"Crazy Views on the Economy"

Dean Baker reviews the economic plans of the Republican presidential candidates:

Creative thinking, by Dean Baker, Comment is Free: Since several of the Republican presidential candidates regard creationism as a serious theory in biology, it should not be surprising that their economic views also have little connection to reality. In fact, the Republicans' test scores in biology are probably somewhat higher than in economics. Creationism is a minority view... By contrast, all of them seem to be spouting some pretty crazy views on the economy.

Of course tax cuts are central to the Republicans' economic story. They have great plans to reduce taxes, especially for people who don't work for a living. For example, Mitt Romney ... insists that anyone with an income of less than $200,000 a year should pay no tax on any income from dividends, capital gains or interest. Under the Romney plan, a person who collects $200,000 a year in interest on $4m held in government bonds would pay zero tax. By contrast, a custodian working two jobs to earn $40,000 a year can look to pay around $4,000 a year in taxes.

In the same vein, Mike Huckabee has proposed the "Fair Tax", which his website claims is "based on wealth", although it is described as a sales tax. Huckabee proposes to have his Fair Tax replace all other forms of taxation... If a national sales tax is to replace all other federal taxes, then it would have to be in the neighbourhood of 25% to 30%. ... If we don't tax items like healthcare and house sales ..., we might be up to 40% with Huckabee's Fair Tax.

But this is where the fun comes in. Typical workers will probably have to pay President Huckabee's Fair Tax on almost everything they buy throughout their life. But, the smart folks who make their money by inheritance, strike it rich on Wall Street or work in highly paid professions can simple skip out on the Fair Tax. ... Their tax burden will get passed on to the teachers, fire fighters, custodians and others who are left behind. What could be fairer?

Fred Thompson also deserves credit for creativity. He proposes the option to pay tax at a marginal rate of 10% for couples on earnings below $100,000 and 25% on earnings over $100,000. This would be a modest cut in taxes for most workers, but it would reduce taxes by more than a third for the richest 1%. ...

All the Republican candidates claim to be devout believers in tax cut creationism: the view that tax cuts pay for themselves due to their effect on stimulating growth. Even Rudy Giuliani and former straight talker John McCain claim to believe that tax cuts pay for themselves.

It is important to understand that this one is not a debatable point, as often claimed in the media. Tax cuts do not come close to paying for themselves. There is no serious dispute among economists on this issue. The Congressional Budget Office recently did a study examining the range of predictions from the available theoretical models on this topic. It found that the most optimistic model showed that growth replaces less than one-third of the lost revenue, and even this gain was only possible for a limited period of time. In short, when the Republicans claim that they can have large tax cuts without any offsetting cuts in spending, they are prescribing a route to really large deficits.

Of course, this suggests an important reason why some people may opt to support the Republican contenders. With the Democrats backing down from plans to end the war in Iraq, the war may continue long into the future if Democrats take the White House. On the other hand, the tax cuts proposed by the leading Republicans could take away the money needed to prosecute the war. In short, when it comes to the war in Iraq, the only way out may be to "starve the beast".

Since I've been noting reality-based Laffer curve reporting lately, I should acknowledge this from Ross Douthat (as pointed out at Crooked Timber, it's helpful to realize that David Frum is one of Giuliani's "senior policy advisers"):

Anti-Intellectualism, the Right, and Rudy, by Ross Douthat: David Frum, on populism and anti-intellectualism:

Conservatives have drawn strength from populism. But you can overdo any good thing —and I am beginning to think that on this one, we've zoomed the car into the red zone.

For me, the lights started flashing in 2005, during the battle over the nomination of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court of the United States. Defenders of the president's under-qualified nominee began attacking the concept of qualification. One wrote: "The GOP is not the party which idolizes Ivy League acceptability as the criterion of intellectual and mental fitness. Nor does the Supreme Court ideally consist of the nine greatest legal scholars." Harriet Miers, we were told, had a good Christian heart. That was enough ... In the end, it was not quite enough for Ms. Miers. But it may be enough for many voters in 2008.

The currently front-running candidate in Iowa, former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee, has built his campaign on a plan to abolish the Internal Revenue Service and replace the federal income tax with a national sales tax ... Economists and tax experts virtually unanimously agree that the plan is beyond unworkable -- that it is downright absurd.

... Just a little lower down in the polls is a libertarian candidate named Ron Paul. Paul is best known for his vehemently isolationist foreign policy views. But his core supporters also thrill to his self-taught monetary views, which amount to a rejection of everything taught by modern economists from Alfred Marshall to Milton Friedman.

Huckabee and Paul have not the faintest idea of what they are talking about. The problem is not that their answers are wrong -- that can happen to anyone. The problem is that they don't understand the questions, and are too lazy or too arrogant to learn.

Fair points all: ..., and Frum's larger worry about anti-intellectualism in the contemporary Right is one I share in spades. But if you're going to be hard on the current crop of Republican candidates for making bogus claims about public policy, it seems awfully unfair to leave out the candidate given to running ads in which he announces: "I know that reducing taxes produces more revenue. The Democrats don't know that. They don't believe that." (They don't believe it, of course, because in the current fiscal landscape you can't find a serious conservative economist who thinks it's true.) Or penning op-eds in which he explains that "the meaning of fiscal conservatism" includes the principle that "lower taxes can result in higher revenue." Or telling a GOP debate audience, in response to a question about whether we need to raise taxes to fix up our nation's transportation infrastructure, that the way “to do it sometimes is to reduce taxes and raise more money.”

Now it’s true that occasionally Rudy Giuliani hedges his bets (“sometimes,” “can,” and so forth) on this topic, and it’s true as well that he may not actually believe the extreme supply-side talking points he’s spouting, in the way that Huckabee presumably believes in the Fair Tax and Paul in the gold standard. On the other hand, neither of those ideas are likely to serve as the basis for economic policy in the United States any time soon, and both are marginal even within the right-wing coalition; the “tax cuts raise revenue” canard that Giuliani keeps promoting, on the other hand, is a staple of Bush Administration rhetoric and probably the dominant view among movement conservatives. If you’re looking for cases where the Right’s anti-elitism has shaded into outright anti-intellectualism - for cases where, in Frum's words, a GOP politician has deliberately failed to "study the problem, master the evidence, and face criticism" - Giuliani’s frequent channeling of Larry Kudlow seems like at least as telling an example as anything Mike Huckabee and Ron Paul are peddling.

I don't believe it's "anti-intellectualism," i.e. I don't believe that Giuliani is unaware of the evidence on this issue (and his policy advisers ought to be aware of it - if they aren't, or if they are reluctant to correct his misleading, untrue statements, that's a big worry).

This is a character issue. I don't believe Giuliani has deliberately 'failed to "study the problem, master the evidence, and face criticism"' through a deliberate act of anti-intellectualism. The chances that the campaign is unaware of all the fact checks on this issue are zero. It seems to me that what is deliberate is the willingness to pander to the movement conservative base even if it requires ignoring the evidence and saying things he knows in his heart of hearts aren't true. He's not deliberately ignorant, he's deliberately calculating and we shouldn't excuse it by acknowledging the occasional hedge (“sometimes,” “can,” and so forth) when the intent is to mislead, or use terms like anti-intellectualism to describe the behavior. We shouldn't just say, "when the Republicans claim that they can have large tax cuts without any offsetting cuts in spending, they are prescribing a route to really large deficits," we should also note that there is an intent to deceive, that they are not telling the truth, or they are so ignorant of the truth that it ought to raise questions about their fitness for office.

