At Wednesday’s town hall, Romney said: “Corporations — they’re made up of people. They’re just groups of people that come together for work. When you say tax corporations — the steel and the vinyl and the concrete, they don’t pay taxes. Only people do.”
Yes. The premium shareholders. The CEOs and top officials. They’re “just” people. Making very, very big bucks from the very, very big megabucks that the corporations make.
But, of course, the point of corporations was to limit personal responsibility (by people) in the liabilities of the company they formed. The people who are receiving the largesse of the corporations aren’t actually the corporation themselves. If Exxon-Mobil goes bankrupt, the creditors don’t get to go after the bank accounts of the CEO and the stockholders (though the company pension funds of the janitors and clerks are fair game).
So, no, Mitt — a corporation isn’t just the people that work for it.
Further, corporations are taxed on their profits, not their revenues. So the “expenses” of, say, the company payroll aren’t what a corporate tax is taking away from. The folks most directly hurt are those who are in profit-sharing plans, and (I believe — and I’m sure someone will correct me if I’m wrong) those who are getting dividends.
Now, those profits may be saved to some later time for investment in other business-expanding capabilities, or acquisitions, etc. But while taxes can, in fact, affect a corporation in a negative way, and through it the society it operates in, to somehow make that the direct equivalent of affecting the poor, beknighted “groups of people that come together for work” is more than a bit disingenuous.
“I know there are people that don’t like business,” he said. “I like business. . . .
Business is useful. It serves a societal role. It serves society and the people of society.
It is not, itself, one of those people. It is not drafted. It is not endowed by its founders with the inalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Businesses do not cry, nor laugh. If you prick them, they do not bleed. They cannot be imprisoned, nor do they possess a soul (or qualia).
I like what business can do as a mechanism. Not as a peer.
If we go into attacking one another as Americans and criticizing and scapegoating businesses or enterprise or even the financial-services sector or banks, if we find people to go after, we will fall divided.”
Really? Do we have examples of societies or nations that fell because businesses and banks were criticized? Really?
Businesses are not people (though they are governed by people). Businesses have no citizenship — they are not eligible to vote (yet), nor to run for office. They are governed by the laws of the nation, but hold no particular allegiance or nationality, except as might leach through from their founders or operators.
One cannot attack a business and be rightfully accused of attacking “an American.” Business give no pledge to the flag; they simply operate by the laws of the land (in theory) and are subject to civil (not criminal) penalties should they break those laws.
On the other hand, I wouldn’t suggest “going after” Bank of America, or Goldman-Sachs, or BP, or Exxon-Mobile, or Wal-Mart, for anything in particular — because they aren’t moral agents. They act at the behest of their boards, their executives. Those are the folks who bear the moral weight of the actions of the companies and the companies’ workers — and if there is a point to “going after” a given company, it’s to punish those who profit by it.
As for taxes on corporations, I wouldn’t impose them willy-nilly — to the extent that corporations are useful to society and the people as a whole (and only to that extent), I’m happy to see them prosper.
On the other hand, I think people should pay taxes, according to their ability. And, in just that case, I would say that corporations should indeed be treated like people. If not moreso.
Democratic Dolchstoßlegende by David Atkins – I got a call today from the Obama 2012 campaign, which started with thanking me for my support and invoking Karl Rove to trigger my fear response. And I cut off the nice lady and said, “I’m not giving anything right now, thank you,” and hung up. I have little doubt that, as things presently stand, I’ll be voting for Obama next year, and I’ll probably make contributions — perhaps even to the presidential campaign. But I also don’t mind letting the Obama campaign know that I’m not just automatically forking over the moolah and support just yet, and they can’t just assume my devotion to the cause.
KOA 2011“TIME LAPSE” | Don’t Panik! – If you always were wondering about that big campout we go on each June … well, here’s a better rendition than all of my posts combined. Thanks, Mark!
Can’t Emphasize This Enough – “The movement conservatives have all come out of the closet – even the ones on the federal bench. They smell a final victory: a return to Gilded Age America.” Which is great, if you’re one the lucky fractional percent who have the gilt.
Links (most recent first) that caught my eye, but did not warrant full-blown blog entries ….
This is a new one on me – When you play in someone else’s imaginary backyard, you can’t take it personally if they, someday, relandscape it. Most of the good writers for the major comic book companies (David included) realize this when they work on a company-owned character, too.
How the World Wide Web was nearly called The Information Mesh – (1) The chosen name increased the number of times the letter “w” was said out loud by several orders of magnitude. There’s probably a fantasy story there involving some plotting by a demon named “Dubuyu”. (2) I loved Gopher. The service protocol, not the Love Boat crewmember.
Nuclear Implications for China’s High Speed Train Wreck – IEEE Spectrum – I’m sure all the good Ayn Rand fans will suggest that if train construction contractors or nuclear plant engineering companies do a shoddy or corner-cutting job, the only thing to do is simply to buy from someone else after the resulting disaster.
How the Deficit Got This Big – NYTimes.com – “A few lessons can be drawn from the numbers. First, the Bush tax cuts have had a huge damaging effect. If all of them expired as scheduled at the end of 2012, future deficits would be cut by about half, to sustainable levels. Second, a healthy budget requires a healthy economy; recessions wreak havoc by reducing tax revenue. Government has to spur demand and create jobs in a deep downturn, even though doing so worsens the deficit in the short run. Third, spending cuts alone will not close the gap. The chronic revenue shortfalls from serial tax cuts are simply too deep to fill with spending cuts alone. Taxes have to go up.” It’s not that difficult, except that politics are trumping reality. And, ultimately, reality will bite back.
With nine days to go – Aren’t it the Republicans who have been lambasting the Dems for creating “uncertainty” in the markets, up until, oh, about a month ago?
Links (most recent first) that caught my eye, but did not warrant full-blown blog entries ….
Who Benefits from the Mortgage Interest Program? – People who deduct their mortgage interest? Yup, that’s a “government benefit” and “social engineering”. It’s just a “general welfare” program that benefits the middle and upper classes more, and thus is seen as an “entitlement” by the movers and shakers. (One I’m happy to take advantage of, to be sure.)
