Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiCrisis Inspires Rethinking of 'Reaganomics'
Big government is staging a comeback.
![[Former President Ronald Reagan's stance against big government set the tone for economic policy. (David Ake / AFP/Getty Images) ]](http://www.commondreams.org/files/article_images/reagan1019.jpg "reagan1019.jpg")
When Ronald Reagan entered the White House in 1981, he famously
declared, "Government is not the solution to our problem; government is
the problem." Since then, conservative small-government ideas built on
a foundation of deregulation and low taxes have dominated the debate
over what role Washington should play in the economy.
Now the tide is turning, political experts on the right and left say. A combination of circumstances, including the resurgence of the Democratic Party and fallout from the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression, is giving impetus to wholesale expansion of government economic intervention.
"We've gone through a period of three decades when the default assumptions were conservative assumptions," said William Galston, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution in Washington, D.C., and a policy adviser in the Clinton administration. "That framework has probably been torpedoed by events."
If Barack Obama is elected president and Democrats strengthen their grip on Congress, the period could be transformative. Democrats would enact a series of programs that they believe would boost economic growth and improve middle-class living standards.
But even if Republican presidential candidate John McCain were to win, a far-reaching expansion of government's regulatory authority would be likely. The nation's brush with financial collapse has changed the game. Despite McCain's small-government preferences, he now vows "much stricter oversight" of the financial system.
Rep. Barney Frank, the Massachusetts Democrat who chairs the House Financial Services Committee, argues that the nation is entering a period of resurgent government activism that will resemble Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal of the 1930s.
"This is the end of the era of extreme laissez-faire, of 'Don't tax it, don't regulate it,' " Frank said in an interview. "That has now been totally evaporated."
Conservatives acknowledge they have lost the initiative. But they see the current period as a temporary detour in a nation where free-market capitalism remains the ruling principle.
'Pendulum swings'
"The pendulum swings between big-government liberalism and small-government conservatism," said Dick Armey, former Republican leader in the House of Representatives. "We're going though one of those periods now. Democrats are feeling their oats. But the pendulum will swing back in our direction profoundly."
Democrats have already made public an important part of their agenda. Last week, House Democrats proposed a new economic stimulus package that would include money for highways and other public works, added unemployment benefits and help for struggling states.
If Democrats enhance their congressional majorities, in the longer term there will be "an explicit effort to try to approach the inequality issue," Frank said. "We'll look at income distribution, sensible regulation, trade treaties."
Obama's economic plan contemplates a range of new government initiatives, including a broad expansion of health insurance coverage, tens of billions of dollars for investment in alternative energy, and increased spending on education and infrastructure.
Even before the financial crisis hit, the idea that government should keep taxes low and get out of the way of business was under assault. Critics argued that three decades of conservative economic policies had fostered inequality and eroded living standards for working and middle-class families. Democrats pushing for programs such as universal health care were poised for big gains in this year's elections.
At the same time, the Bush administration and congressional Republicans gave their party's economic stewardship a bad name, conservatives acknowledge. Government got much larger. While taxes were cut, spending rose rapidly throughout the Bush years. Military spending, anti-terrorism, a Medicare drug benefit and pet congressional projects sucked in hundreds of billions of dollars.
Then the housing market collapsed, generating loan losses that overwhelmed the financial system. That calamity - and the need to devote more than a trillion dollars of taxpayer money to deal with it - discredited the notion that markets can take care of themselves. Finally came the astonishing spectacle of a conservative Republican administration purchasing ownership stakes in the nation's leading banks.
"We nationalized financial institutions and banks by executive fiat," said David Kotok, chief investment officer of the New Jersey money management firm Cumberland Advisors. "Once this begins to occur, this trend has only one direction to go. The free-market-capitalism economy is history."
Liberals say the emergency is fostering a political climate friendly to big government.
"It creates an opportunity," said Matthew Yglesias of the Center for American Progress. "The current crisis makes it more likely that (Democrats) will be able to enact an expansive agenda."
Still, some question whether the stars are so perfectly aligned. They ask whether the need for emergency measures to stabilize the financial system translates into a groundswell for big government.
For one thing, the public is deeply suspicious of Washington. A recent CBS/New York Times poll showed that more than 80 percent of those surveyed didn't believe government could be trusted to do what's right. And a Pew Research poll released last week found no significant gain in support for government regulation of business.
"We're at a real low point in the public's view of government effectiveness," said Michael Dimock, Pew's associate director of research.
Others maintain that the Reagan era created a lasting base of support for the notion that government shouldn't try to manage the economy.
"There's a general understanding all over the world that markets are the basis of prosperity," said David Boaz, executive vice president of the libertarian Cato Institute. "What's taking place now is a move to the left within that."
