It's Bad You Know
After reading this essay (which has gone viral), I don’t know what worries me more: a nihilistic GOP, an incompetent Democratic party, “low-information” voters, or a neutered media.
The author, a former Republican congressional staffer gone rogue, makes a forceful (and somewhat terrifying) case that the unfortunate combination of all the above is now undermining U.S. democracy.
For additional related thoughts, see this from James Fallows.
For Blues fans, I suggest R.L. Burnside.
Democratic policies of pandering to labor unions, running huge deficits, imposing stifling regulations on business, and restricting energy development (due largely to a mistaken belief in “global warming”) have predictably led to an economic meltdown. With no positive accomplishments, all Democrats can do is lash out with hysterical attacks about how awful Republicans are. Hoffa wants to go to “war” with Republicans and Biden calls them “barbarians.” The piece you cite is just a more sophisticated version of the same meme. I remember loads of similar attacks on Reagan before he won. NPR was full of them prior to the election of 1980.
Meanwhile Republican candidates just held a very thoughtful candidates Q and A:
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/276282/palmetto-scorecard-nro-symposium
Fred, did you even bother to read the essay–by a Republican? If you’re just going to continue to trot out zombie troll points without actually addressing what the post is about, I’m going to start moderating you–for not being on topic.
You’re also laughably, absurdly inaccurate: It was Bush Jr. that turned a Clinton surplus into a massive deficit, and Obama, much to the chagrin of liberals, has continued Bush’s domestic energy energy development policies.
Exercise your brain a little and try–just a little–to not let your partisan politics dictate what you type. At least try to be honest.
Mr. Kloor –
Clinton’s surplus was due to a surge in capital gains tax revenue which came with the dot.com bubble. Bush’s deficits were due to the collapse of said bubble and loss of said tax revenue. Then came 911. The surplus – deficit switch had very little to do with the policies of either man. You are trotting out a pre-conceived narrative just as much as Fred.
In regard to the topic article, much too much name calling and way too little anlaysis to be taken seriously.
I don’t care about this guy’s political affiliations while he was still employed. What we have is a deeply partisan rant that betrays extreme left wing views. Unbalanced, exaggerated therefore uninteresting.
+1 to Tom C re surplus/deficit.
Wow. Fred, do you really believe what you wrote is true?
The surplus ““ deficit switch had very little to do with the policies of either man.
Well, I’m sure that’s a pleasing narrative, but it requires a rather impressive degree of wishful thinking to assert that roughly $3 trillion in lost revenues from the Bush-Obama tax cuts, a $2 billion bailout of the financial industry and a decade of wars costing upwards of $1.5 trillion have “very little to do” with the budget deficit.
One analysis blames 37% of the lost revenues on the business cycle, with 33% due to Bush tax/spending and the remainder (including the bailout signed by Bush but supported by Obama) on the current President’s tab.
Other analyses, obviously, slice and dice the numbers somewhat differently, but if there are any that apportion the blame at 100%/0%/0% – or anywhere near that – I am not aware of them.
We had two years of virtual ‘one party rule’. Now we have a backlash.
As Gomer Pyle used to say…Surprise,surprise,surprise..
That’s how the US ‘democracy’ works. Nancy and Harry and Barrack tried to run the ball down to the 30 yard line. In the US democracy the game is played between the 40 yard lines. If the ball get’s past the 40 yard line on either side the extremists from the other side come out in force. In rare instances the much feared ‘silent majority’ finds it’s voice.
@7
The true backlash finally came in 2008, with the election of Obama.
I have no problem (as readers know) with pointing out Democratic flaws and excesses. But it amazes me how some of you dowplay the fact that the current GOP has been wholly taken over by extremists who clearly put ideology ahead of country. That’s the legitimate point of the the essay, imperfect and overwrought as it is.
@ PDA
Even before the 9/11, the wars and tax cuts the Clinton surplus turned into deficit.
As much as I’m against the wars, they are known to lift the economy by temporarily increasing the deficit. (And please don’t forget which party had a majority in Congress authorizing the wars.) Same goes for tax cuts. The current liberal prescriptions for getting out of the recession also don’t include cutting the deficit. Given the opportunity the would try to spend their way out of recession (just read Krugman). Thus, the two parties have different economic recipes but both have the same attitude for blowing up the deficit.
