Guns Across Borders
New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg held a dramatic news conference yesterday to reveal that City investigators with hidden cameras went to the Crossroads of the West gun show in Phoenix, Arizona, resuming an investigation first conducted in 2009, when investigators visited six gun show, in three other states. A series of videos has been released, some clips from 2009 and some from the current study.
In this one (video below), the narrator explains
Federal law requires licensed firearms dealers to run background checks but private, unlicensed gun dealers that call themselves collectors don't have to run those checks. This gap in the law allows criminals to buy guns at gun shows without fear of detection. That's the gun show loophole and it's one of the primary ways illegal guns wind up on our streets. According to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, 30% of illegally trafficked guns are unrelated to gun shows.
A background check isn't required- unless the collector/dealer has reason to believe that the individual may not pass one. But in the 2009 sting, 19 of 31 dealers proceeded with a sale to a buyer who volunteered that he/she might not be able to pass a background check.
In the more recent investigation, Reuters reports, at least twice investigators were able to but a firearm after admitting they probably would not pass a background check. Bloomberg commented "You would hope with the memory of the Tucson shootings still so painfully fresh, especially in the state of Arizona, people would think twice about selling a firearm to anyone who even hinted at not wanting to conduct a background check."
Unless, apparently, the people (uh, person) would be Arizona governor Jan Brewer. Ever defiant, the Republican responded "We're strong people in Arizona. We believe in the Constitution, and we certainly support the Second Amendment." She asserted that gun laws are "something that the Legislature and I decide."
And so they do. At yesterday's press conference, New York City Police Commissioner Ray Kelly noted
We pay the price right here in New York. Almost 90 percent of the guns we confiscate here, the NYPD confiscates on the streets of this city, are from out of state. Some are from states that are pretty close, like Pennsylvania. And some are from states that are not so close, such as Texas and, yes, Arizona. But gun traffickers don`t respect state lines.
Not only in New York City, though. Gun traffickers don't respect state lines- or national ones, as in December The Washington Post reported
Drug cartels have aggressively turned to the United States because Mexico severely restricts gun ownership. Following gunrunning paths that have been in place for 50 years, firearms cross the border and end up in the hands of criminals as well as ordinary citizens seeking protection.
"This is not a new phenomenon," (special agent in charge of the Houston field division of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, Dewey)Webb said.
What is different now, authorities say, is the number of high-powered rifles heading south - AR-15s, AK-47s, armor-piercing .50-caliber weapons - and the savagery of the violence.
While law enforcement agencies in the U.S.A. have increased their efforts along the southwestern border (including Arizona) and "arrests of individual gunrunners have surged," the National Rifle Association has been on the job:
Federal authorities say more than 60,000 U.S. guns of all types have been recovered in Mexico in the past four years, helping fuel the violence that has contributed to 30,000 deaths
investigators rarely bring regulatory actions or criminal cases against U.S. gun dealers, in part because of laws backed by the gun lobby that make it difficult to prove cases.
*CHEAP SHOT ALERT*
So though neither the NRA nor Governor Brewer (nor Sarah Palin) is responsible for the rampage of Jared Loughner, it is not for lack of effort.
Tuesday, February 01, 2011
Monday, January 31, 2011
Should Be Easy
First, it was John Boehner, who on January 6 said
that any move to increase the United States' $14.3 trillion debt limit must be accompanied by spending cuts.
"The American people will not stand for such an increase unless it is accompanied by meaningful action by the President and Congress to cut spending and end the job-killing spending binge in Washington," Boehner said in a prepared statement.
Later that day, House Budget Committee chairman Paul Ryan of Wisconsin acknowleged the same. MSNBC reported
Some conservative Republicans have urged their GOP colleagues to resist raising the ceiling -- which currently clocks in at $14.3 trillion -- under any circumstances. Rep. Michele Bachmann of Minnesota is collecting signatures on her PAC's website "to force our elected officials to stop spending cold turkey," and Sen. Jim DeMint of South Carolina has advocated for a "big showdown" with Democrats by blocking the raise.
But House Budget Chairman Rep. Paul Ryan says that tactic isn't viable. "Just refusing to vote for it, I don't think that's really a strategy," he said, noting that a failure to raise the ceiling could result in the nation defaulting on its debts to investors.
"Will the debt ceiling be raised? Does it have to be raised? Yes," he said at an event sponsored by economics21 and the Manhattan Institute at the National Press Club Thursday.
Sunday, Speaker Boehner told Chris Wallace on GOP News Sunday that defaulting on the debt
would be a financial disaster not only for our country, but for the worldwide economy. Remember, the American people on Election Day said we want to cut spending and we want to create jobs. You can't create jobs if you default on the federal debt.
Listen, there has been a spending spree going on in Washington these last couple of years that is beyond control, and if the president is going to ask us to increase the debt limit, then he's going to have to be willing to cut up the credit cards. We've got to work together by listening to the American people and reducing these obligations that we have.
Asked by Wallace whether "defaulting on the full faith and credit is unacceptable," Boehner replied "I don't think -- I don't think it's a question that is even on the table."
Boehner and Ryan, inarguably the two most important Republicans in the chamber their party controls, have made it clear that, in the end, they would support raising the debt ceiling. They advocate doing so as spending is cut, but evidently would not balk at raising the ceiling even if it is not accompanied by spending cuts.
No doubt the President also fears defaulting on the debt. Still, in his State of the Union message (transcript here), the President who decided to jack up the deficit by $900 billion over the next two years declared his allegiance to cutting that deficit by cutting spending:
Now, most of the cuts and savings I've proposed only address annual domestic spending, which represents a little more than 12 percent of our budget. To make further progress, we have to stop pretending that cutting this kind of spending alone will be enough. It won't. (Applause.)
The bipartisan fiscal commission I created last year made this crystal clear. I don't agree with all their proposals, but they made important progress. And their conclusion is that the only way to tackle our deficit is to cut excessive spending wherever we find it -- in domestic spending, defense spending, health care spending, and spending through tax breaks and loopholes. (Applause.)
This means further reducing health care costs, including programs like Medicare and Medicaid, which are the single biggest contributor to our long-term deficit. The health insurance law we passed last year will slow these rising costs, which is part of the reason that nonpartisan economists have said that repealing the health care law would add a quarter of a trillion dollars to our deficit. Still, I'm willing to look at other ideas to bring down costs, including one that Republicans suggested last year -- medical malpractice reform to rein in frivolous lawsuits. (Applause.)
To put us on solid ground, we should also find a bipartisan solution to strengthen Social Security for future generations. (Applause.)
The GOP is determined- short of opposing raising the debt ceiling- to cut spending and starve government, thereby "drowning it in the bathtub," as Grover Norquist once put it. Obama, meanwhile, is committed, at least rhetorically, to trim the deficit in the short-term, notwithstanding the disastrous impact that could have on the economic recovery. And he is not hesitant to link Social Security, in the black with its dedicated source of funding, to the deficit, to the delight of the GOP and the mainstream media. All this is being done as Americans paid the lowest level of (state,federal, and local) taxes in 2009 (the last year for which full figures are available) than we have since the Truman presidency.