Is Marriage Equality Scarier Than War? – Mr Richey seems to think that recognizing gay marriages means he has to be gay, or marry gays, or be pro-gay. None of which, in fact, is true, but it makes for some great, scary sermons.
Why the Wealthy Need the Welfare State – “The Gilded Age plutocrats who first acceded to a social welfare system and state regulations did not do so from the goodness of their hearts. They did so because the alternatives seemed so much more terrifying.” The ones of this age might consider just that.
Where Exactly Have the Mainline Churches Been for the Last Forty Years? – I’ve seen a lot of the above in the Episcopal Church as I’ve belonged to it for the last 15 years (and learned about its past before that). And, yes, I see a number of positive signs that the church is beginning to address the problems described.
Harry Potter: the anti-geek – That’s an interesting analysis — and one that rings true (though there’s more to the story than just that).
Warren Buffett: I could end the deficit in 5 minutes. – That would certainly end it — but it begs the more important issues of (a) when it should be ended and (b) how to do so. Which are the real sticking points.
Top Republicans Embarrassed By Birthers; – This is one of those cases where, on the one hand, I’m gleeful that GOP tactics are biting them in the butt, but on the other hand those tactics have still had a toxic effect on the political and social system we all have to live in.
The Gospel according to Ayn Rand – On Faith – The Washington Post – I’m trying to figure out how Ryan can claim that Ayn Rand was the basis for him entering public service — since “public service” would seem to be, by definition, not part of Rand’s philosophy.
Obama’s signing statement is wrong – “There’s no denying that Obama has been inconsistent on signing statements. But conservatives who profess to want fewer Obama ‘czars’ might start by calling on Republicans to stop exploiting that dysfunction to grind the nominating process to a halt.”
Jon Stewart Grills Mike Huckabee On His Praise For David Barton – I watched the on-air portion of this, and it really made me wonder how soon Huckabee will return to the show, since Stewart grilled him fairly well and all Mike could do was deke and dodge and answer different questions than what he was asked. I need to watch he unabridged interview.
Which Airports Have the Most Unfair Fares? – NYTimes.com – (1) Margie found this article very interesting. (2) Look, another reason to fly into Houston Hobby vs IAH. (3) Amusement that two of the top 5 most overpriced large airports are named after Republicans. (4) Woot, Denver is “competitively-priced.”
How to Turn DCA Into a Parking Lot – There was always something magical about which section you were parked in at Disneyland. That said, I’m happier to see a second park (even DCA) than a vast parking lot.
The 0.00014 percent solution – Remarkable that the GOP, oh-so-concerned over the budget, spent so much rhetoric on stuff that really doesn’t affect the budget all that much.
Links (most recent first) that caught my eye, but did not warrant full-blown blog entries ….
Paul Ryan and Ayn Rand: A Love Affair Against the Common Good – One would think the conflict between Rand and Christianity would get as much play on the Right as the love affair between Rand and unfettered Capitalism. It’s telling which aspect of Rand makes the GOP go ga-ga.
Robert Reich (Why We Must Raise Taxes on the Rich) – “If the rich were taxed at the same rates they were half a century ago, they’d be paying in over $350 billion more this year alone, which translates into trillions over the next decade. That’s enough to accomplish everything the nation needs while also reducing future deficits” But … but … that would make them fractionally less rich!
Norton Disables Itself After One Year – Wow! If it’s a way to automatically get rid of Symantec software without reformatting your machine, it might even be worth it. (Side note: Way to go, Symantec, in driving still more people to Microsoft’s free AV solution.)
Procrustes was a mythic bad guy in the Greek myths (eventually done in by Theseus). He’d capture travelers and put them on his special-made bed. If they were too small, he’d stretch their bodies on the rack until they fit. If they were too long for the bed, though, he’d cut off their limbs until they fit.
While driving to the airport in Houston yesterday, I caught a brief snippet of some yahoo talk radio guy grudgingly admitting that people were ticked off about all the proposed state budget cuts in Texas — cuts necessary because the state is in awful shape fiscally because the governor papered over their budget problems through Federal funding that he was, all the while, decrying as evil and wasteful.
Anyway, after admitting that the citizenry of Texas was, indeed, unhappy about all this, the yahoo commented, “But if you’re going to cut the government down to size, it’s going to be painful.”
This is a common theme in a lot of political commentary from the Right, and it boils down to the proposition that government is too big, too bloated, too expensive, and needs to be cut back. Just on general principles. It needs to be “cut down to size.”
But that implies that there is some ideal size of “government” — not to mention that the size is somehow smaller than what we have (on a federal, state, and local level). There’s no proof put forward for this, or even a target. It’s just “Big Government is Too Big,” so let’s just keep lopping away at the budget until, smaller, it’s not quite so big any more. We’ll know when to stop … somehow.
Is government “too big”? I don’t know. I can certainly point out things the government does that I think are unnecessary, or that cost too much, or that are actually harmful. There are a lot of programs I’d be willing to specifically question and figure out if, in fact, they are worth the money.
But the GOP isn’t interested in specific programs, except for occasional “look at how silly big government is” kinds of things. They’re just interested in cutting the budget.
Because cutting the budget means lower taxes.
And lower taxes are the real goal.
Everyone wants more money in their pocket, sure. But for the GOP leadership, it seems not a matter of a balancing act between services. They simply want the more money in their pocket (and, of course, the pockets of their wealthy and corporate supporters).
They want to cut the government down to size, not because government is too big, but because they don’t want to pay for what government provides, because, honestly, when you’re well-off, you can (on the surface, at least) avoid needing government spending. You don’t need a social safety net. You don’t need rehab programs, or job stimulus, or day care. You don’t need public schools. Heck, you might not need police (or at least figure that, with cutbacks, the police will, at least, be protecting your house, if not all those shanties down in the valley, and if they don’t, well, your gated neighborhood can always hire its own security).
Thus, the government needs to be “cut down to size.”