WRT bailouts, I’m not sure what the net cost of it would be when all the books are closed. Quite possibly, it won’t be all that much. Moreover I’m reasonably sure the policies would be very similar under Gore or Kerry.
@ PDA
No wishful thinking, just the ability to read data charts. The switch from surplus to deficit occurred btw 2000 and 2001. Bush had barely taken office and it was well before the tax rate reduction (pls note accurate wording) or the war. It was fully 2 years prior to any tangible impact of the war or tax policies.
http://www.cbo.gov/budget/data/historical.pdf
Tom C,
I agree with your #10 that there was a “tangible impact” to the war and tax policies. This is in distinction to your #3 which asserted they had “little to do” with the deficit. I’m not arguing that the business cycle had no effect, just that both Presidents taxing and spending also had an effect: a considerable one. This is, I think, uncontroversial if you have “the ability to read data charts.”
On the topic of this post, I think that calling the Democrats merely “incompetent” and “feckless” gives them far too much credit. I’m not a doctrinaire “pox-on-both-their-houses” independent, but they’ve seemed perfectly happy to use the Republican bogeymen to cover for them while they rake in the cash and dole out the goodies.
Keith
First let me say Welcome Back, Hope you and the Family had a great vacation and I truly wish you the best with the Yale Forum.
What we are seeing and what you and possibly Mr. Lofgren are complaining about is the “Leap Frog” nature of our current politics.
http://www.dartmouth.edu/~herron/LeapFrog.pdf
Todd Eberly breaks the paper down by saying that essentially the extreme elements of the winning party claim both a mandate from the people and a repudiation of the loser. The results are neither.
http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2010-10-24/news/bs-ed-politics-moderates-20101024_1_american-politics-respective-parties-statewide-elections
Now I agree that in 2008 Obama portrayed or represented a moderate view but most of those who rode his coat tails into the House and Senate did not. Then by circumstance or design the President acted in ways that undermined the public’s belief that he held centrist views.
@ Keith
the current GOP has been wholly taken over by extremists who clearly put ideology ahead of country
I disagree on both counts. I consider Romney a viable candidate and he is anything but extreme. Certainly the Tea Party has a strong ideological bend but I don’t see how you can accuse them wholesale of not caring for the country. They may be misguided (as you might be, BTW) but, in their mind, they are about doing the right thing.
Romney and Huntsman have no base within the current Republican party. There’s a reason why Perry jumped into the race.
As for the takeover by the Tea Party, I think the recent debt madness was a revealing moment for many people, including Independents and moderate-leaning Republicans.
@ PDA
My point was that the switch from surplus to deficit would have occurred no matter who was president since it depended on events outside of their control. Mr. Kloor claimed that Bush took Clinton’s surplus and turned it into a deficit. This is mis-leading. The size of the subsequent deficits and associated causes is certainly up for debate.
Clinton deserves credit for the surplus mainly in that he reduced capital gains rates substantially which led to a surge in collections. Maybe those assuming that higher tax rates always lead to higher tax revenues should think about that for a bit.
I don’t know about that. Personally I disagree their tactics but objectively they did what they believe they were elected to do.
Sashka,
So you’re saying that they have a right not to be satisfied until they got 100 percent of what they want? Do you know of any respectable political party that doesn’t believe in compromise? Even when they get most of what they want?
Okay, if you are talking about the change of sign – in other words only the fact that the economy went from surplus to deficit – then I would say we have no disagreement. Sure, given the economy of the early 2000s, the Federal budget would almost certainly have run at least some deficit for most if not all of the past 10 years.
But hat’s not what Keith wrote, though, and not what I was objecting to in your response. He wrote “Bush Jr. [] turned a Clinton surplus into a massive deficit” (my emphasis). You said it had “very little to do with the policies of either man.”
We went from about $3.5 trillion total public debt in 2001 to about $14 billion today. At least $6.5 trillion was lost due to tax “rate reductions,” wars and other spending. Thus more than half the “massive deficit” was caused by decisions made in Washington.
This is my only point.
I never understand why people refer to a “Clinton surplus.” Debt never went down during Clinton’s administration, so it seems strange to claim he had a surplus. Is it because people don’t know the issue, or do people really just feel comfortable not counting intragovernmental holdings as debt?
