1. "Deficits and Deceit: Barack Obama's Stimulus" I was going to respond to Andrew Sullivan's latest ridiculous attack on the GOP, but this article pretty much says it all.
Representative Sample: Sullivan is literally the last person in American politics who should be lecturing others on intellectual honesty.
2. "Bush Legacy: India"A look at one of the highlights of Bush's foreign policy.
Representative Sample: One of President George W. Bush’s greatest successes in international affairs is the institutionalizing of an American partnership with India.
3. "Clueless" Why Feinstein's statements about Pakistan were so stupid.
4. "Statesmanship, Failure of…." Democrats and passing the stimulus: tactical victory & strategic failure?
Representative Sample: A global economic crisis and they seized an opportunity to pass an incoherent host of nickel and dime appropriations on their leftwing wish list along with huge giveaways
5. "Britain makes the U.S. look good as it spirals down the police state hole" Britain to expand domestic spying activities.
Representative Sample: Britain's descent into the world of V for Vendetta has been building for a long time.
To submit a blog post for HOT5 Daily, please e-mail me at unrright@NOSPAMgmail.com. Put HOT5 in the subject.
Andrew Sullivan may be ridiculous at times, such as whenever he comments on the Palin farce, but American Power's "article" is what's ridiculous here. Firstly Sullivan is actually one of the most intellectually honest commentators around, regularly airing dissents in a way that puts hacks like Donald Douglas to shame.
ReplyDeleteAnd he is correct about Republican spending during growth years. It wasn't a "single-year" increase, sure, but Sullivan was never speaking of a single year. Here are the total budget figures. Combined with the multi-trillion dollar tax decreases (that'll be the total when they expire) the Bush years have roughly doubled the yearly federal deficit from its high under Clinton.
As for total figures, Bush nearly doubled the national debt from 5.7 trillion to almost 11 trillion dollars to fund the Iraq war and provide tax cuts for upper income brackets -- but that wasn't "generational theft" ?
Here the Democratic countercyclical stimulus is increasing the national debt by 7% and this is "generational theft" ?
And as Sullivan points out, Republicans did so in a time of growth rather than counter-cyclically as Democrats are doing. We on the economic right may not be fans of Keynesian theory, but at least there _is_ some theory behind the stimulus spending binge. Meanwhile there is nothing to support the Republicans' deficit spending during a period of growth -- only the disastrous hypocrisy of running on a "small government" platform while actually cutting taxes in the midst of an LBJ-like spending binge.
Bottom line: this American Power post is a clueless hack job. Whatever you were going to post in response to Sullivan had better be more cogent.
Hmm, we apparently have far different views of Sullivan and of his article. I don't think he has any credibility at all. No one disputes that Republicans spent a ton of money during the Bush administration. But the conservative base has been shrieking about it all along. There's nothing hypocritical about Republicans in Congress finally waking up and acting like Republicans for a change. Especially after taking a beating in two Congressional elections. Just because they went along with a Republican president and his bad idea, that means they need to go along with Obama and even more spending? That just doesn't make any sense. Here's another good post about Sullivan's article, that I also considered linking.
ReplyDeleteThere's really no evidence the Republicans started "acting like Republicans for a change." The Republicans proposed a stimulus consisting of massive tax cuts, just like they had been proposing for years. In 2000, Bush said he'd cut taxes to return surplus money to the people; in 2001, he cut taxes to fight the recession; in 2003, DeLay said the most important thing in wartime is to cut taxes; in 2008, Bush cut taxes again to fight recession. Although government spending increased under Bush, tax receipts crashed, resulting in massive deficits.
ReplyDelete"There's really no evidence the Republicans started "acting like Republicans for a change.""
ReplyDeleteSure there is -- voting against the stimulus. It's not the tax cuts that are the non-Republican part, it's the massive government spending. And yes, I know that massive government spending + tax cuts was Bush administration/Congressional Republican policy for the last eight years. But that was not and is not an ideologically Republican position. It's Bushism, compassionate conservatism, or whatever.