Then there's the question of how hard Democrats will push their activist philosophy, particularly in a period when the budget deficit is at record levels and resources are scarce. The answer hinges greatly on the enigmatic figure of Barack Obama, who variously displays leftist and centrist sides.
FDR or Clinton?
"We will find out if he is a new Franklin Roosevelt or a new Bill Clinton," Boaz said.
Roosevelt of course presided over the greatest expansion of government economic power in U.S. history. Clinton adapted to conservative dominance by declaring in 1996 that the era of big government was over.
The view that Obama, if elected, would preside over an era of reform comparable to the New Deal is rooted in the idea that the financial crisis comes at the culmination of a long period of stagnation for wage earners.
"During the Roosevelt era, money was spent building our middle-class society, unemployment insurance, Social Security, the GI Bill," said Norton Garfinkle, author of "The American Dream vs. The Gospel of Wealth."
"Then Reagan came along and went to the pre-1930s Republican point of view of trickle-down economics. The data show that didn't work. We are now at a turning point. Obama is coming back to the fundamental principles of the Roosevelt revolution."
At the same time though, Obama has promised to reduce the budget deficit and not to increase the overall size of government. And the tax reductions he espouses would keep a low ceiling on government revenue.
"Obama is self-consciously and explicitly moderate in what he proposes," said Stanford University economic historian Gavin Wright. "I wouldn't call his program a new New Deal. But I would say that Obama is trying to re-create the notion that the great majority of Americans can aspire to the trappings of a middle-class lifestyle. It's going to be Clintonomics without the shenanigans."
Of course, a new president will come to office in the midst of dire economic circumstances. That could force either candidate to rewrite his playbook and take more dramatic action.
If Obama is president with large Democratic majorities in Congress, "the new unified government will be on probation," the Brookings Institution's Galston said. "It will be essential for government to display effectiveness, implementing positive changes in the lives of average families."
There's another possible outcome. "I would bet that the Democrats will overreach, creating a real chance for a Republican revival in 2010," Boaz said.
That's what Armey, the former Republican House leader, expects:
"My advice to Barney Frank is to make hay while the sun shines. Because, for the next couple of years, you guys are going to run amok and scare the devil out of the American people."
87 Comments so far
Show AllThe best way that we can reject 'Reaganomics' is by supporting and voting Cynthia McKinney for president. She actually opposes neo-liberal economics, unlike the two major party candidates.
http://www.votetruth08.com/
http://www.gp.org/
We have for years lived with the term "trickle-down economics"
And now the Republican Base are up in arms because Obama wants us to "share the wealth".
Wasn't that the intention when "trickle-down economics" was introduced?
The truest thing Daddy Bush ever said was when he called Grandpa Caligula's Reaganomics "Voodoo Economics."
redgreen above expressed several of my concerns. i would like to add that all these polls that focus on public trust in big government are also focusing the argument. where are the polls that focus on the trust in big business to act
'honorably' or the 'self-regulate in the public's favor?' the reality is that capitalism and democracy are antithetical systems--they are not the same as most people in this country have been conditioned to believe. capitalism, simply put, is the belief in the power of capital---by any means necessary. capitalism unfettered; ie, unregulated will go straight to totalitarianism, as it has been doing by leaps and bounds under the neocon admininistration.
now this brings us to another issue of how the arguements get focused: radicalism. this government has been the absolutely most radical of any that has existed in this country. it has just about done away with the constitution and the bill of rights. it can invade our privacy and declare any of us an enemy combattant without any rights on a national or international basis. its use of newspeak would be seen as brilliant if it weren't so sinister. i would like to see some 'enhanced interrogation techniques' applied to bush & co.
so today it is being announced that obama is a socialist radical because he talks about reverting back to a concept of government owing the public something more than taxes and newspeak. it is claimed to be radical to revert back to a policy where people understand that we are a community and that community is as strong as its weakest link; that a community maintains it health by taking care of ALL of its members. but the greed of capitalism run wild has lead us to the place of abject self-centeredness with a belief in the rugged individual surviving alone based on a faith in a runaway economy that is based on gossimer. and that brings us to where we are today, having to relearn old, humanistic and communal values.
today the idea is broadcast, like a mantra, that spending money on social programs and national infrastructure is big government gone awry. but this is the very kind of spending which ensures meaningful employment and local spending. this is the way that we have local economic success. it is the massive expansion of government spending on a military economy with an off-shoring of almost all industry is not appears so delusional that is bankrupting the population of the country. it is pushing us all down the economic ladder in a way that reagonites were only dreaming of when reagon announced his intent to destroy the minimum wage. government social spending has always been such a meager portion of the national budget.
it seems to me that if people removed the blindfolds, took off the earmuffs and really looked and listened, the reality of all the delusional thinking would be clear. it would be then that people could really begin a meaningful dialogue on what our best collective self-interests are really as opposed to the usurious interest of big corporate business.
