Robert Reich: David Brooks is Wrong

Another one from Robert Reich:

David Brooks is Wrong: America Can Afford What Needs to be Done, by Robert Reich: The rightward New York Times columnist David Brooks warned in his column yesterday that a new Democratic president would be engulfed in the same "Reich versus Rubin" choice that faced Bill Clinton in 1993 -- either fulfill your campaign promises and add to the federal budget deficit or forget your promises and satisfy Wall Street (Brooks didn't put it exactly this way, but that's what he was getting at).

What Brooks neglects to mention is that the REASON a new Democratic president might face such a choice is that he or she will be burdened by much the same spend-thrift legacy that Bill Clinton discovered when he arrived in the Oval Office in 1993. Then, it was deficits of $300 billion as far as the eye could see. In January of 2009 it will be deficits of $400 billion as far as they eye can see. The fiscal-political strategy of Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, in other words, was the same as that of George W. Bush -- "starve the beast" through irresponsible supply-side tax cuts and military buildups that make it almost impossible for any subsequent Democratic president to deal with the nation's needs.

This doesn't mean that a new Democratic president would have to break the bank, however. Where to get the additional money needed for universal health care, better schools, and crumbling infrastructure? Three sources: (1) The peace dividend from ending the Iraq War, (2) a more progressive tax, and (3) modest deficit spending to cover public investments that generate economic growth.

1. According to government figures, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have so far cost the United States more than half a trillion dollars. Another four years would cost significantly more, because this figure doesn't include the ever larger costs of recruitment, the cost of replacing the equipment that's been used in the war so far, or the ballooning costs of taking care of America's permanently wounded and disabled. If a Democratic president pulls out of Iraq -- even if some troops need to be deployed to Afghanistan -- it's a safe estimated that the peace dividend would be more than $100 billion a year, even including the costs of attending to our wounded.

2. Rolling back the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy will yield some $200 billion more. But the new president should not stop there because the only people who have the money necessary to reverse the nation's troubling trends are at the top. ...

Only a relatively few at the top would need to pay more. ... By my calculation, a tiny annual wealth tax of one-tenth of 1 percent on all net worth exceeding $5 million -- a tax that would affect only 50,000 households, or fewer than one-tenth of 1 percent of the nation's taxpayers -- would yield an additional $100 billion.

Remember that a progressive income tax has been a cornerstone of our fiscal system since 1913 -- and our current non-progressive and often regressive tax is the anomaly. ...

3. Finally, the next president will need to wean the public off the false notion that fiscal austerity is necessarily good for the economy. There's a crucial difference between public spending that builds the future productivity of the nation's workforce -- spending on education and infrastructure, for example -- and spending that improves today's living standards. Borrowing in order to accomplish the former is wise because it enhances the capacity of the nation to produce goods and services... 

This obvious point should be illustrated in the annual budget. Such "investments" should be segregrated from ordinary spending. Annual spending should not exceed annual revenues, but investments should be judged by their potential for growing the overall economy. If the returns to the economy in terms of economic grow are greater than the costs of such borrowing, these public investments are appropriate.

You can also think of the benefits from spending on infrastructure being spread intertemporally. If we build a piece of infrastructure that lasts 100 years, then the benefits will be spread over that entire time period. So each generation could, in principle, pay for the benefits they receive (e.g. I could still be paying something for the benefits I receive from the highways that were present when I was born, or even for WWII since I presumably benefit from the outcome). This justifies deficit spending because the current generation would only pay for the portion of the infrastructure they consume, and the remainder of the asset and liability would be pushed forward to the next generation.

But I think we should remember that when we were born, we inherited a substantial amount of public capital that had already been paid for. If we let that capital depreciate, then start sending bills to future generations for its replacement, that doesn't quite seem fair.

Comments

[chris]

Will the Israel Lobby and the Neocons (who haven't gone away) allow us to "pull out" of Iraq? Or stop making war on Muslim anti-colonialism? I doubt it. And from what we have seen they rule in Washington.

[Winslow R.]

Reich wrote: "Finally, the next president will need to wean the public off the false notion that fiscal austerity is necessarily good for the economy. "

The Clinton surplus is in the top 10 of the stupidest things Democrats have done economically and politically.