Giuliani and others who make this claim know what they are doing. When it comes to, say, selling a war with Iran, reforming Social Security, or other issues, will they also be willing to ignore evidence, to only accept "facts" that confirm their preconceived beliefs instead of objectively reviewing the situation, will they be willing to look you in the eye and mislead in order to convince you to go along with their plans? Those who continue to make misleading claims about tax cuts in spite of the very public debunking of that position have given every indication that the answer is yes.

Comments

[Gil]

Gee, how boring would the world be without Conservatives/Libertarians??

[Ryberg]

It is unfortunate that Ron Paul is lumped in with Huckabee and Guiliani. His economic theory may be self-taught and is not mainstream but it is well-founded in theory and research. Most accepted economic theory provides a limited role for total debt/credit. It is easy to accept deficits and monetary easing as necessary stimulants with no seeming long-term implications. To Ron Paul, tax cuts imply deficits which imply increased debt which is the long-term beast that is out of control. But it is hard for anyone, including economists, to see this problem when we use an elastic yard stick -- fiat currency. He would have us go to a gold standard because it is a standard. Just because his policies are not likely to be adopted any time soon, especially by you, does not make them crazy ideas. He has been generating a broad following precisely because his ideas are well-founded with more consistency than the other candidates. It's just that his logical conclusions seem inconsistent with your a priori assumptions.

[wjd123]

But this is where the fun comes in. Typical workers will probably have to pay President Huckabee's Fair Tax on almost everything they buy throughout their life. But, the smart folks who make their money by inheritance, strike it rich on Wall Street or work in highly paid professions can simple skip out on the Fair Tax. ... Their tax burden will get passed on to the teachers, fire fighters, custodians and others who are left behind. What could be fairer?

When I read this I couldn't understand how the rich were going to avoid the Fair Tax let alone pass it on to teachers, fire fighters, and custodians. So I had to go to the original article to fill in those three dots. Here is the answer:

....Suppose these folks manage to accumulate $1m or so by age 50. They have paid zero tax on their accumulation. They can then move to some other country and never have to pay President Huckabee's Fair Tax. Their tax burden will get passed on to the teachers, fire fighters, custodians and others who are left behind. What could be fairer?...Dean Baker

I guess President Huckabee will have to pull the passports of the the rich to make sure they stay here and pay their fair share of his Fair Tax.

[Andrew]

Ryberg- I would definitely put returning to a gold standard in the category of 'crazy ideas'. Even if it were feasible in today's international economy (which it is not), the gold standard was abandoned for a reason.

[Walker]

Even if it were feasible in today's international economy (which it is not), the gold standard was abandoned for a reason.

While I agree that it is not feasible, the "reason" for its abandonment was to make inflation possible. While inflation is useful in times of crisis (say, to counteract the deflation of the Depression), our economy has now become inflation-all-the-time. The Fed has created bubble after bubble after bubble, destroying wage-earners in favor of asset holders.

Gold may not be the answer, but the current system isn't working.

[The Baron]

Mark, while I will admit that all of the candidates have a depressing lack of candidness and truthful insight into the major issues, blaming any one of them on deliberately lying, despite the existence of factual evidence to the contrary, is missing the point.

Just a few short posts ago, there were defenders of John Edwards who were saying that his populist approach was what the other Democratic front runners needed to emulate to win next year's election. Now, here, we have a decrier of populist rhetoric, just because it happens to be untrue. The unfortunate truth is that populist, by definition, means, "what the people believe and want to hear."

Guiliani, and others, are all intelligent people. They know the way to win elections is to tell the people what they want to hear. When the people (those unwashed masses, not the refined and erudite members of this forum) want to hear lies, the person who insists on telling the truth isn't going to get very far. The story of Cassandra and her fate is very telling.

The anti-intellectualism has been pushed in our public education system, our entertainment society, and our instant gratification economy for far too long, and has been driven far too deeply into the public psyche to be discounted now. It is interesting if you talk to people across many generational ranges, how the opinion about the well educated changes. I would say that 80% of the folks I talk to 40 and over, still have respect for people with proven credentials. As you talk to a younger and younger audience, outside of institutions of higher education, you get a more and more anti-intellectual response. When I talk to teens, just about to leave high school, the level of willful ignorance astounds me. These aren't kids who haven't been taught, or just haven't learned. These are kids that know they don't know, not everything, but hardly anything, and not only don't care, they revel in it. My youngest is in high school, and even he comments on how his friends don't have disagreements about issues or information, they get upset when anyone tries to bring facts into an argument. If they don't 'feel' that one side is right, well that's enough for them, and facts are "all just lies and made up stuff anyway."

One of the great truisms of Democracy is that the people get the government they deserve. As more and more of our selfish, anti-fact society takes over the voting booth, I am afraid that we are going to have to suffer through the government that they deserve.

[barry payne - economist]

David Frum is concerned about anti-intellectualism? ... the Bush speechwriter who fed the the DIM ONE the "axis of evil" phrase (originally "axis of hatred") designed to work the Creationists into a lather, with some anti-gay bait to redden the meat. That David Frum?

And with taxes, he wants to raise the bar to the level of addition and subtraction? So just when did winning over the faith-based community become an "intellectual" problem?

[Cyrille]

When it was said that Edwards was "populist", it did not mean that he said what people believed, but that he pushed an agenda that sought to bring benefits to the greatest number, as opposed to a tiny fraction.

That is not the same at all as a deliberate lie intended to make poor people believe that the policy aimed at improving things for a tiny fraction will actually get them more money (when it does exactly the contrary).

[Barry]

Dean Baker: "On the other hand, the tax cuts proposed by the leading Republicans could take away the money needed to prosecute the war. In short, when it comes to the war in Iraq, the only way out may be to "starve the beast"."

Gawwwwd. That's really, really stupid, after two unrepentant bouts of supply-side economics from the GOP.

[pgl]

RUDY would lie to us about fiscal policy? You are beginning to sound like what Paul Krugman sounded like in 2000 when discussing George W. Bush's claims about fiscal policy. Mark Thoma - the SHRILL one. OK, we are all wearing SHRILL as a badge of honor - so well said! Yes, RUDY is lying. And the best way to address these lies is to continue airing them.

[ken melvin]

Very very good!

Strange how liberal and now populism can come to denote the unknown bad if only first we define them as being something bad.

[btgraff]

pop·u·lism
n.
1.
a. A political philosophy supporting the rights and power of the people in their struggle against the privileged elite.
b. The movement organized around this philosophy.

despite the dictionary definition which essentially sets it up as the opposite of "elitism", populism has also been used in a disparaging sense to mean someone who panders to popular taste, or to describe demagogues who manipulated the masses, such as a Huey Long. these days, it might in a sense mean someone who essentially does what opinion polls say the people want.

Some might suggest that wanting some restrictions on abortion, or support for prayer in schools, are "populist" policies in this more cynical interpetation of the word

I prefer Edwards over the other Dems, and feel that he is essentially about as "anti-elitist" as one might expect from a mainstream candidate - populist in the better sense of the word.

[Richard A.]

Go to youtube and search "Paul Bernanke" and you will find --
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=paul+bernanke&search=Search
Remember to triple click.

Paul is an ignoramus when it comes to economics. However, he does make for a good protest vote over Bush's stupid and costly war.

[btgraff]

And if the Dems really wanted to win - an Edwards/Richardson ticket is the way to go - to make gains in the South, Southwest and the Hispanic vote.

Hillarey has baggage the GOP will exploit and will be overshadowed by Bill and she won't do well with male voters, Obama would have been better waiting a few years because he isn't living up to the hype, and he would overshadow Edwards if he were the VP candidate.

Wake-up Dems!

[robertdfeinman]

The operative word here is "lie".
This connotes saying something false while knowing what the truth is.

There are other ways a person can tell an untruth, it is important to differentiate them.

