Since Obama became president, conservatives started calling him a socialist. It is so absurd it almost doesn't deserve a response. And yet it persists. And worse, I have seen people I know actually make this claim (mostly through Facebook). So I have to respond.
Here's the thing. I am far more liberal than Barack Obama. And I am definitely not a socialist. So by the laws of logic, Obama cannot be a socialist. I hope that clears things up.
Monday, May 28, 2012
Gotcha!
There is no such thing as a "gotcha question". I know everyone knows this. But I can't help writing about it. So far, I have only heard Republicans use this phrase. Hopefully Democrats know better.
When Republicans claim this, it is either in situations where they don't know the answer and are embarrassed that they don't know the answer, or it is questions they don't want to answer. Sarah Palin often used the phrase for the former reason. Many Republicans use it for the latter reason when they want to hold a position that the base likes but the general population wouldn't like. Or if they have changed their position on something and don't want to talk about it.
The bottom line is that Republicans use this to try to avoid answering questions - to avoid transparency on what they know and / or what they believe.
Having said all of that, I can think of only one small exception. When the press asks if someone is interested in being vice president or in running for president / higher office in distant elections. This is such an uninteresting question that at best provides information that is not that useful and at worst almost no likelihood that the person answering is being completely honest.
In fact, I think that is why the press likes the question so much. They like making politicians squirm, but only on meaningless issues that don't really inform voters. Which is why they will spend so much time asking every Republican under the sun if they want to be VP but won't ask them how they will speed up the recovery and which economists support them.
When Republicans claim this, it is either in situations where they don't know the answer and are embarrassed that they don't know the answer, or it is questions they don't want to answer. Sarah Palin often used the phrase for the former reason. Many Republicans use it for the latter reason when they want to hold a position that the base likes but the general population wouldn't like. Or if they have changed their position on something and don't want to talk about it.
The bottom line is that Republicans use this to try to avoid answering questions - to avoid transparency on what they know and / or what they believe.
Having said all of that, I can think of only one small exception. When the press asks if someone is interested in being vice president or in running for president / higher office in distant elections. This is such an uninteresting question that at best provides information that is not that useful and at worst almost no likelihood that the person answering is being completely honest.
In fact, I think that is why the press likes the question so much. They like making politicians squirm, but only on meaningless issues that don't really inform voters. Which is why they will spend so much time asking every Republican under the sun if they want to be VP but won't ask them how they will speed up the recovery and which economists support them.
Monday, May 21, 2012
Romney's Qualifications
I was planning to write a post about Romney's claim that he is more qualified to be president because of his business experience. The point was going to be that Romney's time as governor was better experience than his time at Bain Capital, especially because the government does not engage in private equity. Of course Romney doesn't want to talk about his time as governor because it would remind his base of a time when he was far less conservative.
But I never got around to writing that post, and good thing. Ezra Klein wrote a much better post on what Romney should have learned at Bain Capital to make him a better presidential candidate.
Klein's post is great - and you should read the whole thing because it really gets at the Bain Capital issue well. And yet it doesn't actually tell us anything new about Romney or the Republican Party.
Romney and the Republicans have shown, through the issues they focus on and the positions they choose, that they are exclusively concerned about the rich. They talk all about tax cuts - for everyone, but they won't agree unless the wealthy are included - and removing regulatory burdens.
But they have not demonstrated any support for the unemployed. They complain that benefits are too generous, including unemployment insurance. They have no plan to provide universal health care. And they have no urgency in bringing unemployment down, especially if it means the possibility of higher inflation.
So yes, Romney should have learned from Bain Capital about the things that face middle income and lower income households. But he had many opportunities to do that. He could have learned how hard getting through college can be by realizing how comparatively easy it was using his trust fund. But he didn't. And this says something about him and who he sympathizes with.
But I never got around to writing that post, and good thing. Ezra Klein wrote a much better post on what Romney should have learned at Bain Capital to make him a better presidential candidate.
“I know how business works,” Romney likes to say. “I know why jobs come and why they go.” That’s overstating the case. But while Romney’s perspective at Bain was biased toward creating short-term profits rather than creating value or employment, it was a look at the ferocity of modern, global, financialized capitalism, and Romney surely recognizes its realities in a way many of us don’t.
[edit]
What he could have learned from that experience is that, just as creative destruction is important for moving an economy forward, a safety net is important for catching those who are left behind. As head of Bain, Romney fired a lot of workers who were perfectly good at their jobs, who were committed to their companies, who had families they needed to support. That was his job as head of a private-equity giant. But his job as president of the United States would also be to look out for those workers.Klein goes on to say that Romney's plans do not help people caught up in creative destruction and therefore he didn't learn the right lessons from Bain Capital.
Klein's post is great - and you should read the whole thing because it really gets at the Bain Capital issue well. And yet it doesn't actually tell us anything new about Romney or the Republican Party.
Romney and the Republicans have shown, through the issues they focus on and the positions they choose, that they are exclusively concerned about the rich. They talk all about tax cuts - for everyone, but they won't agree unless the wealthy are included - and removing regulatory burdens.
But they have not demonstrated any support for the unemployed. They complain that benefits are too generous, including unemployment insurance. They have no plan to provide universal health care. And they have no urgency in bringing unemployment down, especially if it means the possibility of higher inflation.
So yes, Romney should have learned from Bain Capital about the things that face middle income and lower income households. But he had many opportunities to do that. He could have learned how hard getting through college can be by realizing how comparatively easy it was using his trust fund. But he didn't. And this says something about him and who he sympathizes with.
Saturday, May 19, 2012
On Inflation
Among liberal economists, there is widespread belief that much more should be done to deal with high unemployment. Another fiscal stimulus is popular though everyone is resigned to the fact that it won't happen with the current Congress (and mute president).
Since fiscal policy is not an option, many liberal economists want more efforts on monetary policy. Granted, the federal reserve and Ben Bernake have been doing a lot, but to little effect on unemployment. What everyone seems to be saying then is that while the fed is meeting one of its two mandates (inflation) but not its other mandate (unemployment) it should do more towards the mandate it isn't meeting. The way to do this is the fed can relax its strict price stability goal and allow inflation to rise a bit in order to bring unemployment down.
The best articulation of how to achieve this is from Justin Wolfers and Betsy Stevenson. I won't explain it here, though it is very accessible so I encourage you to read it. Instead, I want to look at the things people site in opposition to doing this. There are some reasonable concerns.
First, Paul Volker, who broke the back of inflation during the early 1980s while Fed chair under Reagan, is worried that once you use inflation as policy, the expectations become ingrained. This makes it less effective as a policy in the future and also more difficult to control.
Ben Bernake echoes this when he talks about his reluctance to damage the feds reputation for price stability. If one time the fed diverges from its rigid price stability, the market will be less convinced of their price stability goals and therefore preventing inflation would be more costly.
The way Volker articulates it is more convincing. I think I still agree with Paul Krugman on this one - why worry about a potential problem in the future instead of the actual problem you have now? And yet the more I think about it, the more I wonder if it is dangerous in the long term.
Second, Ben Bernake also seems to think that any extra efforts by the Fed, whether it be QE3 or allowing inflation to rise, would cost a lot but get little in return. For example, letting inflation rise from 2% to 4% might only get a decrease of 0.25% in unemployment. I made up the numbers, but that is how I understand what he is saying. This one is really hard to argue against because I have not nearly enough economics training to say the models he is using are wrong. The best I can do is trust the many economists I read that think this isn't the case.