Late in 2010, President Obama engineered a deal that extended the Bush tax cuts on upper-incomes, arguing, generally, "the devil made me do it," that had he not gotten an extension of unemployment benefits, the Republicans in the next Congress would have extended the tax cuts without aid to the unemployed. No argument here about the devil, though Obama's failure to rein in budget-busting breaks for the wealthy while enjoying a Democratic-controlled House and Senate seemed a little too convenient.
Or maybe, to be generous, it was the best deal he could get. Now however, we know the best deal President Obama can get, and one he can get: the debt limit goes up, thereby assuring world markets and keeping government from shutting down. And he can get it with no cuts in spending. None. I could tell you whether he's going to achieve this or instead pull the rug out from under his own party, but then in early autumn, I thought the Baltimore Ravens would win the Super Bowl. So we can only wait.
First, it was John Boehner, who on January 6 said
that any move to increase the United States' $14.3 trillion debt limit must be accompanied by spending cuts.
"The American people will not stand for such an increase unless it is accompanied by meaningful action by the President and Congress to cut spending and end the job-killing spending binge in Washington," Boehner said in a prepared statement.
Later that day, House Budget Committee chairman Paul Ryan of Wisconsin acknowleged the same. MSNBC reported
Some conservative Republicans have urged their GOP colleagues to resist raising the ceiling -- which currently clocks in at $14.3 trillion -- under any circumstances. Rep. Michele Bachmann of Minnesota is collecting signatures on her PAC's website "to force our elected officials to stop spending cold turkey," and Sen. Jim DeMint of South Carolina has advocated for a "big showdown" with Democrats by blocking the raise.
But House Budget Chairman Rep. Paul Ryan says that tactic isn't viable. "Just refusing to vote for it, I don't think that's really a strategy," he said, noting that a failure to raise the ceiling could result in the nation defaulting on its debts to investors.
"Will the debt ceiling be raised? Does it have to be raised? Yes," he said at an event sponsored by economics21 and the Manhattan Institute at the National Press Club Thursday.
Sunday, Speaker Boehner told Chris Wallace on GOP News Sunday that defaulting on the debt
would be a financial disaster not only for our country, but for the worldwide economy. Remember, the American people on Election Day said we want to cut spending and we want to create jobs. You can't create jobs if you default on the federal debt.
Listen, there has been a spending spree going on in Washington these last couple of years that is beyond control, and if the president is going to ask us to increase the debt limit, then he's going to have to be willing to cut up the credit cards. We've got to work together by listening to the American people and reducing these obligations that we have.
Asked by Wallace whether "defaulting on the full faith and credit is unacceptable," Boehner replied "I don't think -- I don't think it's a question that is even on the table."
Boehner and Ryan, inarguably the two most important Republicans in the chamber their party controls, have made it clear that, in the end, they would support raising the debt ceiling. They advocate doing so as spending is cut, but evidently would not balk at raising the ceiling even if it is not accompanied by spending cuts.
No doubt the President also fears defaulting on the debt. Still, in his State of the Union message (transcript here), the President who decided to jack up the deficit by $900 billion over the next two years declared his allegiance to cutting that deficit by cutting spending:
Now, most of the cuts and savings I've proposed only address annual domestic spending, which represents a little more than 12 percent of our budget. To make further progress, we have to stop pretending that cutting this kind of spending alone will be enough. It won't. (Applause.)
The bipartisan fiscal commission I created last year made this crystal clear. I don't agree with all their proposals, but they made important progress. And their conclusion is that the only way to tackle our deficit is to cut excessive spending wherever we find it -- in domestic spending, defense spending, health care spending, and spending through tax breaks and loopholes. (Applause.)
This means further reducing health care costs, including programs like Medicare and Medicaid, which are the single biggest contributor to our long-term deficit. The health insurance law we passed last year will slow these rising costs, which is part of the reason that nonpartisan economists have said that repealing the health care law would add a quarter of a trillion dollars to our deficit. Still, I'm willing to look at other ideas to bring down costs, including one that Republicans suggested last year -- medical malpractice reform to rein in frivolous lawsuits. (Applause.)
To put us on solid ground, we should also find a bipartisan solution to strengthen Social Security for future generations. (Applause.)
The GOP is determined- short of opposing raising the debt ceiling- to cut spending and starve government, thereby "drowning it in the bathtub," as Grover Norquist once put it. Obama, meanwhile, is committed, at least rhetorically, to trim the deficit in the short-term, notwithstanding the disastrous impact that could have on the economic recovery. And he is not hesitant to link Social Security, in the black with its dedicated source of funding, to the deficit, to the delight of the GOP and the mainstream media. All this is being done as Americans paid the lowest level of (state,federal, and local) taxes in 2009 (the last year for which full figures are available) than we have since the Truman presidency.
Late in 2010, President Obama engineered a deal that extended the Bush tax cuts on upper-incomes, arguing, generally, "the devil made me do it," that had he not gotten an extension of unemployment benefits, the Republicans in the next Congress would have extended the tax cuts without aid to the unemployed. No argument here about the devil, though Obama's failure to rein in budget-busting breaks for the wealthy while enjoying a Democratic-controlled House and Senate seemed a little too convenient.
Or maybe, to be generous, it was the best deal he could get. Now however, we know the best deal President Obama can get, and one he can get: the debt limit goes up, thereby assuring world markets and keeping government from shutting down. And he can get it with no cuts in spending. None. I could tell you whether he's going to achieve this or instead pull the rug out from under his own party, but then in early autumn, I thought the Baltimore Ravens would win the Super Bowl. So we can only wait.
Saturday, January 29, 2011
Beyond "Civil"
There has been a misunderstanding. Some of its is intentional, some unavoidable, probably some due to the 'fair and balanced' obsession of our President.
It is, of course, President Barack Obama who pleased virtually everyone (honestly) when in his speech at the memorial in Tucson he commented (transcript here)
But at a time when our discourse has become so sharply polarized, at a time when we are far too eager to lay the blame for all that ails the world at the feet of those who happen to think differently than we do, it's important for us to pause for a moment and make sure that we're talking with each other in a way that -- that heals, not in a way that wounds....
And if, as has been discussed in recent days, their death helps usher in more civility in our public discourse, let us remember it is not because a simple lack of civility caused this tragedy -- it did not -- but rather because only a more civil and honest public discourse can help us face up to the challenges of our nation in a way that would make them proud.
The remark had something for both sides: conservatives eager to deny any responsibility for the climate of violence, liberals pointing to the need for "a more civil" discourse in the public square. But it was, on balance, little more and no less than a call for "civility."
And so Megyn Kelly of GOP TV (transcript from Crooks and Liars) would say to Allen Colmes on Friday
Well, that's the question. The theory is -- the theory is that this call for civility in fact an effort to silence critics who -- let me just finish the theory -- this is from this article -- the theory is -- other conservatives have said this -- that they're trying to silence Republicans or conservatives or Tea Party people who have been -- who have been successful in winning back control of the House, winning back more seats in the Senate, and they're worried about how successful they might be in 2012.
Colmes then took the bait, understandable inasmuch as the President has already set the terms of the debate, on Republican ground.
The issue is not one of "civility." Once one obsesses about civility, GOP politicians and pundits, wallowing in their "fair and balanced" mode, can plausibly claim: they all do it.
And a lot of Democrats, especially non-politicians on the far left, have been un civil. Many of us are uncomfortable sitting around a circle, holding hands (at other times wringing them), and asking if we can be friends. Rhetoric may not be civil; it ought, however, not be violent.