And if there’s a budget deficit, well, then, the last thing you want to consider — or even admit is an option — is raising taxes. Because the size of government isn’t the real problem for the GOP. It’s not cutting government down to size. It’s cutting taxes down to size. That’s the real goal. “I’ve got mine. You go pound sand.”
And that’s where we are in this country right now, including Texas. We’re running large deficits, due to a major economic downturn still being recovered from. Those deficits aren’t actually causing any significant harm at the moment, but that’s not the debate being heard. The deficits must be “cut down to size.”
If you’re running out of money at the end of the month, you have three ways to deal with it — rack up larger debt (which might be necessary in the short term), reduce your spending (do you really need a large caramel macchiatto every morning?), or supplement your income (take a second job, or look for a better paying job).
In reality, people do a combination of these things. But in the current debate, (a) and (c) are off of the table — we must “tighten our belts” and “cut government down to size.” Which means cutting government — but, really, means cutting taxes. Which is why, even with all the deficits, every single one of those GOP governors and congresscritters is also pushing full time for cutting corporate taxes and cutting estate taxes and cutting top tax rates.
The idea of raising taxes is completely out of the conversation, even from the Democrats.
That’s the Procrustean budget process. We all know that if government is allowed and not restrained, it will stretch its spending to however large the revenue stream is, and beyond. I don’t think anyone would reasonably argue that government spending is, per se, good, or that not having some checks on it isn’t of value.
But the converse is what’s happening now. Government spending (as a talking proxy for taxation) is, arbitrarily, being identified as too big. It needs to be “cut back to size” — and, like Procrustes, the GOP and and wealthy corporate interests that stand to benefit most, have just the solution — keep hacking at limbs until it “fits” their arbitrary size specification.
And because it is arbitrary, no compromise or randomly chosen number will ever be enough. Offer to cut anything, and you’re told it has to be at least $30 billion in cuts. Offer to cut $30 billion, and suddenly the demand is $60 billion. And because it’s not a debate about which services need to be cut — it’s not “we need to cut schools to size” or “we need to cut police to size” or “we need to cut care for the poor to size” — the number can changed as desired, with the actual cuts to programs being left as an exercise for the student. (“We need to cut $100 billion — you figure out how.”)
Control the debate, and you control the outcome. Render all the options except the one you want off limits, and you get the option you want. You can’t tell Procrustes he should simply get a longer bed for longer guests, because, ultimately, it’s not the aesthetics of the bed that offend, it’s just that he wants to cut.
Procrustes would be proud of the current budget debate, even in Texas.
Links (most recent first) that caught my eye, but did not warrant full-blown blog entries ….
Badass Quote of the Day [Dispatches from the Culture Wars] – “The United States has only 5% of the worlds population but imprisons 25% of its prisoners. The federal government spent over $15 billion on the drug war in 2010, or a rate of $500 a second. Our country is 66% non-Hispanic white people but 70% of our prisoners are non-white.” THIS is the War on Drugs. Any questions?
The Magical Bend – An intersting idea, though I suspect it would make the utensils a bit harder to hold, and I’d worry about a clasping utensil’s impact on china.
Cella Energy claims breakthrough that would result in $1.50 per gallon gasoline alternative. – “If this is real you can expect the Oil Industry to have an absolute shit fit over it. I’d like to be optimistic about it, but the cynic in me can’t help but think that even if it does work as well as claimed that there’ll be some wicked trade-off like it causes cancer in everything that comes in contact with it or something else equally horrible.” Or at least that’s what some with a vested interest in the status quo will CLAIM … [/conspiracymode]
A note to the Teapartiers… – But … but … if they had guns, they’d automatically have freedom! Plus, they’re Muslims! You can’t trust them with guns!
Again with ‘exceptionalism’? – I’d like to think that “exceptional” is meant as “unique” or “unanticipated” or somehow particularly wonderful. But “exceptional” also seems a lazy way of excusing our behavior: nobody should be allowed to torture prisoners “except” the US (because we’re “exceptional”); nobody should overthrow governments “except” the US (because we’re “exceptional”), etc. That this word has become a ginned-up synonym for “patriotic” is all the more lousy.
The serious flaws in the GOP’s anti-abortion bill – Not only does it block Medicaid funding for abortions when rapes aren’t “forcible” enough, it effectively does the same for private insurance under the Affordable Care Act. But remember, the GOP is steadfastly against imposing the government’s tyrannical health insurance rules on private individuals!
Frank Rich: The Tea Party wags the dog – The GOP establishment is potentially in a lot of trouble. Unfortunately, that has consequences for the nation as a whole, too.
GOP Priorities: Redefining Rape – While abortion is an option I’ll never be happy about, this, right here, is precisely why I will never make that decision for someone else, for the person, individual, citizen, woman, who is ultimately having to make that choice. That there are those who are so enamored of the abstract that they would deign to decide who “qualifies,” whose rape was “forcible” enough to “merit” coverage of abortion services, is itself sickening enough.
I Me Mine: The Unholy Trinity Of Ayn Rand « Tomfoolery – Rand appeals to the high school / college period of self-discovery by saying, “You are the only person in the world who matters. Pursue your own self-interest because that is the highest good.” Most people grow out of that, fortunately. Randians never seem to. And way too many of them are now in the halls of our government.
Building a Better Word Cloud – An interesting analysis (esp. if you compare the most frequent words and compare them to the person usually considered more “aloof” and “analyitical” and out of touch, vs. the person who it’s often claimed is “one of us”).
HOWTO make health-care cheaper by spending more on patients who need it – ” In other words, providing excellent, personalized care to the small number of patients who don’t fit the system’s model saves far more money than making the system more stringent, with more paperwork, higher co-pays and other punitive measures. It’s a win-win.” The problem with systems is that they are rarely dynamic enough to deal with those outside the system. And they usually do everything they can to defend themselves from change.
Neil Barofsky: Credit ratings for banks now include assurance of government bailouts – Imagine the brouhaha if social activists were stating that any individual should feel free to take whatever risk they want because the government would always bail them out with a security net. But, then, the banks are “too big to fail,” and too many individuals are “too small to matter.”