Third is general uncertainty. Paul Samuelson and Noah Smith make this point. We don't really know whether Volker and Bernake or Krugman, et al are right. Everyone has models. Some have a better track record than others (ie Krugman's liquidity trap), but even those we don't know for sure if they will continue to be right.
So there are real reasons to be cautious about more aggressive monetary policy. These issues all give me pause. I think I continue to lean towards doing more in the face of such terrible unemployment. But there are real risks and we should keep that in mind.
Since fiscal policy is not an option, many liberal economists want more efforts on monetary policy. Granted, the federal reserve and Ben Bernake have been doing a lot, but to little effect on unemployment. What everyone seems to be saying then is that while the fed is meeting one of its two mandates (inflation) but not its other mandate (unemployment) it should do more towards the mandate it isn't meeting. The way to do this is the fed can relax its strict price stability goal and allow inflation to rise a bit in order to bring unemployment down.
The best articulation of how to achieve this is from Justin Wolfers and Betsy Stevenson. I won't explain it here, though it is very accessible so I encourage you to read it. Instead, I want to look at the things people site in opposition to doing this. There are some reasonable concerns.
First, Paul Volker, who broke the back of inflation during the early 1980s while Fed chair under Reagan, is worried that once you use inflation as policy, the expectations become ingrained. This makes it less effective as a policy in the future and also more difficult to control.
Ben Bernake echoes this when he talks about his reluctance to damage the feds reputation for price stability. If one time the fed diverges from its rigid price stability, the market will be less convinced of their price stability goals and therefore preventing inflation would be more costly.
The way Volker articulates it is more convincing. I think I still agree with Paul Krugman on this one - why worry about a potential problem in the future instead of the actual problem you have now? And yet the more I think about it, the more I wonder if it is dangerous in the long term.
Second, Ben Bernake also seems to think that any extra efforts by the Fed, whether it be QE3 or allowing inflation to rise, would cost a lot but get little in return. For example, letting inflation rise from 2% to 4% might only get a decrease of 0.25% in unemployment. I made up the numbers, but that is how I understand what he is saying. This one is really hard to argue against because I have not nearly enough economics training to say the models he is using are wrong. The best I can do is trust the many economists I read that think this isn't the case.
Third is general uncertainty. Paul Samuelson and Noah Smith make this point. We don't really know whether Volker and Bernake or Krugman, et al are right. Everyone has models. Some have a better track record than others (ie Krugman's liquidity trap), but even those we don't know for sure if they will continue to be right.
So there are real reasons to be cautious about more aggressive monetary policy. These issues all give me pause. I think I continue to lean towards doing more in the face of such terrible unemployment. But there are real risks and we should keep that in mind.
Thursday, May 17, 2012
Debt and Deficits
I have written about debts and deficits before, but I want to put all of my thoughts on this in one post.
Republicans, including GOP candidate Romney, are making deficits and debt the big issue right now and are blaming Obama. There are so many things wrong with this.
First, the short term deficits are not Obama's fault. They are mostly the result of the recession and Bush policies (tax cuts and wars). One of the main drivers of current deficits and debt is the depressed tax revenue due to the recession. Also, spending has increased on safety net programs like food stamps and unemployment insurance, while much other spending is down (which is actually hurting the recovery). And of course the Bush tax cuts were not paid for and have contributed significantly to the debt.
In fact, the only thing you might blame on Obama is the stimulus and the bail outs. I don't know how much impact the bail outs have had, though Bush deserves as much of the credit for that as Obama. The stimulus was Obama's decision, and the right one. But this is a one-time expense, as opposed to what the Republicans are trying to say which is that Obama has grown government leading to continued deficits. The stimulus isn't that kind of spending.
These factors though are not long term debt problems. When the economy improves, revenue will increase and safety net spending will decrease. And there will be no more stimulus or bail outs.
But Republicans also make it seem like the debt problem is an immediate one. It is not. There is no risk from our current debt or deficits. We do have a different immediate problem - unemployment but Republicans do not seem interested in dealing with that. Maybe they will if they take over control of the government. Right now, they are happy to let unemployment continue so that it hurts Obama.
We do have a debt problem. However, it is in the long term. And it has nothing to do with the current factors driving our debt - revenue, safety net, etc. Instead, our long term debt problem is due to health expenses (medicaid and medicare) and maybe social security. Though to be fair, Republicans do have a plan to deal with that, though they achieve it by putting more costs on seniors instead of reforming health care.
Having said all this, Republicans are showing that they are using deficits to get gut government spending. If they were actually concerned about deficits, they wouldn't call for tax cuts. In fact, they might even call for some modest revenue increases (a truly balanced approach that the public supports). Instead, they are gutting government programs while also calling for tax cuts, making little progress on the deficit.
All of this means that Republicans, including Romney, are lying about the cause of the deficits, the timing on when the problem with the debt will affect us, and their actual intent on solving the problem. All of this is obvious and demonstrable.
And yet I have not seen an effective response from Obama or the Democrats. So instead, the public will think the deficits are Obama's fault, that deficits are an immediate problem, and that deficits can be solved with tax cuts. Awesome.
Republicans, including GOP candidate Romney, are making deficits and debt the big issue right now and are blaming Obama. There are so many things wrong with this.
First, the short term deficits are not Obama's fault. They are mostly the result of the recession and Bush policies (tax cuts and wars). One of the main drivers of current deficits and debt is the depressed tax revenue due to the recession. Also, spending has increased on safety net programs like food stamps and unemployment insurance, while much other spending is down (which is actually hurting the recovery). And of course the Bush tax cuts were not paid for and have contributed significantly to the debt.
In fact, the only thing you might blame on Obama is the stimulus and the bail outs. I don't know how much impact the bail outs have had, though Bush deserves as much of the credit for that as Obama. The stimulus was Obama's decision, and the right one. But this is a one-time expense, as opposed to what the Republicans are trying to say which is that Obama has grown government leading to continued deficits. The stimulus isn't that kind of spending.
These factors though are not long term debt problems. When the economy improves, revenue will increase and safety net spending will decrease. And there will be no more stimulus or bail outs.
But Republicans also make it seem like the debt problem is an immediate one. It is not. There is no risk from our current debt or deficits. We do have a different immediate problem - unemployment but Republicans do not seem interested in dealing with that. Maybe they will if they take over control of the government. Right now, they are happy to let unemployment continue so that it hurts Obama.
We do have a debt problem. However, it is in the long term. And it has nothing to do with the current factors driving our debt - revenue, safety net, etc. Instead, our long term debt problem is due to health expenses (medicaid and medicare) and maybe social security. Though to be fair, Republicans do have a plan to deal with that, though they achieve it by putting more costs on seniors instead of reforming health care.
Having said all this, Republicans are showing that they are using deficits to get gut government spending. If they were actually concerned about deficits, they wouldn't call for tax cuts. In fact, they might even call for some modest revenue increases (a truly balanced approach that the public supports). Instead, they are gutting government programs while also calling for tax cuts, making little progress on the deficit.
All of this means that Republicans, including Romney, are lying about the cause of the deficits, the timing on when the problem with the debt will affect us, and their actual intent on solving the problem. All of this is obvious and demonstrable.
And yet I have not seen an effective response from Obama or the Democrats. So instead, the public will think the deficits are Obama's fault, that deficits are an immediate problem, and that deficits can be solved with tax cuts. Awesome.
Tuesday, May 15, 2012
Where I Change My Mind on the Filibuster
Ezra Klein had a good piece on the filibuster today, and I think I have changed my mind. I don't think it is unconstitutional, as his piece suggests (instead, I am convinced by this piece at the Monkey Cage). What convinced me to change my mind is the point that the founders considered and dismissed the idea that legislation should require a super-majority.