The economists that cheer that sort of thing, should be run out of town. Everytime Delong rails against deficits, he should be 'gently' reminded how his advice led to our present economic disaster.

Clinton's Economy, and Kennedy's

J. Bradford DeLong
Danziger Associate Professor of Economics, Harvard University

December 1992

"....Clinton has inherited a budget in severe deficit, that is already a severe drain on private investment. Of every four dollars that Americans, or foreigners saved in 1991, three went not to increasing the stock of capital in the hands of firms and entrepreneurs but to financing the deficit. Thus he will not be able to find the resources for a broad range of pro-investment initiatives. If he tries, he will find that what he produces with one hand is removed by the other as infrastructure spending causes a larger deficit which further dampens private investment. He will be lucky if he can find the resources for even one pro-investment initiative in one of the four areas--infrastructure, education, technology, and private business--that cry out for attention. By the standards of thirty-two years ago Clinton's initiatives are likely to appear somewhat meager, and too small to be effective unless care is taken to make sure that every dollar has maximum impact.

So we cannot expect Clinton's economic advisors to deliver to us a golden administration of economic growth like the one that Kennedy's economic advisors delivered some thirty years ago..."

http://www.j-bradford-delong.net/Politics/Clinton_Kennedy.html

[Progressive OK, but More Efficiency Too]

I like Robert Reich's progressive tax proposals a whole lot better than the regressive national sales tax proposal. Since it will only generate $300 billion, even if enacted, a bit more efficiency in spending will be needed to accomplish important goals. Not much sense in raising new money, only to waste much of it on pork or ineffective programs.

[save_the_rustbelt]

A "wealth tax" would be a compliance nightmare (and would make me a lot of money), not to mention encouraging pretty bizarre avoidance behavior.

Fix the income tax, ok. Invent new taxes, not so good.

[billy]

This doesn't mean that a new Democratic president would have to break the bank, however. Where to get the additional money needed for universal health care, better schools, and crumbling infrastructure? Three sources: (1) The peace dividend from ending the Iraq War, (2) a more progressive tax, and (3) modest deficit spending to cover public investments that generate economic growth.

HA HA HA HA HA HA.

Additional money is definitely coming right now, straight to the bankers. The looting on the way up was not enough, the pigmen will now loot on the way down too.

Blow a bubble, make money; bust a bubble, make money.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120294935869166831.html

Worried Bankers Seek to Shift Risk to Uncle Sam
By Damian Paletta
Word Count: 826 | Companies Featured in This Article: Credit Suisse Group, J.P. Morgan Chase

WASHINGTON -- The banking industry, struggling to contain the fallout from the mortgage debacle, is urgently shopping proposals to Congress and the Bush administration that could shift some of the risk for troubled loans to the federal government.

One proposal, advanced by officials at Credit Suisse Group, would expand the scope of loans guaranteed by the Federal Housing Administration. The proposal would let the FHA guarantee mortgage refinancings by some delinquent borrowers.

Credit Suisse officials have met with senior officials from the Department of Housing and Urban Development, which runs the FHA, and other policy makers to discuss the proposal.

.........

Over at Calculated Risk, there are very good comments which cannot be beat.

This plan makes no sense. Why should the taxpayers bailout the lenders and investors?

Because this is a capitalist country?

If we were socialist, we'd pay for things like children's health care. Since we're not socialist, we'll pay to bail out the bankers and investors instead.
ferg | 02.13.08 - 11:08 pm | #

About Ben's helicopter, that which is supposed to keep the economy chugging.

What happened to the helicopter?

Helicopter drops deliver randomly... a truck delivers to an exact location - say straight from fed dock to Credit Suisse dock with not stops in between.

dryfly | 02.13.08 - 11:08 pm | #

[hammerhead]

Reich's ideas sound great, but we are living in a country where only yesterday, a hundred muni bond, auction rate securities auctions failed. We can't even fund our municipalities.

It would be great if the war ended tomorrow, but, as Jimmy Carter found out, this country will pay for wars long after the fighting has ended.

Clinton came into office during a mild recession that hit the US after oil prices spiked in reaction the the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. Our next president will have to deal with a serious recession in which oil prices spiked after the US invasion of Iraq and have yet to abate.

