In his hastily called press conference today Obama gave a very slick defense of his compromise with the Republicans on taxes.
It has not escaped me that the extra x00 billion dollars we will borrow to pay for it will be just another excuse for attacking important social programs. It is a part of the "starve the beast" strategy that is being used in a long standing and vicious class war against the American people.
Obama is a skillful shepherd but we are not all sheep.
Tuesday, December 7, 2010
Monday, December 6, 2010
What the Political Parties D0 Best
There are three important USA deficits that urgently need to be reduced: the budget deficit, the trade deficit, and the jobs deficit (we are exporting more jobs than we create internally). In addition, the swollen concentration of wealth needs to be reduced or there will never be enough American demand for goods and services to sustain economic growth. This growth will be needed in order to make the servicing of our huge debt tolerable.
Tax laws can be used in order to correct these monumental problems. What are the two main parties up to? Well there seems to be a "compromise" in the works. There will be a temporary extension of all Bush tax cuts, which the Republicans want, in return for a temporary extension of unemployment benefits and maybe a few other tax breaks for the middle class, which the Democrats want.
The tax cut extensions mean lost revenue. The unemployment benefits mean more expenditures. The tax cuts for the rich mean more money to invest, mainly abroad because that's where the profits are. Tax cuts and benefits for the middle class mean more consumption, largely for imports because we don't make much anymore. So we are still in the mode of increasing the deficits. The Bush tax cuts also accelerated the longer term increase in the concentration of wealth.
What are the two parties up to? Kicking the can down the road. That is what they do best. This is unsustainable!
Tax laws can be used in order to correct these monumental problems. What are the two main parties up to? Well there seems to be a "compromise" in the works. There will be a temporary extension of all Bush tax cuts, which the Republicans want, in return for a temporary extension of unemployment benefits and maybe a few other tax breaks for the middle class, which the Democrats want.
The tax cut extensions mean lost revenue. The unemployment benefits mean more expenditures. The tax cuts for the rich mean more money to invest, mainly abroad because that's where the profits are. Tax cuts and benefits for the middle class mean more consumption, largely for imports because we don't make much anymore. So we are still in the mode of increasing the deficits. The Bush tax cuts also accelerated the longer term increase in the concentration of wealth.
What are the two parties up to? Kicking the can down the road. That is what they do best. This is unsustainable!
Thursday, November 11, 2010
Good Fiscal Policy versus Bloody Awful Fiscal Policy
The USA, as well as most developed countries, is now faced with a chronic and worsening fiscal problem: the national debt has been rapidly growing as a percentage of the gross domestic product. This is an unsustainable trend and it must be remedied by some combination of revenue enhancement and spending cuts.
In the political arena and in the media that report on it many aspects of this problem are being vigorously debated but there is a near silence concerning the central issue. One notable exception to this silence is in a New York Times op-ed column by Nicholas Kristoff, who cites Timothy Noah of Slate:
"The richest 1 percent of Americans now take home almost 24 percent of income, up from almost 9 percent in 1976. As Timothy Noah of Slate noted in an excellent series on inequality, the United States now arguably has a more unequal distribution of wealth than traditional banana republics like Nicaragua, Venezuela and Guyana."
There are many important details to be considered but the central issue of solutions to our fiscal problem is just this: does it increase or decrease the concentration of wealth? This will determine the kind of nation the USA is to be.
The political parties have long made a game of this in dealing with the issue that is of central importance to them: winning the next election. The centrist Democrats have pandered to their base by always advocating increased social programs, while the rightist Republicans have pandered to their base by always advocating decreased taxes. The natural consequence of this has been alternating decreases in taxes and increases in benefits. Sure, there have been instances in which government has been forced to increase taxes or to decrease benefits but these are exceptions to the long term trend.
How do the political parties stand on the obvious need to increase taxes and reduce social programs? True to form. of course. The Democrats want solutions that will tend to decrease the concentration of wealth while the Republicans want solutions that will clearly increase the concentration of wealth.
The Republicans have an important advantage in this: their base has much more money for political persuasion, including corporate money, and that is available at all times. Money is incredibly effective in buying professional services, for example, pr spinners and intellectuals, media groups, lobbyists, legal firms, elected politicians, back room politicians, and even thugs.
The Democrats have a larger electoral base, including organized labor, some intellectuals, some politicians and some media (mostly internet). They are almost always outspent during political campaigns and it is harder for them to maintain focused popular enthusiasm for a long term struggle, particularly when compromises are necessary.