In the past, I have felt that the filibuster helped prevent very Republican policies from being implemented. I have a good memory of the Bush years when Democrats needed and used the filibuster. I think it moderated, to a degree, Bush policies - and potentially moderated judicial appointments. Roberts and Alito are not moderates, but they are - or at least Roberts is - less conservative than people that could have and would have been appointed without the threat of a veto.
But I do think requiring a super-majority for legislation favors conservative causes generally - not because Republicans are bad people and use filibusters more frequently (the graph at Wonkbook doesn't show an obvious pattern - I would need to crunch the numbers to come to a real conclusion). Instead, I think it helps conservative causes because it prevents government action.
Conservatives more often want to prevent government from getting involved. In Robert Heinlein's science fiction book The Moon is a Harsh Mistress, one of the protagonists, a libertarian, makes a speech calling for the new lunar government to have high standards - super-majorities - for any law and low standards for erasing a law. I think that illustrates conservative views pretty well. Conservatives would be happy when in power to pass fewer laws and more importantly, when not in power to prevent laws from being passed.
So it is that I change my mind on filibusters. But I must say, there will be times, possibly as early as 2012 with a Republican president and Republican Congress and an abolished filibuster, that we will wish we had the ability to filibuster crazy conservative legislation.
In the past, I have felt that the filibuster helped prevent very Republican policies from being implemented. I have a good memory of the Bush years when Democrats needed and used the filibuster. I think it moderated, to a degree, Bush policies - and potentially moderated judicial appointments. Roberts and Alito are not moderates, but they are - or at least Roberts is - less conservative than people that could have and would have been appointed without the threat of a veto.
But I do think requiring a super-majority for legislation favors conservative causes generally - not because Republicans are bad people and use filibusters more frequently (the graph at Wonkbook doesn't show an obvious pattern - I would need to crunch the numbers to come to a real conclusion). Instead, I think it helps conservative causes because it prevents government action.
Conservatives more often want to prevent government from getting involved. In Robert Heinlein's science fiction book The Moon is a Harsh Mistress, one of the protagonists, a libertarian, makes a speech calling for the new lunar government to have high standards - super-majorities - for any law and low standards for erasing a law. I think that illustrates conservative views pretty well. Conservatives would be happy when in power to pass fewer laws and more importantly, when not in power to prevent laws from being passed.
So it is that I change my mind on filibusters. But I must say, there will be times, possibly as early as 2012 with a Republican president and Republican Congress and an abolished filibuster, that we will wish we had the ability to filibuster crazy conservative legislation.
So Unpopular, Yet Not
I have been driving myself crazy wondering how the Republican Party espouses such extreme and unpopular positions without paying a price. They opposed any efforts to give the economy a boost. They want to end medicare as we know it by turning it into a voucher program. They want to fix the budget imbalance with tax cuts only (even Republican voters want some balance).
The one thing they did a price over was the debt ceiling fight, though the only price is a low Congressional approval rating which may not turn into any real price at the ballot box. Think about that though - a party that controls one half of one branch of government (unless you add in the Supreme Court) is able to dictate demands on budgets by threatening not to increase the debt ceiling* and causing America to default on its debts. And it might do this twice. And still not pay by losing elections.
But Republicans don't pay a price because Democrats react so weakly. As a party, we are afraid to make bold but unpopular stands. And sometimes, if it is unclear what is popular or not, Democrats are afraid to say anything. And when Democrats do respond, it is gimmicky and unconvincing.
The democratic response so far to the budget debate was the Buffet Rule. Republicans are arguing that we need to only cut programs. Instead of showing how important government programs are, or reminding the public that the pain should be shared equally, Democrats propose a modest and symbolic tax increase. While Paul Ryan gets credit for being disingenuous about how his very real budget affects poor people, Democrats do nothing.
Republicans are presenting a very real, very ugly, and very unpopular vision of government. Democrats are largely sitting on the sidelines. This is why we might have a fully Republican budget in 2012. It is the Democrats own fault.
*I haven't commented on this before, though I have meant to. The debt ceiling is the most ridiculous Congressional invention. Congress passes a budget - voted on by both houses and signed by the president. Yet they also have a debt ceiling that restricts the level of government debt regardless of the budget just passed. So Congress can pass a budget that will clearly violate the debt ceiling, but the debt ceiling is still in effect - resting on the assumption that they will just raise it as a matter of course later.
In other words, they have to agree twice to spend the same money. Only Congress.
The one thing they did a price over was the debt ceiling fight, though the only price is a low Congressional approval rating which may not turn into any real price at the ballot box. Think about that though - a party that controls one half of one branch of government (unless you add in the Supreme Court) is able to dictate demands on budgets by threatening not to increase the debt ceiling* and causing America to default on its debts. And it might do this twice. And still not pay by losing elections.
But Republicans don't pay a price because Democrats react so weakly. As a party, we are afraid to make bold but unpopular stands. And sometimes, if it is unclear what is popular or not, Democrats are afraid to say anything. And when Democrats do respond, it is gimmicky and unconvincing.
The democratic response so far to the budget debate was the Buffet Rule. Republicans are arguing that we need to only cut programs. Instead of showing how important government programs are, or reminding the public that the pain should be shared equally, Democrats propose a modest and symbolic tax increase. While Paul Ryan gets credit for being disingenuous about how his very real budget affects poor people, Democrats do nothing.
Republicans are presenting a very real, very ugly, and very unpopular vision of government. Democrats are largely sitting on the sidelines. This is why we might have a fully Republican budget in 2012. It is the Democrats own fault.
*I haven't commented on this before, though I have meant to. The debt ceiling is the most ridiculous Congressional invention. Congress passes a budget - voted on by both houses and signed by the president. Yet they also have a debt ceiling that restricts the level of government debt regardless of the budget just passed. So Congress can pass a budget that will clearly violate the debt ceiling, but the debt ceiling is still in effect - resting on the assumption that they will just raise it as a matter of course later.
In other words, they have to agree twice to spend the same money. Only Congress.
Repeating Itself
I will admit that some of my criticism of Obama is based on hindsight - especially around the budget and economy. It seems clear to me that Obama should have talked about the economy way more and not spent as much time on budget deficits. But if I wanted to be more fair, I could recognize that at the moment, his decisions might have seemed like the right ones, even to me.
The problem is that Obama isn't learning from his mistakes. He is still not talking about the economy and instead is letting Republicans talk endlessly about budget deficits. If he learned anything, he would be out there every single day saying that we have an immediate and serious problem of unemployment and a potential long (or medium) term problem of deficits and debt. He would continue by saying that Republicans are ignoring the unemployment problem and pretending to be concerned about deficits so they can gut social programs - and somehow want to cut taxes at the same time.
My guess is that his hesitance is political. The election will be determined largely by the economy (though campaigns matter as well) and if voters think the economy is bad, the worse he will do. So he is doing nothing and hoping things outside his control make the economy improve. We'll see how that goes. Though if Europe has anything to say about it, that might be a disaster.
The problem is that Obama isn't learning from his mistakes. He is still not talking about the economy and instead is letting Republicans talk endlessly about budget deficits. If he learned anything, he would be out there every single day saying that we have an immediate and serious problem of unemployment and a potential long (or medium) term problem of deficits and debt. He would continue by saying that Republicans are ignoring the unemployment problem and pretending to be concerned about deficits so they can gut social programs - and somehow want to cut taxes at the same time.
My guess is that his hesitance is political. The election will be determined largely by the economy (though campaigns matter as well) and if voters think the economy is bad, the worse he will do. So he is doing nothing and hoping things outside his control make the economy improve. We'll see how that goes. Though if Europe has anything to say about it, that might be a disaster.