The boomers can start collecting Social Security this year.

Many of those, who in 2005 had a net worth of $5 million in real estate, will probably have a net worth of $3.5 million in two years. There will be fewer rich people to tax.

Mr. Reich's ideas sound great, but I don't believe President Obama will be able to find the money, even if he has a large Democratic majority.

[Bill Conerly]

I won't quibble over the logic of investments that improve productivity. But I will bet that every stupid idea, every pork barrel ideal, will be labeled "investment." The War on Poverty was sold as an investment that would generate a huge dividend in reduced prison costs and higher labor productivity.

We need a good way to separate the wise investments from the political snake oil--which the market does admirably.

[LJM]

You are right about leaving future generations with infrastructure that will last being fair. That we aren't a nation of savers and have relied on all this foreign debt isn't fair to them either. It's going to take some austerity to get us on the road to being in the black, otherwise, we really will be a banana republic with people here working so those in the Middle East and China can collect the wealth and we never can pay down the debt. At tne moment we're looking a lot more like Argentina than the USA of the 20th century.

[Winslow R.]

LJM wrote: "It's going to take some austerity to get us on the road to being in the black, otherwise, we really will be a banana republic with people here working so those in the Middle East and China can collect the wealth and we never can pay down the debt. At tne moment we're looking a lot more like Argentina than the USA of the 20th century."

What is 'austerity'? How do you go about being 'austere'? Be specific.

The problem with comments like these is they are often used as an excuse for implementing bad economic policy.

In regards to banana republics, Argentina borrowed in a foreign currency. The U.S. has not. There is simply no comparison.

[Winslow R.]

BC wrote: "We need a good way to separate the wise investments from the political snake oil--which the market does admirably."

'Market' gave us overinvestment in housing and the Hummer.

Need I say more? The 'market' does not have a monopoly on wisdom.

[sk]

These old fogies with their hundred year wars and hundred year pay back periods ! You lot have left quite a legacy already for the the generations to come over the next 100 years.

How much is the national debt ? 9252 BILLION as per http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/

Why don't you spend your last few years on this earth paying back some of that 9252 BILLION and let the unborn and still to come generations live without such a crushing debt load. Don't leave it to them to renege on it - do it yourselves if you have the balls - and suffer the international consequences.

What a legacy ! Bloody thieves - and the worse part of it is that this is theft from the truly defenceless - the still to be born generations.

-K

says...

"By my calculation, a tiny annual wealth tax of one-tenth of 1 percent on all net worth exceeding $5 million -- a tax that would affect only 50,000 households, or fewer than one-tenth of 1 percent of the nation's taxpayers -- would yield an additional $100 billion."

go go bobby
follow the yellow brick road

[paine]

apply named hammerhead

"we are living in a country where only yesterday, a hundred muni bond, auction rate securities auctions failed. We can't even fund our municipalities"

that's what uncle's for
he's the one that creates the credit money in the first place

[hari]

I recall the Adjustment Policy promoted by IBRD/IMF around the Third World when they got into fiscal deficit and other liquidity problems.

It's high time, a similar macroeconomic structural adjustment policy is put in place to allow new gov to invest in its (approved) priorites by the electorate.

For once, gov priorities MUST reflect not what WSJ/Street considers smart but what American middleclass demands to rebalance the national economic priorities.

Clinton learned D.C. politics was not as easy has his rhetorics, and tried to bring solvency to gov budget before embarking on priority sectors of investment.
Rubin was there to make sure he didn't go overboard...

However now the tables will be turned around, and it will depend on who takes charge of Treasury and money matters.
HRC will be bolder and relentless compared to OB (whose economic credentials are still unknown).

[ken melvin]

Much of the economy of late has been using up the economy of yore. We used the roads, bridges, schools, parks, ... that other generations paid for, but, by not building and repairing, we failed in our part of the bargain, i.e., we stole from the past and borrowed from the future.

[anne]

No, no, no, no, no. There is a complete and terrible falseness to the portrayal of the issue. David Brooks is after destroying any possibility of a coming President being able to leave Iraq. David Brooks has been a supporter of war from the beginning hints of war, a supporter of occupation from the beginning of the occupation, a supporter of the destruction of the Geneva Convention from the beginning of opposition to the occupation of Iraq.