Criticizing Sarah Palin, on January 18 Chris Matthews noted
And by the way, nobody`s told them to, quote, unquote, "shut up." People have said, Stop talking about guns and raising the heat level about guns and your hatred of elected officials because somebody`s going connect those two issues, guns and how much they hate a politician. We know one guy did. No evidence he was politically inspired, but we know he shot a politician. We know he shot a lot of other people at a political event. And we know what else? He used a gun. I`m sorry, it`s related.
In January, 2010, before Sharron Angle became the Repub nominee for U.S. Senator from Nevada, she was interviewed by a right-wing talk show host and warned
You know, our Founding Fathers, they put that Second Amendment in there for a good reason and that was for the people to protect themselves against a tyrannical government. And in fact Thomas Jefferson said it's good for a country to have a revolution every 20 years.
I hope that's not where we're going, but, you know, if this Congress keeps going the way it is, people are really looking toward those Second Amendment remedies and saying my goodness what can we do to turn this country around? I'll tell you the first thing we need to do is take Harry Reid out.
In March, 2009 Michele Bachmann of Minnesota similarly warned:
I want people in Minnesota armed and dangerous on this issue of the energy tax because we need to fight back. Thomas Jefferson told us, having a revolution every now and then is a good thing, and the people — we the people — are going to have to fight back hard if we’re not going to lose our country. And I think this has the potential of changing the dynamic of freedom forever in the United States.
Not to be outdone- he is never outdone- Glenn Beck on June 10, 2010 himself warned (FOX News transcript here)
Does she see the connection between guns, political hatred and targeting politicians, like she did in her TV thing with the crosshairs on it and talking about reloading and bullseyes? Does she see the connection between that and reality?
I will stand against you and so will millions of others. We believe in something. You in the media and most in Washington don't. The radicals that you and Washington have co-opted and brought in wearing sheep's clothing — change the pose. You will get the ends.
You've been using them? They believe in communism. They believe and have called for a revolution. You're going to have to shoot them in the head. But warning, they may shoot you.
Second Amendment remedies, armed and dangerous, shoot them in the head. These are not "a simple lack of civility" cited by the President but something beyond, and more threatening.
None of this may have influenced an apparently unstable individual who spent weeks checking out websites "covering lethal injection, solitary confinement and political assassinations" and proceeded to try to assassinate a Democratic congresswoman at a political rally. But it's not mainly uncivil, rude, hurtful, or hateful. It is mainly violent, a distinction seemingly lost on the President and Republicans alike.
There has been a misunderstanding. Some of its is intentional, some unavoidable, probably some due to the 'fair and balanced' obsession of our President.
It is, of course, President Barack Obama who pleased virtually everyone (honestly) when in his speech at the memorial in Tucson he commented (transcript here)
But at a time when our discourse has become so sharply polarized, at a time when we are far too eager to lay the blame for all that ails the world at the feet of those who happen to think differently than we do, it's important for us to pause for a moment and make sure that we're talking with each other in a way that -- that heals, not in a way that wounds....
And if, as has been discussed in recent days, their death helps usher in more civility in our public discourse, let us remember it is not because a simple lack of civility caused this tragedy -- it did not -- but rather because only a more civil and honest public discourse can help us face up to the challenges of our nation in a way that would make them proud.
The remark had something for both sides: conservatives eager to deny any responsibility for the climate of violence, liberals pointing to the need for "a more civil" discourse in the public square. But it was, on balance, little more and no less than a call for "civility."
And so Megyn Kelly of GOP TV (transcript from Crooks and Liars) would say to Allen Colmes on Friday
Well, that's the question. The theory is -- the theory is that this call for civility in fact an effort to silence critics who -- let me just finish the theory -- this is from this article -- the theory is -- other conservatives have said this -- that they're trying to silence Republicans or conservatives or Tea Party people who have been -- who have been successful in winning back control of the House, winning back more seats in the Senate, and they're worried about how successful they might be in 2012.
Colmes then took the bait, understandable inasmuch as the President has already set the terms of the debate, on Republican ground.
The issue is not one of "civility." Once one obsesses about civility, GOP politicians and pundits, wallowing in their "fair and balanced" mode, can plausibly claim: they all do it.
And a lot of Democrats, especially non-politicians on the far left, have been un civil. Many of us are uncomfortable sitting around a circle, holding hands (at other times wringing them), and asking if we can be friends. Rhetoric may not be civil; it ought, however, not be violent.
Criticizing Sarah Palin, on January 18 Chris Matthews noted
And by the way, nobody`s told them to, quote, unquote, "shut up." People have said, Stop talking about guns and raising the heat level about guns and your hatred of elected officials because somebody`s going connect those two issues, guns and how much they hate a politician. We know one guy did. No evidence he was politically inspired, but we know he shot a politician. We know he shot a lot of other people at a political event. And we know what else? He used a gun. I`m sorry, it`s related.
In January, 2010, before Sharron Angle became the Repub nominee for U.S. Senator from Nevada, she was interviewed by a right-wing talk show host and warned
You know, our Founding Fathers, they put that Second Amendment in there for a good reason and that was for the people to protect themselves against a tyrannical government. And in fact Thomas Jefferson said it's good for a country to have a revolution every 20 years.
I hope that's not where we're going, but, you know, if this Congress keeps going the way it is, people are really looking toward those Second Amendment remedies and saying my goodness what can we do to turn this country around? I'll tell you the first thing we need to do is take Harry Reid out.
In March, 2009 Michele Bachmann of Minnesota similarly warned:
I want people in Minnesota armed and dangerous on this issue of the energy tax because we need to fight back. Thomas Jefferson told us, having a revolution every now and then is a good thing, and the people — we the people — are going to have to fight back hard if we’re not going to lose our country. And I think this has the potential of changing the dynamic of freedom forever in the United States.
Not to be outdone- he is never outdone- Glenn Beck on June 10, 2010 himself warned (FOX News transcript here)
Does she see the connection between guns, political hatred and targeting politicians, like she did in her TV thing with the crosshairs on it and talking about reloading and bullseyes? Does she see the connection between that and reality?
I will stand against you and so will millions of others. We believe in something. You in the media and most in Washington don't. The radicals that you and Washington have co-opted and brought in wearing sheep's clothing — change the pose. You will get the ends.
You've been using them? They believe in communism. They believe and have called for a revolution. You're going to have to shoot them in the head. But warning, they may shoot you.
Second Amendment remedies, armed and dangerous, shoot them in the head. These are not "a simple lack of civility" cited by the President but something beyond, and more threatening.
None of this may have influenced an apparently unstable individual who spent weeks checking out websites "covering lethal injection, solitary confinement and political assassinations" and proceeded to try to assassinate a Democratic congresswoman at a political rally. But it's not mainly uncivil, rude, hurtful, or hateful. It is mainly violent, a distinction seemingly lost on the President and Republicans alike.
Friday, January 28, 2011
Class Warfare, Now From Beck
We veer, temporarily or otherwise, from talk of State of the Union and of Rush Limbaugh and of Social Security to talk of.... Glenn Beck.
No, not the anti-Semitic Beck or the Beck who encourages violence but the Glenn Beck who, in his conversational and indirect style, pushes the conservative attack on "class warfare." On Thursday, Beck Beck said on his program on GOP TV
Why would we be pitted against each other? Is it on anything real?