Thursday, May 10, 2012
Obama and Marriage Equality
As you know, President Obama has come out in favor of gay couples getting married. Amazing. Bravo.
I have been meaning to say (or maybe I have?) that him claiming that he is "evolving" to be political stupidity. It seemed to be a way to tell his base that he would get there eventually, but he wasn't ready politically yet. He wanted to have it both ways. I am glad he has moved away from that.
I am sure the decision had some political calculation to it as well - especially since this side of the issue has popular support. But I still think overall, it shows some strong leadership and bravery. Some.
Now, this business about him thinking it is okay for the states to make their decisions is weird and stupid. But small stupid. He is signaling that he doesn't want to do anything to prevent states from banning marriage equality. I don't understand that logically, but whatever. I am just happy that he did this. A sitting president has come out in favor of marriage equality. That is a big deal.
By the way, I was convinced that the Biden thing was a political testing of the waters. President Obama is saying that wasn't the case - Biden got out ahead of himself. That's funny if it's true.
I have been meaning to say (or maybe I have?) that him claiming that he is "evolving" to be political stupidity. It seemed to be a way to tell his base that he would get there eventually, but he wasn't ready politically yet. He wanted to have it both ways. I am glad he has moved away from that.
I am sure the decision had some political calculation to it as well - especially since this side of the issue has popular support. But I still think overall, it shows some strong leadership and bravery. Some.
Now, this business about him thinking it is okay for the states to make their decisions is weird and stupid. But small stupid. He is signaling that he doesn't want to do anything to prevent states from banning marriage equality. I don't understand that logically, but whatever. I am just happy that he did this. A sitting president has come out in favor of marriage equality. That is a big deal.
By the way, I was convinced that the Biden thing was a political testing of the waters. President Obama is saying that wasn't the case - Biden got out ahead of himself. That's funny if it's true.
Saturday, April 28, 2012
The Economy: Who is to Blame?
When talking about the economy, some people like to say that a president deserves far less blame and far less credit than they actually get. This statement seems so reasonable and nonpartisan when you first hear it. Granted, Republicans often say this, and this allows them to avoid giving Clinton credit for the boom of the 1990s and avoid blaming George W. Bush for this recession. So it isn't so non-partisan.
But it is also wrong. There is a lot presidents can do about the economy. They can create conditions that lead to speedy recoveries from recessions - with the help of good policy from the federal reserve. And they can create conditions that lead to bubbles and an overleveraged a financial system.
The president has helped the economy recover but I think the president could be making it recover faster. There is no question that the stimulus helped. It just wasn't large enough (and maybe poorly targeted). But recent budget cuts at the federal, state, and local level have not helped the recovery. Federal reserve policy has been helpful, but again, they could be doing more. And President Obama could encourage them to do more.
Also, I blame presidents for aspects of the Great Recession. President Clinton and President George W. Bush supported decontrol of the banking system, allowing banks to overleverage, putting the whole system at work. It also allowed a lot of risky borrowing by homeowners and investors alike.
But there were other aspects that were outside the control of Presidents Clinton and Bush. Excessive savings by Asian countries had a role in our recent housing bubble.
Also, I don't give Clinton too much credit for the 1990s dot-com boom. Sure, his decision to balance the budget and create surpluses helped create market confidence. But really, that boom was driven by technology and efficiency improvements (and a bit of a bubble).
Mitt Romney's economic adviser, Greg Mankiw, had a good thought on evaluating presidents and their economic policy :
Mitt Romney himself takes a different approach. When there is good news about the economy, he gives Bush credit. When the recovery is faltering, he blames Obama.
I think it is clear though that a president can have a very big impact on the economy. We just need to be nuanced (Romney has inexplicably attacked Obama for nuance) and thoughtful about what a president is and is not responsible for.
But it is also wrong. There is a lot presidents can do about the economy. They can create conditions that lead to speedy recoveries from recessions - with the help of good policy from the federal reserve. And they can create conditions that lead to bubbles and an overleveraged a financial system.
The president has helped the economy recover but I think the president could be making it recover faster. There is no question that the stimulus helped. It just wasn't large enough (and maybe poorly targeted). But recent budget cuts at the federal, state, and local level have not helped the recovery. Federal reserve policy has been helpful, but again, they could be doing more. And President Obama could encourage them to do more.
Also, I blame presidents for aspects of the Great Recession. President Clinton and President George W. Bush supported decontrol of the banking system, allowing banks to overleverage, putting the whole system at work. It also allowed a lot of risky borrowing by homeowners and investors alike.
But there were other aspects that were outside the control of Presidents Clinton and Bush. Excessive savings by Asian countries had a role in our recent housing bubble.
Also, I don't give Clinton too much credit for the 1990s dot-com boom. Sure, his decision to balance the budget and create surpluses helped create market confidence. But really, that boom was driven by technology and efficiency improvements (and a bit of a bubble).
Mitt Romney's economic adviser, Greg Mankiw, had a good thought on evaluating presidents and their economic policy :
What you would not do is judge him by the outcome. Even the best physicians have patients die. And even witchdoctors can have patients recover. Randomness is a fact of life (and death). In the case of a medical doctor, the answer seems clear: Instead of looking at the outcome, you would judge him by the decisions he makes and treatments he prescribes. That is, you would examine whether he followed best practices for the circumstances he faced.I think this makes a lot of sense. Following this method, we might blame Obama if we enter a double-dip recession caused by further government austerity. But we would not blame Obama if Europe's austerity causes them to have a double-dip recession and then bring us along for the ride or if the Federal Reserve decides to implement monetary tightening.
Mitt Romney himself takes a different approach. When there is good news about the economy, he gives Bush credit. When the recovery is faltering, he blames Obama.
I think it is clear though that a president can have a very big impact on the economy. We just need to be nuanced (Romney has inexplicably attacked Obama for nuance) and thoughtful about what a president is and is not responsible for.
What is Work?
A couple weeks ago there was a big to-do about women and what constitutes work. Mitt Romney's team got all riled up when someone associated with Obama suggested that staying at home and taking care of children is not work, in reference to Ann Romney. I think the outrage was mostly fake and ginned-up, but that's how campaigns work. But fine, we all agree that women (and men) staying home to take care of children is work.
Except Mitt Romney doesn't actually agree with that himself if you look at past statements. When talking about low income women, Mitt Romney actually thinks staying at home is not work, and that these same women should be forced to "work" in order to get welfare and to teach good "work" habits to their children.
Mitt Romney is a bad candidate. His positions are not at all consistent, even when not considering all the positions he has changed. But this actually points out a Republican inconsistency. Republicans want the woman's role in the home recognized and appreciated. Just not when it comes to low income women.
It is a shame that the press is more interested in fake controversies than in actually getting at fundamental issues like whether being at home is work and how that affects major policies like welfare reform. If pressed, Republicans cannot maintain this position and be consistent. If taking care of kids is work, than single low income mothers should be paid to stay home if they want to (welfare). If not, Republicans have to say that staying home is not work.
But our press corps won't push this. Instead, they'll cover every silly fake controversy and miss all the important issues. And Republicans (and sometimes Democrats) will continue to be allowed to be inconsistent. And policy and our debate will suffer.
Except Mitt Romney doesn't actually agree with that himself if you look at past statements. When talking about low income women, Mitt Romney actually thinks staying at home is not work, and that these same women should be forced to "work" in order to get welfare and to teach good "work" habits to their children.