Keith,
I do think they have a right. I don’t think exercising this right makes them good or responsible politicians. And I’d bet that many of them will pay the price come next elections. But you have no grounds for accusing them in not caring for the country. Of course they do. They just see things differently.
@PDA
Here is historical data on capital gains revenue:
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=161
After Clinton reduced CG rates in 1997 the revenue went from roughly 3.5 to a whopping 6.5% of GDP. This is primarily what led to the surplus in late 1990s. Obviously there were other factors and it is not a simple cause -effect relationship; however, note that the revenue soared after rates were cut. Therefore, regarding income tax and especially on high tax earners (whose income is primarily CG), it is not correct to do simple rate reduction calculations and claim that the Bush cuts led to “X” amount of deficit. There is a stimulative and also a supply-side effect.
PDA,
You forgot to mention that policies of deregulation pushed by the Republican Party played a large role in the subprime lending fiasco which helped inflate the housing bubble. The resulting crash made the deficit problem worse by reducing tax receipts and forcing an increase in safety net spending.
In addition, the tax reductions did not spur the creation of jobs which is what they were supposed to do. No net jobs were created during the Bush administration.
To see how far right the Republicans have gone, Obamacare is the same as RomneyCare. This kind of program was the Republicans answer to the single payer plans proposed by Democrats. Now the Republicans are vowing to repeal, or destroy the Health Care Act by refusing to fund it.
Meanwhile the ranks of the medically uninsured are increasing. The middle class incomes are sinking, and many will end up on Medicaid, but some Republicans want to eliminate that also. In Texas, the percentage of uninsured is 25% because the income ceiling is very low. The ceiling is not low enough for Perry, and at one point he proposed to eliminate Medicaid entirely, but didn’t follow through.
The Republican party has been taken over by right wing plutocrats who don’t care about the unemployed and the middle class. They want to increase the power and the wealth that they have. They have bought and paid for the Republican party with their campaign contributions. Their objective is to get rid of anyone who is not with them 100%. Obama can’t compromise enough to suit them even though the rich are getting richer and the middle class are sinking into poverty at record rates.
Meanwhile the ranks of the poor and unemployed are being increased. Public employee layoffs, including many teachers, are going to increase the unemployment ranks very soon as state budget cuts take effect.
All of this is of no consequence to the Republicans, as long as the campaign cash is rolling in, and they can continue to fool the people into electing them.
Tom,
You’re stuck on tax (though you appear to have gone from stating that tax policies had “little effect” to essentially crediting Clinton’s capital gains cuts for the surplus). I’ll remind you, again, that there were other policies that increased the budget deficit.
Even if I stipulate that tax pollicy had no effect on the deficit, you still have to explain away the wars, the bailout, and the stimulus.
It was not just the business cycle. This is a wildly uncontroversial premise that you seem bound and determined to fight to the last breath.
Keith,
I really expect better quality from you than this. This ridiculous rant from the ex-GOP staffer who thinks single payer is just wonderful sounds just like a mainstream Republican? Suurrrrreeee.
The tea party movement is one of the most genuine grass roots populist movements in American history. It shocked the leadership of both parties. There’s no astroturf there. And if lefties and entrenched GOP types in DC don’t understand that, they really aren’t paying attention.
I know there is this deep visceral need for some folks on your side to want to believe that Hoffa represents the real people in America, but the truth is that he represents the ultimate special interest — unions spend more money to influence elections than any other. The ‘tea party’ movement, unorganized and lacking connections to those in power, simply reflects an attitude that tens of millions of voters have — DC spends way too much, is way too corrupt, and is totally out of touch with the people.
They see Obama as the special interest president. Just look at Obamacare — supported by Big Labor, Big Business, Big Government and despised by a majority of the little people. Hoffa clearly speaks for a lot of people on the left who are desperate to take out the sons of bitches. He seems to be channeling Dick Tuck: “the people have spoken — the bastards.”
It’s actually kind of weird to see a grass roots populist movement without leadership yet supported by tens of millions of people be described as “extreme”. I think that says a lot more about those doing the describing than it does for the many millions being described.
When I think of good examples of extreme, I think it more fitting to list Ayers, Dohrn, Wright, Pfleger, Davis, Van Jones, the New Party, and Obama (the most liberal voting record in the Senate — by definition extreme).
