Remember Who Won The Election
I’m beginning to get a bit concerned about Barack’s timidity in the face of the Economic Establishment. Yesterday Senator Tom Harkin worried publicly about how much of the stimulus plan seemed aimed towards tax breaks instead of bold public spending.
“There is only one thing we have got to do in the stimulus, and that is how can we create jobs,” said Senator Tom Harkin, Democrat of Iowa, as he left the meeting. “I am a little concerned by the way that Mr. Summers and others are going at this in that, to me, it still looks like a little more of this trickle-down, if we just put it in at the top, it’s going to trickle down. A number of people in there said, ‘Look, we have got to have programs that actually create jobs and put people to work.’ ”
Larry Summers better remember who won the election. I was not John McCain and it was not Hillary Clinton. Establishment Economics pushed by both of those campaigns failed. We should not be falling back on the failed Rubinomics of the Clinton Administration. Obama needs to be reminded that when Rubin and Summers constantly spooked Bill Clinton with the specter of an angry bond market, we lost 8 years of opportunity to rebuild America, institute a Gas Tax, and reduce inequality in wages and reign in Wall Street with effective regulation. In essence, Clinton’s 8 years did nothing to address the larger failures of American Capitalism.
Remember in the Interregnum “the old is dying, but the new cannot be born” because the conventional wisdom does not realize that their path to recovery–the status quo ante–leads only to disaster. It is time for Obama and Biden to be bold and not accept the conventional wisdom of Larry Summers and the old Clinton crowd.
What we still don’t know, and wont see until he gets to work with the Congress are his strategies for raising revenue. There are some significant tax increases to come, probably sufficient to offset the middle tax cuts, but until we see that we really are looking at an incomplete picture.
What we still don’t know, and wont see until he gets to work with the Congress are his strategies for raising revenue. There are some significant tax increases to come, probably sufficient to offset the middle tax cuts, but until we see that we really are looking at an incomplete picture.
Significant cuts to the military-industrial budget would help… Shift the dough over to infrastructure so we get something for the same expenditure other than depleted uranium damaged children in foreign lands, etc.
Significant cuts to the military-industrial budget would help… Shift the dough over to infrastructure so we get something for the same expenditure other than depleted uranium damaged children in foreign lands, etc.
I don’t think anyone can go to Washington and make a difference. We should move the fed to Kansas if we want a clean break. That’s where the new NAU will probably be based out of.
I don’t think anyone can go to Washington and make a difference. We should move the fed to Kansas if we want a clean break. That’s where the new NAU will probably be based out of.
What if Obama is cleverly ‘playing’ the media, the conservatives and the progressives to get enough pressure to pass a more progressive stimulus package?
What if John Kerry is doing his job as an out-front ‘liberal’ to press for more progressive elements in the stimulus package, so that Obama does not have to propose them directly — and Congress and get the legislation made more progressive?
Here is an interesting analysis that outlines how he may be doing that:
“So, Obama’s goal has always been not to look like the big liberal that he is. He appeals to notions of unity, bipartisanship, etc. That’s what he’s doing here.
“Check it. Obama proposes a very sizable stimulus and includes almost half of it to tax cuts to appease Republicans. What does he get out of this? Well, Republican support. Support of the average American who always wants tax cuts. And, mostly, he gets to look like he is the ultimate non-partisan person who is willing to work with both sides. And he’s gotten Republicans to basically concede that we need to spend at least 700B.
“But, where does it go from here? Well, he knows that the “out” liberals such as Kerry will have no problem pushing for their goals. And, the Democrats control the house and Senate so obviously they will be able to bargain more towards their direction. So, they will whittle the tax cuts down to something more reasonable. Obama will have to “negotiate” and “work with them” to come to consensus so the plan can pass.”
click here for more on this…
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/1/9/134521/6776/311/682098
What if Obama is cleverly ‘playing’ the media, the conservatives and the progressives to get enough pressure to pass a more progressive stimulus package?
What if John Kerry is doing his job as an out-front ‘liberal’ to press for more progressive elements in the stimulus package, so that Obama does not have to propose them directly — and Congress and get the legislation made more progressive?
Here is an interesting analysis that outlines how he may be doing that:
“So, Obama’s goal has always been not to look like the big liberal that he is. He appeals to notions of unity, bipartisanship, etc. That’s what he’s doing here.
“Check it. Obama proposes a very sizable stimulus and includes almost half of it to tax cuts to appease Republicans. What does he get out of this? Well, Republican support. Support of the average American who always wants tax cuts. And, mostly, he gets to look like he is the ultimate non-partisan person who is willing to work with both sides. And he’s gotten Republicans to basically concede that we need to spend at least 700B.