One can be ideologically blind.

One can be a BS-er.

An ideologue dismisses evidence contrary to belief. Either the evidence is ignored or avoided or the evidence is dismissed as unreliable. As the campaign season heats up I think it would be useful for those who are trying to be armchair psychologists to read the work of Robert Altemeyer, a real psychologist. He coined the term "right wing authoritarian" to describe people like Huckabee and Giuliani. Their faith in what they "know" makes them impervious to real information.

If we need any reminder of what kind of mischief this type of person can unleash one only has to look at what Feith, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, Cheney et. al. have done.

Altemeyer has a free, online book which summarizes his 40+ years of research:
theAuthoritarians.com

The second type of person who tells untruths is the BS-er. This type was analyzed by philosopher Harry Frankfurt in his best seller "On Bullshit". The key characteristic of such a person is their total disregard for the distinction between truth and falsity. They will say whatever they need to at that moment to make their point. They will even contradict themselves without any discomfort when necessary to further their argument. They live in the moment, they have no sense of consistency or logic. Bill O'Reilly is a classic example.

I strongly suggest reading Altemeyer's book. The findings on how "faith" operates in an ideological context will aid people in understanding the candidates and help avoid misleading discussions over anti-intellectualism (which exists, but is a separate issue).

[anne]

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/12/18/weird-republican-beliefs/

December 18, 2007

Weird Republican Beliefs
By Paul Krugman

John McCain, yesterday: *

“We had a chance to change government and it changed us,” McCain said. “We didn’t lose the election in 2006 because of Iraq, we lost it because the Republican majority allowed the largest increase in spending since the Great Society.”

For one thing, it never happened. ** Here’s domestic discretionary spending as a percentage of GDP:

2000 3.1
2001 3.2
2002 3.5
2003 3.6
2004 3.5
2005 3.6
2006 3.5

Wow - four whole tenths of a percentage point. Oh, and about half of that was homeland security.

The only major new spending program Bush put in was the Medicare drug benefit. That’s a big one — but is McCain really claiming that voters rejected Republicans because they irresponsibly passed an unfunded drug benefit?

Of course not. This whole thing about the voters being mad at big spending doesn’t have a bit of evidence to support it. It’s just a desperate attempt to pretend that conservative ideology didn’t fail.

McCain, who isn’t stupid, has to know that. But hey, he’s a straight talker — that’s what they keep telling us.

* http://desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071217/NEWS/712170331/-1/NEWS04

** http://cbo.gov/budget/historical.shtml

[anne]

We simply must understand that comments about greater social spending these last years being a problem are false, intentionally false, designed to destroy support for as much as a proper nutrition program for needy pregnant women and infants. Notice that since the initial budget of George Bush in 2002, there has been no increase in the portion of national income for social spending. Social spending is no problem at all, none.

[anne]

We have squandered an insane immoral amount of our resources on shock and awe, on destruction, these last years, and ignored what could be done here and internationally in the cause of peace with ease, with complete ease. We should be ashamed, but we are not ashamed, and even conservation efforts, let alone efforts to care for the health of needy children, are turned from in the cause of destruction while we claim we are spending too much.

[Barkley Rosser]

Regarding anti-intellectualism, let us keep
in mind that having degrees from Ivy League
schools is no guarantee that one is not an
ignorant moron. After all, W. has an undergrad
degree from Yale and an MBA from Harvard.

[Robinia]

I completely agree that the big concern is the Guiliani position... and, also agree that a focus on character is the proper response. The license with truthful statements is consistently a "personal trait" there: from demonstrably false or made-up statistics citing, to absurd statements regarding time spent at ground zero after 9-11 (maybe more time at ballgames, actually), to stonewalling on what the NYC police were doing charging various citizen-aiding departments for his mistress's (now third wife) security detail.

Maintaining a mistress while charging the City of NY for one's wife's living expenses might, arguably, be a "character issue" all on its own, even without the lies. Take a hint, Americans: when a politician's own son does not really trust him.... Maybe his Christmas-gift tax revenue from you paying less taxes is, well, not trustworthy.

This economy, it seems, badly needs some trust... in something.

[tom]

Mitt Romney plan is to promote saving by not taxing any savings for anyone with less than $200,000 in income. Mark Thoma thinks this is a "Crazy" view of the economy. Given that our savings rate is low by historical and international standards, the idea to promote saving through the tax code is hardly a "Crazy" idea. Liberals who are also worried about the large trade deficit should promote Romney's idea to increase saving. Mark Thoma's anti-intellectual response to anything Republican is, well, Crazy.

[Syaloch]

Btgraff makes an interesting point. I was disturbed when in a recent post Mark Thoma said that anything that resembled populism made him nervous, or words to that effect. Brad DeLong had a similar response. Yeah, heaven forbid we implement any policy that favors the little guy over the wealthy and powerful.

(I don't think this is what Mark or Brad actually meant, but the way they instinctively react to the word is informative. To free-market economists, apparently, "populist" is like "socialist" is to a conservative -- a scare word used to get the flock to mindlessly flee from something in all haste.)

The balance of power in this country has gotten so completely out of whack that we desperately need a hearty heaping dose of populism. Even if it were populism of the sort that scares the bejezus out of free market economists, seriously, could it really be any worse for the average working stiff than what we've got?

[Holly W.]

I'm completely confused.

On the one hand, we are assured by GOP candidates that tax cuts pay for themselves, and therefore paying less in taxes can still support more or at least consistent spending. "Tax Less, Spend More" is pretty palatable for the voting public.

But on the other hand, I thought the original push for tax cuts from GOP strategists/lobbyists like Grover Norquist was fueled by a desire to "starve the beast": that is, they knew that tax cuts guarantee less revenue, which was then supposed to force the government to spend less, and would thereby "shrink" government (into that famous drownable-in-a-bathrub size).

So, which the hell is it? Are the presidential candidates and Grover Norquist really part of the same political party? Is the Republican party seriously this schizophrenic?

I do have to wonder if the average red state voter-on-the-street has even heard of Grover Norquist, though. (Not to imply that the average blue state voter has either.)

[Nordic Mousse]

"Giuliani and others who make this claim know what they are doing. When it comes to, say, selling a war with Iran...will they also be willing to ignore evidence"

I think they'll do both, as always - accept and ignore evidence, just as it suits them.

Interestingly, they've "accepted" CIA evidence (from White House prompting?) that Iran is not producing nukes, and has even accepted Russia providing Iran with the enriched stuff.

What a turnaround.

Obviously someone's told him it ain't 'doable'.

[Cynthia]

Much like beauty, intellectualism is in the eye of the beholder...

Roughly speaking, the right bases intellectualism on plutocracy, while the left bases it on meritocracy. So monetary elites tend to be the movers and shakers of the right, whereas the left is more or less run by cognitive elites.

And IMO, "smart populism" is all about getting the best of both worlds, though a world containing more meritocrats and less plutocrats. By contrast, the right seems to favor "dumb populists" over a smart ones--meaning they'd rather have a nation run by monetary elites than by cognitive ones.

But without smart populists, there can't be a strong middle class. And without a strong middle class, there can't be a viable democracy, IMO... In other words, democracy goes hand in hand with smart populists and a strong middle class.

Maybe I'm mistaken, but to me, the right is willing to sacrifice democracy (including a smart and strong middle class) just for the sake of keeping wealth and power in the hands of the few!

[barry payne - economist]

From Huckabee yesterday (paraphrased), "If you think government health care is a problem now, just wait till all those aging hippies find out they can get free drugs on Medicare" - yuk, yuk ... so Mike, would that include red state hippies in support of small farmers like Willie Nelson and his traveling busload of pot?