Links (most recent first) that caught my eye, but did not warrant full-blown blog entries ….
Their Own Private Europe – NYTimes.com – The GOP hereby formally requests that “facts” not be allowed to interfere with their “talking points.” Thank you.
Tussling Over Jesus – NYTimes.com – “To me, this battle illuminates two rival religious approaches, within the Catholic church and any spiritual tradition. One approach focuses upon dogma, sanctity, rules and the punishment of sinners. The other exalts compassion for the needy and mercy for sinners — and, perhaps, above all, inclusiveness.” I know which one resembles most the Jesus I read about in the Bible.
What Is The LEAST Dangerous, Cutest Thing We Can Outlaw Next? – “How about those scary animals that have clipboards and dream up worst case scenarios for every aspect of childhood? Let’s ban THOSE! But no, first we must worry more about The Children.” Crikey.
Google Starts Censoring BitTorrent, RapidShare and More | TorrentFreak – It’s hardly censorship, but … well, it’s an odd thing for them to do — completely ineffective, even trivial, yet an intentional step. Is it a (poorly considered, but intentionally harmless) sop to Big Media, or the start of something less savory from Google in this area?
House GOP Ends Climate-Change Committee Because It’s Not Real – Because why would we need to have a congressional focus not just on climate change, but on energy independence? Just drill, baby, drill! And with enough warming, soon everywhere will be a deep-water drilling site!
Strange bedfellows and ethanol subsidies – Amusing. But the whole ethanol thing has been a bi-partisan vs bi-partisan issue for a long time. It will be interesting to see how the “federal spending doesn’t create jobs” thang goes alongside the “cutting this federal spending will cost jobs” thang.
Wasn’t My Job to Do My Job – So from Simpson’s standpoint, it was to put out what HE thought were the solutions to the problem, not to come up with something that that the commission could all agree on. Um … then why do you think you weren’t the only one asked, knucklehead?
Kyl: Dems Cave By Monday Or No START Treaty | TPMDC – So, Sen. Kyl, the issue is not all your ostensible concerns over nuclear security and upgrading our remaining weaponry, but it’s about playing political games. Got it. Thanks for revealing yourself as a hack.
Bedroom Decorating Is a Hot Trend for Tweens and Teens – WSJ.com – We’ve (esp. the [ahem] maternal grandparents) certainly indulged Kay with some redecorating efforts in her room, though much has been DIY, not via Pottery Barn and the like. And that’s how you can do it without spending several thousand dollars every couple of years (sorry, Kitten).
Foreign aid and public confusion – “This may be the single most important fact about public opinion regarding the budget: most Americans think that much if not most of the money the federal government spends goes to things they don’t like and people they don’t like, whether it’s wasteful pork or foreigners or lazy welfare recipients. So when you tell them we have to start slashing government, they think, ‘Sounds great — it certainly won’t affect me!'”
What the right’s “American exceptionalism” attack on Obama is really about – “Let’s stipulate at the outset that there’s really no point in getting into a debate with right-wingers over the question of whether Obama believes in ‘American exceptionalism.’ That’s because the right intends this attack line as a proxy for their real argument: That Obama is not one of us.”
Pence’s priorities – “I think the minimum that we have to do right now for Americans that are struggling in unemployment in this economy is make sure that no American sees a tax increase.” Welcome to today’s compassionately conservative GOP.
All 42 Senate Republicans announce hostage plan – “Also note the unstated truth behind the threat — Republicans will block literally everything until they’re satisfied, at which point, they’ll try to block literally everything anyway.”
Victor Davis Hanson. That’s Doctor Hanson to you! Because he’s a professor!
Victor Davis Hanson has responded to the Obama press conference yesterday, rising above the neener-neener-neener of most of the Right to provide a conservative response to what the election meant … rather, to what the Democrats are saying the election meant.
Except, rather than an analysis, Hanson’s decided that Obama’s a disingenous liar who’s spent the last two years race-baiting and trying to turn the United States into France. Hanson seems filled with righteous anger at the suggestion that there might be reasons — any reasons — to blame the Democratic “shellacking” on anything other than an informed and profound repudiation of the President, the Democrats, the Pelosi/Reid cabal, liberalism, progressivism, socialism, and, probably, Woodrow Wilson.
He starts right off with his list of “What the Election Was Not About” …
1. Communication—As If You Would Have Liked My Agenda Had You Just Been More Informed
President Obama’s postmortem press conference was a near disaster. He seemed subdued, but also sometimes petulant—still convinced that we, in fear and distrust, “lashed out” in anger at the doctor rather than the disease. In fact, the same voter furor that turned on him is, he thinks, what earlier elected him: only his failure to channel it properly explains the setback.
Note the clever way Hanson frames it all as “furor.” Obama only won in the first place, it seems, because his supporters were “angry” — and now that they’ve turned on him, well, Obama is “petulant” about it.
Finally he did admit that he was “shellacked,” but he believes that partisanship confused us voters into shellacking him.
This common complaint that he failed to communicate just how wonderfully he had done is quite an unhinged Carteresque/Kerryesque exegesis. The problem was not that the American voter did not know about the second stimulus, ObamaCare, the efforts to push cap and trade, card check, and $3 trillion more in debt, but that he knew them all too well. When framed by 10% unemployment, slow growth, record food stamp usage, and home foreclosures, the problem was, again, too much, rather than too little, information. Obama was overexposed, not underexposed.
Lovely. Hanson practically proves the point. No, it’s not that what the Administration and Congress managed to accomplish was completely hidden. It’s that everything that was done that was publicly known was tarred, feathered, and flogged by the Right — be it in Congress or the punditry — as evil, un-American, tyrannical, sinful, dangerous, and deranged, usually with a healthy dose of ad hominem attacks on the principals involved — e.g., “petulant,” “Carteresque/Kerryesque,” “ObamaCare” …
Were there achievements that were simply overlooked, hidden, masked, unknown by the electorate? Absolutely. Look at polling data. Most people thought their federal income taxes had gone up (they went down), that bailouts were costing trillions (most of the money has been recovered), that the stimulus hadn’t created a single job (um, yes it has), that unemployment is up (it’s down), that all the stimulus and bail-outs started with Obama (it started with Dubya), etc. Those misapprehensions haven’t come from overexposure, they’ve come from the GOP and its propagandists beating the drum in the opposite direction, and the Dems not trying to take the narrative back.
