"“I think I can tell a pretty simple story. Ronald Reagan ushered in an era that reasserted the marketplace and freedom. He made people aware of the cost involved of government regulation or at least a command-and-control-style regulation regime. Bill Clinton to some extent continued that pattern, although he may have smoothed out the edges of it. And George Bush took Ronald Reagan’s insight and ran it over a cliff. And so I think the simple way of telling the story is that when Bill Clinton said the era of big government is over, he wasn’t arguing for an era of no government. So what we need to bring about is the end of the era of unresponsive and inefficient government and short-term thinking in government, so that the government is laying the groundwork, the framework, the foundation for the market to operate effectively and for every single individual to be able to be connected with that market and to succeed in that market. And it’s now a global marketplace.
“Now, that’s the story. Now, telling it elegantly — ‘low taxes, smaller government’ — the way the Republicans have, I think is more of a challenge.”"
That is the challenge. Republicans have dumbed down our political discourse to the point that anything complex is incredibly hard to sell. Well, our economic situation is complex. Saying "tax cuts for everyone" is simply not a policy.
6 comments:
Streak, The current era of economic malaise and misguided foreign policy reminds me a lot of the late 1960s. At that time, politicians attempted to ride the economic boom of the 1950s (as current leaders did with the boom of the 1990s) while simultaneously spending more and more money on foreign policy (1960s Vietnam and 2000s Iraq). In both cases, if I recall correctly, leaders relied on tax cuts to bolster a flagging economy. However, in both cases, the increased domestic and foreign spending and diminishing federal income produced higher deficits, inflation, etc.
Conservative econonmic philosophy is not as simple minded as you make it out to be.
The argument conservatives make for lower taxes as a policy is that government stiffles creativity. Less government regulation allows individual businesses to compete and allow the people to indirectly decide what works best through their purchases. A policy of lower taxes for everyone maximizes the ability of businesses to invest and for individuals to purchase, thus fostering the above described environment.
Obama and conservatives thus have the same philosophy of government regarding economic policy--that it is the role of government to "...laying the groundwork, the framework, the foundation for the market to operate effectively..."
The real difference between Obama and conservatives then is the approach. The conservative approach to "laying the groundwork" is to stay out of the way because they feel government does a consistently worse job than the private sector. The complaint conservatives have is that Obama does not specifically say how he would lay the groundwork. The only clear point Obama has made is that he is in favor of wealth-redistribution, which is akin to, but not exactly, socialism. Conservatives, for obsvious reasons dislike this policy.
Conservative economic policy has something of a proven record under Reagan. Wealth redistribution has a less proven record. If proof of a wealth redistribution system as a scheme to grow the American economy is found then there is a real debate to be had between Obama and conservatives. Until then the onus is really on Obama. Thus, to say that conservatives have oversimplified the issue is for you yourself to really be the one oversimplifying the issue.
Man, I am getting tired of anonymous commenters. Maybe time to turn that option off. If our little friend had read this blog at all, he/she might realize that I don't consider the current conservatives to be very conservative. What is more, I think the assertion that Reagan's economic policies worked is just that--an assertion.
What is a simplistic approach is to assert tax cuts as policy, and de-regulation across the board. That sure worked well in the mortgage industry.
CIl, I think you make a good point. The real issue, it seems to me with this current war is that Bush and his cohorts seem to want to completely exclude it from our broader economic discussion. Did Johnson and Nixon do that in the 60s? I don't recall.
Anonymous - Although Streak can defend himself, I will say that he does not think that conservative economic policy is "simple minded." His point is that many conservatives MAKE economic policy simple (i.e. cutting taxes is the answer to everything).
Streak - I don't think Johnson did - I am uncertain of Nixon. If I recall, Johnson coupled the mission of the War on Poverty with Cold War foreign policy. That make sense?
Makes perfect sense. What was it Johnson said about the war on poverty being his true love, but that "bitch, the war" took all his energy? Something like that.
Streak- we live in a system that is on the one hand very complex, especially with an economy the size of ours, global markets, etc.... On the other hand we do practice the simple principles of income and expenses- if we spend more than we make we are not sustainable. Our pursuit of empire and commitment to deficit spending has created a debit side of the ledger that can't be supported by our income. I don't think anyone will be happy, at least short term, with what needs to be done to solve the problem. We'll have to see if anyone is truly committed to doing what is necessary.
Anonymous- jumping to socialism, a complex, complete economic system from Obama's tax policies doesn't really contribute much to the conversation. We can pursue separate discussions on income tax, but BOTH parties have supported progressive income tax. Granted, there has always been debate as to where the progressions should be and the percentages. The wealth isn't redistributed- it enters the general budget.
Later
BB
Post a Comment