It's time to get rid of the Clintons..They doublecrossed us big time.
Why doesn't McCain ask why the Saudi Arabians gave Bill Clinton $10.000.000 ?
And another $10,000,000 from other corporations?
The selling of our Industrial Base to China should be addressed by the
People running for the Presidency. How about all the Red CHinese money? How about "The View"? Is this to complicated
for them?
Why is it always talk about big government? How about effective government, democratic government, along with a free market instead of a rigged market.
Sioux Rose
GOOSE 2: My condolensces, too. My best friend's Mother recently went to the hospital with a stomach problem, and died before the had a chance to do any fancy tests. My friend was in shock... she never got to say goodbye, etc. As a natural intuitive, I can sometimes pick up on these messages. In the case of my friend's Mother, I related that on the SOUL level she did not want to go through a crippling, long-term disease that would inhibit her movement and autonomy. (The woman walked with a limp and had a few up till then supposedly minor medical issues.) Possibly in the case of your nephew, he would have faced a draft. Rather than kill another, or become killed or dismembered, perhaps on the SOUL level it was elected that he check out now. I hope you can entertain the possibility that the soul is everlasting, even if like the pupa, it drops its former bodily shell for the winged experience of Other.
Facts make the best weapons against Lies.
Reaganomics was a loser from the beginning. He put us into trillions of dollars of debt and daddy bush made it worse. Now thanks to chimpy we may not get out of this unscaved.
It's time to bury reaganomics with reagan, forever.
Hell, even Bush Sr. called it "voodoo economics". (No offense to voodoo , which obviously makes more sense)
I don't know about anyone else here, but the last thing I need is another economic history lesson. Nor do I need another 14 paragraphs on Bush's shitbag administration. I'm tired of this masturbatory rhetoric instead of the mandated direction to impeach the Bush admin., half of Congress and the SCOTUS.
Don't say a word. I am well aware of the multitude of ratiocinations.
Yet...Too many helicopters and troop transport, prop driven C-130s are flying over my house going into the desert. I have lived here 15 years and it has never, ever, happened. Never every night. One or two helicopters, maybe. Not this weird shit.
If your neighbor starts taking an interest in what you are doing, without coming over, be careful.
It is starting.
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get you. Might be the survival instinct kicking in.
Some anti-abortion protesters were in my neighborhood this past Saturday supposedly protesting at the Planned Parenthood clinic across the street from my house. They also, however, walked up and down the street taking notes on peoples' houses and cars parked in the neighborhood, which is predominantly Black.
I must agree with you DogLeg, something foul is afoot...
Off topic -
Lost my nephew, 20, this morning to a drunk driver. Brother's only son. Please please please be careful and never get in a car if you or the driver are drunk.
Much rather have all of you drop dead here arguing points in your dottage than alone on a mountain road at 3am.
Just had to say something.
My heart goes out to you and your brother's family Goose. So sad and so needless.
-- EKATON --
Sincerest sympathies and condolences, Goose2.
My sympathies Goose2 to you and your brother.
Me too. I am so sorry.
And, listen to it, people. I was hti by a drunk driver. On a motorcycle.
You may think that it is your "freedom"-it is not. You cause others irrepairable harm. Listen to the person above--Goose2.
Goose2,
I'm a stranger, but, my condolences to your brother his wife and you. I have been through this sickening ordeal.
Be at peace, man.
George C. Brown - It's about time! This move needs to include anything like the "Milton Friedman School of Disaster Capitalism" as well. How about a return to a modified brand of Keynesian economics? That will certainly get us back on a more secure footing for the future - - a future that has been made particularly precarious by the greedhead corporatizers and their reckless free market shenanigans.
Unmentioned in this article is the irony of the "conservative" attack on "big government" over the last three decades: The size of government didn't shrink during that time at all, it grew enormously, under both the Clinton and various Republican administrations. And under Reagan and both Bushes, budget deficits grew enormously. What changed was not so much the size of government, but a shift in priorities from social programs to colossally excessive "defense" spending. Not that military spending wasn't already seriously inflated relative to actual military needs during the Carter era, but from Reagan on it's been completely insane. For much of the past 28 years, it's been more than the rest of the world combined.
yo cold war:
enough for self-defense is a kool-aid problem..imagine none at all!! think about it..is it possible..i believe so..imagine the dod and the mic do not exist..i am willing to go there--are you???
snydly
In these columns is an article about Gus Speth and his new book, "Bridge at the Edge of the World". Highly rec the book and ideas, as far as they go. Definitely req'd reading for gov types.
