September 20, 2009
The legacy of neconservatism
as the neo-cons say goodbye to Irving Kristol. Here is hoping our troll has moved on, but this is a serious issue, and one that Bartlett has also addressed. It isn't that taxes are the solution to everything, or that all taxes are good. But raising revenues is a responsible thing to do, and has been what responsible political parties have done--both Republican and Democrat. But since the neo-cons took over the Republican party, their response has been to gut revenues, and talk about cutting spending. They have been so effective --probably because, as our troll demonstrated, many conservatives are immune to facts--that most conservatives believe that Republicans have been better on fiscal issues. Hell, I used to believe that too, even after I became a Democrat.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
28 comments:
There has to be a balance. According to this article, Sweden is thinking of lowering the income tax rate to stimulate the economy.
Right, but we are on the other side of that balance.
I think that may be debatable, but it is clear that lowering taxes without lowering spending makes no sense.
A more wise policy would be to lower spending first by carefully considering what programs are necessary and what are actually doing what they say they are supposed to do. For the most part, I think Obama has done this when he could. I can't say the same for Congress, though.
Steve, you might want to take a look at one of those previous posts from Bruce Bartlett on fiscal responsibility and another on the myth of cutting spending. He suggests that the very little support there is for actual spending cuts, coupled with the restrictions of mandatory spending makes cuts along the lines of very difficult to do. We can try to manage some of those, and I think Obama is trying to do that with some of the healthcare proposals, but we will have to raise taxes. We should. But republicans live in a world where all taxes are evil, and as such demonize even the suggestion of tax increases. That is impossible to sustain.
Good article and I agree that cutting spending may not be realistic, nor is it possible without Congressional support. Here in MI, because of a dreadful economy, we have seen the Gov work with the Legislature to make some painful, but necessary cuts.
Why haven't taxes already been raised? Isn't that a priority?
I don't know if that question was directed at me, but some taxes have been raised and that has generated some revenue. The state constitution limits how much the income tax can be raised and that wouldn't be very popular. The State is sensitive to the fact that so many people are having difficulty making ends meet.
Unfortunately, Republicans have done a very good job of demonizing taxes. Any tax increase, even if it is letting a tax cut expire, is badmouthed by the right, no matter what the economic reality is. I have no idea what Anonymous meant by priority, but I doubt very much that Obama wants to raise taxes. But I think he should and will have to.
This is sort of a comment on your last two posts.
I think you are right to point out that budget cuts are unrealistic. I was listening to a local morning show where they pointed out that the federal government has basically never cut a single program. Once something gets created it never goes away. I know that's why I was so dissatisfied with Bush/Congress, since they were the ones who talked the talk about cutting spending but never did so.
That said, Streak, I think you have somewhat conflated the concepts of economy and federal deficit. Undeniably, the two have some linkage, but they are different. You said:
"I swear that I am starting to believe that 90% of conservative ideology (no offense to those conservatives nice enough to comment here) is based in some kind of mythology. One of the largest appears to be that Reagan did something magical to the economy and reduced the deficit, and therefore all we have to do is cut taxes and everything will magically be ok."
It is obviously correct that the deficit grew under Reagan. However, that does not mean that cutting taxes did not improve the economy. In 1983, the US was facing a recession that was actually more similar to this one than the Great Depression is, to which this recession is frequently compared. Reagan's tax cuts, I think, have to be seen as a major reason why the economy improved. Through the improved economy, I believe, but I'm too lazy to look up right now, that federal revenues actually went up. All this I see as good things Reagan did. He is rightly critized for disproportionately increasing defense spending, which caused the growing deficit.
LB, let me say this. I think that Reagan and conservatives were correct in cutting taxes to some degree. No doubt that the economic doldrums of the 70s needed adjustment. Some of those policies were Carter's, but many of them were also just global changes. Nonetheless, some of those tax rates were too high, and needed correction.
That said, however, I am not sure that the economy improved as much as you think either. A couple of trends started during the 80s that I think have been very negative. Some of them are Reagan's fault, but not all.
1) The stark divide between the richest and poorest really began to grow during this time. The wealthy did very well under his plan, no doubt. But the supposed "trickle down" part was more facade than reality. Homelessness increased, as well as personal debt.
