The Missing Piece in the Private Finance Analogy
In their dueling speeches on the debt ceiling impasse, both President Obama and Speaker Boehner reached for a very familiar analogy between the government and private actors. President Obama analogized our situation to that of a family that is maxing out on its credit card. Speaker Boehner contrasted the responsible behavior of companies that balance their books with the behavior of governments that do not.
As any competent macro-economist will tell you, the analogies are deeply flawed. Individual families and businesses do not have the capacity to manipulate interest rates and the money supply, but the government does. Individual families and businesses acting in ways that don’t correlate with the behavior of others do not cause contractionary cycles through the paradox of thrift when they save money. But drastic government reductions in spending in a recession can trigger that effect. Etc.
Nonetheless, with polls showing that most Americans don’t really understand the debt ceiling debate, it’s understandable that politicians would try to frame the issue in simple terms. I tend to think that the framing favors the Republican position right off the bat, because it cuts out the unique role that the government can play, but that fight is probably lost already, with very little appetite in DC for more stimulus.
Even accepting the framing, though, there’s an obvious piece missing. Consider the following line from Boehner’s remarks: “if you’re spending more money than you’re taking in, you need to spend less of it.” Well, yes, sometimes, but doesn’t it depend what you’re spending the money on? Suppose you’re spending more money than you’re taking in because you’re unemployed, and you need to spend some of your savings now to eat, pay rent, and look for a job. Wouldn’t you be better off continuing to spend on these necessities, even if to do so you need to borrow some money?
(Source: azspot)
Why the Facts Don't Matter in Politics
If a piece of information doesn’t follow Republican talking points - and Clinton’s deficit reduction didn’t fit the “tax and spend liberal” stereotype - then the information is conveniently ignored. “Voters think that they’re thinking,” Bartels says, “but what they’re really doing is inventing facts or ignoring facts so that they can rationalize decisions they’ve already made.” Once we identify with a political party, the world is edited so that it fits with our ideology.
In truth, both parties have been wildly irresponsible, but in cycles. Democrats were more irresponsible in the 1960s, the two parties both seemed care-free in the 1970s and 1980s, and since then the Republicans have been staggeringly reckless.
After the Clinton administration began paying down America’s debt, Republicans passed the Bush tax cuts, waded into a trillion-dollar war in Iraq, and approved an unfunded prescription medicine benefit — all by borrowing from China. Then-Vice President Dick Cheney scoffed that “deficits don’t matter.
This borrow-and-spend Republican history makes it galling when Republicans now assert that deficits are the only thing that matter — and call for drastic spending cuts, two-thirds of which would harm low -income and moderate -income Americans, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. To pay for tax cuts heaped largely on the wealthiest Americans, Republicans in effect would gut Medicare and slash jobs programs, family planning and college scholarships. Instead of spreading opportunity, federal policy would cap it.
Look at this guy. LOOK AT THE SWAGGER.
The entire problem with liberal politics for the last two years is a lack of enthusiasm at the local level for young guns who are trying to make it happen. Two years spent laughing at the tea party while the smart people running the Republican Party invested in winnable races and almost tipped the balance in their favor in both the House and the Senate. Good news? Christine O’Donnell isn’t in! Sharron Angle is toiling in random Tea Party events somewhere. Bad news? EVERYTHING ELSE, not least among them that Russ Feingold got bounced. I’m still mad about this.
Now Wisconsin’s union supporters are fighting a tough battle several months late, beginning what will prove to be a long two years of Tea Party rule. Our hopes in Congress depend on the Senate shutting down all the dumb things House Republicans will want to pass through. We’re counting on Republicans throwing a Presidential candidate that makes John Kerry look enthusiastic. And it gets crazier, as Democrats as a whole seem to have forgotten state legislative elections, and we’re left with more and more states pushing through birther bills and extreme anti-choice legislation.
But Anthony Weiner has this glare in his eyes here, as though one false move will result in him yanking a bat from under his desk and going apeshit on Mike Pence. Watch this video from Videogum. You know how NJ Governor Chris Christie has a Youtube account filled with him bullying the poor town hall attendees? We need a Youtube channel for Anthony Weiner everything. Anthony Weiner 24/7.
I just have this ongoing problem with how the 2010 elections were handled by liberal and conservative blogs. There just seemed to be way more enthusiasm for very specific races among conservatives. Yes, go ahead and talk up the fucking target map, but they had a plan, they had candidates they could get excited for, and they won. Meanwhile, Huffington Post tripped over itself trying to get every “Most Read” blog post to be about Sarah Palin. At one point, I had to go halfway down the main page of Think Progress to find an item about a Democrat. The rest were about Republicans or general news, but mostly Republicans and how terrible they were. It’s basically Idiot Candy: chewing on tasty morsels of Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin that are ultimately devoid of any nutritional value.
Roll up your sleeves. You have a choice to get excited about voting for people or you can keep reading a blog dedicated to telling Glenn Beck to STFU.
(via soupsoup)