“But, where does it go from here? Well, he knows that the “out” liberals such as Kerry will have no problem pushing for their goals. And, the Democrats control the house and Senate so obviously they will be able to bargain more towards their direction. So, they will whittle the tax cuts down to something more reasonable. Obama will have to “negotiate” and “work with them” to come to consensus so the plan can pass.”
click here for more on this…
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/1/9/134521/6776/311/682098
This idea is effectively self-refuting. Even if I didn’t already know the NAU was an urban legend, the idea that it would “probably” be based in Kansas indicates how little understanding of human political behavior is captured in the NAU storyline.
Even in detective fiction there are rudimentary rules like: “the butler did it”, or “cherche la femme”. We trace criminal motivation to basic impulses of envy, resentment or lust. What nefarious, high-powered conspiracy would have any motivation to set up a public power center in Kansas? Yellow Roadway Corp? I guess they at least have the logistical ability to put “black helicopter” troops all over the place in their trucks. But then they’d be “black trucks” not “black helicopters”.
I can relate to feeling like the government is an enemy of your freedom, but the first job is to know your enemy — not dream one up.
This idea is effectively self-refuting. Even if I didn’t already know the NAU was an urban legend, the idea that it would “probably” be based in Kansas indicates how little understanding of human political behavior is captured in the NAU storyline.
Even in detective fiction there are rudimentary rules like: “the butler did it”, or “cherche la femme”. We trace criminal motivation to basic impulses of envy, resentment or lust. What nefarious, high-powered conspiracy would have any motivation to set up a public power center in Kansas? Yellow Roadway Corp? I guess they at least have the logistical ability to put “black helicopter” troops all over the place in their trucks. But then they’d be “black trucks” not “black helicopters”.
I can relate to feeling like the government is an enemy of your freedom, but the first job is to know your enemy — not dream one up.
I’ve never understood how anyone, not self serving, ever believed in the concept of ‘trickle down’ economics.
Those at the top of the economic pile are those who, and who’s forbears, sought wealth. They did not obtain nor keep wealth by letting it slip through their grasp.
They’ll generally want more not less wealth. So putting more in their hands isn’t going to pass down the pile to others.
Like watering plants economic food (money) should be soaked into the roots, not sprayed across the leaves.
Let it be soaked up and drawn through the economy as those with the drive to accummulate what has been injected draw it up – but instead of letting them simply mainline it (like a coarse drug) into their own veins feed it as a flow through the whole economic body.
I’ve never understood how anyone, not self serving, ever believed in the concept of ‘trickle down’ economics.
Those at the top of the economic pile are those who, and who’s forbears, sought wealth. They did not obtain nor keep wealth by letting it slip through their grasp.
They’ll generally want more not less wealth. So putting more in their hands isn’t going to pass down the pile to others.
Like watering plants economic food (money) should be soaked into the roots, not sprayed across the leaves.
Let it be soaked up and drawn through the economy as those with the drive to accummulate what has been injected draw it up – but instead of letting them simply mainline it (like a coarse drug) into their own veins feed it as a flow through the whole economic body.
I believe the theory was that rich people are all enlightened, meaning that they wouldn’t spend the money on themselves, and $6,000 shower curtains in tricked out 767′s, or anything frivolous and wasteful like that.
Instead, they’d invest in the kinds of companies that would produce good jobs for hardworking (one word) Americans. All of whom could have new ponies, and three birthdays every year. And they would all live happily ever after.
I believe the theory was that rich people are all enlightened, meaning that they wouldn’t spend the money on themselves, and $6,000 shower curtains in tricked out 767′s, or anything frivolous and wasteful like that.
Instead, they’d invest in the kinds of companies that would produce good jobs for hardworking (one word) Americans. All of whom could have new ponies, and three birthdays every year. And they would all live happily ever after.
Jon, you should read this to get the economic rationale for a mix of tax cuts and spending projects, rather than just spending projects:
http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_plank/archive/2009/01/05/obama-adviser-the-tax-cuts-make-sense.aspx
I agree with your general point that we are in an interregnum and need to go on a sharply different course.
Jon, you should read this to get the economic rationale for a mix of tax cuts and spending projects, rather than just spending projects:
http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_plank/archive/2009/01/05/obama-adviser-the-tax-cuts-make-sense.aspx
I agree with your general point that we are in an interregnum and need to go on a sharply different course.