Right now, we have -- being pit the rich and the poor, the wealthiest 1 percent, greedy bankers, doctors cutting off feet, evil oil companies. Big pharmaceutical won't make drugs. Fast food companies are trying to make you fat, you know? Conservatives just hate all minorities.
I don't know if you know this, but that person over there, they have it better than you. They have cable. You don't. Get 'em!
These are the kind of claims that are destroying the melting pot. There will always be rich and there will always be poor. There will always be black and white and brown.
It's good to see Beck acknowledge "there will always be black and white and brown;" better still, if he realized that black and white and brown resemble less a melting pot than a mosaic, by which we as a nation are richly rewarded.
Apparently, though, Beck's main thrust is that the enemies of bankers, doctors (doctors?), oil companies, pharmaceutical companies, fast food companies, and the wealthiest 1% are pitting rich against poor.
Pretty slick, Glenn is, positing that populists (i.e., enemies of bankers, oil companies, drug companies, fast food companies, and the very wealthiest people) are on the side of the poor against the rich. The middle class- who comprise the vast majority of Beck's audience- thus are left to choose between the rich and the poor and we know where his audience will line up.
But of course the class warfare being waged- and won- by the wealthy is not against the poor but against everyone else, the poor and the middle class. As the pie graph (below) of 2007 from the Economic Policy Institute reveals, 55.6% of all income growth of the previous three decades went to that top 1% Glenn Beck believes is unfairly castigated.
Not only did most of the income growth go to the top 1%, but from 1973-2006 the percentage increase in growth of income (approximately 250%) was greater for the upper 1% than for the bottom 90% (approximately 110%).
With the preponderance of increased income and wealthy having gone to the top 1% of the population, by 2007 35% of the net worth, and 43% of financial wealth, was held by the top 1%, as illustrated (below) by G. William Domhoff.
The contrast in wealth distribution between 1979 and 2007 is illustrated here by Domhoff:
Even after taxes, the share of the nation's income held by the top 1% more than doubled during this period, from 7.1% to 17.5%, as illustrated by the chart (below) from the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, from Congressional Budget Office data:
Beck, like most on the right, would have us believe, "there will always be rich and there will always be poor." Yet, the distribution may vary widely over time. Although by 2007 only 65.4% of the nation's wealth was held by the bottom 90% of the population and 34.6% by the top 1%, in 1979 the corresponding figures had been 75.5% and 20.5%. And there really was a Reagan revolution: in merely ten years, in 1989, the numbers for the bottom 90% had declined to 64.3% while the percentage for the top 1% had risen to 35.7%. The war on the middle class was well under way with Ronald Reagan as its General. No wonder, then, that FreedomWorks chairman Dick Armey would be aroused by dreaming "I always thought I'd only get one Ronald Reagan in my lifetime."
In April, 2008 The New York Times reported of the decline of the middle class:
The high point came in the 1970s, just as the United States was beginning to lose its controlling grip on the economies of the non-Communist world. Since then the percentage of people earning at least $20 an hour has eroded in every sector of the economy, falling last year to 18 percent of all hourly workers from 23 percent in 1979 — a gradual unwinding of the post-World War II gains.
That's a significant decline- from 23% to 18%- in the percentage of all hourly workers earning at least $20 an hour and came prior to the recent, devastating recession brought about by Wall Street. Wages, already plummeting in the U.S.A., likely have continued to drop while there are 4.7 workers for every job opening (chart below, also from CBPP, claims 5.0). When Glenn Beck and his ideological allies draw attention to the decline in wages or the share of wealth held by the middle class, they may have standing to whine about class warfare. Not before then.
We veer, temporarily or otherwise, from talk of State of the Union and of Rush Limbaugh and of Social Security to talk of.... Glenn Beck.
No, not the anti-Semitic Beck or the Beck who encourages violence but the Glenn Beck who, in his conversational and indirect style, pushes the conservative attack on "class warfare." On Thursday, Beck Beck said on his program on GOP TV
Why would we be pitted against each other? Is it on anything real?
Right now, we have -- being pit the rich and the poor, the wealthiest 1 percent, greedy bankers, doctors cutting off feet, evil oil companies. Big pharmaceutical won't make drugs. Fast food companies are trying to make you fat, you know? Conservatives just hate all minorities.
I don't know if you know this, but that person over there, they have it better than you. They have cable. You don't. Get 'em!
These are the kind of claims that are destroying the melting pot. There will always be rich and there will always be poor. There will always be black and white and brown.
It's good to see Beck acknowledge "there will always be black and white and brown;" better still, if he realized that black and white and brown resemble less a melting pot than a mosaic, by which we as a nation are richly rewarded.
Apparently, though, Beck's main thrust is that the enemies of bankers, doctors (doctors?), oil companies, pharmaceutical companies, fast food companies, and the wealthiest 1% are pitting rich against poor.
Pretty slick, Glenn is, positing that populists (i.e., enemies of bankers, oil companies, drug companies, fast food companies, and the very wealthiest people) are on the side of the poor against the rich. The middle class- who comprise the vast majority of Beck's audience- thus are left to choose between the rich and the poor and we know where his audience will line up.
But of course the class warfare being waged- and won- by the wealthy is not against the poor but against everyone else, the poor and the middle class. As the pie graph (below) of 2007 from the Economic Policy Institute reveals, 55.6% of all income growth of the previous three decades went to that top 1% Glenn Beck believes is unfairly castigated.
Not only did most of the income growth go to the top 1%, but from 1973-2006 the percentage increase in growth of income (approximately 250%) was greater for the upper 1% than for the bottom 90% (approximately 110%).
With the preponderance of increased income and wealthy having gone to the top 1% of the population, by 2007 35% of the net worth, and 43% of financial wealth, was held by the top 1%, as illustrated (below) by G. William Domhoff.
The contrast in wealth distribution between 1979 and 2007 is illustrated here by Domhoff:
Even after taxes, the share of the nation's income held by the top 1% more than doubled during this period, from 7.1% to 17.5%, as illustrated by the chart (below) from the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, from Congressional Budget Office data:
Beck, like most on the right, would have us believe, "there will always be rich and there will always be poor." Yet, the distribution may vary widely over time. Although by 2007 only 65.4% of the nation's wealth was held by the bottom 90% of the population and 34.6% by the top 1%, in 1979 the corresponding figures had been 75.5% and 20.5%. And there really was a Reagan revolution: in merely ten years, in 1989, the numbers for the bottom 90% had declined to 64.3% while the percentage for the top 1% had risen to 35.7%. The war on the middle class was well under way with Ronald Reagan as its General. No wonder, then, that FreedomWorks chairman Dick Armey would be aroused by dreaming "I always thought I'd only get one Ronald Reagan in my lifetime."
In April, 2008 The New York Times reported of the decline of the middle class:
The high point came in the 1970s, just as the United States was beginning to lose its controlling grip on the economies of the non-Communist world. Since then the percentage of people earning at least $20 an hour has eroded in every sector of the economy, falling last year to 18 percent of all hourly workers from 23 percent in 1979 — a gradual unwinding of the post-World War II gains.