I disagree with both of you, but about different aspects.
ReplyDeleteTo UNRR: It's hypocritical to spend money when you're in power on your favored interest groups, and then make a fuss about your opposition doing the same. Naturally two wrongs don't make a right, so Democrats cannot use this as a defense, but it does mean Republicans have zero credibility in their criticism. You have to be able to walk the walk yourself before you can criticize others for failing to walk that way.
Again Sullivan's point is not that the Democratic stimulus is a positive good, but that Republicans have no credibility to criticize it.
To Alon: That's precisely the problem! Republicans are always for tax cuts, both now and when they're in power. The problem is not insufficient consistency in advocacy of tax cuts, but rather inconsistency in spending cuts. (However, this applies more strongly during periods of growth. Countercyclically you enter a bizarro world where deficit spending can sometimes be useful at putting idle resources to work)
But during normal growth times, depending where you are on the Laffer curve, a tax cut without a commensurate decrease in spending is comparable in harm to a spending cut without a commensurate increase in taxes. In general cutting taxes during a time of massive spending is not fiscally conservative. It's generational theft.
Now we're still in the first month of Democratic hegemony, so it may be that over the next few years even after we pull out of the recession they'll imbalance the equation worse than Republicans did. But the abysmal record of the past eight years is, I think, something they'd have to work pretty hard to attain.
It's certainly possible they will, but having seen the horror of past years I doubt they're that stupid. Apart from fulfilling their wet dream of universal health insurance, the more likely scenario seems a return to smart Clintonomics. Not my first choice, but sure as hell better than cutting taxes in a time of war spending and huge boondoggles such as Medicare Part D and expecting consumers to sustain it by shopping with more personal debt.
Bottom line: Sure there's a Laffer curve, and we ought to be mindful of where we lie on it. Tax cuts without spending cuts are fiscally reckless when you're on the wrong side of it. The last eight years are exhibit A.
(I pause to roll eyes at my use of the idiom "sure as hell" here --- mentally replace that with "certainly", please :)
ReplyDeleteThe massive spending was never a Republican issue. Federal spending as a percentage of GDP was about average under Bush. It looks high only because under Clinton it was unusually low. However, tax receipts as a percentage of GDP went from a multi-decade high under Clinton to a multi-decade low under Bush, crashing to the point that even absolute tax receipts never recovered to their 2001 level, let alone matching population and economic growth.
ReplyDeleteNever a Republican issue, you say: so now they can criticize spending while they're out of power, but couldn't do anything to stem it for the past 8 years? Give me a break.
ReplyDeleteYou said "There's really no evidence the Republicans started "acting like Republicans for a change." and this is trivially true: Republicans are out of power and cannot act now. They can only bark. And their barks sound the same as they did for the past 8 years. They know how to talk the talk.
However the reality of their past actions is that while they did cut taxes (bless their little hearts) they did not follow through by governing small. So it's been a disaster.
You say GDP % spending under Clinton was unusually low, so maybe what you really want to see is a return to divided government.
Gherald,
ReplyDelete"It's hypocritical to spend money when you're in power on your favored interest groups, and then make a fuss about your opposition doing the same."
That's basically saying that politicians can't be politicians.
" but it does mean Republicans have zero credibility in their criticism"
No it doesn't. Even if they are being hypocritical (some are and some aren't), that doesn't invalidate their criticisms, it just makes them hypocritical. If a convicted murderer tells someone else thinking about killing someone that murder is bad, is his criticism invalid? Does he have to become an accomplice because he did it in the past?
"Again Sullivan's point is not that the Democratic stimulus is a positive good, but that Republicans have no credibility to criticize it."
And again, that makes no sense at all. Republicans never passed a gigantic stimulus bill during a recession in the past eight years. The situation is quite different.
