almost like us to hit the cliff, just to see how "horrible" it is. Somehow I think we'd get by with more taxes on rich people and less spending on defense.

[Winehole23]

the tax hit would be considerable

[LnGrrrR]

the tax hit would be considerable

So is our debt :D

[Winehole23]

If Congressional gridlock sends the U.S. government tumbling over the fiscal cliff later this year, Americans could face an average tax hike of almost $3,500 in 2013. Nearly 9 of every 10 households would pay higher taxes. Every income group would see their taxes rise by at least 3.5 percent, but high-income households would suffer the biggest hit by far, according to a new Tax Policy Center analysis (http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/publications/url.cfm?ID=412666).


TPC found that if the tax hikes last the entire year—a big ”if”–those in the top 0.1 percent would pay an average $633,000 more than if today’s tax rules were extended. However, even middle income households would take a hit: they’d pay an average of almost $2,000 more, and see their after-tax income fall by more than 4 percent. Such tax hikes would be “unprecedented,” said the paper’s authors, Bob Williams, Eric Toder, Donald Marron, and Hang Nguyen.

http://taxvox.taxpolicycenter.org/2012/10/01/if-congress-goes-over-the-fiscal-cliff-your-taxes-will-likely-go-up/

[Winehole23]

So is our debt :Dtrue, but there are no political penalties for kicking the can. taxes, otoh . . .

[LnGrrrR]

true, but there are no political penalties for kicking the can. taxes, otoh . . .

I can hope that one day there WILL be political penalties. You know, a tea party that actually was concerned about the debt. I'm not saying to pull the e-brake, but a gentle tap on the brakes would be nice. And given that income inequality has only increased in the last decade or two, I find that richer's claims of being overtaxed requires a few crocodile tears.

I'm not saying the rich don't deserve their money, but anyone who laments only bringing home say 7 million after taxes intead of 5 million isn't really living in the same America that the other 99% are.

[boutons_deux]

"laments only bringing home say 7 million after taxes intead of 5 million isn't really living in the same America that the other 99% are"

of course they aren't, just like the financial sector is a different country from The Real America. And they don't care.

Like Gecko and other govt-hating Repugs, they think it's highly patriotic to avoid and evade taxes themselves, while spewing the euphemism "broadening the tax base", iow, raising taxes on those infamous 47%ers.

[Winehole23]

If this be nihilism, make the most of it. Michael Hirsh defends (http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/01/why-the-tea-party-will-live-on/266785/) House conservatives’ opposition to the fiscal cliff bargain. The deal meets the standard for agreement-at-any-price “pragmatism”. On the other hand:

Tuesday’s “no” votes represented a wide variety of views. But many GOP House members were appalled at the failure to cut spending or change traditional ways of doing business, especially what The Washington Post noted (http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/cliff-bill-is-a-bitter-pill-for-houses-tea-party-adherents-to-swallow/2013/01/01/5345286e-544d-11e2-8e84-e933f677fe68_story_1.html) was “dozens of rider provisions that had nothing to do with the cliff” (including one that kicked over $12 billion over ten years to the renewable-energy industry; another that will benefit the owners of auto-racing tracks in the amount of $78 million; and a $1 million break for coal-mining operations on Indian lands). The House members opposed to this old way–as naïve as they often sound–make up the core of a legitimate resistance movement in American politics, one that is trying to stop the relentless tendency of U.S. government to grow ever larger and more complex, and one that remains frustrated at the continuing inability of its representatives, both Republican and Democrat, to rein that tendency in.


Hirsh makes good points both about the nature of the deal and the sources of opposition. Like the “tea-party rebellion” he defends, however, Hirsh conflates two problems into a single destructive tendency–a misunderstanding that makes it hard to identify politically viable responses.


One issue is the size of government, as indicated by government spending per capita, government spending as a share of GDP, or other broad measures. The other is the complexity of government, as measured by the proliferation of the tax code and regulations, subsidies for particular industries, or other specific policies. Size and complexity often go together: the labyrinth of the defense budget is a good example. But they need not do so: although Social Security is fiscally gargantuan, it is a rather simple program.


Conservative critiques tend to identify gargantuan size as the main problem with modern administrative state. This argument, however, usually fails to connect with ordinary citizens, who generally like big government provided that it is delivered in a predictable and relatively transparent way. Social Security, again, is a case in point. According to this poll (http://www.pollingreport.com/social.htm), for example, 53% of American prefer raising taxes to changing the retirement age or lowering benefits.


What Americans do not like are complex programs that require expert assistance to navigate, and therefore confer disproportionate benefits on those who can afford the assistance of lawyers, accountants, and lobbyists. Although it is hard to make out from polls, I suspect that this consideration is the basis of continuing disapproval for Obamacare. The issue here is not simply that providing universal health coverage would be expensive. It’s that the Administration’s plan for doing so is a Rube Goldberg contraption that threatens to make unintelligible the already confusing insurance system.