As for the current situation: the thing that froze the credit world seems to be not so much financial antics and uninformed home buyers as the unprecedented concentration of wealth at the top of the pyramid. Constipated greed---sort of like a constipated person, but wrong side up...
People underestimate the expendature of energy needed to maintain such concentrations against the will of Nature. Let's hope they see the light and make a movement quick, otherwise this will turn into the Mother of all shitstorms.
"States rights" was a REAGAN vehicle for , say, ending aboriotn, or, the voting rights act. He knew he couldnt get it federally, but that was the ultimate goal. Go state by state--especially in teh Deep South. Sooner or later , it becomes the law of the land..
Federal govts., properly run and financed are much larger vehicles for positive change than states. Esapecially with the trend to de-funding states.
Here in Australia the ruling Labor government has announced a huge spending spree, just the other day. It includes gems like: AUD21,000.00 "first home buyers grant". What the...? If this will not inflate the already close to bursting "housing bubble" than I don't know what will!
Then there is an already existing AUD10,000.00 baby-bonus. WHY??? For god's sake, why????
Shouldn't we reward young people for NOT having children?
Shouldn't the powers that be urge us to save, not to spend? To think of the environment, instead of accumulating "things" mindlessly? Not to waste things, but to recycle? And no lip-service, but incentives to do this!
As I see it, we in the "First World" are collectively hurtling towards a "bubble" that'll blow up soon and tear us all into pieces.
As Hecate tells the weird sisters, "security is mortals' chiefest enemy."
Of course "security" in the time and way she is using it probably means "over-confidence," but the intimate relation between the two words holds through the centuries.
In Poe's story "The Masque of the Red Death," for instance, a bunch of Republican elites cloister themselves in a fortress to avoid disease.
Since the disease gets in anyways, with an even better chance than usual to spread itself because of close quarters, the nobles would have been better off living in the outside world and going about their business.
We would have been better off-- and the world would, too-- if instead of starting endless wars and creating the Department of Heimat Security, we had dwelt on normal routines, as anyone does seeking to heal themself after bereavement.
This was clear at the time of 9/11 and is even more clear by now and applies to economics as well.
snydly
But the purpose of 9/11 was to advance the neo-con agenda of turning public money to private money under a unitary executive...Dots, connecting the dots.
There is and always has been more than enough money in government coffers to pay for all the services, infrastructure and protection that people need and deserve. The provision of these things is the reason people give consent to be governed in the first place.
Every penny spent on the military, in all its guises, beyond the amount required to maintain a minimum effective force for defensive purposes only, must be reallocated to the programs and services for which people are legitimately taxed.
Education, health care, public safety, water, power, food, shelter, infrastructure and access to meaningful employment and a living wage are all reasons for the very existence of government.
We do not submit to governance to enable global military conquest for the enrichment and gratification of a self-proclaimed, capitalist/fascist nobility.
We do not submit to governance because we wish to be subjugated, oppressed and enslaved.
We require, create and employ a government for the purpose of maintaining a civil society and ensuring the well being of all its members equally.
The size of said government is determined by the size of the population that employs it, not by any preconceived, ideological notions based on the fantasies of economics, libertarianism, capitalism, privatization and profit motives.
The government is intended to serve all the people, not enslave the many for the benefit of the few.
Any government that fails in this respect must be removed by whatever means necessary.
It is the obligation, the duty, of any society to put an end to any government, be it democratic, socialist, communist or any other, that has betrayed this trust.
There is no way to Peace. Peace is the Way.
Good post! The pot is simmering. Government policy has systematically reduced middle class wealth to the point where it cannot lead us out of this recession through consumption. Government officials still do not get the magnitude of this shortfall as evidenced by their rhetoric about tinkering around the edges with tax policy. It will not be until the pot boils over that any serious action is taken. Prepare for the hard times ahead.
It's less the size of the government that matters than whether it serves the corporate empire or or human beings and other living things.
Big Government is like having insurance...it seems like a waste of money when times are good, but to not have it when things are bad is suicidal.
"The only means of strengthening one's intellect is to make up one's mind about nothing, to let the mind be a thoroughfare for all thoughts." - John Keats
"Underestimates" say 18,000 a year die. From a lack of health care. How many from poverty? One child just died --just now. They could have lived.
http://www.iom.edu/?
id=19175http://cthealth.server101.com/solving_the_problem_of_the_uninsured.htm
A mother or father just died. Just now. Who benefits? The insurance companies and their shareholders. People making over $200,000.
