On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 7:05 AM, Gil Skillman <[email protected]> wrote: > I appreciate the need for additional stimulus, but Robert's argument below > is based on what strikes me as conflicting premises. One premise is that, > if Obama and the Democrats called the Republican's bluff and put forward a > version of the unemployment benefits extension bill that excluded tax cut > extensions for the wealthiest (as well as the equally obnoxious estate tax > concessions), the Republicans wouldn't back down and accept it, so this is > the only way to keep the desirable part of the tax cuts.
No, I don't assume that, although it wouldn't be an unreasonable assumption at this point; it's far more consistent with the story so far than the reverse. The story so far is that the "Democrats" don't actually have an effective majority in the Senate on this issue, so it's far more likely that the bluff that would be called would be their own, as it has been so many times in the past. > The second > premise is that if the Democrats were to wait until "a better time to have > the argument," the Republicans wouldn't simply do the same thing, insisting > on maintaining the irresponsible cuts for the wealthiest as the price for > accepting some other needed legislation. If the Republicans wouldn't back > down now, why would they back down then, especially once they confirm that > this blackmailing strategy works? I don't assume that either. But, as I said, when the economy is in (employment) recession, and when people's unemployment benefits are running out - right now - it's a bad time to have this argument. "once they confirm that this blackmailing strategy works" - no new information about the world has been revealed. > > (Another questionable premise is the notion that the Republicans' position > on tax cuts for the wealthy is susceptible to "argument," but that's for > another post.) > > Gil > >>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 > > _______________________________________________ > 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