The more he communicated on the campaign trail—“back seat,” “enemies,”“they” don’t want you to vote—the more the jaded voter turned from his cause. I fear very few will now listen to the new Obama in extremis calling for a new civility of the sort he helped destroy with his offensive and polarizing slurs and smears the last month.
Yes, heaven forbid that the President actually call out on the campaign trail the Republicans for what they’ve been saying and doing. That’s “offensive” and “polarizing” and “slurs and smears.” It’s the bully crying in outrage when someone finally punches him back in the nose. Look at the rhetoric from GOP candidates and pols over the last two years, as abetted by Fox “News” and folks like Beck and Limbaugh.
In point of fact, Obama has been too reticent to burn a few bridges, to stop seeking consensus and bipartisanship and GOP buy-in in every single legislative conflict since January 2009. He’s only stepped into the fray in extremis, at the last moment, when all nearly seemed lost, and then only to offer a mild chiding and a few more compromises.
The idea that his campaigning over the last month has destroyed his bipartisan “credibility” (as if he’s managed to get any significant bipartisan support over the last two years) is laughable. And, of course, has nothing to do with the effect of the Right-wing Noise Machine on people’s perceptions of what’s been happening the last few years, and the Democrats not addressing that effect dead on and constantly.
2. We Spent Too Little?
Given what we know of the models of Spain, Italy, Ireland, Greece, and California, we should not take seriously another lunatic explanation that we did not borrow enough. Supposedly Obama followed the conservative Japanese route of the 1990s and thus was too fiscally restrained. This is more than insane. Increasing government spending on the way to a planned 40% of the economy, while borrowing $3 trillion was not timid.
First off, those states were largely borrowing over time to support major social programs that couldn’t be sustained. Stimulus spending — spending to generate jobs and further private investment — is a very different thing. It’s the difference between borrowing for a vacation and borrowing for an education. And even that wildly oversimplifies the roots of the economic problems of the countries described; in short, they, and certainly not California, did not face economic crises because they spent to much trying to get out of an economic crisis; they were in trouble because they were already hocked to the gills and had no track record to indicate that they could get out of that debt.
And that spending by the US actually helped stimulate the economy — not enough because the amount got cut before it ever got to the President’s desk, but employment is up, tax receipts are up, and that growth is part of what’s getting the US going whereas places like Greece are going to be suffering mightily for the foreseeable future.
The real reason Obama turned a recession into a near depression?
He did? Really? Everything I’ve seen indicates that within a few months of his getting into office, things began turning around … too slowly, to be sure, but definitely not a further plunge from recession to depression. Granted, Hanson is a historian, but I think maybe he needs to check his sources.
Let us count the ways: a) He trash-talked business (from the Chrysler creditor mess to the “at some point I do think you’ve made enough money” toss-off) into stasis, and the private sector now sits on the sidelines hoarding trillions of dollars in fear of ObamaCare, more regulation, and government confiscation.
b) His team talked non-stop about raising taxes—income taxes, payroll taxes, capital gains taxes, inheritance taxes, health care taxes, even VAT taxes. Psychologically that frightened off investors and entrepreneurs.
Ah. The mean old president scared away the all the big businessmen and venture capitalists. The crap economy and high unemployment had nothing to do with it.
Now, if you told me they were “hoarding trillions of dollars” in anticipation of being able to spend a fraction of it on the midterm elections (thanks, SCOTUS) and get a Congress in that would seek to kill health care reform, financial regulatory reform, and any taxes it could get its hands on … I’d believe you.
And non-stop talk about taxes? Really? Aside from the idea of any taxation seems anathema to the Right, and thus stands out as a red cape to them, any tax proposals seriously made by the Administration have been modest, at best, and hardly some sort of mighty crusade.
c) The government wasted the borrowed stimulus money on pork-barrel projects and spread-the-wealth social programs that produced no real wealth.
Bosh. (Yes, that’s not much of an answer, but it’s as coherent and defensible as Hanson’s characterization.)
d) His advisory team simply quit and left town—Emanuel, Romer, Summers, Orszag—more or less confirming that they did not ever know quite what they were doing.
They’re not just quitters, they’re clueless quitters who are fleeing before the righteous mobs arrive with torches and pitchforks. Because presidential advisory team members never leave an administration. Even if they have compelling personal reasons for doing so. Especially when they can see that the president’s power is going to be more circumscribed the next term because of electoral losses.
e) He wasted millions of legislative hours on health care that terrified employers, and very little on incentives to businesses to create jobs.
Yes. It was all about terrifying employers. And it was an intentional plan to “waste millions of legislative hours” (cunningly roping the GOP into that very move), because he’d never talked about health care reform during the campaign, but sprang it on everyone, complete with death panels, just when the crisis demand he spend everything on giving businesses incentives (i.e., tax breaks) which they would then automatically translate into jobs.
I could go on, but you get the point that Obama supposedly not following the Greek mega-borrowing model was not our problem. (By the way, for all its innate crises, Japan still is in far better shape today than Italy, Spain, and Greece).
And Italy, Spain, and Greece are hardly models for the structure and robust nature of the American economy.
3. Obstructionist Republicans
A third explanation often aired is that Republicans are good at destroying noble things like Obamism, but not good at governing.
When their stated goal is not to govern but to deny the president any wins, and in fact work to ensure his loss in 2012 — yeah, I’d say that’s a fair explanation.
Limbaugh, Hannity, Fox News and the usual partisan suspects deluded the gullible public.
Well, how many people (esp. among their audience) still think Obama is a Muslim, or a socialist, or a Kenyan?