Mitt Romney is a bad candidate. His positions are not at all consistent, even when not considering all the positions he has changed. But this actually points out a Republican inconsistency. Republicans want the woman's role in the home recognized and appreciated. Just not when it comes to low income women.
It is a shame that the press is more interested in fake controversies than in actually getting at fundamental issues like whether being at home is work and how that affects major policies like welfare reform. If pressed, Republicans cannot maintain this position and be consistent. If taking care of kids is work, than single low income mothers should be paid to stay home if they want to (welfare). If not, Republicans have to say that staying home is not work.
But our press corps won't push this. Instead, they'll cover every silly fake controversy and miss all the important issues. And Republicans (and sometimes Democrats) will continue to be allowed to be inconsistent. And policy and our debate will suffer.
Wednesday, April 25, 2012
Buffet Rule: Not a Fan
I'll be honest - I don't love the way Obama is pushing the Buffet rule.
The problem with the Buffet Rule is that, even if we think it is being proposed genuinely (and not as a political stunt - which is what it really is), it doesn't come close to solving the problem we all know exists, which is that the wealthy don't pay as much in taxes as they should if we are really to have a progressive income tax.
There are proposals to solve that problem. They include eliminating some tax deductions and increasing taxes on capital gains. Since nothing Obama proposes (not the real solution I just mentioned nor the Buffet Rule) is likely to get passed, it seems to me Obama should propose the one that is a real policy solution. But he doesn't want that. He doesn't want a big detailed plan that might have some unpopular elements. Instead, he wants a quick, and absurd, political win.
This is going to be a long and disappointing campaign.
The problem with the Buffet Rule is that, even if we think it is being proposed genuinely (and not as a political stunt - which is what it really is), it doesn't come close to solving the problem we all know exists, which is that the wealthy don't pay as much in taxes as they should if we are really to have a progressive income tax.
There are proposals to solve that problem. They include eliminating some tax deductions and increasing taxes on capital gains. Since nothing Obama proposes (not the real solution I just mentioned nor the Buffet Rule) is likely to get passed, it seems to me Obama should propose the one that is a real policy solution. But he doesn't want that. He doesn't want a big detailed plan that might have some unpopular elements. Instead, he wants a quick, and absurd, political win.
This is going to be a long and disappointing campaign.
On Redistribution
I have heard Republicans accuse Democrats of favoring wealth redistribution. I will admit that Democrats do not do a good job of dispelling this myth (see Obama v. Joe the Plumber). But let me take a quick stab at making clear what the Democrats position is - or at least should be.
Democrats believe that government provides necessary services, from public health and safety (military, police, fire, hospitals), to needed public infrastructure (roads and rail), education, and a safety net, among other things. All of these things are necessary.
We also believe that some of the ways we raise revenue should be progressive, meaning that the rich should pay higher rates. It is only fair that people that have more money should bear more of the burden because they can bear more of the burden.
What Democrats need to make clear - over and over again - is that a progressive tax structure is to pay for necessary services. We do not take from the rich to give to the poor. We take from everyone - in some cases at higher rates from the rich - so that people do not starve, do not live unsheltered, do not go without health care and so that there is police, military, roads and education. Among other things.
Democrats believe that government provides necessary services, from public health and safety (military, police, fire, hospitals), to needed public infrastructure (roads and rail), education, and a safety net, among other things. All of these things are necessary.
We also believe that some of the ways we raise revenue should be progressive, meaning that the rich should pay higher rates. It is only fair that people that have more money should bear more of the burden because they can bear more of the burden.
What Democrats need to make clear - over and over again - is that a progressive tax structure is to pay for necessary services. We do not take from the rich to give to the poor. We take from everyone - in some cases at higher rates from the rich - so that people do not starve, do not live unsheltered, do not go without health care and so that there is police, military, roads and education. Among other things.
Sunday, April 15, 2012
Religion by Sullivan
I want to write more about religion - both about my own faith but also how religion intersects with politics. But while you wait for those posts, I suggest you read Andrew Sullivan's article in Newsweek. It is really good. Here is a quote:
Jesus’ doctrines were the practical commandments, the truly radical ideas that immediately leap out in the simple stories he told and which he exemplified in everything he did. Not simply love one another, but love your enemy and forgive those who harm you; give up all material wealth; love the ineffable Being behind all things, and know that this Being is actually your truest Father, in whose image you were made. Above all: give up power over others, because power, if it is to be effective, ultimately requires the threat of violence, and violence is incompatible with the total acceptance and love of all other human beings that is at the sacred heart of Jesus’ teaching. That’s why, in his final apolitical act, Jesus never defended his innocence at trial, never resisted his crucifixion, and even turned to those nailing his hands to the wood on the cross and forgave them, and loved them.I recommend reading the whole thing. And hopefully soon I'll have my own thoughts posted.
Ryan is a Fraud
Though I love Paul Krugman's economics, I often find his partisan writings a bit too harsh for me. And so I try to be more reasonable and objective. And yet, I also find that I agree with him, at least recently. And never more so than on Paul Ryan.
While many in the media are tripping over themselves to say that Paul Ryan is brave and reasonable, his latest budget shows that he is neither of those things.
Let's start with brave. While he deserves a tiny bit of credit for actually laying out a plan, it is far less brave and transparent than we are led to believe. Ezra Klein has some pretty good summaries of it, and the short of it is that the budget preserves defense spending and social security, cuts taxes for the rich, and slashes discretionary programs, most of which go to the poor.
All of that together makes it clear this is not brave. It is a political document that has all of the popular things in there - tax cuts, no cuts to military, and protecting social security - while leaving out anything unpopular, like how to pay for the tax cuts. He says he will eliminate tax deductions, but doesn't say which ones, because they would all be unpopular. If he really was brave, he would say in there that he is eliminating the mortgage interest tax deduction and child tax deduction and all of the other benefits that are popular as individual items. But he is not brave, so he leaves it out.
His budget is also not reasonable. In order to pay for his tax cuts for the wealthy and for leaving military unharmed, he is going to gut discretionary programs, much of which goes to help the poor and middle class. Again, he doesn't say which programs he will have to cut (because that would be unpopular) but because of the scale, we know it will hit most programs, or if it leaves some harmless, it will be even deeper in others.
I might be able to handle all of this, if he wasn't so pious and dishonest about his budget. Here is what he said about how his budget treats the poor:
Ryan in the past gave a speech on how he believes in equality of opportunity and not equality of outcome. That be accused Obama of believing in the later is utterly dishonest. But he doesn't actually believe in the former himself. Now, he doesn't really want equality of opportunity, but a base level of opportunity that we can all be comfortable with (otherwise, no one would be allowed private education). But his budgets show that he doesn't even believe in that. He does everything he can to kill programs that would allow all people to have a decent education, decent job training, etc - in other words, he kills programs that would work to create an even playing field.
Paul Ryan has a callous attitude about poverty. But so do many others. That he thinks and says he is actually being helpful is disgusting. That the press lets him get away with this, and pretends that he is being genuine and not honest is shameful. Paul Ryan is not a policy wonk. He is a politician that will say whatever he can get away with. And his policies do not help the poor or create an even playing field. More people should acknowledge this.
While many in the media are tripping over themselves to say that Paul Ryan is brave and reasonable, his latest budget shows that he is neither of those things.
Let's start with brave. While he deserves a tiny bit of credit for actually laying out a plan, it is far less brave and transparent than we are led to believe. Ezra Klein has some pretty good summaries of it, and the short of it is that the budget preserves defense spending and social security, cuts taxes for the rich, and slashes discretionary programs, most of which go to the poor.