Were we in a recession for the past 8 years? Of course the situations are different. And if the Democrats' checkbook is in worse shape than Republicans' after they've been in power long enough, there will be valid criticisms. I'll be right with you on those.
ReplyDeleteI'm not saying politicians can't be politicians. But when they do so dishonestly, people like Sullivan and I are going to point it out.
Places like American Power who turn a blind eye to the duplicity of "their side" are complicit in this. Apart from the Palin garbage there has been no valid criticism of Sullivan here.
And Democrats, at least, have not been dishonest in pursuing this stimulus -- they're doing precisely what you'd expect a conventional Democrat to do. Or have you not heard of FDR?
It's not really divided government that's the issue. The key bill that reduced the deficit was Clinton's omnibus budget bill, which passed without a single Republican vote, during the only 2 years between 1981 and 2003 that the government was not divided. What happened was that Reagan's success forced the Democratic Party to move to the center, creating a generation of fiscally conservative leaders such as Clinton. Conversely, in 2006, as the pendulum swung left, the Democrats began to abandon their fiscal conservatism, led by Krugman, who was a deficit hawk in the 1990s and early 2000s and then flip-flopped just before the 2006 election. (Although I think Krugman's right to recommend massive deficit spending now, he recommended deficits even in 2007, when inflation was a bigger problem than growth.)
ReplyDelete" Of course the situations are different. "
ReplyDeleteExactly.
". But when they do so dishonestly, people like Sullivan and I are going to point it out."
Where's the dishonesty? You just said the situations are different.
"Places like American Power who turn a blind eye to the duplicity of "their side" are complicit in this. "
What duplicity? What do you think Republicans are being dishonest about? Do you actually think Republicans really like the stimulus idea and aren't supporting it just because it's an Obama plan?
"there has been no valid criticism of Sullivan here."
I totally disagree. I think the criticism is correct. Sullivan is doing nothing more than bashing Republicans and assuming bad motives on their part -- like he often does.
"And Democrats, at least, have not been dishonest in pursuing this stimulus"
I'm not arguing that. I expect Democrats to support big government spending projects.
Different in that it's countercyclical. Not different in that it's still spending, it's just happening in a shorter time frame to hopefully help the economy.
ReplyDeleteHaving spent beyond means during periods of growth, it's hypocritical to criticize it now just because Republicans aren't in control of it. But that's what they're doing.
Maybe you think it's just dandy, but Sullivan and I aren't fooled.
"Do you actually think Republicans really like the stimulus idea and aren't supporting it just because it's an Obama plan?"
Yes.
", it's hypocritical to criticize it now just because Republicans aren't in control of it. But that's what they're doing."
ReplyDeleteNormal spending on budgets has little or nothing to do with supporting an extraordinary stimulus package intended to respond to a crisis. They are different situations.
"Maybe you think it's just dandy, but Sullivan and I aren't fooled."
Yes, I am happy that Republicans are voting against something that I think is a bad idea, and which is not in line with what should be Republican economic philosophy. And there's nothing to be fooled about. You are operating under what I see as a false premise.
""Do you actually think Republicans really like the stimulus idea and aren't supporting it just because it's an Obama plan?"
Yes."
I think that's completely ridiculous. You are assuming bad motives and dismissing all other possible motivations. That's what Sullivan does on a regular basis. Republicans have never supported anything like this. It's a unique situation that hasn't occurred before. If Republicans were in charge the bill would be different, so the entire basis for decision on whether or not to support it would also be different.
Did you miss the "Yes" link? It's not an assumption... and enough other signals exist for those of us paying attention -- such as their taking marching orders from Rush "I want him to fail" Limbaugh or townhall.
ReplyDeleteObviously I can't offer incontestable proof of Republican motivations -- I don't live in their heads -- but I can point to their record.
Just the Iraq War cost alone will come to between 1 and 2 trillion dollars depending on your estimate. That alone is more spending than this stimulus, yet Republicans continue lockstep support for an unnecessary war even though it's undoubtedly done more harm than this stimulus ever possibly could. (And even though they were originally against such wars.)