That's a significant decline- from 23% to 18%- in the percentage of all hourly workers earning at least $20 an hour and came prior to the recent, devastating recession brought about by Wall Street. Wages, already plummeting in the U.S.A., likely have continued to drop while there are 4.7 workers for every job opening (chart below, also from CBPP, claims 5.0). When Glenn Beck and his ideological allies draw attention to the decline in wages or the share of wealth held by the middle class, they may have standing to whine about class warfare. Not before then.
Thursday, January 27, 2011
Pointing Us In The Right Direction
Bill Maher was on to something.
Following the President's State of the Union address on Tuesday, Bill Maher was interviewed by Wolf Blitzer. His nuggets of wisdom, included in the following portions of the discussion (video and text from Crooks and Liars):
BLITZER: I'm told, Bill, that the president of the United States has decided, despite what happened in Tucson, he will not specifically talk about guns in his speech tonight. He's going to do that down the road in a future speech in a few weeks. But, tonight, the word gun is not going to be there. You think that's a mistake, don't you?
MAHER: Oh, I do. That's a real shame.
And it's always down the road. And it's always finding common ground with this president. And that common ground always seems to be the ground where the Republicans are already standing on. So, no, that's a real shame, because this was again an opportunity, similar to the opportunity Ronald Reagan had in 1981, when he was shot.
At a moment like that, maybe people would be willing to go along with a -- sort of a different point of view. Even Dick Cheney said that. Dick Cheney seems to be to the left of Barack Obama on the gun issue. So, I guess it's true. He has moved to the center.
*****************************************************************************
BLITZER: Well, and it's helping him in the polls. There's no doubt about that. You can see, in our most recent job approval number, 55 percent. It was in the 40s, low 40s, not that long ago. So this move to the center, it certainly seems to be helping him with the American public.
MAHER: Well, we don't know what's helping him. Maybe it's the fact that there was a tragedy. People tend to rally around the president when there's any sort of a tragedy.
Remember, after 9/11, Bush's approval rating was 90 percent or something. I don't think that was because he got a lot smarter after we were attacked.
Maybe it's because -- Obama's popularity hiked because people have now seen the opposition. They got a good look at Boehner. Maybe they don't like that. Maybe people don't like someone who cries at the drop of a hat. People don't like a crier, Wolf.
*****************************************************************************
BLITZER: He's an emotional guy, John Boehner. You know, he's got -- he's got an incredible story. When you think about it, he was one of, what, ten kids growing up. His father had a little bar. They had a small House, one bathroom. And look, he's now the speaker of the House, second in line after the vice president to the presidency. So it's -- he's got an amazing story. And I can understand why he gets emotional.
MAHER: Wolf, first of all, get over it. That was a long time ago. It's America. Yes, we understand. People can rise up from places of humble beginnings and make something great of themselves. Most of that is anecdotal. Statistically, people don't do that any more.
America is not, I don't think, even in the top ten or maybe we're tenth in social mobility. Social mobility means the ability of one generation to do a little better than the generation that proceeded them, that spawned them. That used to be known as the American dream. That is the American dream. But we're like tenth in the American dream.
****************************************************************************
BLITZER: The fact that they got -- they're going to be sitting Democrat and Republican together tonight, date night on Capitol Hill. Is that good or bad?
MAHER: Oh, I think it's going to solve all our problems, Wolf. Yes. When a madman kills people at the Safeway, the problem isn't guns or nuts. It's that we haven't been polite enough to each other.
Yes, if Barney Frank and Rand Paul are sharing an armrest, I expect all our problems to go away.
You know, of course, as always -- as always, Wolf, it's symbolism. That's all we know how to do. We don't know how to actually solve problems anymore. We just know how to attack it symbolically.
And also, I don't even think it's helpful on that level, because it's actually good to see the parties sitting apart from each other. Because then you see which one cheers or which one sits on their hands according to what the president says, and you get a real feeling for how they feel about him.
The irony- or disgrace- of Barack Obama publicly less sympathetic than Dick Cheney to gun control; people liking a President at the time of tragedy, and this President because of the abysmal quality of the opposition; Boehner's story increasingly atypical in an America with declining social mobility; "date night" as mere symbolism, and counter-productive at that. That's four-for-four, a good night even for Bill Maher.
Maher was wrong- briefly- when asked about the response to Obama Tuesday night by Rep. Michelle Bachmann (R-MN.), Maher responded "I don't understand the decision by CNN to air it."
Pretty gutsy of Maher, criticizing CNN on CNN. But it was news, even if its sponsor, the Tea Party Express, is an astroturf operation. Better to have aired Bachmann's statement and explained that the Tea Party Express is headed by a GOP consulting firm of questionable ethics. But then, of course, CNN would have had to explain why it has agreed to co-sponsor with this Republican front group a GOP presidential primary debate.
And if the network had done so, the audience would have recognized that Maher was merely stating the obvious when he added
I mean, the Tea Party is the Republican Party. It's just a rebranding.
The Republican Party realized a couple of years ago they were very unpopular with the American public, possibly because all of their ideas had been miserable failures over the last 10, 20, 30 years. So they rebranded as the Tea Party.
Why don't you give equal time to the Democratic response, and then have Representative Anthony Weiner, who's from the more progressive wing of the Democratic Party, why doesn't he get some -- some air time?
As far as is known, CNN did not give air time to someone "from the more progressive wing of the Democratic Party" because no one from the Democratic Wing of the Democratic Party stepped out and requested the opportunity. And a great opportunity that would have been, presumably to suggest to the American people that there is an alternative to the corporate world view embraced by the Repub Party and encouraged by President Obama.
That response might question the impact of trade deals on employment of Americans during an economic downturn, lowering of the corporate tax rate, or the President's boast that he has "ordered a review of government regulations. When we find rules that put an unnecessary burden on businesses, we will fix them." It might include the ideas of longtime consumer advocate Joan Claybrook, who on Tuesday on "Democracy Now!" explained that President Obama
has issued an edict that says that every government agency ought cut some regulations. Now, we’re not talking about some obscure thing. We’re talking about the environment, global warming, health, safety, pharmaceutical issues, auto safety, truck safety—all these issues that matter every day to Americans. And what that sends is a message. It sends a message to the civil servants who sweat to try and get these issues dealt with and to protect the American public that their president isn’t going to support them if they get into a controversial issue. And every regulation, almost, is controversial, because somebody doesn’t want it, particularly Big Business. And it sends a message to the business interests that they can go with impunity and oppose these regulatory programs, and they know that the President is probably going to clamp down on the people who are issuing the rules.
It need not have been a Democratic officeholder, who might fear retribution from the Obamites. Perhaps a widely-read and extraordinary blogger, David Sirota or one of many others, could have given a response to the neo-liberal vision of the President and the more gruesome one set out by Ryan/Bachmann. It would have been especially valuable, given that challenging Obama for the nomination in 2012 will not happen and could not succeed. Ours is, though, a President who responds happily to pressure and notifying the nation's voters that there is a Democratic opinion which contrasts with the center-right and far right viewpoints would have had a salutary effect on their outlook.
Bill Maher was on to something.
Following the President's State of the Union address on Tuesday, Bill Maher was interviewed by Wolf Blitzer. His nuggets of wisdom, included in the following portions of the discussion (video and text from Crooks and Liars):
BLITZER: I'm told, Bill, that the president of the United States has decided, despite what happened in Tucson, he will not specifically talk about guns in his speech tonight. He's going to do that down the road in a future speech in a few weeks. But, tonight, the word gun is not going to be there. You think that's a mistake, don't you?