All of that together makes it clear this is not brave. It is a political document that has all of the popular things in there - tax cuts, no cuts to military, and protecting social security - while leaving out anything unpopular, like how to pay for the tax cuts. He says he will eliminate tax deductions, but doesn't say which ones, because they would all be unpopular. If he really was brave, he would say in there that he is eliminating the mortgage interest tax deduction and child tax deduction and all of the other benefits that are popular as individual items. But he is not brave, so he leaves it out.
His budget is also not reasonable. In order to pay for his tax cuts for the wealthy and for leaving military unharmed, he is going to gut discretionary programs, much of which goes to help the poor and middle class. Again, he doesn't say which programs he will have to cut (because that would be unpopular) but because of the scale, we know it will hit most programs, or if it leaves some harmless, it will be even deeper in others.
I might be able to handle all of this, if he wasn't so pious and dishonest about his budget. Here is what he said about how his budget treats the poor:
[T]he preferential option for the poor, which is one of the primary tenets of Catholic social teaching, means don’t keep people poor, don’t make people dependent on government so that they stay stuck at their station in life, help people get out of poverty out onto life of independence.If his budget only cut cash assistance (welfare) but increased spending on education, Pell grants, job training, etc, I would disagree with that as policy, but his argument would be at least defensible. Instead, his budget cuts taxes for the rich and in return, will have to cut all programs that would actually help people escape poverty.
Ryan in the past gave a speech on how he believes in equality of opportunity and not equality of outcome. That be accused Obama of believing in the later is utterly dishonest. But he doesn't actually believe in the former himself. Now, he doesn't really want equality of opportunity, but a base level of opportunity that we can all be comfortable with (otherwise, no one would be allowed private education). But his budgets show that he doesn't even believe in that. He does everything he can to kill programs that would allow all people to have a decent education, decent job training, etc - in other words, he kills programs that would work to create an even playing field.
Paul Ryan has a callous attitude about poverty. But so do many others. That he thinks and says he is actually being helpful is disgusting. That the press lets him get away with this, and pretends that he is being genuine and not honest is shameful. Paul Ryan is not a policy wonk. He is a politician that will say whatever he can get away with. And his policies do not help the poor or create an even playing field. More people should acknowledge this.
They Have Chosen
Mitt Romney will be the GOP nominee. I think we all assumed this would be the case, but there were moment when it was unclear and it was possible that someone as crazy as Santorum, Perry, or Gingirch might have won (Bachmann and Cain even had their moments).
So what does this mean? I like this quote from Peggy Nonnan, a moderate conservative columnist for the Wall Street Journal, describing Romney:
As for the campaign though, I have to say I am not worried about him as a candidate. That he couldn't dispose of such a weak field is meaningful, despite his huge advantages in money, endorsements, and staff support. This doesn't mean he cannot win, it just means that it would take very favorable circumstances to do so (like a stalled or double-dip recession).
I will say though he has a very interesting strategy as a candidate to deal with one of his weaknesses - low favorability ratings. He has a kind of jiu-jitsu strategy where he accuses his opponents of the things they are accusing him of. And it does seem to throw them off-stride.
He managed in a debate to accuse Santorum of not being sufficiently conservative - attacking him for his vote on No Child Left Behind. That Santorum fell for it and made some lame excuse showed that it worked. He is doing the same thing to Obama - accusing him of being a Harvard elite, despite that Romney has two degrees from the university. And in light of anti-woman legislation like the transvaginal ultrasound, Romney is trotting out disingenuous numbers about job losses for women in the Obama presidency to accuse him of being anti-woman.
The fact is that this probably works. It brings the candidates down to his level. He is basically saying, "if you think I am ________, my opponent is just as bad." It worked well enough in the primary. We'll see if the voters get tired or if Obama is a better candidate and able to avoid it.
The final thing I will say, is that I just really don't like Romney. I can't find a moment when he is being genuine, in his attacks or in talking about his vision. His attacks on Obama are false - especially on foreign policy (where Obama is pretty conservative) and the economy. And when he talks about his vision, it is vague or noncommittal.
I know that most politicians are like this to some extent. Obama has said and will say some ridiculous things - and his surrogates will be even worse. And maybe I am not objective, though I do try to be. I just can't help but feel though that Romney is worse in this respect than anyone else.
Romney is not principled, like McCain tried to be. And he will try to bring everyone down with him. After all, if people don't like him, the only thing to do is make the people not like his opponent as well.
I have a feeling that I am going to find this campaign to be painful to watch. Maybe Obama can take more of the high ground, but I doubt it. I will probably long for the days of the somewhat reasonable McCain v. Obama. I can handle painful though, so long as Obama still wins.
So what does this mean? I like this quote from Peggy Nonnan, a moderate conservative columnist for the Wall Street Journal, describing Romney:
We learned Mitt Romney is not a greatly improved candidate from four years ago. He has endurance and discipline: He wants this thing. The reason why is still not fully clear. His political instincts and sense of subject matter are not much better than they were in 2008. The awkwardness continues.I think this is all true. More than other politicians, his views seem to move to whatever will get him elected. The question is if he wins, will we get the current far-right Romney, or the Massachusetts moderate Romney. My guess is that we'll get the far-right version; the base will always be watching him and so he will always have to show if loyalty.
As for the campaign though, I have to say I am not worried about him as a candidate. That he couldn't dispose of such a weak field is meaningful, despite his huge advantages in money, endorsements, and staff support. This doesn't mean he cannot win, it just means that it would take very favorable circumstances to do so (like a stalled or double-dip recession).
I will say though he has a very interesting strategy as a candidate to deal with one of his weaknesses - low favorability ratings. He has a kind of jiu-jitsu strategy where he accuses his opponents of the things they are accusing him of. And it does seem to throw them off-stride.
He managed in a debate to accuse Santorum of not being sufficiently conservative - attacking him for his vote on No Child Left Behind. That Santorum fell for it and made some lame excuse showed that it worked. He is doing the same thing to Obama - accusing him of being a Harvard elite, despite that Romney has two degrees from the university. And in light of anti-woman legislation like the transvaginal ultrasound, Romney is trotting out disingenuous numbers about job losses for women in the Obama presidency to accuse him of being anti-woman.
The fact is that this probably works. It brings the candidates down to his level. He is basically saying, "if you think I am ________, my opponent is just as bad." It worked well enough in the primary. We'll see if the voters get tired or if Obama is a better candidate and able to avoid it.
The final thing I will say, is that I just really don't like Romney. I can't find a moment when he is being genuine, in his attacks or in talking about his vision. His attacks on Obama are false - especially on foreign policy (where Obama is pretty conservative) and the economy. And when he talks about his vision, it is vague or noncommittal.
I know that most politicians are like this to some extent. Obama has said and will say some ridiculous things - and his surrogates will be even worse. And maybe I am not objective, though I do try to be. I just can't help but feel though that Romney is worse in this respect than anyone else.
Romney is not principled, like McCain tried to be. And he will try to bring everyone down with him. After all, if people don't like him, the only thing to do is make the people not like his opponent as well.
I have a feeling that I am going to find this campaign to be painful to watch. Maybe Obama can take more of the high ground, but I doubt it. I will probably long for the days of the somewhat reasonable McCain v. Obama. I can handle painful though, so long as Obama still wins.
Saturday, April 07, 2012
Obama’s Accomplishments
I love debating Obama’s accomplishments, especially with someone who thinks Obama has accomplished a lot. This article in Washington Monthly gives me a great opportunity:
Healthccare reform: I like this (I think) and do agree that it is pretty big. Why doesn't it seem as big? Because few people really understand the law and how it will impact them. The bill is confusing and it is unclear how it will affect one of the two major issues in health care - costs - until the long term if at all (the other issue being the uninsured, which is addressed in the law).