Robert Reich is hesitant to explain what David Brooks is really about, which is war and occupation indefinitely if not forever.

[anne]

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/12/opinion/12brooks.html

February 12, 2008

When Reality Bites
By DAVID BROOKS

There's a big difference between the Republican and Democratic campaigns: The Republicans have split on policy grounds; the Democrats haven't. There's been a Republican divide between center and right, yet no Democratic divide between center and left.

But when you think about it, the Democratic policy unity is a mirage. If the Democrats actually win the White House, the tensions would resurface with a vengeance.

The first big rift would involve Iraq. Both Senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have seductively hinted that they would withdraw almost all U.S. troops within 12 to 16 months. But if either of them actually did that, he or she would instantly make Iraq the consuming partisan fight of their presidency.

There would be private but powerful opposition from Arab leaders, who would fear a return to 2006 chaos. There would be irate opposition from important sections of the military, who would feel that the U.S. was squandering the gains of the previous year. A Democratic president with few military credentials would confront outraged and highly photogenic colonels screaming betrayal.

There would be important criticism from nonpartisan military experts....

The president would have to make a terrible decision.

Which brings us to second looming Democratic divide: domestic spending. Both campaigns now promise fiscal discipline, as well as ambitious new programs. These kinds of have-your-cake-and-eat-it-too vows were merely laughable last year when the federal deficit was running at a manageable $163 billion a year. But the economic slowdown, the hangover from the Bush years and the growing bite of entitlements mean that the federal deficit will almost certainly top $400 billion by 2009. The accumulated national debt will be in shouting distance of the $10 trillion mark. With that much red ink, the primary-season spending plans are simply ridiculous.

It'd be 1993 all over again. The new Democratic president would be faced with Bill Clinton's Robert Rubin vs. Robert Reich choice: either scale back priorities for the sake of fiscal discipline or blow through all known deficit records for the sake of bigger programs. Choose the former, and the new president would further outrage the left. Choose the latter and lose the financial establishment and the political center.

This is the debate that Democrats have been quietly rearguing during the entire Bush presidency. The left wing of the party is absolutely committed to winning it this time. It will likely demand the clean energy subsidies and the education spending, the expensive health care coverage and subsides to address middle-class anxiety. But no Democratic president can afford to offend independent voters with runaway spending. No president can easily ignore the think tank establishment, which is rightfully exercised about the nation's long-term fiscal health.

It would be another brutal choice.....

[anne]

David Brooks is providing the definitive argument for war and occupation at a cost of $1 and $2 and $3 trillion as a reason why a feared Democratic President must abandon any and all attempts at improving American solcial well-being. War and occupation are the reason and the excuse to destroy social programs for Americans, and why is this not made clear? Why the cowardice?

[baileyman]

Rarely does anyone point out that infrastructure has a yield, a rate of return, and it flows to all of us.

[anne]

"A Democratic president with few military credentials would confront outraged and highly photogenic colonels screaming betrayal."

David Brooks is terrified of a Democratic President, especially terrified of Barack Obama, and is determine to make it impossible for the coming President to leave Iraq and by forcing America to remain in Iraq will make it impossible for President Obama to develop social programs for America. This is definitive compassionless conservatisim. War forever at the expense of America's well-being and humane heritage. War at the expense of our very soul.

[anne]

http://select.nytimes.com/search/restricted/article?res=F60C13FE355D0C728DDDA80994DB404482

Avoid War Crimes

To the Editor:

In ''A Burden Too Heavy to Put Down,'' David Brooks writes, ''Inevitably, there will be atrocities'' committed by our forces in Iraq. Did he forget to add that they must be prosecuted?

War crimes are indeed more likely if influential commentators foreshadow impunity for perpetrators of the ''brutal measures our own troops will have to adopt.''

The choice is not between committing war crimes and retreating ''into the paradise of our own innocence.'' A third option is for the United States to strive to avoid complicity.

It is untrue that ''we have to take morally hazardous action.'' Those who choose it, or urge others to, cannot evade or distribute responsibility by asserting that ''we live in a fallen world.''