Which side are you on?
dont piss on my head, and tell me its the benefits of free market capitalism trickling down on me.
"The only means of strengthening one's intellect is to make up one's mind about nothing, to let the mind be a thoroughfare for all thoughts." - John Keats
About time.
As far as I am concerned, Reagan was a disaster. I never understood why he's worshipped the way he is.
He (more correctly: his advisers, he was mostly just playing the role of his life and had lots of naps in between, none of his briefs, no matter on what, were to be longer than 2/3 of a page, that's how he formed his opinion on anything) and Thatcher created a world that's only ruled by unbridled greed and made injustice and greed socially acceptable again.
I have to give them credit for indeed triggering a revolution, albeit a revolution that made the world a much nastier and unfairer place for all.
When I watched how Bush yesterday had to be dragged by the Europeans to agree to at least hosting a conference to finally regulate this casino capitalism...and when I then think of the poverty I keep encountering when in America, inexistent where I live. NO topic of the US campaign, I notice. Oh man.
America indeed needs a New Deal, really badly.
And an overhaul of all the political structure is desperately called for as well IMHO, while we're at it. What worked for a few million people in the 18th century doesn't work any longer. This isn't the 18th century. NO OTHER country on earth is still governed by the same structures they used 250 years ago, NONE!!!
America's electoral system is hopelessly outdated, for starters, the electoral college or life tenure for Supreme Court judges are great examples for these typical anachronisms - or just the fact that you have to make a special effort to register to vote, heavens!! Unknown in any modern democracy!
Questioning the wisdom of having a presidential instead of a parliamentary democracy would be too much to ask for, I am sure, but parliamentary democracies are a lot livelier. Less predictable, occasionally chaotic, I readily admit, but that is the essence of democracy. And one feels much more involved as a result.
If I wanted just peace and quiet and an election every 4 years on the first Tuesday in November, come what may, I might just as well opt for a dictatorship. They are extremely reliable. Never an early election, like we are used to in our pariamentary democracies because of political tensions in parliament - but I'd find it horribly frustrating and boring.
Still, I wonder if America will indeed get a New Deal with Obama.
If one thinks that one lives in the greatest country on the face of the earth - because (as the majority of Americans) one normally knows no other and/or doesn't know sufficiently of no other country - then there is never any reason to change anything, right?
Roosevelt was a cosmopolitan who had travelled and who knew other cultures and laguages. THAT will forever remain the difference. He knew of more options in politics than his own island-mentality nation would have been able to offer.
what can you expect from a guy who started his career in politics by ratting out alleged "commies" in Hollywood, where he was the president of their union.
Once a rat, always a rat.
"The only means of strengthening one's intellect is to make up one's mind about nothing, to let the mind be a thoroughfare for all thoughts." - John Keats
You do know that Bobby Kennedy, progressive candidate for president in 1968, served as legal assistant to Senator Joseph R. McCarthy during the infamous House Un-American Activities Commission hearings. Right? If you think Reagan was wrong then Bobby must have been worse in this case. Everyone was anti-communist then.
Please note what is said here, US. They have seen no poverty liek this is their own country (Canada or Europe I might assume?)
There is no reason for a parliamentary system not to prevail in the US, except ignorance and the fact that too many people are simply conmfortable the way they are.
They dont give a damn about the people who are not. It makes me ashamed to be a uS citizen.
Havent alot of you been in other "liberal democracies"? did you ever see anything there like New Orleans 9th Ward.? WHY do you think that might be? What do these other countries have that we dont (and refuse to insist upon)--Social Democracy. This is a system that serves the people. Ours only serves the market.
"But you cant ask for tha now...blah, blah" WHY??
If not now, when. If not us, who?
There is not going to be a pendulum swing back to laissez-faire extremism as the Armey chimp pretends. The death of Friedmanite capitalism is irreversible. And contrary to Yglesias' dreamin', the Demoks get no mandate from the implosion of the chaos THEY enabled. The mandate goes to THIRD PARTY PROGRESSIVES. Get to work, people! Pull those old proposals out of the filing cabinet, and get them on the table. Your train HAS ARRIVED.
A financial new world order?
"Bush says reforms must improve, not fetter, the free market;
Europeans hint at more robust intervention." (Like "Bretton Woods")
Is Thidwick the 'Big Hearted' finally awaking to the crushing burden
of economic hegemony the U.S. has piled on his antlers?
Bush and his Neo-Cons want to plunder the entire world's treasury
with their incessant cry of 'the sky is falling' as they did to America.
We must remove Corporate 'Citizenship' and restore FDR's regulations - or die.