To rdf, not sure I agree. Consider when Richard Posner attacked "public intellectuals", starting with 546 and winnowing it down to the top 100. He seemed to assert the problem was one of "specialization", i.e., intellectuals straying too far afield of their speciality, i.e., shooting their mouth off like bloggers and commenters with no experience in "the field" - like me, like now.

So Posner, a "specialist" himself in economics and law, attacks his peers collectively - for what, generalizing across disciplines about what is true or not? So this is a particular form of populism, no? - let the masses decide their leaders in spite of ignorant public intellectuals, i.e., let the chips fall where they may, including the faith-based ones who believe tax cuts pay for themselves.

It's a trick question. Actually Posner believes that a certain, educated (specialized) elite is necessary to run the country, but makes every effort to prove it's based on "evidence" and not faith.

[Mark Thoma]

There are smart ways to enhance the incentive to save, and there are dumb ways. Guess which one Mitt proposed? Apparently, to some people, opposing dumb ideas is to be "anti-intellectual".

Interesting that his "middle class" starts at $200,000. From his web page:

"Eliminate all taxes on interest, dividends, and capital gains for anyone with Adjusted Gross Income under $200,000 to make it easier for the middle class to save."

And that's AGI, not just income. He could have lowered taxes for saving out of income (I think Robert Frank has been pushing an idea like this). It's telling that mere saving doesn't count - you have to be an investor to get the tax reduction.

[Cynthia]

The GOP really oughta start taking these wise words from Milton Friedman a bit more seriously: "Borrowing and taxing are one and the same." After all, this Nobel-winning economist is regarded as one of the most revered gurus from the right!

[robertdfeinman]

Every so often someone puts things in a new light, which is why I always read the comments. In this case the honor goes to Holly W. who has highlighted the contradiction between Norquist's desire to cut taxes to "starve the beast" and those who believe that cutting taxes will increase government revenue.

In many cases these are the same people. Holding mutually contradictory ideas simultaneously is one of the signs of the "right wing authoritarian" personality type.

Congratulations Holly!

[Barkley Rosser]

I suspect that what makes people like Mark Thoma
and Brad DeLong nervous about the term "populism"
is that it has increasingly come to be associated
with supporting protectionism and also an anti-
immigrant stance. This is also obviously able to
be linked to a more general hysterical nationalism,
although obviously protectionism is something that
many on the left support, and it is viewed as
"helping the little guy," even when it might not
in fact do so, or at least not as much as many of
its advocates claim it will.

Tom,

Uh, well, one of the more ponderous facts out there
is that most observers way overstate the responsiveness
of the economy to changes in tax policy. This is of
course scripture for Republicans with their off the wall
current proposals and claims. But, let me remind you
regarding tax changes designed to encourage savings,
the tax cuts of Ronald Reagan in 1981 included many
elements supposed to increase savings. What happened?
The savings rate rather precipitously declined.

[Barkley Rosser]

Again, just to pin down who is a "populist,"
the term in the last election cycle was most
frequently applied to Patrick Buchanan.

[calmo]

David Frum (advisor to that evil man, Giuliani and as barry points out, other noteworthy experience as well) wins my heart with this:

But his (opponent Ron Paul's, but do we care?) [no, it is not the striked , striken strike-ed but the beaut, the strike itself]
core supporters [more than his wife...possible First Lady]
also thrill [not only B charmed, people]
to his self-taught monetary views, which amount to a rejection of everything taught by modern economists from Alfred Marshall to Milton Friedman.

and it would take somethin serious for me to quit reading his piece (smoke coming from the kitchen maybe) laced with this much skill.
You know it is so much more than "self-taught" --rejecting not a molecule of anything --however witless, ignorant, contemptuous-- before impenetrably deep and arduous consideration, that is encased in that "self-taught" pronouncement.
Scholars are such a hoot! [An so, why izit again that we should pursue that expensive education and get ourselves un-self-taught? --so that we can quit croonin and start singing mezzo soprano? (falsetto)?](So that we can be entertained by skilled writers and not punished by the likes of Kudlow and Cramer?)
MT's notes the duplicity (and this is a variety right here: the parenthetical) [never you mind claims that it B no more than a bi-polar self-documentary]

Giuliani and others who make this claim know what they are doing.

They know they are in good competent hands (not like these) with capable editors behind their writers and PR connections that are paid to ensure they won't be Deaned by the media...or if they are beaned, it is only by unknowns (so far) like barry on little backwaters (so far) like Economisty.
So far, it does not appear that we are winning the participatory democracy battle and dang if those mortgage payin scholars are not contributing to that demise.

[bakho]

"Cognitive dissonance"

http://lib.lbcc.edu/handouts/images/psychology/JustPlainNuts.gif

[Holly W.]

Thanks, RDF (blushes)

I wonder if the same people do hold both ideas -- that tax cuts somehow grow revenue but shrink the government. That sounds like a good campaign promise ...

[Worker]

"we desperately need a hearty heaping dose of populism"

I wholeheartedly agree- we need a good depression to give the masses a dose of their populist medicine. It's soooo tough being a consumer in the US, after all, having rich bankers print paper so that the pops can fill their oversized house with plastic crap they love without working for a living.

A good populist depression can help knock the populars out of their overconsuming entitlement mentality. Start earning an honest living, like the Thai/ Chinese farmers whose national wealth is providing the populars subprime loans.

Short markets, long guns. God speed to the populists.

[anne]

"A good populist depression can help knock the populars out of their overconsuming entitlement mentality. Start earning an honest living, like the Thai/Chinese farmers whose national wealth is providing the populars' subprime loans."

A completely vicious calculated lie for the perverse mean-spirited sake of spreading resentment. A vicious lie.

[James Killus]

The purpose of propaganda is not to get people to believe in lies; the purpose of propaganda is to murder the idea of truth.

Mission accomplished. The general public now understands that one cannot believe a single thing that is said by any candidate ever, at any time. That leaves us with the idea that "character" as the important factor.

Thus, Huckabee is running as a fundamentalist preacher. That seems to be working. Giuliani is running as the biggest bastard on the block. That seems to sell pretty well also.

Romney is having trouble because he can't convince the base that he's not a Mormon (that is the only thing that will work for him, BTW; convincing the base that the LDS aren't a satanic cult is simply impossible). Thompson has lost the "I play one on television" mojo, so now he's just an old guy with a hot wife, and Kucinich might win the Republican nomination (despite his being a Democrat and all) if that were the standard. It just depends on whether you like blonds or redheads, although Kucinich's wife is a Brit and her accent would make most Republicans think that she's too smart to be First Lady.

You'd think that having been tortured would give McCain a leg up, but only losers get tortured. Ron Paul is genuine, if by "genuine" you mean "self taught wacko," (again, very appealing to certain elements).

Over on the D side, you have a black man who isn't considered black, a woman who's supposed to be a martian cyborg, and a rich white guy who is the champion of the poor. None of the three is crazy, which is a distinct plus. I'll just repeat my frequent warning: never rule out the middle-aged white guy. Only save_the_rustbelt believes that the Democratic Party is run by a liberal elite.

[James Killus]

The purpose of propaganda is not to get people to believe in lies; the purpose of propaganda is to murder the idea of truth.

Mission accomplished. The general public now understands that one cannot believe a single thing that is said by any candidate ever, at any time. That leaves us with the idea that "character" as the important factor.

Thus, Huckabee is running as a fundamentalist preacher. That seems to be working. Giuliani is running as the biggest bastard on the block. That seems to sell pretty well also.