The question for independent minded people is, above all, what kind of nation do they want the USA to become? In this, opinions are divided but I believe that the Democrats, warts and all, are on the side of the angels. Less concentration of wealth means less misery, more social mobility, better education, better health care, more equality of opportunity, and a more productive nation. More concentration of wealth means more corporate control of government and, inevitably, serfdom or violent resistance.
Friedrich Hayek, in "The Road to Serfdom", wrote that government control of the means of production will lead to serfdom, but it is clear that plutocratic control of government can have a similar effect. We stand at a cusp of history.
In the political arena and in the media that report on it many aspects of this problem are being vigorously debated but there is a near silence concerning the central issue. One notable exception to this silence is in a New York Times op-ed column by Nicholas Kristoff, who cites Timothy Noah of Slate:
"The richest 1 percent of Americans now take home almost 24 percent of income, up from almost 9 percent in 1976. As Timothy Noah of Slate noted in an excellent series on inequality, the United States now arguably has a more unequal distribution of wealth than traditional banana republics like Nicaragua, Venezuela and Guyana."
There are many important details to be considered but the central issue of solutions to our fiscal problem is just this: does it increase or decrease the concentration of wealth? This will determine the kind of nation the USA is to be.
The political parties have long made a game of this in dealing with the issue that is of central importance to them: winning the next election. The centrist Democrats have pandered to their base by always advocating increased social programs, while the rightist Republicans have pandered to their base by always advocating decreased taxes. The natural consequence of this has been alternating decreases in taxes and increases in benefits. Sure, there have been instances in which government has been forced to increase taxes or to decrease benefits but these are exceptions to the long term trend.
How do the political parties stand on the obvious need to increase taxes and reduce social programs? True to form. of course. The Democrats want solutions that will tend to decrease the concentration of wealth while the Republicans want solutions that will clearly increase the concentration of wealth.
The Republicans have an important advantage in this: their base has much more money for political persuasion, including corporate money, and that is available at all times. Money is incredibly effective in buying professional services, for example, pr spinners and intellectuals, media groups, lobbyists, legal firms, elected politicians, back room politicians, and even thugs.
The Democrats have a larger electoral base, including organized labor, some intellectuals, some politicians and some media (mostly internet). They are almost always outspent during political campaigns and it is harder for them to maintain focused popular enthusiasm for a long term struggle, particularly when compromises are necessary.
The question for independent minded people is, above all, what kind of nation do they want the USA to become? In this, opinions are divided but I believe that the Democrats, warts and all, are on the side of the angels. Less concentration of wealth means less misery, more social mobility, better education, better health care, more equality of opportunity, and a more productive nation. More concentration of wealth means more corporate control of government and, inevitably, serfdom or violent resistance.
Friedrich Hayek, in "The Road to Serfdom", wrote that government control of the means of production will lead to serfdom, but it is clear that plutocratic control of government can have a similar effect. We stand at a cusp of history.
Thursday, November 4, 2010
Midterm Critique
Our President is one of the sweetest, most reasonable men ever to grace this office.
That's a pity because those who have our economy by the throat and who own most of our politicians won't give up their privilege without a very hard fight. This president seems to have no spine for a hard fight. Up to the present time, he has acted as an agent for the status quo (with minor adjustments aimed at preserving it more than reforming it) and he has made himself increasingly irrelevant.
While he smiles benevolently and offers surrender to the uncompromising GOP, the concentration of wealth continues, investments go overseas in search of profit, and the American middle class is being devoured. American entrepreneurship will inevitably also decline and most of what continues to be invented here will be manufactured elsewhere.
Among the sad failures of this administration is its weak response as its Speaker of the House and Majority Leader of the Senate were used as piñatas by the opposition amidst a flood of anonymous corporate campaign ads.
That's a pity because those who have our economy by the throat and who own most of our politicians won't give up their privilege without a very hard fight. This president seems to have no spine for a hard fight. Up to the present time, he has acted as an agent for the status quo (with minor adjustments aimed at preserving it more than reforming it) and he has made himself increasingly irrelevant.
While he smiles benevolently and offers surrender to the uncompromising GOP, the concentration of wealth continues, investments go overseas in search of profit, and the American middle class is being devoured. American entrepreneurship will inevitably also decline and most of what continues to be invented here will be manufactured elsewhere.