MAHER: Oh, I do. That's a real shame.
And it's always down the road. And it's always finding common ground with this president. And that common ground always seems to be the ground where the Republicans are already standing on. So, no, that's a real shame, because this was again an opportunity, similar to the opportunity Ronald Reagan had in 1981, when he was shot.
At a moment like that, maybe people would be willing to go along with a -- sort of a different point of view. Even Dick Cheney said that. Dick Cheney seems to be to the left of Barack Obama on the gun issue. So, I guess it's true. He has moved to the center.
*****************************************************************************
BLITZER: Well, and it's helping him in the polls. There's no doubt about that. You can see, in our most recent job approval number, 55 percent. It was in the 40s, low 40s, not that long ago. So this move to the center, it certainly seems to be helping him with the American public.
MAHER: Well, we don't know what's helping him. Maybe it's the fact that there was a tragedy. People tend to rally around the president when there's any sort of a tragedy.
Remember, after 9/11, Bush's approval rating was 90 percent or something. I don't think that was because he got a lot smarter after we were attacked.
Maybe it's because -- Obama's popularity hiked because people have now seen the opposition. They got a good look at Boehner. Maybe they don't like that. Maybe people don't like someone who cries at the drop of a hat. People don't like a crier, Wolf.
*****************************************************************************
BLITZER: He's an emotional guy, John Boehner. You know, he's got -- he's got an incredible story. When you think about it, he was one of, what, ten kids growing up. His father had a little bar. They had a small House, one bathroom. And look, he's now the speaker of the House, second in line after the vice president to the presidency. So it's -- he's got an amazing story. And I can understand why he gets emotional.
MAHER: Wolf, first of all, get over it. That was a long time ago. It's America. Yes, we understand. People can rise up from places of humble beginnings and make something great of themselves. Most of that is anecdotal. Statistically, people don't do that any more.
America is not, I don't think, even in the top ten or maybe we're tenth in social mobility. Social mobility means the ability of one generation to do a little better than the generation that proceeded them, that spawned them. That used to be known as the American dream. That is the American dream. But we're like tenth in the American dream.
****************************************************************************
BLITZER: The fact that they got -- they're going to be sitting Democrat and Republican together tonight, date night on Capitol Hill. Is that good or bad?
MAHER: Oh, I think it's going to solve all our problems, Wolf. Yes. When a madman kills people at the Safeway, the problem isn't guns or nuts. It's that we haven't been polite enough to each other.
Yes, if Barney Frank and Rand Paul are sharing an armrest, I expect all our problems to go away.
You know, of course, as always -- as always, Wolf, it's symbolism. That's all we know how to do. We don't know how to actually solve problems anymore. We just know how to attack it symbolically.
And also, I don't even think it's helpful on that level, because it's actually good to see the parties sitting apart from each other. Because then you see which one cheers or which one sits on their hands according to what the president says, and you get a real feeling for how they feel about him.
The irony- or disgrace- of Barack Obama publicly less sympathetic than Dick Cheney to gun control; people liking a President at the time of tragedy, and this President because of the abysmal quality of the opposition; Boehner's story increasingly atypical in an America with declining social mobility; "date night" as mere symbolism, and counter-productive at that. That's four-for-four, a good night even for Bill Maher.
Maher was wrong- briefly- when asked about the response to Obama Tuesday night by Rep. Michelle Bachmann (R-MN.), Maher responded "I don't understand the decision by CNN to air it."
Pretty gutsy of Maher, criticizing CNN on CNN. But it was news, even if its sponsor, the Tea Party Express, is an astroturf operation. Better to have aired Bachmann's statement and explained that the Tea Party Express is headed by a GOP consulting firm of questionable ethics. But then, of course, CNN would have had to explain why it has agreed to co-sponsor with this Republican front group a GOP presidential primary debate.
And if the network had done so, the audience would have recognized that Maher was merely stating the obvious when he added
I mean, the Tea Party is the Republican Party. It's just a rebranding.
The Republican Party realized a couple of years ago they were very unpopular with the American public, possibly because all of their ideas had been miserable failures over the last 10, 20, 30 years. So they rebranded as the Tea Party.
Why don't you give equal time to the Democratic response, and then have Representative Anthony Weiner, who's from the more progressive wing of the Democratic Party, why doesn't he get some -- some air time?
As far as is known, CNN did not give air time to someone "from the more progressive wing of the Democratic Party" because no one from the Democratic Wing of the Democratic Party stepped out and requested the opportunity. And a great opportunity that would have been, presumably to suggest to the American people that there is an alternative to the corporate world view embraced by the Repub Party and encouraged by President Obama.
That response might question the impact of trade deals on employment of Americans during an economic downturn, lowering of the corporate tax rate, or the President's boast that he has "ordered a review of government regulations. When we find rules that put an unnecessary burden on businesses, we will fix them." It might include the ideas of longtime consumer advocate Joan Claybrook, who on Tuesday on "Democracy Now!" explained that President Obama
has issued an edict that says that every government agency ought cut some regulations. Now, we’re not talking about some obscure thing. We’re talking about the environment, global warming, health, safety, pharmaceutical issues, auto safety, truck safety—all these issues that matter every day to Americans. And what that sends is a message. It sends a message to the civil servants who sweat to try and get these issues dealt with and to protect the American public that their president isn’t going to support them if they get into a controversial issue. And every regulation, almost, is controversial, because somebody doesn’t want it, particularly Big Business. And it sends a message to the business interests that they can go with impunity and oppose these regulatory programs, and they know that the President is probably going to clamp down on the people who are issuing the rules.
It need not have been a Democratic officeholder, who might fear retribution from the Obamites. Perhaps a widely-read and extraordinary blogger, David Sirota or one of many others, could have given a response to the neo-liberal vision of the President and the more gruesome one set out by Ryan/Bachmann. It would have been especially valuable, given that challenging Obama for the nomination in 2012 will not happen and could not succeed. Ours is, though, a President who responds happily to pressure and notifying the nation's voters that there is a Democratic opinion which contrasts with the center-right and far right viewpoints would have had a salutary effect on their outlook.
Be Wary
There was ample reason to believe, a few weeks ago, that President Obama intended to endorse, during his upcoming State of the Union message, a proposal to raise gradually the eligibility age for Social Security, alter the formula for determining the cost-of-living increase, or some other idea for reducing benefits. Privatization, however, would be, in media-speak, off-the-table. Or a non-starter.
Outrage by the left blogosphere apparently steered the President away from recommending any changes to undermine the system. Instead, Obama stated (transcript here)
To put us on solid ground, we should also find a bipartisan solution to strengthen Social Security for future generations. (Applause.) We must do it without putting at risk current retirees, the most vulnerable, or people with disabilities; without slashing benefits for future generations; and without subjecting Americans' guaranteed retirement income to the whims of the stock market. (Applause.)
On Wednesday morning, White House adviser David Axelrod met with, as attendee Dave Bowers of Daily Kos termed it, "new media types representing center-left organizations" to address their concerns about the President's speech of the previous evening.