To top it off, Republicans were successful in attacking the law after it passed while Democrats decided not to defend it and instead they tried to pretend it didn't happen. So the public can be excused for not understanding its benefits and not seeing why it should be a major accomplishment for Obama.
Auto Industry Takeover: it was good policy and proved successful. It was better than bankruptcy for sure. Romney should admit he was wrong. But it doesn't seem that big to me (and probably to other voters as well). What did he really do? Some government loans, maybe some restructuring of debt (and pensions)?
Stimulus: Sure the stimulus prevented the recession from getting worse. But we are only now - years after the stimulus - seeing unemployment decrease. So why would we consider a huge stimulus a major accomplishment if it didn't get the recovery going? We don't and we shouldn't.
Banking reform / consumer protections: Again, this is a big and confusing bill. And I think many people feel that this won't necessarily prevent another banking crisis because it didn't deal with some of the big problems (derivatives, too big to fail, deposit banks taking too much risk for profit). As for consumer protections, we'll see how important this is once it gets going. For too long, Obama had not even appointed a head of consumer protection.
Much of the rest of the stuff in the first paragraph strike me as good but small policies that the author is trying to say are huge huge huge: National Service Expansion, which I don't even know what that is referring to; Wilderness protection, which I haven't heard anything about; Student Aid reforms; START with Russia, which were huge when Reagan did it, but at this point is just another good step in that same direction; and the food safety laws (what?). And Net Neutrality is far from a done deal.
The one thing I will say is huge is Obama's ending Don't Ask, Don't Tell. It is big and Obama and Congress deserve a lot of credit for this. Now if they could end the Defense of Marriage Act (which Obama's administration did refuse to defend in court).
The author then highlights a $1.2 trillion deficit reduction package that Obama cannot take credit for since he was driven into it by the Tea Party and the deal doesn't at all accomplish what we need (short term spending a long-term balance). I think the public rightly thinks it was a sham, that will quickly get undone or redone, but was done so both parties could save some face. If Obama had achieved something real, along the lines of Bowles-Simpson (although hopefully more liberal), then we could call it a major accomplishment.
On foreign policy, the author gives Obama credit in Egypt, where the president deserves none. Our only help was to call for Mubarak to step down, which came too late to be seen as principled or even important. He also gives Obama credit on Libya, where I am glad Obama supported intervention, but we were following Europe's lead.
I think Obama, at least in the short term, can take credit in Afghanistan. His mini-surge has been effective (though I have questions about the long term) and so he can say he improved a bad situation. Also, killing Bin Laden was big and shows good decision-making. The sanctions in Iran seem stronger than anything we have seen before and we'll see how they turn out.
However, in Iraq, his withdrawal policy isn't different from Bush's plan. And to be fair, he was only able to achieve it after Bush' surge (which only fixed a problem Bush himself created with a terrible occupation). In other words, it's not like Obama inherited a mess in Iraq, fixed it, and was then able to pull the troops out. That would have been a major accomplishment.
As you can see, there is a common pattern. His so-called big accomplishments are incremental (instead of sweeping changes), very complicated, and don't get at the real problems. Health care isn't getting at costs, the stimulus wasn't big enough to kick-start a recovery, and the banking reform didn't fix what caused the crisis. The other things mentioned are all nice, but they don't add up to major accomplishments.
On foreign policy he has had some decent accomplishments (Afghanistan, bin Laden). But in some other cases his policy isn't different from what Bush did or what McCain would have done. And in the rest, the author is giving Obama credit for things he doesn't deserve credit for.
Now, the author also says that some of these policies will look better in history than they are treated now. Anything is possible - in fact Bush might one day be revered as Truman is, or so some people hope. But if that is the case, I will disagree with it for all of the reasons stated above (as I will disagree any positive treatment of Bush).
Measured in sheer legislative tonnage, what Obama got done in his first two years is stunning. Health care reform. The takeover and turnaround of the auto industry. The biggest economic stimulus in history. Sweeping new regulations of Wall Street. A tough new set of consumer protections on the credit card industry. A vast expansion of national service. Net neutrality. The greatest increase in wilderness protection in fifteen years. A revolutionary reform to student aid. Signing the New START treaty with Russia. The ending of “don’t ask, don’t tell.”
Even over the past year, when he was bogged down in budget fights with the Tea Party-controlled GOP House, Obama still managed to squeeze out a few domestic policy victories, including a $1.2 trillion deficit reduction deal and the most sweeping overhaul of food safety laws in more than seventy years.
More impressively, on the foreign policy front he ended the war in Iraq, began the drawdown in Afghanistan, helped to oust Gaddafi in Libya and usher out Mubarak in Egypt, orchestrated new military and commercial alliances as a hedge against China, and tightened sanctions against Iran over its nukes. Oh, and he shifted counterterrorism strategies to target Osama bin Laden and then ordered the risky raid that killed him.
That Obama has done all this while also steering the country out of what might have been a second Great Depression would seem to have made him already, just three years into his first term, a serious candidate for greatness.
And yet a solid majority of Americans nevertheless thinks the president has not accomplished much. Why?I will go through each of these, but basically, the reason people think he hasn't accomplished much is because he hasn't. Some of this "big things" are really just incremental and the rest is good but not big.
Healthccare reform: I like this (I think) and do agree that it is pretty big. Why doesn't it seem as big? Because few people really understand the law and how it will impact them. The bill is confusing and it is unclear how it will affect one of the two major issues in health care - costs - until the long term if at all (the other issue being the uninsured, which is addressed in the law).
To top it off, Republicans were successful in attacking the law after it passed while Democrats decided not to defend it and instead they tried to pretend it didn't happen. So the public can be excused for not understanding its benefits and not seeing why it should be a major accomplishment for Obama.
Auto Industry Takeover: it was good policy and proved successful. It was better than bankruptcy for sure. Romney should admit he was wrong. But it doesn't seem that big to me (and probably to other voters as well). What did he really do? Some government loans, maybe some restructuring of debt (and pensions)?
Stimulus: Sure the stimulus prevented the recession from getting worse. But we are only now - years after the stimulus - seeing unemployment decrease. So why would we consider a huge stimulus a major accomplishment if it didn't get the recovery going? We don't and we shouldn't.
Banking reform / consumer protections: Again, this is a big and confusing bill. And I think many people feel that this won't necessarily prevent another banking crisis because it didn't deal with some of the big problems (derivatives, too big to fail, deposit banks taking too much risk for profit). As for consumer protections, we'll see how important this is once it gets going. For too long, Obama had not even appointed a head of consumer protection.
Much of the rest of the stuff in the first paragraph strike me as good but small policies that the author is trying to say are huge huge huge: National Service Expansion, which I don't even know what that is referring to; Wilderness protection, which I haven't heard anything about; Student Aid reforms; START with Russia, which were huge when Reagan did it, but at this point is just another good step in that same direction; and the food safety laws (what?). And Net Neutrality is far from a done deal.
The one thing I will say is huge is Obama's ending Don't Ask, Don't Tell. It is big and Obama and Congress deserve a lot of credit for this. Now if they could end the Defense of Marriage Act (which Obama's administration did refuse to defend in court).
The author then highlights a $1.2 trillion deficit reduction package that Obama cannot take credit for since he was driven into it by the Tea Party and the deal doesn't at all accomplish what we need (short term spending a long-term balance). I think the public rightly thinks it was a sham, that will quickly get undone or redone, but was done so both parties could save some face. If Obama had achieved something real, along the lines of Bowles-Simpson (although hopefully more liberal), then we could call it a major accomplishment.