2) deregulation, again, while possibly necessary in some areas, became magical under Republican eyes. We see the beginnings of turning the banks loose (of course, immediately followed by the S&L crisis, and then leading into the current crisis.
3) increase in bad forms of credit usage. I am not sure who to blame for this, actually but if you look at the personal savings v. personal debt, this is where that divide starts. I suspect it is all of our fault, quite frankly.
4) the belief that tax cuts were magical. Like I said, no doubt that targeted tax cuts can really stimulate the economy. But not all, and that has become the belief system of the Republican party. Cut taxes--no matter the economic reality or situation--wartime, peacetime, surplus, recession, boomtime, etc., and magically things will get better. Except they don't.
We have numerous examples of our economy growing at the same time we have raised taxes on even the rich. And despite the idiocy of the Ayn Rand followers (who believed that altruism was stupid and unnecessary, btw) the rich don't get un-rich because of tax policies. They have always done well. They just do better when they are divorced from responsibility to the broader society.
5) and that is my major complaint about Reagan and conservative ideology since then. With a few exceptional lip service tosses to "volunteerism" and "compassionate conservatism," conservatives have essentially preached a "I have mine, you are on your own" philosophy. That is destructive and very hard to defend--in my opinion.
Anyway, as always, thanks for your comments. There have been times of late where we see what could be accomplished in our national dialogue on healthcare if liberals and conservatives could talk as we do here. Then some troll comes in and reminds us that Glenn Beck is more powerful than reason right now. Sigh.
2) deregulation, again, while possibly necessary in some areas, became magical under Republican eyes. We see the beginnings of turning the banks loose (of course, immediately followed by the S&L crisis, and then leading into the current crisis.
I think this is perfect example of "it depends on how it is done." Like you say, deregulation isn't magical, but it isn't inherently evil, as some would have us believe. The deregulation of the airline industry was mostly beneficial, as was the deregulation of the telecommunications industry. I have also read that the deregulation of the trucking industry was beneficial and this was something that was championed by Ted Kennedy (to my surprise).
Just like taxes and spending, I think this is something that is hard to discuss in the abstract and is better discussed with specific programs and taxes.
"I have mine, you are on your own" philosophy. That is destructive and very hard to defend--in my opinion.
I thikn the major difference is the mechanism in which money is transfered to those in need. Except for the die hard Rand idiots, most conervatives are comfortable with some level of welfare programs. In addition, there is evidence that conservatives tend to give more when it comes to charity, though to be fair, I am not sure how exaclty they define "conservatives" and "charity".
Steve, I'd be interested to know about how much self-identified conservatives and liberals give as a percentage of their income or net worth. Rich people tend to be pretty conservative, at least in the U.S. where conservatives tend to be anti-tax. (It's human nature to push hard to be able to leave your kids just a little bit bigger piece of the pie than you had.) Probably all the liberals in Denver County couldn't match Bill Gates's recent $355 million contribution toward polio eradication efforts alone.
In any case, I don't think either figure has much to say about the relative social benefits of either side's political philosophies. Though I do agree with Streak that the DC pundit circuit tends to err on the side of advocating for the poor oppressed rich people who, for instance, might possibly have to sacrifice a summer home or two if Bush's tax cuts expire. For frak's sake, they have PR firms to do their social image dirty work for them. They don't need the media going out of their way to get their desires a fair hearing.
I am arguing that following Reagan, it has become acceptable to disengage from the social network and then only help those people you like or agree with. I have no doubt that conservatives give a lot of money, though a lot of that is given to churches--which is not the same thing as giving to the poor or helping an aids clinic someplace. Not that a lot of churches don't do good things. They do. But not sure that is the same thing.
The "charity" study was from a year or so ago and I am not even sure I can find it. I am not familiar with the questions so I certainly wouldn't cite it as proof of much. As Streak notes, there may be issues with how charity is defined. IIRC, the study was based on the percentage of income given, not a dollar figure, but it is probably easier for someone with a large income to give a higher percentage of their total income.
I am arguing that following Reagan, it has become acceptable to disengage from the social network and then only help those people you like or agree with.