Romney is having trouble because he can't convince the base that he's not a Mormon (that is the only thing that will work for him, BTW; convincing the base that the LDS aren't a satanic cult is simply impossible). Thompson has lost the "I play one on television" mojo, so now he's just an old guy with a hot wife, and Kucinich might win the Republican nomination (despite his being a Democrat and all) if that were the standard. It just depends on whether you like blonds or redheads, although Kucinich's wife is a Brit and her accent would make most Republicans think that she's too smart to be First Lady.

You'd think that having been tortured would give McCain a leg up, but only losers get tortured. Ron Paul is genuine, if by "genuine" you mean "self taught wacko," (again, very appealing to certain elements).

Over on the D side, you have a black man who isn't considered black, a woman who's supposed to be a martian cyborg, and a rich white guy who is the champion of the poor. None of the three is crazy, which is a distinct plus. I'll just repeat my frequent warning: never rule out the middle-aged white guy. Only save_the_rustbelt believes that the Democratic Party is run by a liberal elite.

[Worker]

Holly W,

I think you refer to the "starve the beast" theory of taxation and government spending.

Since politicians won't address entitlements until they become a festering crisis, why not accelerate the date of reckoning (and party like it's 1999 until then). Tax cuts help to accelerate the point when at which such a transfer is no longer feasible (ie. when the rest of the world refuses to finance it) and, ultimately, will reduce the total level of government spending over time.

Or, if left politicians are allowed to create a Ponzi-like intergenerational transfer (taking from future voters while giving to current voters), why not right politicians? Taking from future entitlement recipients while giving to current voters is the same game.

[anne]

What is an entitlement mentality? The right to destroy the lives and well-being of millions of Iraqis? Is that the sort of entitlement that is costing the well-being of our children as well? Do the 5.8 million American veterans and families lacking health care insurance have an entitlement mentality? Imagine the viciousness.

[Worker]

"A completely vicious calculated lie for the perverse mean-spirited sake of spreading resentment. A vicious lie."

Thank you Anne for letting me know my post was successful. As good a definition of populism as anything I could provide.

And let's all be careful this holiday in wishing for a populist uprising. We might not be happy what we end up with. Also, don't drink too much and drive.

[Worker]

JK,

That's a hillarious rundown of the candidates. You should turn the post into a full-on column.

I am a fan of redheads myself. I never knew a vegan could look so healthy until Mrs. Kucinich. An intercultural bridge builder and diplomat, she is.

[calmo]

Well, I fess up to leapin into the box here the moment I was struck by Killus'

You'd think that having been tortured would give McCain a leg up,

Twas the image of McCain with a pegleg that did me in. [Have you no decency?!!...well, not after that, no...completely disarmed](I may be forced back to reading sci fi novels, you never know.) I know the Gods are not only working on me with this adaptive language...tell me James is not wonderfully infective with these political encapsulations.
Murderin the Truth: propaganda. Well people are you just going to sit there and take it?
Yes please.

[gordon]

Syaloch, it's always difficult for any kind of professional in any policy-related field to be populist. Since economics is at the core of a lot of policies, economists always tend to be even more anti-populist than most professionals. But Prof. Thoma is better than most; consider this quote from a post about a year ago: "...even if there are no populist policies at all, politicians will still find a way to implement stupid policies. That's what they do... But unless economists can come up with something better, and so far we haven't, rising inequality "provides as good an argument as you could possibly want for a smart, bold populism."".

John Ralston Saul's "Voltaire's Bastards" is (to me) the classic source on why populism is anathema to any kind of policy-related professional.

[jim]

Curves, please- it is fine to disrespect the stupid, but would you mind terribly laying out your functions for optimizing tax revenues, which necessarily will optimize growth, over the long term?

[jim]

Once upon a time I explained to co-worker at glorious union shop how his Social Security money was gone forever, given to others or spent. The silly man thought he was entitled to Social Security in the future just because he paid his taxes.

[anne]

"Once upon a time I explained to co-worker at glorious union shop how his Social Security money was gone forever, given to others or spent. The silly man thought he was entitled to Social Security in the future just because he paid his taxes."

Once upon a time, and now upon a time, this was and is a complete mean-spirited intentional calculating lie.

[anne]

"Once upon a time I explained to co-worker at glorious union shop...."

Notice the language, notice the meanness, notice the lie on lie. Once upon a time....

[Syaloch]

Barkley,

Good to see you around these parts. Point taken about the negative associations with the term "populist". But where are these associations coming from?

How is it that the straightforward concept btgraff offers -- supporting the rights and power of the people in their struggle against the privileged elite -- has come to have such negative associations? Why are we allowing the debate to be framed in these terms?

Certainly there are those who envision some form of protectionism as necessary to "help the little guy". I'm a free-trader by upbringing, but it seems pretty clear that minus the political will the implement the Heckscher-Ohlin compensation principle, free trade isn't such a great deal for the typical American worker. Protectionism may not provide much benefit, but it doesn't seem like it would be the end of the world either.

[calmo]

Twas only constant vigilance that got me by the first part:

Mission accomplished.

which was in itself such a snorter that I was unprepared and quite belimbed by "McCain's leg up" bein a veteran an all.
So Mr Killus I am here to let you know that yours is an ongoing mission...and my modest place is to hold that flag (waving it maddeningly on posts like this). Nothing like steady employment.
I read adviser Ken Rogoff differently now that I now he is holding some of that McCain apparatus.

[Barkley Rosser]

Jim,

Hopefully you are not one of these folks who think that social security is goign to be "insolvent" in the future. This is not the time or place to disabuse you of such nonsense, other than to say the only way it will happen is if politicians are elected who make it happen. Go check out Bruce Webb's site if you are under the widespread delusion of "likely insolvency under current policies."

Regarding populism, it has always had this divided nature, call it the good populism and the bad populism, and the key issue has always been race. So, the original American populism (as opposed to Narodniks in Russia or other such European agrarian movements) was rural, both from the Plains and the South against the moneyed interests of the Northeast. The "good" populism of the late 19th century transcended the racial divide and saw the unity of interests against the rich and also tended to be anti-imperialist in foreign policy (think William Jennings Bryan). The bad populism, especially operative in the South, focused just on whites. Think "Pitchfork" Ben Tillman in South Carolina and the son of his good friend whom he bounced on his knee, Strom Thurmond.

Of course, pretty much all of these populisms tended to have an anti-Semitic streak, stronger in the bad, racists populism than the good. But fundamentalist Bryan did not exactly hang out at bar mitzvahs. Some of the current populisms also tend in this direction. In any case, the modern populisms show the same divides as the old kind.

[Icarus]

The entitlement mentality if firmly entrenched in leftist thought. Notice that once you question it, the immediate reaction is to either cry "that's mean", or, denounce the illegal war in iraq (which is unrelated).

We should stop funding this idiotic war, and, we should reduce the income tax burden. Since that income tax burden rests on the shoulders of the upper 2 quintiles, they will benefit from such a tax cut. That's ok with me, as I don't think anyone should hand over 4-5 months of their labour for redistribution purposes. Instead, they should be encouraged to spend it (with subtle inflation policy), and that economic activity is the engine for job creation, and hence, social welfare.

The 3.5 million children that Dubya judiciously prevented from getting govt healthcare is not the issue at all. It has nothing to do with war spending, and nothing to do with compassion. This is a pathetic lie by some on the trotskyite left who'd ideally like to see the govt sponsor everything from free healthcare, to free puppy food. Enough. We must engineer a culture of self-reliance, not populism.

[anne]

Thinking of what it means to be "entitled":

http://www.ajph.org/cgi/content/short/97/12/2199

December, 2007

Lack of Health Coverage Among US Veterans From 1987 to 2004
By David U. Himmelstein, Karen E. Lasser, Danny McCormick, David H. Bor, J. Wesley Boyd, and Steffie Woolhandler

Objectives. Veterans Administration health care enrollment is restricted to veterans with service-connected problems and those who are poor. We sought to determine how many veterans were uninsured, trends in veterans' coverage, and whether uninsured veterans lacked access to medical care.