BEN KIERNAN
New Haven, Nov. 4, 2003
The writer is director of the Genocide Studies Program at Yale University.

[anne]

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/04/opinion/04BROO.html?ex=1383282000&en=a52dd59eac5f7517&ei=5007&partner=USERLAND

November 4, 2003

A Burden Too Heavy to Put Down
By DAVID BROOKS

No. Iraqification is a strategy for the long haul, but over the next six months, when progress must be made, this is our job. And the main challenge now is to preserve our national morale.

The shooting down of the Chinook helicopter near Fallujah over the weekend was a shock to the body politic. The fact is, we Americans do not like staring into the face of evil. It is in our progressive and optimistic nature to believe that human beings are basically good, or at least rational. When we stare into a cave of horrors, whether it is in Somalia, Beirut or Tikrit, we see a tangled morass we don't understand. Our instinct is to get out as quickly as possible.

It's not that we can't accept casualties. History shows that Americans are willing to make sacrifices. The real doubts come when we see ourselves inflicting them. What will happen to the national mood when the news programs start broadcasting images of the brutal measures our own troops will have to adopt? Inevitably, there will be atrocities that will cause many good-hearted people to defect from the cause. They will be tempted to have us retreat into the paradise of our own innocence.

Somehow, over the next six months, until the Iraqis are capable of their own defense, the Bush administration is going to have to remind us again and again that Iraq is the Battle of Midway in the war on terror, the crucial turning point where either we will crush the terrorists' spirit or they will crush ours.

The president will have to remind us that we live in a fallen world, that we have to take morally hazardous action if we are to defeat the killers who confront us. It is our responsibility to not walk away. It is our responsibility to recognize the dark realities of human nature, while still preserving our idealistic faith in a better Middle East....

[hari]

@Anne-

Totally agree David Brooks is misleading the debate....
remember that's his mandate on NYT (along with the newcomer!).

Disingenous to argue that removal of American military intervention will create a vaccum ...to make the war and its aftermath dangerous or whatever.

American invasion was a catastrophe! Not only for US Treasury but for the image of the Great Satan. McCain will not do anything different than GWB. I'm not sure what HRC will, in fact, be able to do if she should win. Because she still thinks there's terrorism to fight there and US troops will be stationed for a while even under her.

OB is a bit more intuitive because he understands the religious context of the conflict GWB initiated with so-called IslamicFascism. Ignorance is bliss. But if knowledge is power, OB will have to demonstrate why McCain is "false"; and he must find ways and means of putting the arguments to rest, once and for all times, before the general election gets into full swing.

The similiarities between HRC and McCain are not only close but undistinguishable, since both are real hawks!
Israeli gov will NOT be happy with OB should he win, and that will tell a lot about the reason why GWB invaded Iraq.

[anne]

There we have David Brooks in 2003, preparing America for the destruction of our very soul:

"What will happen to the national mood when the news programs start broadcasting images of the brutal measures our own troops will have to adopt? Inevitably, there will be atrocities that will cause many good-hearted people to defect from the cause. They will be tempted to have us retreat into the paradise of our own innocence."

This is the David Brooks who wished for war, who wished for occupation, who would sanction what all morality would condemn. Robert Reich is afraid to confront this David Brooks, and explain the argument is destruction against protection of the health of millions of needy children.

[anne]

Agreed, Hari.

Can Barack Obama counter a Republican campaign that is already driving our need for fear, when fear is needless and destructive and self-destructive?

[Cynthia]

It's utterly beyond me why anyone in his(or her) right(or left) mind could possibly think that WAR is a profitable enterprise!

Anything that's all about destruction and nothing about construction can't possibly be profitable!

[reason]

Cynthia...
stop looking at aggregates, you'll miss the important details. There ARE people who make profit from war. Wars are never profitable on AVERAGE. There is a distinction.

[robertdfeinman]

This thread seems to continue the discussion from the previous one spawned by Robert Reich. Since that one is getting a bit too long, and since the same framework exists in both...

Reich, Mark Thoma (and, yes, me) feel that the moral argument for better equity is important and should guide economic and social policy. I usually frame my position in terms of the relationship between economic equity and a functioning democracy. When money talks more than votes then democracy is not operating properly.