The result is that we still do not appreciate the wonders of ObamaCare (check those rising premiums), …
Clearly HCR’s biggest mistake is that it was not implemented instantly, no matter the cost and disruption, rather than being phased in over time.
… and will soon choke without cap and trade, …
A policy that had widespread GOP support (including with Obama’s GOP opponent in 2008), but which suddenly became anathema when Obama floated the concept. Great governing, GOP!
and will applaud Obama for the trivial things like the Government Motors Volt.
And a nice trivializing of both some fine R&D investment and mischaracterization of the highly successful auto manufacturer bail-out. Far from being “Government Motors,” GM is coming back, buying back its stock, and doing well. As opposed to simply letting it (and its suppliers, and dealers) fail.
Yet Obama and the left seem oblivious to the fact that they gave as good as they got. Here in California Jerry Brown’s commercials, as well as Boxer’s, were as vicious as their opponents’, more so in fact.
In the eye of the beholder, perhaps. But vitriolic campaign ads (and I despise them regardless of the parties) have nothing to do with obstructionism. Indeed, the point of noting that Republicans in Congress (particularly the Senate) were obstructionist, was not that they were mean and nasty (they were), but that they stopped government where they could and slowed it down where they couldn’t. Between unconscionable stalling on approvals, constant filibuster threats, and refusals to close even to just have debate … the GOP obstructed the function of government, and did it more to keep the Obama Administration from succeeding than because of philosophical differences (witness the array of appointees who were approved on a bipartisan basis in committee, languished for months because of holds by GOP senators, then were eventually approved with large or unanimous bipartisan votes).
My only surprises are, one, that dozens of Republicans survived the smearing and character destruction, …
Oh, dear. Those poor little hothouse flowers of the party of Karl Rove and Lee Atwater are being smeared, I tell you! Smeared!
… and, two, Obama et al. are now calling for a time-out and “can’t we all get along” brotherhood. Ask yourself this: had Obama enjoyed a 60-seat gain after his “enemies” talk, would he now have called for a new era of political healing and harmony?
Actually, he probably would have. He did after the 2008 elections, even as the Right was talking about how they hoped that Obama would fail, and resolving to do all they could to make it happen. I assert Obama’s error was in not realizing until too late (and perhaps not even now) that this sort of talk, in the face of an intransigent opposition, is not only futile, but it wastes time and encourages further opposition and extortion of concessions.
The notion that stonewalling conservatives derailed a successful president is adolescent.
Which you’ve proven, Victor, by not talking about it.
4. Race
Oh yes, race. I mention that because on election day Eugene Robinson in the Washington Post has already played that preemptory card to explain the repudiation of the Obama agenda.
I am not aware of anyone saying this is a primary motive for everyone opposed to the Obama presidency. To claim it is not a factor among some voters and some opponents is not only disingenuous, but demonstrably false (as a casual browse at various Tea Party demonstrations and some select quotes from the right-wing punditry can demonstrate).
Here’s why that is also crazy:
a) The anger is against the Obama agenda and those who promote it. A Nancy Pelosi is as unpopular, or more unpopular, than Barack Obama.
And certainly the idea there might be any connection between racism and misogyny is unheard of.
I don’t question that a lot of folks are largely unhappy over what they see as policy, or the policy results, or what they are told the policy is all about. Again, that some carry along with them racial and/or misogynistic sentiments alongside that, or as a contributing factor for their unhappiness, doesn’t contradict that.
Lots of white-male entrenched incumbents lost not because they supported a black man, but because they oversaw the government takeover of health care,
Hanson blows any credibility by retreading this old canard. The idea that a regulated private insurance industry providing universal private health insurance policies is somehow a “government takeover” is … well, I’ll call it a lie, and be generous in doing so.
… borrowed $3 trillion in 21 months, …
Not surprising in a major economic downturn (which started well before he was in office) and in the middle of two wars (also started before he was in office). All of which is a lovely bookend to the $5 trillion in debt racked up (in “good times”!) by the GOP and Dubya Administration, with nary a peep.
perpetuated the “culture of corruption,”
Defined? Examples? As opposed to?
… and saw unemployment rise to 10%.
The peak of unemployment (10.6%) was in January 2009, the very month Obama took office. It has declined since then. Not fast enough, but attributing the rise in unemployment to the “Obama agenda” is simply dishonest.
b) The Tea Party zealots backed all sorts of candidates, women like Sharron Angle, Hispanics like Marco Rubio, blacks like Allen West, and Asians like Van Tran. Contrary to Robinson’s charges, race or gender was incidental — not essential — to their support.
Certainly there were very prominent TP candidates who were not white males (though most who weren’t were white females). And, again, being a True Believer from a policy perspective does seem to be the primary prerequisite for TP candidacy. That doesn’t invalidate the demonstrable supposition that racism doesn’t play a role in some TPers dislike of the President (and, thus, his allies).
c) Barack Obama has encountered no more venom—and in fact much less—than what George Bush or Bill Clinton endured.
Oh, please.
As of yet, thank God, we have not seen an Alfred Knopf novel like Checkpoint aimed at Obama, or anything like the 2006 Toronto prize-winning film Death of a President, which imagined the shooting of George Bush. I don’t recall Robinson at the time suggesting that such sick, unhinged hatred of Bush was either untoward or motivated by nefarious forces.
I’d suggest that, in part, that’s because overt racism is generally frowned upon.
Death of a President, from what I’ve read, is less a “sick, unhinged hatred of Bush” by a fictionalized assassination, than a story of politics and civil liberties and the state of the US with the assassination of Bush as the trigger point, so to speak. It’s a political thriller, not a wish fantasy. Unlike, say, the huge spike in death threats toward Obama even as he started being a serious candidate, vs. other, um, non-black candidates.
d) By 2001 the two highest foreign policy officials of the U.S. government—Secretary of State and National Security Advisor—were both African-Americans—and appointed by George Bush. There was some racism directed at them, but it came mostly from the anti-war Left (cf. the despicable comments of a Harry Belafonte)— and especially from abroad, as in the case of the sick, anti-Rice cartoons that appeared in the Palestinian papers. Again, I don’t recall outrage from Robinson over that overt racism.