"Since then, conservative small-government ideas built on a foundation of deregulation and low taxes have dominated the debate over what role Washington should play in the economy."
much lower taxes for a tiny minority and about the same for the rest of us i suspect. anyone got figures on this?
"I never want to hear a capitalist say that the US cannot afford anythign again." KDelphi
Exactly! When a $700 Billion dollar bailout termed "rescue" didn't fly the proponents on Wall Street and the Pelosi-Reid cabal bribed the Congress with $150 billion more to the tab for earmarks and Wall Street threatened them by saying give us your money or the 401-K gets it. It made it hard but not impossible to oppose the bail out.
So the Wall Street banks get the money and Bush showers it on Wall Street and low and behold look what happens. Not only do the banks not loan the money out and hold on to it but they also raise the cost of mortgages for everyone else. So the banks get the loot and those who are trying to get a reasonable rate on a home mortgage in this era of record low interest prime rates are told to go piss up a tree. Incredibly Bush has recreated Hoover's Reconstruction Finance Corporation only it should be named Reconstructing Finance Corporation Part Deux.
They have gall--they will say we dont have the money as soon as Obama gets in
UNLESS its money for the military.
But if McCain is gaining on Obama in the polls then it shows in the end they dont want a blackie no matter what--unless its some trick so they can plausibly steal the vote.
How does that necessarily meant that "they" (who) "dont want a 'blackie' no matter what"?
I have never heard the term "blackie"
Yes, but we have heard the term "brownie" as in 'You're doing a Heckuva job."
I never want to hear a capitalist say that the US cannot afford anythign again.
Reagan was a tenth-rate actor. What would he know about anything?
It blows my mind the way Americans continue to be caught in the trap of extremism.
Even in the current financial and economic crisis there are still deluded people advocating free markets and small government. Democratic, Faith-based Capitalism doesn't work. What part of that don't you understand?
Of course deluded free market advocates were doing very well out of the market system. They made a motza! And now it's collapsed they want taxpayers to bail them out. Typical.
Capitalism, which is based upon greed, is a self-destructive system. As well, it is destroying our physical world. It must be tightly controlled.
My blog has more!
www.dangerouscreation.com
Yes, Government is the problem - but exactly the opposite way in which Reagan thought. The military industrial state sponsored by the government is a big, big problem. The manipulation of a society by the tax code and other measures is a problem. The failure to regulate or to deregulate if that's what Ken Lay and Phil Gramm want - government is the problem. To be able to kill people on many levels - that is a problem. Powers of government need to be limited when they oppress the people. To create a government employment force with excellent pay and benefits while those in the society at large who pay the tax bill have nothing - that is a problem. Inequalities and injustice are a problem and governments perpetuate those all of the time.
I find it amusing that many people want to raise taxes to pay for our basic services like schools, libraries and parks. Why not reallocate where the taxes are currently going from military industrial to social and educational programs? The government has resources they just allocate them in all the wrong places and we in our local communities pay. The last thirty years has been an ongoing assault on local communities for the benefit of Washington and Wall Street.
Good day.
Interesting article.
But why do we constantly argue over whether it's conservative or liberal, or whether we are going to grow the markets (laissez-faire) or control them with government regulations?
The only real change will occur when humans realize that it is not about us...humans. It is about Earth.
Earth first in all things and thoughts, deeds and decisions.
We humans must move beyond the same old tired thinking that has brought us to this point, the thinking of greed and growth and control.
We must alter our thinking from the religion that markets (really just a form of gambling) are the only way to live, to letting Earth lead us to a brighter future, or point blank, we are doomed. Neither markets nor big government are the answer. We lived as humans without markets and government for centuries. Our future lies with Earth, not things; with living by Earth's rules, not ours!
Again, Earth first in all things and thoughts, deeds and decisions.
Thanks for reading.
http://www.darkskyinitiative.org
You are very correct Geoist.
That doesn't mean that there's no place for science and technology in the natural world. It just means we need to be more concerned with whether we should do something than if we can. Gaia and technology are not mutually exclusive.
That being said, your point is very well taken. Earth is our source of life. Gaia is a living entity within a living universe. We have the potential to be a positive force throughout that universe. If we survive our childhood we might achieve that potential.
There is no way to Peace. Peace is the Way.
What did we get after over 25 years of Reaganomics (Clinton just slowed down the process). We are on the borderline of being a third world country, we have government corruption, slow economy, income inequality, crumbling infrastucture, medias controlled by big corporation, maybe the worst education system in the western world, and total paralysis.
Are conservatives living in the real world? are they blind and deaf or just "if it does not hurt me it is OK" I am puzzled !!!!!
