Not since Jimmy Carter handed the office to Ronald Reagan — arguably not since Herbert Hoover yielded to Franklin Roosevelt — had a president of one party bequeathed a successor from another party so utter an economic disaster as George W. Bush bequeathed to Barack Obama.
I have to give Frum props for including the Jimmy Carter to Ronald Reagan example. Too many just jump right to the Hoover/Roosevelt depression when the reality of the recent recession, while different in its particulars from either of its predecessors was on a scale far closer to the early 80s, argubably not as bad as the early 80s, which had higher peak unemployment, a much higher "misery index", and a larger economic contraction if you count both parts of the double dip recession back then, the short 1980 recession, combined with the later and steeper 1981-82 recession. The recent recession was longer, than either part of the double dip, but shorter than both dips together, of course that assumes we don't go in to a double dip now.
Too often, conservatives dupe themselves.
Too often everyone dupes themselves. Conservatives are not exempt but they are not particular standouts on this either.
But it’s not always true that what’s good for Goldman Sachs is good for the economy, or vice versa.
Goldman Sachs is not special in that regard. Its also not always true that what's good for GM, or IBM, or Microsoft, or GE, or some collection of particular small or medium sized businesses, is good for the economy.
The economy is more important than the budget.
True but budget deficits of ten percent of GDP are hardly very solid things for the economy even in the relatively short term. Reagan's deficit where about half as big by this measure (and much smaller by other measures, but real dollars is a less important measure, and nominal dollars far less important, even though its the normal headline figure that you see most often).
They are rejecting the teachings of Milton Friedman, who emphasized the value of automatic stabilizers fully as much as John Maynard Keynes ever did.
Automatic stabilizers in general terms are a net benefit (despite the real negatives that do come with them), but they are becoming too large to be affordable. To much of a good thing can become a bad thing. And its not just an issue of size. Just because a program acts as an automatic stablizer, doesn't mean that its a good program.
Fiscal stimulus on top of the automatic stabilizers is of more questionable benefit, and makes the fiscal situation even worse.
So much so that you might describe contemporary American politics as a class struggle between those with more education than money against those with more money than education: Jon Stewart’s America versus Bill O’Reilly’s, Barack Obama versus Sarah Palin.
Those might be poor examples. Is O'Reilly less educated than Stewart? It might be by some measures but if so its not obvious. Obama had more money than Palin during the campaign when they battled each other, and while Palin's income has gone up a lot since, I'm not sure that the Palin's even now have more wealth than the Obamas (esp. not if you include the value of all the perks he gets as president).
Its not the rich vs. the non-rich, or the rich vs. the educated. Its more those with entrenched political power (Democrats, the pork-loving Republicans, politically connected unions and businesses, etc.), vs those outside of that group, some of whom are rich (but mostly not "filthy rich"), most of whom are middle class (but many of them have aspirations for more). With the Democrats as the incumbents and the anti-incumbent attitude, a number of pork-loving Republicans benefits, but others took a fall in the primaries, and important issue is how much their replacement get seduced by this pork (broadly defined, including all sorts of perks of power and special benefits doled out by those in power, not just earmarks).
Non-Tea Party Americans may marvel that any group can think of itself as egalitarian when its main political goals are to cut off government assistance to the poorest and reduce taxes for the richest.
Opposing taking from some, even those that are more wealthy, to give to others, even those who are relatively poor, isn't exactly anti-egalitarian. Opposing taking from the majority (essentially net income tax payers) to give to all sorts of well-connected special interests many of whom are wealthier than the average tax payer, is egalitarian.
The message we hear from some Republicans — “this is no time for compromise” — threatens to extend the failures of governance for at least two more years. These failures serve nobody’s interest, and the national interest least of all.
Yes and no. Compared to achieving positive goals lack of much movement in any direction doesn't serve the national interest, but compared to more of what we've had recently a failure to do much of anything would be a large improvement. |