Hanson seems to feel that by disparaging Eugene Robinson, he can defuse the racism charge. This is known in the profession as an ad hominem attack.
e) To the degree racial divisiveness is more apparent after 2008, it is largely due to the Obama administration.
So we blame the victim.
The president himself called for Latinos to see Republicans as “enemies.” He appealed to racial groups to vote on the basis that the Republicans did not wish them to. He used racially loaded imagery to suggest that the Republicans should sit in the back of the car. He suggested that the Cambridge police, on no evidence, had engaged in stereotyping and had acted stupidly. His attorney general called Americans “cowards” for not wishing to talk about race on his terms. No need to repeat the past racist rants of Van Jones. His Supreme Court nominee gave reasons why a “wise Latina” intrinsically would make a better judge than a white counterpart. And all this came after the 2008 mess with the overt racist Rev. Wright, the “typical white person” slur, and the condescending put-down of the white clingers of Pennsylvania. To the degree racial polarization has surfaced, it has been due entirely to Barack Obama’s modus operandi, saying different things to different audiences, predicated on their race — and whether the comments are thought to remain private and not for public dissemination.
Right. Racist messages have been out there, but to point them out is racist. Prominent Republican candidates and office-holders demonize killer hordes of Mexicans crossing the border to lop off our heads (and steal our jobs), but to suggest that the GOP might not be as Latino-friendly as they claim to be is racist. Suggestions of diversity of life experience as something that might be worthwhile are obviously racist.
And calling the President racist — or a race-baiter, or responsible for any racism that has surfaced — certainly couldn’t be racist.
f) One thing has changed, however. The near obsessive use of the slur “racist” in lieu of an argument has now so inflated the currency of that charge that it has been rendered meaningless — and, in fact, tells us far more about the character of the accuser than of the intended target.
Sort of like “liberal” or “Nazi” or “socialist.”
So What Was Tuesday?
The truth is always the simplest explanation. Here it goes in simple language from the beginning: Obama was elected largely because of public furor over Bush/Iraq.
Well, certainly over Bush. And Bush’s failed economic policies. And Bush’s wars. And Bush’s civil liberties record. And Bush’s palpable dumbness. And Bush’s cronies. And the “culture of corruption” amongst same.
There was furor, and anger. But there was also a positive message of hope and change. Compare the campaign banners of the Obama 2008 campaign to the signs of the Tea Party. Start your look for real “furor” there.
The fawning media hid his socialist background.
Right. All the Fox horses and all the News Corp. men couldn’t dig up what a die-in-the-pink-wool socialist he was.
He ran as a centrist.
And has presided as one, to the dismay of quite a few on the Left.
The Wall Street meltdown wiped away the small McCain/Palin lead.
Well, that and McCain looking like a buffoon in reacting to it (and in selecting Palin as a running mate).
Obama in his hubris took that flukish set of events and reinvented them into proof that he could deliver to the left a once-in-a-century EU-style socialist makeover of America.
That’s right! He promised mandatory paid holidays of six weeks a year, a national health service, and hiring all the unemployed to build Montessori Schools and arugula farms. Oh, and we’d all go on the Euro and get rid of our flags.
That effort polarized the country, stalled the recovery, and terrified the private sector into stasis.
Right, the private sector was terrified, terrified, of the same-old, same-old Treasury officials he brought in. They were so terrified they stopped any spending or investment, which they’d have been more than happy to make if only their taxes were given a holiday for a year or three.
Obama, who was always himself given something (take your pick—Harvard admission,Harvard Law Review billet, Chicago Law School tenure offer, Noble Peace Prize, etc.) without requisite achievement, …
What a poseur. But a clever one, fooling folks into letting him into Harvard, to edit the Harvard Law Review, to be offered tenure, to win a Nobel (sp.) Peace Prize, all for stuff he hadn’t done yet. (Well, maybe you’ve got me on the Nobel Peace Prize, but …).
… is thus stunned that the economy is not an animate Law dean whom he can hope and change into compliance.
Silly man! He wanted to institute an EU-style socialist makover without actually having any idea how to do it! What a buffoon! He should wear Joker make-up, don’t you think?
So naturally he is angry …
Right. Just like Obama’s the racist, he’s also the angry guy. Got it.
… and has turned to almost everything in the past that worked: the race card, …
Because we know racism is dead in America.
… the get-out-the-minority vote card, …
How dare he!? What a racist!
… the enemy Republican bad actors,
And after the GOP welcomed him to the White House with open and humble arms, and begged, begged to be allowed to offer a few small suggestions in the legislative agenda, despite being a minority in both Houses of Congress.
… the greedy rich takers, etc..
Right! Next thing you know, people will be claiming that shadowy private forces in various industries whose high profit margins are threatened by Obama are now injecting hundreds of millions of dollars into mid-term political campaigns! What a paranoid old saw!
But now none of the old “them” bogeymen work; …
The Democrats have always, as we know, been the party of “Us vs. Them” and “if you’re not for us, you’re against us.”
… the more that tactic is tried, the more the economy stalls and the people get angry.
Yes, the economy’s been in a free-fall since the inauguration! Unemployment is up! GDP is down! And meanwhile, every weekend we have the Hour of Hate broadcast live from the White House to cover up for it. The sight of Obama, ranting and raving from the pulpit, spittle flicking from his lips … no wonder the Koch Brothers are terrified!
It’s that simple. He can talk all he wishes, but until he offers fiscal responsibility, …
… (cut off unemployment, but cut taxes on the richest 1% of Americans) …
… private sector encouragement, …
… (cut taxes on business, and provide them further incentives to boost their stock prices) …
… reassurance of adhering to singular American capitalism, …
… (abolish the minimum wage, abolish health and safety regulations, eliminate taxes on capital gains) …
… and pro-jobs tax policies, …
… (see above) …
… he will continue more of these Orwellian, thinking-out-loud press conferences.
And he’ll start rolling around little steel balls, muttering about how the Republicans stole his strawberries!