Eric Adler Says:
September 6th, 2011 at 5:51 pm PDA,
You forgot to mention that policies of deregulation pushed by the Republican Party played a large role in the subprime lending fiasco which helped inflate the housing bubble.
Like Chris Dodd’s(D-Connecticut) cozy relationship with the banking community had nothing to do with a complete lack of over-site of what was going on in banking.
Homeownership has been a flagship policy of both parties for 60 years. Sub-prime, no money down loans was a magical goose that appeared to lay a politically golden egg. People who would have never been able to make a 20% down-payment on a home could finally own homes.
As with most things ‘too good to be true’ it ended up being ‘too good to be true’.
Harrywr
@25
Dodd did get a special loan from Countrywide. However I haven’t seen any stories that claim he was responsible for allowing the subprime mortgage business to run wild as it did. If you can show me the evidence, I will be grateful for the information.
Subprime loans were responsible for the overheating of the housing market, and were responsible for triggering a wave of defaults as interest rates started to rise. The agency responsible for regulation of mortgage loans was the Federal Reserve. Alan Greenspan’s conservative free enterprise worship ideology made him refuse to regulate the risky subprime mortgage industry, believing that the free market would take care of himself. In the wake of the crash, he admitted this was wrong.
In addition, the repeal of the Glass Steagall act spearheaded by Republican Senator Phil Gramm, which was enacted after the depression to separate commercial and investment banking. This also contributed to the crash.
The SEC also failed to regulate the activities of investment banks, who increased their leverage, and dealt in risky subprime Mortgage Backed Securities.
In the aftermath of the crash, Chris Dodd was actually involved in writing legislation to try to prevent the big banks from taking huge risks, knowing that they are going to be bailed out by the public, because they are too big to fail. Republicans oppose this legislation and are trying to weaken it.
Eric,
Read NY Times reporter Gretchen Morgenson’s book.
Stan @27,
I haven’t read the book but read her articles on the subject. I agree that Freddie and Fanny cooked their books, and overpaid their executives, and had too much leverage. This is bad, but they were not responsible for pushing the subprime liars loans which triggered the housing meltdown.
The Alt A Loans which the Bush adminstration forced them to buy, were below their normal standards, and were less risky than the bulk of the subprime loans bundled by banks and securitized privately. In a sense, Freddie and Fanny were victims of the recession. Their loans were not the first to collapse. Gretchen Morgensen’s book leaves out this part of the story.
@Eric Adler
You are one confused guy. It was not Alan Greenspan’s job to “regulate the sub-prime mortgage industry”. That was congress’ job. Barney Frank and Chris Dodd deserve a lion’s share of the blame for refusing to put limits on Freddie and Fannie’s leverage. Freddie and Fanny were not “victims of recession” they got the recession rolling.
@ PDA
Look, trying to sort out how much of economic downturn or upturn is due to this or that event or policy is very difficult. But the wars are special causes, not economic policy. The bailout would have definitely occurred under a democratic president (in fact it occurred a second time under a democrat). So, in terms of policy, we are left with taxation, trade law, etc. My point is that the big swing from Clinton surplus to Bush deficit was due to a swing in capital gains collections of 4% of GDP (from 6.5 to 2.5%). That was the huge factor.
You fail to grapple with the fact that collections soared after a cut in CG rate. In one of the debates between Hilary Clinton and Obama, Charlie Gibson asked why they wanted to raise CG rates when cutting them had led to such a boon. They had no answer. What is your answer?
Tom, I’m not “fail[ing] to grapple” with anything. You started out saying that policy had “little effect” and I disagreed. You’re now saying that Clinton’s CG rate cut – an economic policy – was responsible for the surplus.
Can we just agree to agree and leave it at that?
@ PDA
Sorry I was not specific enough. The rate cut coupled with the dot com bubble led to soaring capital gains collections, hence the surplus. I am happy to credit Clinton with good economic policy in this regard. Do you agree that cutting the capital gains tax rate was a good idea?
Tom C, I know you want to talk about tax policy. I’m not all that interested in it, to be honest, but someone else may wish to engage you on that point.
All I was objecting to was your statement that White House policy had “little effect” on the budget. I think we both agree that it has significant effect though we probably differ on the magnitude of that effect.
Keith: “As for the takeover by the Tea Party, I think the recent debt madness was a revealing moment for many people”
Actually, you are most likely correct. but not the way you think 😉