Dan McCarthy recently counseled (http://www.theamericanconservative.com/a-boehner-cantor-crackup-not-exactly/) conservatives to understand the struggle against big government as a long-term project rather than a unitary problem to be resolved by dramatic votes like that on the fiscal cliff or debt ceiling. The place to start might be to accept, at least temporarily, bigness in government while attacking complexity wherever possible. This strategy would allow conservatives to stake out a position against unnecessary regulation, expensive subsidies, and potentially criminal cronyism while reconciling them to the reality that Americans like their basic entitlements and are reluctant to change them. And that would be far from nihilism.

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/big-government-complex-government-and-the-future-of-conservatism/

[boutons_deux]

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/big-government-complex-government-and-the-future-of-conservatism/

And how many seats in Congress does The American Conservative readership have?

[TeyshaBlue]

Probably about as many as thinkprogress.borg.

WTF does that have to do with anything said in the article?

[DarrinS]

I think my mutual fund should allow random non-members (i.e. people with no skin in the game) to elect the fund manager. Working out great for our govt.

[boutons_deux]

Probably about as many as thinkprogress.borg.

WTF does that have to do with anything said in the article?

Wonderful, amusing for these abstract, academic journals to run their mouths about pure conservative theory and politics, but if they can't get anybody elected, they're only jerking themselves off.

[boutons_deux]

The conservative movement is still an elaborate moneymaking venture (http://www.salon.com/2013/01/07/the_conservative_movement_is_still_an_elaborate_mo neymaking_venture/)

The conservative media movement exists primarily as a moneymaking venture. As Rick Perlstein explained in the Baffler (http://www.thebaffler.com/past/the_long_con/), some of the largest conservative media organs are essentially massive email lists of suckers rented to snake oil salesmen. The con isn’t limited to a couple of newsletters and websites: The most prominent conservative organizations in the nation are primarily dedicated to separating conservatives from their money.

FreedomWorks, which is funded primarily by very rich people (http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/12/freedomworks-rich-donors-armey-kibbe-super-pac), solicits donations from non-rich conservative people. More than 80,000 people donated money to FreedomWorks in 2012, and it seems likely that only a small minority of those people were hedge fund millionaires. And what are people who donate to this grass-roots conservative organization funded mostly by a few very rich people getting for their hard-earned money? In addition to paying Dick Armey $400,000 a year for 20 years to stay away, FreedomWorks also apparently spent more than a million dollars paying Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh to say nice things about FreedomWorks, in order to convince listeners to send FreedomWorks money that FreedomWorks would then give to Limbaugh and Beck. It’s a pretty simple con. Beck, meanwhile, also has a subscriber-based media operation, in which people pay his company money for access to programs where Beck expresses opinions that he was paid to hold. He also spent years telling everyone to buy gold from a company that pays him and defrauds consumers. (http://www.salon.com/2012/11/29/more_legal_trouble_for_beck_backed_goldline/)

As Armey admitted to Media Matters, (http://mediamatters.org/blog/2013/01/04/exclusive-dick-armey-dishes-on-freedomworks-dea/192036) FreedomWorks at this point essentially raises money for the sake of raising money. It exists to bilk “activists.” Armey at least has the courtesy to be embarrassed by this:

“If Limbaugh and Beck, if we were using those resources to recruit activists and inform activists and to encourage and enthuse activists, that’s one thing,” Armey explained. “If we are using these things to raise money; one, it’s a damned expensive way to raise money; and two, it makes raising money an end on to itself not an instrumental activity to support the foundation work that our organization does.”

Armey also said the relationship with Beck expanded to include rallies that were co-sponsored by Beck and FreedomWorks, and included appearances by FreedomWorks President and CEO Matt Kibbe.

Armey said he objected to these events, dubbed FreePACs, because they often charged admission to FreedomWorks activists.


A review of promotional information for the events found $20 was a standard donation requested at some of the locations, while a Dallas, TX., FreePAC last summer charged prices as high as $971.


Tthe business of money-making, for consultants and media personalities and Herman Cains, is at this point getting in the way of the business of advancing conservative causes. The groups exert massive influence, and they only ever push the Republican Party to get more extreme. Apocalyptic hysteria is much more effective at getting people to open their wallets than reasonable commentary. There are a lot of people whose livelihoods depend on keeping lots of conservatives terrified and ill-informed. The groups that exist to raise funds raise more funds when they endorse the crazier candidate.

http://www.salon.com/2013/01/07/the_conservative_movement_is_still_an_elaborate_mo neymaking_venture/

:lol

Follow the money. It's only "value" in politics.

[TeyshaBlue]

The conservative media movement exists primarily as a moneymaking venture.


lol . Title fail.

[boutons_deux]

The conservative media movement exists primarily as a moneymaking venture.


lol . Title fail.

TB :lol talking title trash :lol

[TeyshaBlue]

boutons :lol not understanding what's written in front of him.