However, since this is an economics site, I think it would also be useful if there were some economic arguments (backed by data) offered as well. Mark Thoma supports increased infrastructure spending and defends deficit spending, if necessary, to fund it. This seems rational, but where is the hard data which shows that moving earth to build a road is "better" for the economy that moving the earth to create a hole and then filling it up again?

In the current context the metaphorical hole is militarism. When pressed most pols will tell you that we need to maintain a high level of military spending because of the Keynesian stimulation it provides. Today Obama floated a plan where he would spend the "peace dividend", but he didn't explain what happens to all those thrown out of work when the military spending declines. Military contractors are providing employment after all, and not all their workers are Filipino food service or construction workers in Iraq.

If one wants to make a complete case then one needs to discuss how the money will be better spent when withdrawn from militarism and how the transition from the existing military-industrial nexus will be handled with a minimum of worker displacement. For extra credit one would also need to explain how this realignment is going to get past the huge institutions benefiting from the status quo. Congress is part of the problem and their allegiances are unlikely to shift much even if there is a Democratic sweep in the elections.

Congressman Murtha, the king of earmarks, said yesterday that he has no intention of slowing down the gravy train, which in his case, mostly goes to military programs.

[hari]

@Cynthia -

I hope you're not an ostrich - war is always a means to make money (cf. Haliburton & Cheney!).

@Anne -

OB can blunt GOP hawks with his relentless consensus policy and whatnot.

The real and most dangerous party in this war games are the establishment and their media outlets - they've to be reigned in and stopped!

[anne]

Cynthia:

"It's utterly beyond me why anyone in his(or her) right(or left) mind could possibly think that WAR is a profitable enterprise!

"Anything that's all about destruction and nothing about construction can't possibly be profitable!"

An especially compelling logical argument, seemingly simple and often denied but actually showing that we are lacking in properly comprehensive ecological accounting as Joseph Stiglitz has been attempting to show.

[anne]

Cynthia is actually being remarkably clever for there are enless arguments for the selective and general, long- and short-term, profitability of war, while we are lacking in comprehensive accounting. There are remarkable photographs of Iraq and Afghanistan on BBC News that no matter the actual story show a remarkable destruction of the environment as though in passing. What is the cost of such destruction?

[Holly W.]

I don't quite understand all the obsession with a "peace dividend" -- not just from Reich, but from many people. I thought one of the problems with the Iraq War is that we didn't and still don't really have that money to spend in the first place. I don't disagree that there are loads of better things it could be spent on, but I have to wonder if that dividend will really be as "free" as people make it sound?

[paine]

"The accumulated national debt will be in shouting distance of the $10 trillion mark"

this fact floating around in dumbos head
is anchored to a sky hook

the high water mark of gdp to national debt
came ...in the raging 40's
a fact rarely discussed
why ??

mayhaps because
of its all to evident implications

[paine]

rusty

"A "wealth tax" would be a compliance nightmare "

aimed at 50k households ???

bring it on baby

rusty
think of the raids man

you account types
eliot ness work

issued side arms
ninja outfits

chopper drops at midnite
on to
daddy warbucks mansion estate

plaster the headlines with the dead beats
the tales might create
a little progressive lessoning
for rage radio

[anne]

Actually, there is a certain deceptive simplicity in referring to a peace dividend, as I often do or as Barack Obama is doing, because all that can be expected should we leave Iraq in 2009 is a gradual and difficult levelling of the military budget or levelling of growth in the budget. That is what we found through the 1990s, but that will gradually allow for a slanting of spending to social needs. A slowing of growth of the military budget will allow for a far different emphasis.

Though the Presidency of George Bush, social spending has declined as a portion of national income while military spending has markedly increased.

[kthomas]

right on, paine! Let's do it!

[hammerhead]

War is great for the economy, the economy of OPEC countries. It's also good for he economies of US oil families and Halliburton stock owners. Check out the graph below, and tell me Cheney didn't know what would happen to the price of oil.

www.wtrg.com/oil_graphs/oilprice1947.gif

[don]

As usual, Reich's analysis is shallow. He thinks just leaving Iraq will yield a 'peace dividend.' But if it results in just a modest 20% increase in the price of oil, the rise in the cost of U.S. oil imports will erase this peace dividend. Given that such a move could destabilize the area, the rise in oil prices might well exceed 20%.