Methods. We analyzed annual data from 2 federal surveys, the Current Population Survey for the years 1988 to 2005 and the National Health Interview Survey for 2002 to 2004.

Results. Nearly 1.8 million veterans were uninsured and not receiving Veterans Administration care in 2004. The proportion of working-age veterans lacking coverage peaked in 1993 at 14.2%, fell to 9.9% in 2000, and rose steadily to 12.7% in 2004. Uninsured veterans had substantial access problems; 51.4% had no usual source of care (vs 8.9% of insured veterans), and 26.5% reported failing to get needed care because of the cost (vs 4.3% of insured veterans).

Conclusions. Many US veterans are uninsured and lack adequate access to health care. Expanded funding for veterans' care is urgently needed; only national health insurance could guarantee coverage to both veterans and their family members.

[anne]

There is a peculiar sort of monster who is beyond being able to understand what it means for a needy child to be denied health care protection, a sort of monster for whom the right to health care protection of 1.8 million veterans and 2.8 millions family members who have no health care insurance is as nothing.

Imagine what it means that we can turn away from the need for health care protection of 4.6 million veterans and family members, or 3.8 million needy children.

* I typed 5.8 million veterans lacking health care insurance above rather than 1.8 million. Sorry.

** Mark Thoma will when possible free the documentation of the study of veterans lacking health care from the hold.

[calmo]

Icarus, possible leader of the soon to be announced co-op, opines:

We must engineer a culture of self-reliance, not populism

and I'm wondering if the populism is here with that message or whether the engineering is just startin with that contribution to stamp out the populism.
For starters, engineering is very social reliant (neva mind about the practioners, believe me they work together) and generally directed against caveman self-reliance anything.
So I'm delighted that you have joined us in this group project. Now about it's content, direction and the dissemination of the message...

[Icarus]

Calmo,

Yes, the message is to stop relying on govt handouts.

And Anne, society does not 'deny' children healthcare. Parents are responsible for that, for they had those children. This is called "responsibility".

[Icarus]

Also, a Veteran should be guaranteed healthcare when an injury is related to a war injury.

However, outside of that issue, a Veteran is no more entitled to healthcare than any other citizen.

[James Killus]

Apologies for the double posting. That seems to have happened because Typepad insisted the first time that it thought I was trying to post some spam. (I have noted my ongoing difficulties with the entire Spam Filter clan, and in our next encounter, I will stop at nothing short of the lamentations of their women).

Icarus, that last cheap shot was unworthy, even by your own standards. Healthcare for veterans is not some hastily provided "entitlement." It is, was, and has been a known agreement of employment in military service, and has been so for decades. Attempting to restrict it to "service related" illnesses would be broken promise and a breach of contract and should be recognized as such even by strict libertarian. Shame on you.

calmo, I will take the recommendation to produce a full on screed under advisement. It is a tempting thought, I admit. Many thanks for the kind (?) words.

[Fred]

Really big deficits are exactly what the economy will need over the next few years, assuming the housing/credit bubble continues collapsing, to avoid falling into a horrendous depression. Zero-interest rates likely won't help, any more than they helped Japan. (Having the Fed or FHLB buy up all sorts of otherwise unsalable private securities at par would help, but then that is just a backdoor way of running huge deficits.) So there is nothing really crazy about advocating huge tax cuts at this point. As for justifying something sensible by illogical reasoning, that's standard operating procedure in politics.

[ken melvin]

Icarus, why don't you get together and call yourself an institute?

[Icarus]

Killus...

http://digital.library.unt.edu/govdocs/crs/permalink/meta-crs-2040:1

"Many military health care beneficiaries, particularly military retirees, their
dependents, and those representing their interests, state that they were promised “free
health care for life at military facilities” as part of their “contractual agreement” when
they entered the armed forces. Efforts to locate authoritative documentation of such
promises have not been successful. Congressional report language and at least three
recent court cases have rejected retiree claims seeking ‘free care at military facilities’
as a right or entitlement."

[Icarus]

Melvin,

Please try making sense. Please.

[Icarus]

Melvin,

Helping veterans isn't exactly my idea of progressive charity. Ideally, I'd want a nation which doesn't aggrandize soldiers. Voluntarily joining a death squad, which is what the US marines are, is not something we should exhalt.

[Icarus]

Melvin,

Not a bad idea...that way, I'd get some handouts as well.

[James Killus]

Icarus:

# Eligibility for most veterans’ health care benefits is based solely on active military service in the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, or Coast Guard (or Merchant Marines during WW II), and discharged under other than dishonorable conditions.

# Reservists and National Guard members who were called to active duty by a Federal Executive Order may qualify for VA health care benefits. Returning service members, including Reservists and National Guard members who served on active duty in a theater of combat operations have special eligibility for hospital care, medical services, and nursing home care for two years following discharge from active duty.

# Health Care eligibility is not just for those who served in combat.

# Other groups may be eligible for some health benefits.

# Veteran’s health care is not just for service-connected injuries or medical conditions.

# Veteran’s health care facilities are not just for men only. VA offers full-service health care to women veterans.

Source: http://www.va.gov/healtheligibility/

No doubt the VA is telling lies, and the entire U.S. military is now a bait-and-switch scam. I get that. But it's still shameful, and your opinion is shameful as well.

But at least you're honest about your disdain for those who served in the military. Movement Conservatives worship the image but spit on actual veterans.

[Icarus]

James...

I care more about the innocent victims of US Military genocides. 1 million Iraqis dead, 3-4 million refugees.

The US military would make the Kymer Rouge proud.

We need to hold people accountable; half educated 18 year olds included. Instead of 'supporting' the soldiers, we should hold them in shame.

[James Killus]

All right, I call shenanigans. Can we have a referee decision on whether or not someone is masquerading as Icarus? This last post was too crazy even for him.

[calmo]

I think you are quite amazing James. Kindness has nothing to do with it...possibly envy, but now I'm coming around to your wife's point of view (your very attractive wife was attracted to something...and now I see it). [And with that kindness, the end of a budding affair of Straight James and Queer calmo...so difficult to gender type me, people] Thank you for adding (and subtracting) so much to this blog --so often brightening my day.

I also think you are amazing Icarus to be able to make the remarks you do. Here's the structure/logic (for rdf who likes it plain, straight, narrow and no funny business) [He can't last, people, I'll have him on the ropes with funny business before long...with all his straightness you know there is a ton of funny business just waitin to bust out.]
You state the proposition, some (peewee, silly, snotty-nosed, right-wing drivel slightly aggravating) generalization --the latest one (disappearing the "self-reliance" thanksBetoJesus): [stop relying on govt handouts.] but the sheer act of stating or acting upon the proposition does it some damage, sometimes minor (this one), sometimes catastrophic (the self-reliance one).

For illustration purposes only (don't try this at home): shall we (self made men who could be still self-reliant when the smoke clears) [we, bein core self-reliant types who only come together to snuff out social sponging...otherwise we are so stand alone and the only reason to use "we" instead of "I" is that this is not the sociopathic case, the interesting psychological account, that would sound like. no.]
notify the government to initiate this action or shall we take it upon ourselves individually to make a protest or just forego the formality and bonk the spongers lights out?
Even contemplating the bonking in a group is a social action exercising reliance on the views/feelings/interests of others...yes?
So I know that while you are here you aren't bonking spongers and you aren't the interesting case you hope to become...which is my goal: to give up your self-reliance and just surrender to accepting gifts like this: responses suggesting you are too far to the right.
You are.....way...tooo...farrr...to...the.....right.