Hey seth, we’re talking about interregnum and a break from the past…..put it in Kansas….sharply different course….people that really want to be there…..if you’re not hip to the SPP and NAU, hey do some homework.
Hey seth, we’re talking about interregnum and a break from the past…..put it in Kansas….sharply different course….people that really want to be there…..if you’re not hip to the SPP and NAU, hey do some homework.
Dav,
Whoever is ostensibly masterminding political union with Mexico isn’t going to move the capital to Kansas. Give me a motive for that one
And if building a big road across a border implies some kind of anschluss, why does Connecticut continue to have substantially different tax and budget policies from those of New York 50 years after the New England Thruway was built? To say nothing of separate Governors and Legislatures.
As for influencing politics through choice of a capital city, I’m skeptical that it would have much effect. Who would be more motivated to follow the government where ever it went than the usual crowd of professional lobbyists?
Apologies to the others for this off-topic exploration of NAU memes — it seems to be a major trend in right populism lately, so I regard it as a harbinger of things to come in national politics.
Dav,
Whoever is ostensibly masterminding political union with Mexico isn’t going to move the capital to Kansas. Give me a motive for that one
And if building a big road across a border implies some kind of anschluss, why does Connecticut continue to have substantially different tax and budget policies from those of New York 50 years after the New England Thruway was built? To say nothing of separate Governors and Legislatures.
As for influencing politics through choice of a capital city, I’m skeptical that it would have much effect. Who would be more motivated to follow the government where ever it went than the usual crowd of professional lobbyists?
Apologies to the others for this off-topic exploration of NAU memes — it seems to be a major trend in right populism lately, so I regard it as a harbinger of things to come in national politics.
This is whack-case, tin foil hat stuff…
Get over it, and let’s get back to actually making the US nice for us and helping to make Mexico nice for Mexicans… Oh, that would take some political balls, wouldn’t it?? OK, fuggedaboudit…
This is whack-case, tin foil hat stuff…
Get over it, and let’s get back to actually making the US nice for us and helping to make Mexico nice for Mexicans… Oh, that would take some political balls, wouldn’t it?? OK, fuggedaboudit…
Rick,
As long as we’re mired in 1930′s analogies with all this talk of “new” New Deals and all, it’s worth remembering that one common result of economic distress has been nationalist tribalism. You can’t rely on populism to aim properly — after all Bush played populist pretty successfully for quite a while, notwithstanding the “white tie” elite reality of his policies.
Tin-foil hatters on the right may tell each other tall tales about the black helicopters and such, and it’s fine to chuckle over that stuff. But the Davos-frequenting international capitalist elite really do exist, really do identify with one another more strongly than with their own more humble fellow citizens, and really do enjoy extraordinary freedom to ignore the public weal. I’m pretty sure they aren’t operating a deliberate global conspiracy run from the tri-lateral commission or whatever, but the backlash against free-trade, ‘amnesty’ for undocumented immigrants, or ‘SPP/NAU’ is close cousin to our own anger over Wall Street scammers and multi-megabuck CEO ‘compensation’, etc. We just keep our anger directed upward at the greedheads instead of being diverted into rants against impoverished immigrants.
Expect Republicans to turn up the heat on these “blame the little guy” tactics. We need to be prepared with a better thought-out populism before that wave of negativity builds up too much higher. That’s why ‘NAU’ talk bears watching. We need to offer a better diagnosis of what Stiglitz calls Globalization and its Discontents“.
BTW, I wonder how consciously Stiglitz chose to echo Freud’s 1930 title: Civilization and its Discontents. The German title of that book comes closer to what worries me these days: Das Unbehagen in der Kultur (“The Uneasiness in Culture”). Shades of “Interregnum” there
Rick,
As long as we’re mired in 1930′s analogies with all this talk of “new” New Deals and all, it’s worth remembering that one common result of economic distress has been nationalist tribalism. You can’t rely on populism to aim properly — after all Bush played populist pretty successfully for quite a while, notwithstanding the “white tie” elite reality of his policies.
Tin-foil hatters on the right may tell each other tall tales about the black helicopters and such, and it’s fine to chuckle over that stuff. But the Davos-frequenting international capitalist elite really do exist, really do identify with one another more strongly than with their own more humble fellow citizens, and really do enjoy extraordinary freedom to ignore the public weal. I’m pretty sure they aren’t operating a deliberate global conspiracy run from the tri-lateral commission or whatever, but the backlash against free-trade, ‘amnesty’ for undocumented immigrants, or ‘SPP/NAU’ is close cousin to our own anger over Wall Street scammers and multi-megabuck CEO ‘compensation’, etc. We just keep our anger directed upward at the greedheads instead of being diverted into rants against impoverished immigrants.
