But the tax cut is temporary. Let it expire when the economy is not in recession: that's a better time to have the argument. Right now there is tremendous confusion promoting the idea that we should be cutting the (short-term) deficit. With 10% measured unemployment, this ought to be top priority. We have a huge number of people that are being totally pressed to the wall right now. Surely this ought to take precedence over a confused ideological fight over the fairness of the tax code.
On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 10:45 PM, michael perelman <[email protected]> wrote: > I am 100% with Lou P on this. Robert N. or Max might be correct that > the tax cuts for the rich might give a little bit of a stimulus. The > problem is the long term consequences. Here is a snippet from The > Confiscation of american Prosperity on the subject. > > Traditionally, Republicans represented themselves as the party of > fiscal sobriety, insisting that balanced budgets were essential to > solid economic performance. In the 1980s, a new strategy began to > emerge. Conservatives began to welcome huge deficits. > For example, in 2001, President George W. Bush expressed his support > for this tactic, reporting that the government's fast dwindling > surplus (created by his own tax cuts) was "incredibly positive news" > because it will create "a fiscal straitjacket for Congress" (Sanger > 2001). Similarly, California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger said that > he wanted to use his budget plan to "starve the public sector" without > raising taxes, "because we don't want to feed the monster" (Delsohn > 2005). > Nobody has been more adamant about pursuing this strategy than our > old friend, Grover Norquist, who told an interviewer: "I don't want > to abolish government. I simply want to reduce it to the size where I > can drag it into the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub" (Norquist > 2001). Conservative economists, such as Milton Friedman, agree, > although in less colorful terms. They applaud growing federal budget > deficits created by tax cuts, which will eventually create pressure to > cut social programs and regulation (Friedman 1988; 2003). > In reality, all except a handful of principled libertarians have no > interest whatsoever in thoroughly starving the beast. To the extent > that government subsidizes and protects business, conservative class > warriors welcome the governments' engagement with open arms. Only > when the government lends support to the poor and disadvantaged does > the right wing regard state spending as an abomination. > The conservative class warriors are just as opportunistic in their > attitude toward regulation. The regulatory system in the United > States is hardly the fierce beast that business pretends it to be. > For example, popular protests by farmers who felt cheated by the > railroads led to the creation of the Interstate Commerce Commission, > one of the first regulatory agencies in the country. Yet the > railroads privately welcomed the Interstate Commerce Commission, > realizing that only people from within the industry would have the > expertise to regulate it. Besides, the commission would diffuse > popular anger toward the railroads. > Since then, industry has perfected the practice of hiring regulators > soon after they leave government. In this way, regulators understand > that they will harm their career path if they behave in a way that > upsets industry. > The Republicans invented another technique to undermine inconvenient > regulation. Agencies, such as the Patent and Trademark Office and the > Food and Drug Administration, now fund much of their operations from > fees paid by those whom they regulate. This arrangement leads them to > view those whom they regulate as clients, even though their real > client should be the public at large. Rather than subjecting drugs or > patents to careful scrutiny, these agencies put pressure on their > staff to process applications as quickly as possible in order to > generate more revenue. > For programs that directly serve the general population, such as > education or public transportation, inadequate resources prevent them > from operating satisfactorily. The resulting dissatisfaction with > these programs strengthens the case for privatization. > In short, the right wing strategy is to intentionally create a crisis > of financial disorder with the expectation that a sense of urgency > will panic the public into acquiescing to the preferred remedies of > the conservatives. A measured discussion of the real issues would > certainly be more likely to lead to a healthy economy, but a rational > dialogue would probably not result in the one sided outcome that the > right wing desires. > > > > > -- > Michael Perelman > Economics Department > California State University > Chico, CA > 95929 > > 530 898 5321 > fax 530 898 5901 > http://michaelperelman.wordpress.com > _______________________________________________ > pen-l mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l > -- Robert Naiman Policy Director Just Foreign Policy www.justforeignpolicy.org [email protected] Attend a "South of the Border" Screening on Human Rights Day http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/southofobama/search _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