[Lafayette]

Ry: It's just that his logical conclusions seem inconsistent with your a priori assumptions.

Thanks for our daily quota of collective ad hominem argumentation.

Yes, this an debate forum that is obviously shackled to economic conventional wisdom and, therefore, deeply biased.

And, personally, I'm for Scrooge McDuck as next PotUS. Scrooge is running on the platform that is similar to Paul's: If God had wanted us to pay taxes, he would have surely made us all millionaire philanthropists.

Scrooge is presently negotiating the details of that policy directly with His Maker. For details, watch this space. (8^0)

[Lafayette]

Sy: Protectionism may not provide much benefit, but it doesn't seem like it would be the end of the world either

Then look further than your nose.

You may have forgot that a spat of national protectionism in the 1920s went a long way towards provoking WW2; if, in fact, you ever knew.

Besides, you are obviously uninformed about the WTO and how the US is a member of that body -- meaning that any unilateral protectionist measures (such as hiking customs tariffs) will likely land the US on the wrong side of a judgment.

And, there would be NOTHING more propitious for starting a retaliatory trade war, just when American exports are reaching new heights due to the depreciation of the dollar than unilaterally raising import tariffs. (Example: Want to keep out cheap Chinese white goods -- at the expense of the Chinese refusing to buy Boeing's Dreamliner? Hell, they'll just purchase more Airbuses. No sweat, there.)

Yep, free-traders are really great thinkers. All that is missing is a comprehension of how global trade and commerce works.

[paine]

"It seems to me that what is deliberate is the willingness to pander to the movement conservative base even if it requires ignoring the evidence and saying things he knows in his heart of hearts aren't true. "
mark
let us not forget
the truth in our politics
is simply
what isn't called a lie
by the rich and powerful

there are some who benefit
by this ersatz ..truth ...eh ??

electing
another tax cut slut to top office

pandering pays
in hefty bag donations
to the campaign

C movement base = daddy rich inc
not
the yahoo jesus charmed
this is a pander for cash not votes

[ken melvin]

What's a congresscritter go for on EBay these days? A Senator?

[Syaloch]

Lafayette,

I think your economic history is a little off, and your estimation of the long-term impact of the most likely protectionist measures is overblown, particularly from the perspective of lower-income Americans. The sale of Boeing aircraft hasn't done much for the auto worker whose job has been eliminated. The economy might not have grown at all in the past couple of decades from the perspective of the purchasing power of the working class.

But my intent is not to argue for protectionist measures. Rather, I'm thinking of populism in relation to the earlier "The Democrats and Working Class Whites" post. There seems to be a populist undercurrent in America based on a resentment that the gains from economic growth have not been more widely shared. Edward certainly seems to think so, and is targeting his message to this audience.

Barkely is correct that some people harboring this resentment have certain xenophobic tendencies that are easily exploited by the likes of Pat Buchanan. When economic times are bad, it's always easy to blame "the other" for your woes. But rather than cede these people to Buchanan or other Republicans as "values voters", I think the Democrats should include them under an umbrella of "good populism".

For this to work, however, Democrats need to be really serious about protecting the interests of the working class. Many would-be populists have grown very cynical about Democrats who seem afraid to take a principled stance on helping the little guy for fear of alienating corporate donors or the MSM. If Democrats want these people on their side, they have to deliver on the economic front.

To my mind, the required "good populism" involves not protectionism, but actually embracing the concept of "labor flexibility" fully and taking it to its logical conclusion. Trying to maintain the status quo in the modern, high-tech world through import tariffs is a lost cause. If we truly want a highly dynamic economy with labor constantly moving between sectors, we should have policies in place to make such shifts as painless as possible. For example, by decoupling benefits from employers and making them highly portable, providing assistance for education, child care, and relocation costs, and ensuring a robust safety net for those forced to endure long periods of unemployment.

[Syaloch]

Lafayette,

I think your economic history is a little off, and your estimation of the long-term impact of the most likely protectionist measures is overblown, particularly from the perspective of lower-income Americans. The sale of Boeing aircraft hasn't done much for the auto worker whose job has been eliminated. The economy might not have grown at all in the past couple of decades from the perspective of the purchasing power of the working class.

[Syaloch]

But my intent is not to argue for protectionist measures. Rather, I'm thinking of populism in relation to the earlier post about Democrats and the working class. There seems to be a populist undercurrent in America based on a resentment that the gains from economic growth have not been more widely shared. Edward certainly seems to think so, and is targeting his message to this audience.

Barkely is correct that some people harboring this resentment have certain xenophobic tendencies that are easily exploited by the likes of Pat Buchanan. When economic times are bad, it's always easy to blame "the other" for your woes. But rather than cede these people to Buchanan or other Republicans as "values voters", I think the Democrats should include them under an umbrella of "good populism".

[Syaloch]

To my mind, the required "good populism" involves not protectionism, but actually embracing the concept of "labor flexibility" fully and taking it to its logical conclusion. Trying to maintain the status quo in the modern, high-tech world through import tariffs is a lost cause. If we truly want a highly dynamic economy with labor constantly moving between sectors, we should have policies in place to make such shifts as painless as possible. For example, by decoupling benefits from employers and making them highly portable, providing assistance for education, child care, and relocation costs, and ensuring a robust safety net for those forced to endure long periods of unemployment.

[hari]

I see that most of you're oblivious of the fact that -

*The candidates are trying to win the primaries - doesn't matter what it takes - win or come close to the winner - they must!

*You can be absolutely certain, once the primary contest is over, they'll re-strategize and set their (new) tactics in play - willy nilly taking positions which they may've opposed during the primary!

*Hillary is up to the same game pandering to the "right" - knowing full-well she's coming from the "left"! Guliani is closer to Hillary than anyone else, as far as I can see, and he must guard against being passed by an in-cum-bub!

*They've reduced American politics to a roulette game - heads I win - tails you lose!

Moral of ALL this is that EU Press is making fun of what actually constitutes transparency of governance in US - with millionaires fighting for the right to Lincon's bedroom! No one is telling the TRUTH what ails American society...eller hur?

[Holly W.]

James Killus: Only STR thinks the Democratic party is run by liberal elites.

Let's say it's true. What bothers me is that people who use the term "elite" for Democrats never seem to want to admit that the Republican party is also run by elites, who are in many cases richer and more powerful than their Democratic counterparts.

After all, what is an "elite"? A person with a college degree? A vegetarian? Someone who wastes their money on $5 cups of coffee? Or is it a person who makes enough annual income and/or has a large enough and diversified enough portfolio not to have to worry about money the way the rest of us do? A person who may or may not care about the struggles of the hoi polloi?

Using "elite" as political code just prevents people from recognizing genuine elites when we see and hear them.

[hari]

Mark -

You speak about smart and dumb ways of doing things.

The smart thing to understand now is that the candidates are fighting for a lead in the difficult primaries... They'll surely say dumb things just to get thru this stage of struggle in the Iowa and NH and SC primaries...

After the primaries are over, the same dumb theatre of the absurd will be transformed into a tactical battle to position on national security and healthcare and whatnot.

[TomTomorrowToday]

If Ron Paul is a "self-taught" "whacko" and he "doesn't have the faintest idea what he's talking about", then how do you explain how the government worked for 137 years before the corrupt Federal Reserve and IRS teamed up together? To say you have to be an expert economist to run the government is like saying you have to be an expert mechanic to drive a car. I say let the expert do what they do best and leave the rest of us alone! Read the 10th amendment to the constitution before responding.

[Holly W.]

Worker: Since politicians won't address entitlements until they become a festering crisis ...