[joe]

Nice that Mark Thoma posted this Robert Reich piece on David Brooks' column; but I don't understand why he ignored Reich's piece on Krugman.

[anne]

"As usual, Reich's analysis is shallow. He thinks just leaving Iraq will yield a 'peace dividend.' "

Of course Robert Reich is completely right.

Gradually as the effects of the needless insanely immoral spending on destruction and self-destruction are compensated for, and as spending on war and occupation as such is dramatically ended while military spending growth comes to be limited, there will surely be a peace dividend.

[hammerhead]

Anne's last post is completely correct.

[anne]

There is a certain sort of lunacy that beyond the immorality of a needless war and occupation, a war and occupation driven by fear and deception, insists that destruction is and will be costless. So the very Federal Reserve chair was worried about the price of oil when oil was selling from $15 to $20 a barrel and suggested that destroying Iraq was the way to cheapen oil. So the lunatic deception after almost 5 terrible years is that ending war and occupation would increase the price of oil.

[paine]

anne i like your add in of self destruction
to plain old other guy destruction

i've often felt
the mass appeal of fascism
is inherently about
a buried desire for self destructive

the nazi project in the 20's
was as jg put it
the nationalization of the working class
implicit
by taking it on one last big finish
a crusade to total doomtown

also doing business as
the alamo complex

miltons satan on day three of the war in heaven

[ddt]

"As usual, Reich's analysis is shallow. He thinks just leaving Iraq will yield a 'peace dividend.' But if it results in just a modest 20% increase in the price of oil, the rise in the cost of U.S. oil imports will erase this peace dividend. Given that such a move could destabilize the area, the rise in oil prices might well exceed 20%."

Since the occupation has done so much to keep oil prices low? God forbid the oil price rocketing towards pre-war levels.

[anne]

Paine:

"i've often felt
the mass appeal of fascism
is inherently about
a buried desire for self destructive"

I need to think carefully about this.

[don]

Well, the mistake has already been made - the second Bush apparently ignored the reasons why the first Bush stopped short of regime change in Iraq. What to do about it now, though? I think the economic ramifications deserve some place in the assessment, more than merely asserting or assuming all will be well if we just leave. Such assumptions were used to talk us into this venture in the first place. Remember how the populace was supposed to welcomed us as saviors from their oppression?

[ilsm]

"A Democratic president with few military credentials would confront outraged and highly photogenic colonels screaming betrayal."

The next president with no military credentials will call on me and the folks over at SOldiers for the Truth; sftt.org.

Every one of us can point to the "photogenic colonels" as corrupt, inept careerists looking for jobs with Boeing or such on non working trash projects.

Those need to be betrayed.

The criminal when caught always fells betrayed.

The 'professional' officer corps is corrupt, only in it for themselves.

So, someone roll out the photogenic types!

[ilsm]

Anne,

GHW Bush started reducing warfare state spending and the percent of GDP declined while actual spending stayed steady (the growth of war spending was less than GDP growth, but still exorbitant in the early 90's).

Clinton continued it. By late 90's warfare spending was around 3% GDP down from about 5% in 1991.

Can we ignore the possibility that the Clinton growth years were sustained by moving a percent or two of GDP from warfare waste to decent investment?

That said warfare voting may have tipped the '92 election as GHW Bush lost support of warfare voters to Perot.

A percent or two of voters can swing the warfare welfare back over 4 percent of GDP.

Can you ignore the fact that warfare spending increasing as percent of GDP is not good for the recent economy?

It all runs to opportunity costs and there are a lot of opportunities lost when we waste money on a war machine that is too expensive and not needed for any moral mission.

[James Killus]

Not all that much of the money spent during the Bush is "gone," in the sense of actually having been used to consume real resources. An ungodly amount of it has simply been stuffed into the pockets of the upper 1% and 0.1% of wealth possessors in this country. That does suggest that it should be possible, in theory, to get it back.

In practice, however, I fear it will be more difficult. A "wealth tax" for example, is not a tax on incomes (explicitly allowed by the 16th Amendment) and almost certainly would not pass the current Supreme Court.