Remember, this is Victor Davis Hanson, history academic and fawningly addressed as “Dr. Hanson” and “Professor Hanson” by his commenters. He’s smart, by gum! And he writes history books! So he deals with truth, and history, and truth, and reality! And as such a level, considered, rational analysis as the above demonstrates, who would ever dare think otherwise?
Links (most recent first) that caught my eye, but did not warrant full-blown blog entries ….
Tim Lynch: Pot Shots at Prop 19 Fall Flat – The War on Marijuana has done little to reduce drug use, has cost tremendous amount of time and money in the law enforcement arena, and has crammed our jails with folks accused of possession or sale. It’s also been a huge money-maker for drug cartels. Will decriminalizing marijuana solve drug problems in the state of California? I doubt it — but it will certainly not make them worse.
What populism isn’t – “The Chamber didn’t even have to lift a finger — a deranged media personality told his audience, many of whom are middle-class and having a tough time in a struggling economy, to start throwing money at one of the nation’s wealthiest lobbying groups. And these folks did as they were told, voluntarily handing over donations to some of the country’s richest corporations. Why? So these corporations could elect candidates who will, in turn, favor policies that hurt the middle class, undermine workers and consumers, and boost these businesses’ profits.”
Quote of the Day – And in thirty years, Americans will be asking themselves, “How did we stop being the most important country on the planet?”
Limbaugh plays constitutional scholar – The “Left” has not been excluding religious people from government. It has been arguing, successfully, that using religion as the rule of law is unconstitutional. Ironically, the folks screaming the loudest about this (because it’s denying them the “right” to impose Christianity as the law of the land) also scream the loudest about how awful the prospect of Islamic “sharia” law becoming the law of the land is … even as they try to dismantle the constitutional provisions that would prevent that from happening.
‘This Isn’t The Lotto’: Sheriff Halting All Foreclosures Until Banks Prove Evictions Are Legal And Legitimate – “Cook County, Illinois Sheriff Tom Dart recently assembled a team to investigate the foreclosures in his area. His team found that out of 350 cases reviewed, ‘only 17 of them had the proper paperwork.’ Following the investigation, Dart announced Monday that he would be halting all evictions of homeowners — a step he took two years ago at the height of the financial crisis — and would not take part in any foreclosures unless the banks could provide the documentation to prove that the evictions were legitimate and legal.” Good for him. The sheriff should not be enforcing illegitimate and illegal requests.
Harry Potter and the Naked Cash-Grab – Not at all surprising … but I hope Warners’ earlier decision indicates they will make an effort to take the time to do it right. (For the record, I have no intention of picking up any HP3D flicks, but more power to those who do.)
Why Do Americans Have Yards? « Gambler’s House – I enjoy having a yard, to at least some degree — I could probably live easily with one half the size we have, but I do enjoy growing green things and adding some sparks of color to the neighborhood.
Virginia textbook claims blacks fought for Confederacy – Education – Salon.com – “Writers: Verify, verify, verify. Then verify some more. The Internet is not the ultimate source of human knowledge. Parents: Read through your kid’s textbooks and give them the old smell test. If something seems to stink, follow it like a bloodhound back to its source. And if it’s foul, raise hell.”
MEMO: Health Insurance, Banking, Oil Industries Met With Koch, Chamber, Glenn Beck To Plot 2010 Election – There’s nothing wrong per se with people opposing governmental policies they feel hurt them, and pursuing that opposition through the ballot box. But it’s very worth-while for all of those “Hey, it’s us grass-roots Tea Party folk who are tired of Washington business as usual who are leading the charge against Obama and his crowd” crowd to consider whose deep pockets are helping fund all of this … and how … and why.
Krugman Rebuts Right-Wing Charge of ‘Surge’ in Government Spending – “The thing about Krugman is that he’s really wedded to the idea that presenting concrete facts will change the discussion. He doesn’t understand that the right wing will simply create new ‘facts’ to justify their accusations”
When did the V.A. become such a far-right target? – “Limbaugh and Buck think they’d be better off being privatized, but that’s largely because they’re popping off on a subject they don’t understand.” And because there are monied interests that would love to have VA funding going to their for-profit institutions.
Fed Says They’ll Go After Marijuana Users Even If California Legalizes It – Yes, they will oppose it because … it’s wrong? It’s dangerous? It’s a threat to the nation? No, because it will “greatly complicate federal drug enforcement efforts to the detriment of our citizens.” The War on Drugs remains largely interested in simply continuing the War on Drugs.
Twitter Mood Predicts The Stock Market – The problem with the “problems” noted is that the stock market is not a solely (or even primarily) rational beast, no matter how it’s painted by financial types. It’s greatly dependent upon mood, as informing the professional judgment of investors great and small. Discovering that Twitter as a means of surveying mood in general would be generally predictive (barring large, explicit, sudden events) would not at all be surprising.
Setting the table – This is a discussion Margie and I get into on occasion.
Opera calls for browser extension standard | Deep Tech – CNET News – Of course, creating a standard for extensions would obsolete extensions that weren’t part of that standard, and would make less popular browsers more popular. Both of which help Opera. Which isn’t to say it isn’t a good idea for other reasons, or that Opera isn’t a good browser, but it’s hardly just technological altruism driving Opera’s suggestion.
Nice Economy You’ve Got There . . . – “But this is the basic position of every big corporate interest: if you don’t let us do what we want to do, the economy will suffer.”
Now you can buy copies of successful college applications – On the one hand, people cribbing applications they way they buy online school papers is pretty sad. On the other hand, the guy selling them has a point — what are the colleges actually looking for here. You can find places giving (sometimes for a fee) advice on applications; is that substantively different if an applicant uses these examples in that same way?
Mitt Romney tries the warmer, personal approach, trying to come across as a Nice Guy who (still) just thinks the Corporations (not unlike Soylent Green) are People.
One cannot attack a business and be rightfully accused of attacking “an American.” Business give no pledge to the flag; they simply operate by the laws of the land (in theory) and are subject to civil (not criminal) penalties should they break those laws.