Show me a Republican like Ron Paul who consistently votes what he professes to believe and I will respect him or her.
Show me Republicans who screech about generational theft solely when they are not the ones controlling the purse strings and I will show you political hypocrites.
You and Douglas are pawns in this political game, defending your side. Well fine, it's a free country.
But as for intellectual honesty, do not look at the speck in Sullivan's eye when you've got a plank in your own.
Your entire argument boils down to this:
ReplyDeleteRepublicans supported big spending under Bush when they were in charge and got to decide how to direct the spending. Now that Democrats are in charge they have to support Democratic spending programs too, and if they don't they are hypocrites who want Obama to fail.
In my opinion that argument is illogical and nothing more than Democratic propaganda, for the reasons I already mentioned, which you basically ignored. You've already decided that you know how Republicans are thinking, and you ignore every other more likely explanation of why Republicans are acting as they are. Here's just some of the reasons:
1. It's a totally different situation
2. Their constitutents oppose it.
3. The activist base of their party fanatically opposes it.
4. They've been beaten in the last couple of election cycles.
5. Most of the GOP has been talking about either getting back to conservative roots, or changing in some other ways. Yet you think they have to be locked in to the same actions they took during the Bush administration.
"You and Douglas are pawns in this political game"
I don't know about him, but I'm writing my personal opinion. So I'm obviously no one's pawn.
"But as for intellectual honesty, do not look at the speck in Sullivan's eye when you've got a plank in your own."
Not a single thing I've written is in any way intellectually dishonest. I'm not the one assigning bad motives to people. You haven't seen me attacking Obama's motives for the stimulus. I think he honestly believes that its the best thing for the country, and I even wrote earlier that his scare tactics were just normal debating methods necessary to get something this big passed. But for some reason you can't understand that many Republicans can honestly disagree.
Of course I understand disagreement -- I myself disagree.
ReplyDeleteBut additionally I disagree with most of what Republicans have done, and this is either helping me see their hypocrisy or making me conflate the things I disagree with.
While the situation is different in purpose, $789 billion over 3 years, which includes one of the largest single-bill tax cuts ever, is not markedly different from what Republicans have done.
Now certainly I don't expect all Republicans to support Democratic spending priorities.
But nothing in their record suggests that they, or their constituents, or their activist base are unanimously against it for principled reasons. Heck nothing suggests to me that more than 50% of them are against it for principled reasons.
What they, their constituents/activists, and their field marshal Limbaugh are against is the Democratic party, most especially a successful Democratic party.
I'm glad to hear you fancy yourself more independent-minded, so I'll see -- I've only been here a week.
But it's clear to me that Douglas @ American Power is dishonest, and you agree with him. I sure don't think Sullivan is being dishonest here -- heck he's one of the most honest opinionators I know -- but either he and I are wrong or you and Douglas are wrong.
I've tried to offer some evidence for my position, but you still think "There's nothing hypocritical about Republicans in Congress finally waking up and acting like Republicans for a change. Especially after taking a beating in two Congressional elections. Just because they went along with a Republican president and his bad idea, that means they need to go along with Obama and even more spending?"
I think that's practically the definition of political hypocrisy.
And it's not just limited to Republicans in Congress. It's their pundits and activists, too.
All "Strange New Believers" in generational theft, blind to their own, more egregious wasteful spending.
I don't think I have much new to say on the subject so I'll leave you with a Paul video and a cartoon.
"While the situation is different in purpose, $789 billion over 3 years, which includes one of the largest single-bill tax cuts ever, is not markedly different from what Republicans have done."
ReplyDeleteThat's the root of the disagreement. I see it as a fundamentally different situation in almost every respect.
"nothing suggests to me that more than 50% of them are against it for principled reasons."
That's a lot of people. I'm not saying that every Republican is standing on principle, just a significant number of them.
" are against is the Democratic party, most especially a successful Democratic party."