The first two questions pertained to Social Security, with Bowers coming to a few conclusions following Axelrod's response. He is convinced that the Administration is opposed to privatization, a conclusion easily reached by Obama's condemnation of "subjecting Americans ' guaranteed retirement income to the whims of the stock market." But we already knew that; surrogate after surrogate has appeared the last few months on cable television and, when asked about cuts to Social Security, eagerly criticize privatization. It is only one concession, but a crucial one.
Nonetheless, as Bowers notes, "The Obama administration is not willing to repudiate the “crisis” narrative surrounding Social Security that dominates the national political media." The President raised the topic of SS in the context of the "the bipartisan fiscal commission I created last year," whose charge was to chart a strategy to reduce the national debt. And after the applause at the tail end of his remarks about SS, Obama followed with "and if we truly care about the deficit...." Contrary to the GOP talking point- which the mainstream media rarely disputes- Social Security does not contribute a dollar to the deficit. Or a dime Or a penny. Tuesday night, the President did nothing- nothing- to disabuse the nation of the notion there is a connection between the two.
From the press briefing, Bowers concludes also "President Obama strikes generally strong notes in defense of Social Security when it comes to other possible ways to cut the program." That is reassuring, in that the remarks of the President himself would indicate otherwise; or not reassuring, if one suspects that the bloggers were snookered.
Tuesday, the President urged we "find a bipartisan solution to strengthen Social Security for future generations." There are two ways to "strengthen" Social Security: a) benefit cuts, which are usually the intent of those using the term "strengthen" in regard to SS; or b) raising additional revenue, such as by increasing the rate or, in what would be a more progressive and likely approach, raising the cap on Social Security donations. That would, however, be a tax and therefore resistant to a "bipartisan solution," given the GOP's opposition to anything which can be labeled a tax increase.
The President cautioned against a solution "putting at risk current retirees, the most vulnerable, or people with disabilities...." No, "current retirees" are not at risk; even most Republicans clearly are aware of the political backlash which would ensue if benefits were cut for current retirees, who know how valuable and sound the Social Security system. Younger people, however, have been fed the line that Social Security is at risk, will become insolvent, or that it will not be there for them when they get older. They can be cut, as the President implied.
Furthermore, President Obama ruled out "slashing venefits for future generations." "Slashing benefits" will not be tolerated. Cutting benefits apparently will.
No 'splitting hair' here and no trite "depends upon what the meaning of "is" is. Instead, this is a tiny bit of the famous interview of President Bill Clinton with PBS' Bill Lehrer on January 21, 1998:
JIM LEHRER: You had no sexual relationship with this young woman?
PRESIDENT CLINTON: There is not a sexual relationship. That is accurate.
In fact, that was accurate. There was at that time no sexual relationship; it already had taken place, and ended. President Obama has learned the fine, and complex, art of triangulation from President Clinton. Likely, he has learned also the fine art of very carefully calibrating his language and words, now to obscure his interest in reducing the benefits an individual several years from now will receive from the Social Security system.
There was ample reason to believe, a few weeks ago, that President Obama intended to endorse, during his upcoming State of the Union message, a proposal to raise gradually the eligibility age for Social Security, alter the formula for determining the cost-of-living increase, or some other idea for reducing benefits. Privatization, however, would be, in media-speak, off-the-table. Or a non-starter.
Outrage by the left blogosphere apparently steered the President away from recommending any changes to undermine the system. Instead, Obama stated (transcript here)
To put us on solid ground, we should also find a bipartisan solution to strengthen Social Security for future generations. (Applause.) We must do it without putting at risk current retirees, the most vulnerable, or people with disabilities; without slashing benefits for future generations; and without subjecting Americans' guaranteed retirement income to the whims of the stock market. (Applause.)
On Wednesday morning, White House adviser David Axelrod met with, as attendee Dave Bowers of Daily Kos termed it, "new media types representing center-left organizations" to address their concerns about the President's speech of the previous evening.
The first two questions pertained to Social Security, with Bowers coming to a few conclusions following Axelrod's response. He is convinced that the Administration is opposed to privatization, a conclusion easily reached by Obama's condemnation of "subjecting Americans ' guaranteed retirement income to the whims of the stock market." But we already knew that; surrogate after surrogate has appeared the last few months on cable television and, when asked about cuts to Social Security, eagerly criticize privatization. It is only one concession, but a crucial one.
Nonetheless, as Bowers notes, "The Obama administration is not willing to repudiate the “crisis” narrative surrounding Social Security that dominates the national political media." The President raised the topic of SS in the context of the "the bipartisan fiscal commission I created last year," whose charge was to chart a strategy to reduce the national debt. And after the applause at the tail end of his remarks about SS, Obama followed with "and if we truly care about the deficit...." Contrary to the GOP talking point- which the mainstream media rarely disputes- Social Security does not contribute a dollar to the deficit. Or a dime Or a penny. Tuesday night, the President did nothing- nothing- to disabuse the nation of the notion there is a connection between the two.
From the press briefing, Bowers concludes also "President Obama strikes generally strong notes in defense of Social Security when it comes to other possible ways to cut the program." That is reassuring, in that the remarks of the President himself would indicate otherwise; or not reassuring, if one suspects that the bloggers were snookered.
Tuesday, the President urged we "find a bipartisan solution to strengthen Social Security for future generations." There are two ways to "strengthen" Social Security: a) benefit cuts, which are usually the intent of those using the term "strengthen" in regard to SS; or b) raising additional revenue, such as by increasing the rate or, in what would be a more progressive and likely approach, raising the cap on Social Security donations. That would, however, be a tax and therefore resistant to a "bipartisan solution," given the GOP's opposition to anything which can be labeled a tax increase.
The President cautioned against a solution "putting at risk current retirees, the most vulnerable, or people with disabilities...." No, "current retirees" are not at risk; even most Republicans clearly are aware of the political backlash which would ensue if benefits were cut for current retirees, who know how valuable and sound the Social Security system. Younger people, however, have been fed the line that Social Security is at risk, will become insolvent, or that it will not be there for them when they get older. They can be cut, as the President implied.
Furthermore, President Obama ruled out "slashing venefits for future generations." "Slashing benefits" will not be tolerated. Cutting benefits apparently will.
No 'splitting hair' here and no trite "depends upon what the meaning of "is" is. Instead, this is a tiny bit of the famous interview of President Bill Clinton with PBS' Bill Lehrer on January 21, 1998:
JIM LEHRER: You had no sexual relationship with this young woman?
PRESIDENT CLINTON: There is not a sexual relationship. That is accurate.
In fact, that was accurate. There was at that time no sexual relationship; it already had taken place, and ended. President Obama has learned the fine, and complex, art of triangulation from President Clinton. Likely, he has learned also the fine art of very carefully calibrating his language and words, now to obscure his interest in reducing the benefits an individual several years from now will receive from the Social Security system.
Wednesday, January 26, 2011
Getting Spending Right- Or Wrong- Or Both
Blogging last night at 10:23 p.m., Paul Krugman observed of President Obama's State of the Union address (transcript here):
So, I’ve read the text, and find it hard to extract any theme. We’re going to invest in the future — but we’re also going to freeze domestic spending. So mixed signals —
The speech was nothing if not one of mixed signals- which might not be bad, given consistency as allegedly the hobglobin of small minds. The address was, further, one that was mixed and a little confusing viewed in light of Krugman's economic analysis in the pages of The New York Times a year ago. Since then, most indicators are up but unemployment remains dangerously high at 9.4%, not unlike the expectation of Krugman, who supported the stimulus but prophetically suggested it would prove to be inadequate. The Nobel Prize-winning economist explained:
Let’s talk for a moment about budget reality. Contrary to what you often hear, the large deficit the federal government is running right now isn’t the result of runaway spending growth. Instead, well more than half of the deficit was caused by the ongoing economic crisis, which has led to a plunge in tax receipts, required federal bailouts of financial institutions, and been met — appropriately — with temporary measures to stimulate growth and support employment.