I could be wrong, but hasn't this always been true to some degree? People tend to give to charities that they agree with.
For frak's sake
BSG fan?
Yeah, new BSG mostly, hence "frak" rather than "frack." I like that it's a four-letter word, and it also doesn't overlap with a technical gas mining term.
The new series is far superior. I find myself using frak every so often. I wasn't aware of the other meaning of "frack". I didn't know you had a mining background.
Steve, I completely agree that people have always given to the charities of their choice (as they should) but by cutting taxes and trying to cut programs, the wealthy are not even pushed to contribute to society beyond their personal choice. Kind of like conservatives pushing for vouchers so they can divest themselves from supporting public education.
I believe pretty firmly that we are all in this together and there are some things we all have to contribute to. The military is a great example, but so is the basic safety net and public education.
No mining background here, but a lot of firms that do mining in the U.S. are Canadian-owned (with a U.S. subsidiary) and a lot of U.S. mining firms do mining overseas, and the firm I work for represents a couple of each. I get to photocopy the corporate documents for their visa applications. They're pretty interesting on their own, but seeing FRACKING in 36-point font at the top of a page is especially attention-grabbing.
Sorry for the tangent, Streak.
Streak, I agree. There are some things that the private industry can't do as well as the government. I think the wealthy do pay a great deal in taxes. I am not suggesting that they can't pay more, but it is hard for me to come up with a figure that is fair.
Leighton, both my father and my grandfather worked in the mining industry in various capacities, hence my interest.
Leighton, no worries. I have not watched BSG, but hear good things. And I am always a little amazed at your "areas of expertise." Very John Hodgeman, except legit. :)
Steve, the issue for me is not necessarily the amount, but the sense that so many of them want to retreat behind their gated communities and tell the rest of us to f-off. Send their kids to private schools and then gut public schools--that kind of thing.
I believe the study to which you are referring is a book called "Who Really Cares" by Arthur Brooks.
"I believe pretty firmly that we are all in this together and there are some things we all have to contribute to. The military is a great example, but so is the basic safety net and public education."
This is a good point. The question is how much is everyone's share? Since 40% of people in this country pay no federal income taxes and since the top 5% of all earners contribute about 50% of all tax revenue to this country, I just don't think the rich aren't paying their share.
I am always suspicious of those numbers, LB, because they never seem to take the regressive forms of taxation into account. Yeah, 40% of Americans pay not income tax, but what other taxes are they paying because the federal government is no longer contributing money to state and local governments in some areas. To say nothing of the fact that many of these policies seems to be adding people to that lower tier of income makers, reducing the amount of taxes they are able to pay.
What is more, and I think closer to my point, is that this only defines taxes as a punishment or obligation. I see the obligation, but would suggest that part of that comes from the fact that the upper middle and upper classes have benefited the most from our society. I am certainly someone who has benefited from our society tremendously from public education and graduate schools to systems that encourage and subsidize education and require history teachers.
Those at the top have seen their taxes as a percentage of their own income go down, meaning that they pay less and less taxes in terms of real cost to them. I have no patience for people like my friend the Texas lawyer who benefits from a government structure of courts and laws that make his work possible--yet who bitches constantly about taxes. As if, with his expertise (and law degree from a state u, btw) he could be transplanted to the Sudan and do just as well. Good luck.
The fact is that we all benefit when our society is more whole. It isn't just an obligation, it is an investment. More opportunity leads to less anger and rage--less crime. More distribution of wealth adds more stability to the economy--something that benefits all, even the wealthy. More opportunity means a more educated and healthy work force and consumer base. I wonder how many days of productivity have been lost to bad healthcare? I bet it is a lot.
Anyway, I am not advocating for some "soak the rich" thing, but think that we need to change how we see taxation and society. The more we move people into gated communities and disconnected from the broader community, the less American we become.
I am always suspicious of those numbers, LB, because they never seem to take the regressive forms of taxation into account. Yeah, 40% of Americans pay not income tax, but what other taxes are they paying because the federal government is no longer contributing money to state and local governments in some areas. To say nothing of the fact that many of these policies seems to be adding people to that lower tier of income makers, reducing the amount of taxes they are able to pay.