You are not puzzled--you have it all perfectly figure out. Neo-cons "If it doesnt not hurt me it is OK".
The article is typical yet problematic because it invokes the standard frames that are self-defeating once you use them. Government has vastly expanded under Bush. The National Security state, Homeland Security, prisons, I.C.E. etc. "Big government" is code for removing those aspects of government that actually benefit the majority of the population. They are more than willing to take our tax dollars and give it the banks or the military.
Take the Right's epithet "tax and spend liberal". What the Right has done since Raygun is essentially to borrow and spend. If you look at this way, "tax and spend" is an improvement-at least you're not going into debt. And really, taxes are meant to be spent. That is what they are for. And here I agree with Rich M: "it's on whose behalf the government is acting [or spending]."
But I disagree with him here:
RE:"But I would say that Obama is trying to re-create the notion that the great majority of Americans can aspire to the trappings of a middle-class lifestyle...."
- This is utter bunk, though, because the US postwar prosperity was based on 2 factors that have long since been completely neutralized & will never again be operative. One was the outcome of WWII, where the US was the only major economic power left standing, & thus had a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to be the big banana."
No, this is not bunk at all. This view by Rich M assumes that a middle-class lifestyle is tied to US imperial power. Scandinavian countries have some of the highest standard of livings in the world. They also have a highly democratic and relatively egalitarian society. They have no need to be the "big banana." The desire to rule the world by US elites has much to do with our lack of achieving the "American Dream" (if that means a reasonable standard of living, a home, job-security, retirement, health care etc.). Our country could be solvent in short order if the government were to turn away from militarism. Ceasing to be an empire would be a good place to start.
Exactly!
Let me assure you that being an ex-super-power is beautiful! Europe's full of them!
No more stress to keep up with the Ivanovs or Lee-Chings.
Yes....
Reagan was right. Government IS the problem...REPRESENTATIVE Government, that is.
Government haters are the problem.
Representative government is the problem, direct democratic government is the solution:
www.ni4d.us
You got it.
Whoever hates government secretly prefers the law of the jungle.
I believe that what you really hate is OUR govt.
It is run by the privileged, for the privileged and tries to be totally inefficient to convince you thar "govt is the problem".
"Govt " is the solution in Europe, Canada, even Mexico is starting up some social programs that wil help reduce poverty. South and Central American govts are saving lives everyday.
These are places where Friedman styl e capitalism has killed 100s of 1000s.
Sioux Rose
DEANG: Excellent point on Reagan. Essentially he made way for a nation friendly to Mars rules and/or the new homeland (in)security state.
BBR-001: I see it that way, too. If you can retro-fit a nation FOR war, seems the process can be reversed with the right motivational strategies. Money = the carrot.
Kimberly
Health Care should be run by the State. Schools also. The federal government is incapable of regulating itself it is too corruptable to big and now to absolutely corrupt. We must find ways to empower our States. The Federal Government must be stript of its power before it is too late. In the state of Colorado they are still actually working on a balanced budget. I am not sure if that is true in all states but The budget and taxes are directly voted on by the people. The federal government is to far away from accountability to ever do good.
I too believe that in certain specific cases that States can do a better job of managing change. In these times, the federal government has become too powerful and corrupted to address needed change. The States have a right and responsibility to address issues that are begging for change. This is not so much an ideological argument as it is a practical one at this point in time. Since the concept of decentralization is a core change concept, it is only natural that States would gain more power relative to the Federal Government. The key is a proper balance.
.Your Ronald Reagan impersonation is done quite well.
The govt., whether state or federal, is made up of people, thus it is not the cartoonish ogre you would have us believe it to be. That the current crop who occupy that govt all believe as you do is exactly the reason why it behaves as it does.
Health Care provided by individual states would be next to unworkable, in my opinion, would lead to the sort of fractured and cost ineffective system we now see here. Once again, every single industrialised nation on this planet has a form of nationalised health care, every one! Are you under the impression that they all know something we do not?
Oh and your federal govt is as close as the nearest office, one in every state ( at least), or as far away as your telephone.
.
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
Totally Agree - This was the way original Americans expected it to work - With todays constituencies of hundreds of thousands,even millions, the Senate/Congress can't adequately represent the people. We need to bring the important issues closer to home - Vote on them in local monthly elections and send our choices directly - and the budgets to go with them!
Be sure and let us know which states wil secede if you want no centralized govt. I would like to move to one. This "states rights" was a REAGAN MODEL!!!!!!!!!!!
Reagonomics wasn't thought out in the first place. Without massive regulation and a progressive tax system the majority of people are too poor to buy anything and the pie stops growing. The rich do get all of the small pie.