Expect Republicans to turn up the heat on these “blame the little guy” tactics. We need to be prepared with a better thought-out populism before that wave of negativity builds up too much higher. That’s why ‘NAU’ talk bears watching. We need to offer a better diagnosis of what Stiglitz calls Globalization and its Discontents“.
BTW, I wonder how consciously Stiglitz chose to echo Freud’s 1930 title: Civilization and its Discontents. The German title of that book comes closer to what worries me these days: Das Unbehagen in der Kultur (“The Uneasiness in Culture”). Shades of “Interregnum” there
Yes , we’re a little early on this NAU stuff. The goal date is 2010. Let’s check back after the basic skeletal is in place. You know, Kansas City Hub, Lazard deep water port…etc.
Rick, this is mexico now. Hip to Aztlan taught at UCLA?? Reconquista??? All sponsored by our former gang member/mayor Tony Villa. Thankfully we got rid of Fabian Nunez for a while…
Yes , we’re a little early on this NAU stuff. The goal date is 2010. Let’s check back after the basic skeletal is in place. You know, Kansas City Hub, Lazard deep water port…etc.
Rick, this is mexico now. Hip to Aztlan taught at UCLA?? Reconquista??? All sponsored by our former gang member/mayor Tony Villa. Thankfully we got rid of Fabian Nunez for a while…
Yes , we’re a little early on this NAU stuff. The goal date is 2010. Let’s check back after the basic skeletal is in place. You know, Kansas City Hub, Lazard deep water port…etc.
Rick, this is mexico now. Hip to Aztlan taught at UCLA?? Reconquista??? All sponsored by our former gang member/mayor Tony Villa. Thankfully we got rid of Fabian Nunez for a while…
Don’t miss statistician/political strategist Nate Silver’s analysis of the Obama Econ negotiating tactics at fivethirtyeight.com
Nate suggests that the Obama team may be playing ‘Price is Right’ where you bid just under the top price, in order to win the game (and get the Democrats to push for higher spending and less business taxes, while maintaining Republican support for a good-size package):
“What does this mean? It means [Obama] wants the Senate Democrats to do his dirty work for him. All of the sudden, the administration, which is about to spend at least $800 billion, gets to play the role of the fiscally prudent tightwads, negotiating against the Senate Democrats. This has at least two benefits. One, it requires less of the administration’s political capital to sell the package. And two, it completely co-opts the conservative opposition.
“Unless you’re Paul Krugman or Greg Mankiw, you probably don’t really have any idea whether $300 billion or $800 billion or $1.2 trillion is the right amount to spend; the numbers are too large, the scope of the stimulus too unprecedented, to provide for any absolute frame of reference. So the frame of reference is relative rather than absolute.
“If you’re Mitch McConnell or Mary Landireu or Bob Corker and you see that John Kerry thinks that $800 billion is too little — well then, ‘gal darn it, this Obama fella must be doing something right.”
Don’t miss statistician/political strategist Nate Silver’s analysis of the Obama Econ negotiating tactics at fivethirtyeight.com
Nate suggests that the Obama team may be playing ‘Price is Right’ where you bid just under the top price, in order to win the game (and get the Democrats to push for higher spending and less business taxes, while maintaining Republican support for a good-size package):
“What does this mean? It means [Obama] wants the Senate Democrats to do his dirty work for him. All of the sudden, the administration, which is about to spend at least $800 billion, gets to play the role of the fiscally prudent tightwads, negotiating against the Senate Democrats. This has at least two benefits. One, it requires less of the administration’s political capital to sell the package. And two, it completely co-opts the conservative opposition.
“Unless you’re Paul Krugman or Greg Mankiw, you probably don’t really have any idea whether $300 billion or $800 billion or $1.2 trillion is the right amount to spend; the numbers are too large, the scope of the stimulus too unprecedented, to provide for any absolute frame of reference. So the frame of reference is relative rather than absolute.
“If you’re Mitch McConnell or Mary Landireu or Bob Corker and you see that John Kerry thinks that $800 billion is too little — well then, ‘gal darn it, this Obama fella must be doing something right.”
Excellent points Jon. This is the “Innovator’s Dilemna”
Excellent points Jon. This is the “Innovator’s Dilemna”
Excellent points Jon. This is the “Innovator’s Dilemna”