On foreign policy, the author gives Obama credit in Egypt, where the president deserves none. Our only help was to call for Mubarak to step down, which came too late to be seen as principled or even important. He also gives Obama credit on Libya, where I am glad Obama supported intervention, but we were following Europe's lead.
I think Obama, at least in the short term, can take credit in Afghanistan. His mini-surge has been effective (though I have questions about the long term) and so he can say he improved a bad situation. Also, killing Bin Laden was big and shows good decision-making. The sanctions in Iran seem stronger than anything we have seen before and we'll see how they turn out.
However, in Iraq, his withdrawal policy isn't different from Bush's plan. And to be fair, he was only able to achieve it after Bush' surge (which only fixed a problem Bush himself created with a terrible occupation). In other words, it's not like Obama inherited a mess in Iraq, fixed it, and was then able to pull the troops out. That would have been a major accomplishment.
As you can see, there is a common pattern. His so-called big accomplishments are incremental (instead of sweeping changes), very complicated, and don't get at the real problems. Health care isn't getting at costs, the stimulus wasn't big enough to kick-start a recovery, and the banking reform didn't fix what caused the crisis. The other things mentioned are all nice, but they don't add up to major accomplishments.
On foreign policy he has had some decent accomplishments (Afghanistan, bin Laden). But in some other cases his policy isn't different from what Bush did or what McCain would have done. And in the rest, the author is giving Obama credit for things he doesn't deserve credit for.
Now, the author also says that some of these policies will look better in history than they are treated now. Anything is possible - in fact Bush might one day be revered as Truman is, or so some people hope. But if that is the case, I will disagree with it for all of the reasons stated above (as I will disagree any positive treatment of Bush).
Tuesday, April 03, 2012
No Fan of Maher
I know I am late on this, but I need to get it off my chest. Remember the Rush Limbaugh craziness? Well Bill Maher decided to weigh in a few times. First on Twitter to aid Limbaugh after his non-apology. Then he defended himself and his own attacks on women on his show. Then he wrote an Opinion piece in the NY Times about how people should stop getting offended. I was never a fan of Maher, and I am even less so now. All of his contributions have been absurd. Though we shouldn't be surprised that someone who regularly offends isn't helpful in a debate about offensiveness.
First, I'll talk about his defending himself on his show. Maher thinks what he did (calling Palin a slut) is okay because Palin is in the public sphere. Apparently, Maher wasn't paying attention to the outrage over Rush Limbaugh. Sure some of the outrage was directed at the fact that Limbaugh was attacking a mostly private person who was merely commenting on legislation. But that was only a tiny part of it. Most of the outrage came from the lack of civility generally and the direct misogynist nature of the attacks.
Bill Maher's attacks on Palin are guilty of both of those things. No one should be called a slut. Not someone running for vice president or president. Not someone who is on a bad reality show. No one.
But worse is his Opinion piece in the Times. Here is the worst line: "I don’t want to live in a country where no one ever says anything that offends anyone." That is sophistry at its worst.
This isn't about making sure no one says anything that offends anyone. It is about agreeing that there are some things that are out of bounds. If we follow Maher's fake and self-serving logic, than either nothing is out of bounds or everything is. I think we can easily reject that logic. Instead, there are some obvious things that a decent society should reject. Most of us are smart enough to know what that is.
Then there are others who make a lot of money pretending not to know - they appeal to the worst among us. They should get a message - not passive avoidance - that what they are doing is not acceptable.
First, I'll talk about his defending himself on his show. Maher thinks what he did (calling Palin a slut) is okay because Palin is in the public sphere. Apparently, Maher wasn't paying attention to the outrage over Rush Limbaugh. Sure some of the outrage was directed at the fact that Limbaugh was attacking a mostly private person who was merely commenting on legislation. But that was only a tiny part of it. Most of the outrage came from the lack of civility generally and the direct misogynist nature of the attacks.
Bill Maher's attacks on Palin are guilty of both of those things. No one should be called a slut. Not someone running for vice president or president. Not someone who is on a bad reality show. No one.
But worse is his Opinion piece in the Times. Here is the worst line: "I don’t want to live in a country where no one ever says anything that offends anyone." That is sophistry at its worst.
This isn't about making sure no one says anything that offends anyone. It is about agreeing that there are some things that are out of bounds. If we follow Maher's fake and self-serving logic, than either nothing is out of bounds or everything is. I think we can easily reject that logic. Instead, there are some obvious things that a decent society should reject. Most of us are smart enough to know what that is.
Then there are others who make a lot of money pretending not to know - they appeal to the worst among us. They should get a message - not passive avoidance - that what they are doing is not acceptable.
Sunday, March 11, 2012
R You Ready for Stimulus?
Reading Paul Krugman’s column from this week makes me wonder if we would have been better off with a Republican in the White House trying to fend off the Great Recession. I say this not because I think the party’s platform is better. Instead, I think what they implemented might have been better. Here is why.
Under a Democratic president, especially with the current opposition party, anything the President tries will be opposed because they don’t want him to be successful. So no matter how moderate - or even right-of-center - the policy is, it is and was opposed.
Now consider a Republican, like Reagan or even McCain (maybe even Romney). They would do whatever is in their power to end the recession so they could stay in office. This would mean not pursuing austerity yet. It would probably also mean stimulating tax cuts, which Republicans have mostly refused this time around.
The point I am making is that Republicans are opposing anything Obama calls for with the hope of keeping him a one-term president. They would however enact some of these same policies if they were in power.
The question is whether Democrats would be as obstructive as Republicans were. I doubt it; I can't see Democrats preventing a stimulus - even tax cuts only - if it would help with unemployment. Also, Bush was successful at passing a stimulus with a Democratic Congress.
Of course, I don’t think the answer is to let Republicans lead just because they are unwilling to support good policies if it comes from a Democrat. But it is a sign of the ugliness of the party and how it affects the country - especially the unemployed.
Under a Democratic president, especially with the current opposition party, anything the President tries will be opposed because they don’t want him to be successful. So no matter how moderate - or even right-of-center - the policy is, it is and was opposed.
Now consider a Republican, like Reagan or even McCain (maybe even Romney). They would do whatever is in their power to end the recession so they could stay in office. This would mean not pursuing austerity yet. It would probably also mean stimulating tax cuts, which Republicans have mostly refused this time around.
The point I am making is that Republicans are opposing anything Obama calls for with the hope of keeping him a one-term president. They would however enact some of these same policies if they were in power.
The question is whether Democrats would be as obstructive as Republicans were. I doubt it; I can't see Democrats preventing a stimulus - even tax cuts only - if it would help with unemployment. Also, Bush was successful at passing a stimulus with a Democratic Congress.
Of course, I don’t think the answer is to let Republicans lead just because they are unwilling to support good policies if it comes from a Democrat. But it is a sign of the ugliness of the party and how it affects the country - especially the unemployed.
Economy: Sustainable Growth?
Just a quick update on the economy. The jobs report on Friday was pretty good. However, there is apparently some concern over the disconnect between the jobs numbers and the GDP numbers:
Fed officials have been surprised unemployment has fallen to 8.3% from above 9% in just a few months despite very modest economic growth. Usually it takes much faster growth to move the jobless rate so much. That could mean the unemployment declines aren't sustainable, or it could mean the economy has more underlying strength than recent data indicate.Some of the economists I follow think this might mean that the era of jobless recoveries is over. I hope so. But I am worried about whether the growth is sustainable. Just want to put that out there.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)