Of course they are. Just as the Democratic party is against a successful Republican party.
"I'm glad to hear you fancy yourself more independent-minded, so I'll see "
I'm pro-choice, in favor of legalizing drugs, prostitution & gambling, for gay marriage, for amnesty for illegals and I'm an atheist. People like Limbaugh don't think I belong in the GOP. So yeah, I'm not exactly a typical Republican.
"It's their pundits and activists, too."
Many pundits and activists were strongly against the excessive spending of the Bush administration.
Assigning bad motives to political opponents is a particular pet peeve of mine. It is the main reason why most blogs are inhospitable to any sort of independent thought -- and that goes for both sides. Once you assume bad motives, you are rapidly reduced to the Republicans(or Democrats) do evil things because they are evil form of argument. You can see this all over the web, left & right, not just about the stimulus, but on almost any other hotly debated topic.
Cato editors: "exploding the size of government, as he is proposing to do with this stimulus package, is a remarkably Bush-esque ideal."
ReplyDeleteHaving observed this behavior with dismay over past years, I have no trouble understanding that Republicans' allegiance is to their party, not the principled opposition to spending they pretend.
You say I'm "assuming bad motives", but I'm merely observing their record and correlating it with statements of bad faith. The case is as clear cut as I think we can hope to get.
What more would it take to convince you? Perhaps if many Republicans signed a letter saying "we hate Democrats and want them to fail" it would convince you their motives are bad?
Well actually, you even say: "Of course they are [against Democratic plans succeeding]. Just as the Democratic party is against a successful Republican party."
Is this an excuse? I've said repeatedly two wrongs don't make a right. The fact that both sides want the other to fail does not excuse either's dishonesty.
I don't start by assuming bad motives. In fact I begin by giving all politicians -- regardless of party or ideology -- a chance to show they mean what they say and are able to govern soundly.
I'm most often very disappointed. But that's government and politics for ya.
"Republicans' allegiance is to their party, not the principled opposition to spending they pretend."
ReplyDeleteIt's not an either/or situation. It's some of both, along with other factors. Most politicians have multiple reasons for taking a position.
"The case is as clear cut as I think we can hope to get."
Yeah, if you are a Democrat. Otherwise, not so much. There are plenty of Republicans that think the entire stimulus is a boondogle designed primarily to increase Democratic power, advance a socialist agenda, or whatever. That's the same time of thinking from their side. And why do you equate Limbaugh with Congressional Republicans? He and others on the right were regularly bashing the GOP congress for their spending. Do you think Limbaugh supported things like Medicare Part D?
"What more would it take to convince you?"
Since I don't believe in simplistic assumptions of bad motives on the part of political opponents, based on bad analogies to past behavior, I'm not sure.
"Is this an excuse?"
Excuse for what? Democrats and Republicans are political opponents. Why should they want the other side to succeed politically? Did Democrats want the Bush administration to succeed?
Let me ask you a couple questions. Do you think all government spending is somehow equal? Does it matter at all what the money is spent on? Your argument appears to assume that all government spending is the same. Because Republicans supported government spending during the Bush admin., they now supposedly should support it during Obama' presidency.
> Do you think all government spending is somehow equal?
ReplyDeleteI think most of it is either directly harmful or has harmful unintended consequences. But it's not all equally harmful.
> Does it matter at all what the money is spent on?
It matters. The Iraq war, for instance, has proven itself to be one of the most atrocious wastes in US history.
>> "The case is as clear cut as I think we can hope to get."
> Yeah, if you are a Democrat.
...or just not a Republican.
> Your argument appears to assume that all government spending is the same. Because Republicans supported government spending during the Bush admin., they now supposedly should support it during Obama' presidency.
I do not believe this. However, their motivations for opposing this spending are transparent, and in deploying blanket anti-spending arguments they have no credibility with me.
I too oppose the spending, but unlike many Republicans I do so even when it's Republicans doing the spending.