Among the sad failures of this administration is its weak response as its Speaker of the House and Majority Leader of the Senate were used as piñatas by the opposition amidst a flood of anonymous corporate campaign ads.
Monday, October 25, 2010
CODS, the Corruption of Democracy Syndrome
There is always a competition between classes for a division of the rewards for economic activity. In modern states, including democracies, the competition is between workers and the owners of capital. This is the normal state of affairs and it can be carried out within the bounds of civil dialog provided that the government acts as an even handed arbiter and things don't get too far out of balance.
What I mean by "out of balance" can be discerned through a number of signs. The most fundamental one is purely economic. If the concentration of wealth has a perceptible long term increase, the system is unstable and, eventually, very painful things will happen. That has been going on in the USA for at least a couple of decades.
There are a number of reasons why this should be so but it is perfectly obvious that wealth can have more influence with government than labor when the government can be bought.
Well, political campaigns have become very expensive in the USA and our government has become as bought as anyone could imagine. We have a scandalous condition of legalized bribery, a revolving door between government service and very well paid lobbying activity, and private ownership of the major news media. What more could anyone do to undermine our democratic institutions - other than to install one party rule.
Draining this swamp is not optional, it has become a painfully clear necessity.
What I mean by "out of balance" can be discerned through a number of signs. The most fundamental one is purely economic. If the concentration of wealth has a perceptible long term increase, the system is unstable and, eventually, very painful things will happen. That has been going on in the USA for at least a couple of decades.
There are a number of reasons why this should be so but it is perfectly obvious that wealth can have more influence with government than labor when the government can be bought.
Well, political campaigns have become very expensive in the USA and our government has become as bought as anyone could imagine. We have a scandalous condition of legalized bribery, a revolving door between government service and very well paid lobbying activity, and private ownership of the major news media. What more could anyone do to undermine our democratic institutions - other than to install one party rule.
Draining this swamp is not optional, it has become a painfully clear necessity.
Wednesday, October 20, 2010
Dear DFA
Gandhi allegedly said when asked what he thought of Western civilization, "that's a nice idea." I feel the same about a "just, fair, pragmatic and humane nation." I would add "productive" to your list of adjectives. If such a nation were to exist, it would be a big step up the evolutionary ladder. No such thing exists today nor will it exist during my lifetime. We are what we are and evolution is usually a slow (and very wasteful) process.
It is a lovely idea!
It is a lovely idea!
Friday, October 8, 2010
A Really, Really Simple Observation.
Conservatives, following President Reagan, like to say that government will not solve the problem, government is the problem. This is at least partly true.
What problem are they talking about? Inasmuch as we need government to deal with a number of societal problems that cannot safely be left to the "invisible hand" of the market (particularly, unregulated markets that invite monumental white collar crime, that is, very UNfair markets), the problem seems to be to get a government that effectively solves societal problems in the national interest.
There, that was simple - and there is a simple solution: create a government that cannot be bought! However, even a simple concept can be difficult to implement. The difficulty arises from a flaw in human nature. Many politicians LOVE to be bought if that will assure their continued incumbency and prosperity. Consequently, one very likely evolutionary course for a democracy is to become a representative plutocracy or a corporate state.
Of course, we could, in principle, replace expensive, privately financed campaigns with publicly funded campaigns. That would be much less costly in the long run if it improves government integrity.
What about assuring incumbency? Well, public financing can't do that. Therefore, resistance will be fierce, both from the bought politicians and their corporate benefactors. Its a fight we can't afford to put off indefinitely.
What problem are they talking about? Inasmuch as we need government to deal with a number of societal problems that cannot safely be left to the "invisible hand" of the market (particularly, unregulated markets that invite monumental white collar crime, that is, very UNfair markets), the problem seems to be to get a government that effectively solves societal problems in the national interest.
There, that was simple - and there is a simple solution: create a government that cannot be bought! However, even a simple concept can be difficult to implement. The difficulty arises from a flaw in human nature. Many politicians LOVE to be bought if that will assure their continued incumbency and prosperity. Consequently, one very likely evolutionary course for a democracy is to become a representative plutocracy or a corporate state.
Of course, we could, in principle, replace expensive, privately financed campaigns with publicly funded campaigns. That would be much less costly in the long run if it improves government integrity.
What about assuring incumbency? Well, public financing can't do that. Therefore, resistance will be fierce, both from the bought politicians and their corporate benefactors. Its a fight we can't afford to put off indefinitely.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)