I recommend you go spend some time with pgl over at Angry Bear. As he is fond of pointing out, since Social Security is funded with a dedicated tax, if we decide to stop providing SS, then the payroll tax should also be abolished, resulting in zero difference to the budget. It's not so much that it's "not fair" to discontinue SS, but it is certainly unfair to tax people specifically for money that's not being spent any longer.

The unfunded Medicare drug benefit and medical costs in general are indeed a problem on the Medicare and Medicaid side of things. However, as emphasized over and over on this blog, you can't just lump SS, Medicare, and Medicaid together as one "entitlement" program.

[paine]

folks
worker is loafing

[paine]

"After all, what is an "elite"? A person with a college degree? A vegetarian? Someone who wastes their money on $5 cups of coffee? "

the npo ngo foundation academic endowed
turbo educated
talent to the max merit team
has it babooon hierarchy
and
the top couple three shelves
are an elite

and they can spell tooo

[paine]

a ron paul krugmanite
there's a conjugation

[Seth]

Backup your stupid statement about RP's not understanding monetary policy because clearly you don't understand the issues.

[Patricia Shannon]

I'm not arguing for/against any policy, I just want to mention a comment I saw a few days ago, in regards to the WTO or whatever blocking poor developing countries from enacting trade protections for their people. It pointed out that the U.S. and Europe enacted hefty trade protections, like tariffs, while we were in the process of become industrialized. The commentator believes these protections are necessary during the process of becoming industrialized.
Of course, the U.S. already practices trade protectionism thru subsidies, reduced taxes, and lucrative government contracts, for farmers, oil companies, and other rich elites, but for some reason, any kind of trade protectionism targeted to help the working-class would be ruinous.

[Icarus]

Patricia Shannon,

Yes, trade protectionism does often work for capital, and is probably less beneficial for the whole, when directed at the working class.

Capital investment and job creation are the goals. A city subsidizes a stadium for a sports team, with the hope of economic activity. It is interference in the purportedly 'market' economy, but, it is an interference which a structural part of the relationship between civic government, and capital.

Protectionism to help the working class is quite different. First, not all of us even want it. Most of us will vote for the cheaper product through our economic activity. One dollar, one vote. Put a Mega-Store next to Walmart, with products all made in the US, and prices which reflect that. See who goes there. All those 'working class' activists will go purchase their picket signs and paint at Walmart, probably. Regardless, the collective will 'vote' for the cheaper offering. This is our cost cutting, and utility maximizing nature.

[Icarus]

Killus,

A question. The implications of Nuremburg are that soldiers and senior officials in regimes of terror are morally culpable for the anti-civilizational acts they particiapted in. Doesn't the US invasion of Iraq require the same scrutiny? All the elements of genocidal mania are there...all.

What is so crazy?

What worries me more is the casual acceptance, in the West, of the regime of terror in charge. Millions of lives (not hundreds, not thousands, not tens of thousands) have been destroyed, millions more thoroughly ramshackled. The statistics are grim. Rape, abuse, terror, lack of basic infrastructure...this is normal life in much of Iraq. It is a situation of even greater scale than Darfur (just in sheer numbers).

And, the cause is simple...an illegal war, by an executive branch which ignores all laws, which was quasi-elected, and which assumes the right to attack nations without cause, if the threat of 'terror' can be marketed properly.
The right wing was no doubt under the hypnotic nationalist power of the ultra-right. But, the left was the silent collaborator. They were shamed into silence.

A sliver of the progressive left spoke up, in periodicals which don't get much circulation, in academic conferences which don't get much attendance, in leaflets and pamphlets which quickly enter garbage cans.

The US protects its capital overseas, and gunboat diplomacy is inherent in its international behavior. The undercurrent is labour mobility, labour replacements, and lower labour rates. As long as 6 billion people are replicating, capital can acquire its reserve labour force with greater ease.

Forget protecting white/black working class lifestyles. That era is dead, thankfully. The US is more and more Asian, and Latino, and the politics will change. There's a history of manifest destiny which the newcomers don't exactly share, or care about. Silicon valley doesn't care that much about the old colonial south. It's a history as relevant as any other nation's internal historical narrative; no more important either. There is purposeful forgetting in the new millenia, perpetual, and constant. The thrill of the 'new'. A globalizing society doesn't have as much time to hear the internal whines of previously repressed/oppressed classes. That's the practical reality.

[Ben]

Wow!

This is my first time here and I am pretty shocked at some of these comments. Some of these are so ridiculous I am seriously laughing, not out loud as that would scare those around me.

"Just a little lower down in the polls is a libertarian candidate named Ron Paul. Paul is best known for his vehemently isolationist foreign policy views. But his core supporters also thrill to his self-taught monetary views, which amount to a rejection of everything taught by modern economists from Alfred Marshall to Milton Friedman.

Huckabee and Paul have not the faintest idea of what they are talking about. The problem is not that their answers are wrong -- that can happen to anyone. The problem is that they don't understand the questions, and are too lazy or too arrogant to learn. "

To say that Paul doesn't know what he is talking about is nothing but an attack on the man. Much like linking Ron Paul to a isolationism policy which is just false.

While I do not know if going back to the gold standard is even possible I do know a few things that would happen if Ron Paul became President.

- He would not pass a budget that was not a balanced budget.
- He would only cut taxes if the reduction in lost tax revenue was offset by reduction in government spending.
- He would end our empire over seas and prevent America from going the way of the Roman Empire in 1/5th the time.

If these people are going to speak about Paul's or any candidate's policies at least READ them before you just make things up. In fact you dont even need to read them. Let me introduce you to www.youtube.com there are hours of videos from all the candidates you can view them speaking directly about their views.

As far as the fair tax and people avoiding paying taxes. The tax is paid on all sales. I find it hard to believe that any person is going to be living in America and not buying anything be them rich or poor.

I actually went to the web site and read about the fair tax and what the proposal was before I made my decision on it. Most of the people on this site are just economic bigots who think that you can not have any change to the current system.

I am for any new proposal that gets rid of the current 10,000+ page tax code that allows tax loopholes, corporate welfare and only confuses the masses. I think the fair tax might work hell its worth a shot. No one can tell me that the current system is the best way to run the tax system.

But I put my vote behind Paul because he wants to reduce the size of the government and give me the 30% of my income that the current government wastes about 90% of.

If I had that money I could fund my retirement, I could have my wife stay home and not have to pay for child care. I could take more vacations, I could buy more things and be a better consumer. But you can only remove the personal income tax if you match that with budget reductions. Only Ron Paul is talking about reducing the budget to the levels that it has to be or all your bickering wont matter because the entire country will be dead broke.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BL5MDrMy6Z4

Watch that then come back here and call Ron Paul crazy.

[DrChaos]

'After all, what is an "elite"?'

In the GOP world, somebody who

1) Believes in primacy of empirical, objective, facts over belief

2) is willing and eager to criticize people and institutions of the USA other than universities on account of #1

[calmo]

I do
like that
babooon
hier
archy
I do
So DrChaos do you think the baboons mind us terribly --imitating their pecking order?
[Do I need special credentials to address your Doctorship?
Why izit "GOP" and not "Dem"? or "facts over beliefs" not the reverse?....or "Chaos" and not "Order"?]

Thanks Ben, I now see what Barkley is worried about.
If Ron is 20 years younger, does that make his platform that much more attractive or incredible to you?
But you B right: Ron is so crazy beside those other Republican candidates.

ken melvin says...

The problem isn't with Paul; his nuttiness is a constitutional. The problem is that, as with Perot, there are oodles of otherwise bright 24 - 45 year old tech types out there who will eat it up because they perceive that it serves their purposes and they have no others.