What is more, and I think closer to my point, is that this only defines taxes as a punishment or obligation. I see the obligation, but would suggest that part of that comes from the fact that the upper middle and upper classes have benefited the most from our society. I am certainly someone who has benefited from our society tremendously from public education and graduate schools to systems that encourage and subsidize education and require history teachers.
Those at the top have seen their taxes as a percentage of their own income go down, meaning that they pay less and less taxes in terms of real cost to them. I have no patience for people like my friend the Texas lawyer who benefits from a government structure of courts and laws that make his work possible--yet who bitches constantly about taxes. As if, with his expertise (and law degree from a state u, btw) he could be transplanted to the Sudan and do just as well. Good luck.
The fact is that we all benefit when our society is more whole. It isn't just an obligation, it is an investment. More opportunity leads to less anger and rage--less crime. More distribution of wealth adds more stability to the economy--something that benefits all, even the wealthy. More opportunity means a more educated and healthy work force and consumer base. I wonder how many days of productivity have been lost to bad healthcare? I bet it is a lot.
Anyway, I am not advocating for some "soak the rich" thing, but think that we need to change how we see taxation and society. The more we move people into gated communities and disconnected from the broader community, the less American we become.
The more we move people into gated communities and disconnected from the broader community, the less American we become.
I tend to agree, but this seems to be more of a wealth thing, then a liberal or conservative thing. I don't have an easy solution, though.
I think we can do a few things. We can stop congratulating the rich for being rich, and then making public policy to make them happy. (That is probably a bit sarcastic, but I am tired. ) I am reminded of a BBC interview on how the recent crash changed rich people's lives. The founder of McAfee talked about having 6 houses before the crash. He has gotten rid of all of his properties and lives quite well but he asked a very good question: how can one person live in 6 houses? and how freaking ridiculous is that?
That basic question has been taken off the table because we are supposedly engaging in envy or "class warfare" if we dare ask the "how much do you need" question. That is bullshit, as far as I am concerned.
But in real terms, I am not going to advocate banning gated communities or those six houses, but don't ask me to respect those who live that way, and further, don't ask me to cut their taxes. They want to disconnect completely from society, perhaps they should move elsewhere. If they live here and make their money here--as far as I am freaking concerned--they will contribute to our environmental protection, and they will contribute to public schools and they will contribute to a CDC that manages our disease preparedness. And they will contribute to our healthcare and our regulatory structure. And they will continue to be filthy rich and good for them.
(That rant was not aimed at Steve, btw. Just the end of a long day. I think I need a good night's rest.)
Part of the problem with our system tilting toward the very rich is the culture of lobbying in DC; it's hard to find politicians willing to take a stand for the public interest. Ken Silverstein makes the point in Turkmeniscam that although lobbying has been around for at least 200 years, it's only in the past 25 or so that ordinary Congressmen and Senators (that is, the ones without presidential or cabinet ambitions) have started viewing their positions not as a final goal, but as extended job interviews for big lobbying firms where they can earn 5-20 times their government salary, plus bonuses, for doing less work. It's the golden ticket for "ordinary" members of the upper class to catapult into the category of nouveau riche.
Lobbying firms, of course, only represent people (and foreign governments) that can afford to put down a 6 or 7 figure retainer, and unlike law firms they never do pro bono work. I suspect that culture needs to be radically changed somehow before we're going to make much headway in balancing things out. Obama making an effort to curtail the influence of lobbyists in his administration was a nice thought. But I'm honestly not convinced that the office of U.S. president has the horsepower to climb that hill without a lot more support from Congress than is likely to be forthcoming.
I think we can do a few things. We can stop congratulating the rich for being rich, and then making public policy to make them happy.
I couldn't agree more. I don't think it is class envy to be critical of people that take/use way more then they need.
Obama making an effort to curtail the influence of lobbyists in his administration was a nice thought.
It was a nice thought, but he seems to have so many exceptions to the rules that what remains is pretty useless.
It was a nice thought, but he seems to have so many exceptions to the rules that what remains is pretty useless.
Yeah, pretty much. I think the benefit is mostly that someone so high up the food chain is saying it's a good idea, so that in a generation or two maybe it'll be a popular enough notion that we'll be able to do something with it.
Post a Comment