The point is that running big deficits in the face of the worst economic slump since the 1930s is actually the right thing to do. If anything, deficits should be bigger than they are because the government should be doing more than it is to create jobs.
True, there is a longer-term budget problem. Even a full economic recovery wouldn’t balance the budget, and it probably wouldn’t even reduce the deficit to a permanently sustainable level. So once the economic crisis is past, the U.S. government will have to increase its revenue and control its costs. And in the long run there’s no way to make the budget math work unless something is done about health care costs.
But there’s no reason to panic about budget prospects for the next few years, or even for the next decade.
Arguably, President Obama understands nothing better, and emphasizes nothing so much, as the contribution of health care costs to the nation's long-term debt. Last night he argued that "to tackle our deficit" involves
further reducing health care costs, including programs like Medicare and Medicaid, which are the single biggest contributor to our long-term deficit. The health insurance law we passed last year will slow these rising costs, which is part of the reason that nonpartisan economists have said that repealing the health care law would add a quarter of a trillion dollars to our deficit. Still, I'm willing to look at other ideas to bring down costs....
But Krugman noted also
running big deficits in the face of the worst economic slump since the 1930s is actually the right thing to do. If anything, deficits should be bigger than they are because the government should be doing more than it is to create jobs.
True, there is a longer-term budget problem.
Unfortunately, Obama in his address suggested going in precisely the opposite direction. He promised "painful cuts" because he is "proposing that starting this year, we freeze annual domestic spending for the next five years" (which) "would reduce the deficit by more than $400 billion over the next decade, and will bring discretionary spending to the lowest share of our economy since Dwight Eisenhower was President." Nonetheless, the President added
Cutting the deficit by gutting our investments in innovation and education is like tightening an overloaded airplane by removing its engine. It may make you feel like you're flying high at first, but it won't take long before you feel the impact."
It's not clear at all that Obama's "investments" in either "innovation and education" are of the sort that would create a significant number of jobs in the short term. It sounds, at least, like an increase in spending in the long-term; and given that much of that spending is likely to occur after the nation pulls itself out of the economic slump, the impact on job creation is questionable. Spending on innovation and education probably is a wise policy choice, adding to the cultural and economic vitality of the U.S.A. in the long-run. But as the engine for short-term economic growth, its value is likely to be limited while it increases future debt.
As politics, it works. Conservatives hear "reduce the deficit, "freeze annual domestic spending," and "painful cuts" and it sets their hearts atwitter. Liberals hear "investments" and "education" and "children" and think that the Barack Obama they worked, and voted, for, lives. The hope here, though against most available evidence, is that President Obama understands the need for short-term spending that boosts employment and the need to address the deficit once the nation pulls itself out of this economic mess created by Wall Street.
Blogging last night at 10:23 p.m., Paul Krugman observed of President Obama's State of the Union address (transcript here):
So, I’ve read the text, and find it hard to extract any theme. We’re going to invest in the future — but we’re also going to freeze domestic spending. So mixed signals —
The speech was nothing if not one of mixed signals- which might not be bad, given consistency as allegedly the hobglobin of small minds. The address was, further, one that was mixed and a little confusing viewed in light of Krugman's economic analysis in the pages of The New York Times a year ago. Since then, most indicators are up but unemployment remains dangerously high at 9.4%, not unlike the expectation of Krugman, who supported the stimulus but prophetically suggested it would prove to be inadequate. The Nobel Prize-winning economist explained:
Let’s talk for a moment about budget reality. Contrary to what you often hear, the large deficit the federal government is running right now isn’t the result of runaway spending growth. Instead, well more than half of the deficit was caused by the ongoing economic crisis, which has led to a plunge in tax receipts, required federal bailouts of financial institutions, and been met — appropriately — with temporary measures to stimulate growth and support employment.
The point is that running big deficits in the face of the worst economic slump since the 1930s is actually the right thing to do. If anything, deficits should be bigger than they are because the government should be doing more than it is to create jobs.
True, there is a longer-term budget problem. Even a full economic recovery wouldn’t balance the budget, and it probably wouldn’t even reduce the deficit to a permanently sustainable level. So once the economic crisis is past, the U.S. government will have to increase its revenue and control its costs. And in the long run there’s no way to make the budget math work unless something is done about health care costs.
But there’s no reason to panic about budget prospects for the next few years, or even for the next decade.
Arguably, President Obama understands nothing better, and emphasizes nothing so much, as the contribution of health care costs to the nation's long-term debt. Last night he argued that "to tackle our deficit" involves
further reducing health care costs, including programs like Medicare and Medicaid, which are the single biggest contributor to our long-term deficit. The health insurance law we passed last year will slow these rising costs, which is part of the reason that nonpartisan economists have said that repealing the health care law would add a quarter of a trillion dollars to our deficit. Still, I'm willing to look at other ideas to bring down costs....
But Krugman noted also
running big deficits in the face of the worst economic slump since the 1930s is actually the right thing to do. If anything, deficits should be bigger than they are because the government should be doing more than it is to create jobs.
True, there is a longer-term budget problem.
Unfortunately, Obama in his address suggested going in precisely the opposite direction. He promised "painful cuts" because he is "proposing that starting this year, we freeze annual domestic spending for the next five years" (which) "would reduce the deficit by more than $400 billion over the next decade, and will bring discretionary spending to the lowest share of our economy since Dwight Eisenhower was President." Nonetheless, the President added
Cutting the deficit by gutting our investments in innovation and education is like tightening an overloaded airplane by removing its engine. It may make you feel like you're flying high at first, but it won't take long before you feel the impact."
It's not clear at all that Obama's "investments" in either "innovation and education" are of the sort that would create a significant number of jobs in the short term. It sounds, at least, like an increase in spending in the long-term; and given that much of that spending is likely to occur after the nation pulls itself out of the economic slump, the impact on job creation is questionable. Spending on innovation and education probably is a wise policy choice, adding to the cultural and economic vitality of the U.S.A. in the long-run. But as the engine for short-term economic growth, its value is likely to be limited while it increases future debt.
As politics, it works. Conservatives hear "reduce the deficit, "freeze annual domestic spending," and "painful cuts" and it sets their hearts atwitter. Liberals hear "investments" and "education" and "children" and think that the Barack Obama they worked, and voted, for, lives. The hope here, though against most available evidence, is that President Obama understands the need for short-term spending that boosts employment and the need to address the deficit once the nation pulls itself out of this economic mess created by Wall Street.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
-
Party Of Deception The Huffington Post, gushing about the Kennedy memorial service in Boston last night, exclaimed that Senator Orrin Hatch...
-
In April, President Donald Trump asked French President Emanuel Macron "why don't you leave the EU?" The same month,...
-
This is not about the fraud that is Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi. Nor is it about the fraud which is Florida Governor Rick Sc...