Really this is feudalism.
Now that the taxpayer takes all the losses and gets none of the gains we may get full fledged fascism.
That is a couple of really delightful economic systems.
Whether big government or small government...GET THOSE CROOKS UNDER CONTROL!
Yeah, I agree with that. In fact, the use of the phrase "big government" is itself a perfect encapsulation of the stupidity & debased state of American political dialogue. The media & Republicans both act as though "big government" itself is the issue. But the issue isn't the bigness; it's on whose behalf the government is acting.
The Democrats, meanwhile, are too gutless to make this fundamental point, even in their own defense.
And in terms of "getting those crooks under control" -- NEITHER party even admits there are any crooks, let alone being anywhere near attempting to get them under control. With probably less than 10 honorable exceptions, the whole Congress of both parties, plus the entire Bush administration, are little crooks helping their friends, the big crooks, to loot the Treasury.
Reagan opposed big government in some areas, but expanded it in others. He was a firm believer in the concept that if the US doesn't like a country's government, then it has a right to remove it. He mined the waters of Nicaragua for that reason. He also expanded arms sales to the likes of Saddam Hussein. Bush II merely expanded Reagan's big government in areas like the Patriot Act and illegal wiretaps. In effect, he let big government become a monster.
I know people have been led to believe (mostly by Reagan's lies) that Reagan was against "big government," that he cut back government spending, etc, etc, but that's not what he did at all. He just shoveled money from the government programs he was against - education, environmental programs, social programs - into government programs he favored - military, prisons, police, while at the same time deliberately tripling government debt through deficit spending, a record up to that point (exceeded only by his ideological heir, George W. Bush).
It continues to amaze me that people in the US are fooled by the advertising label right-wingers use: conservative. Americans don't think beyond what that adjective means, so they just ignore the mountains of evidence that right-wing politicians since 1980 have been consciously expanding government and indulging in reckless spending, not to mention destroying the environment, reinvigorating white racists, and putting hundreds of thousands of people in prison.
Why were Americans not deeply offended by the mere idea of "trickle down economics"? The name alone indicated that Reagan intended to do nothing at all for the most needy among us. And he ended up doing worse than nothing, adding thousands to the ranks of the impoverished, expanding homelessness to levels not seen since the 1930s, on and on. Yeah, I know you younguns have all been taught that Reagan made everyone rich and optimistic, but that's not what happened at all.
Americans need to remember the old adage, Don't judge a book by its cover.
The article quotes Stanford economic historian Gavin Wright as saying, "I wouldn't call his program a new New Deal. But I would say that Obama is trying to re-create the notion that the great majority of Americans can aspire to the trappings of a middle-class lifestyle...."
- This is utter bunk, though, because the US postwar prosperity was based on 2 factors that have long since been completely neutralized & will never again be operative. One was the outcome of WWII, where the US was the only major economic power left standing, & thus had a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to be the big banana. The other was US mass-production techniques, which gave it a competitive edge from around 1900 to around 1960, but which the whole world has long since learned to imitate, & in many cases has improved upon.
In other words, there is NEVER going to be any "re-creation of the American dream," with most people enjoying middle-class lifestyles. Therefore, any appeal of Obama resting on that hope is silly and bogus.
Alan MacDonald
Sam says, "If Barack Obama is elected president and Democrats strengthen their grip on Congress, the period could be transformative. Democrats would enact a series of programs that they believe would boost economic growth and improve middle-class living standards." ---- Dream on, Sam, all of these stooges work for the same ruling-elite 'corporatist Empire' that controls our country behind the facade of their two-party, 'Vichy' sham of a government, and they won't leave by asking nicely.
The 'Pendulum swinging' as you allude to, Sam, is not going to accomplish squat --- what we need is the 'corporatist Empire' swinging!
Didn't ya hear? Its all Acorn's fault!
Maybe Obama can put Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, Boeing... to work on clean energy projects instead of WMDs? Same money, different direction, and everybody's happy!
Do you think that Obama meant it when he said that he could bring the country together like Reagan did?
.Now thats a truly scary thought....I think that Reagan's philosophy has been shown to be rather wrongheaded and has led us directly to this financial and economic disaster we face. Now if only the public has made note of this fact....If only we had a party of the people ,one which might give the news and the analysis to that public!
The coming democratic sweep of the two elective branches of government is also going to see a GOP spin machine in full overdrive as well. They will do everything in their power to subvert legislation, to paint false pictures thereof, and they will have much help from the corporations which use money to sway votes and, sadly,they will have help from President Obama and the democrats too....
.
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
"money for highways and other public works, added unemployment benefits and help for struggling states."
"a broad expansion of health insurance coverage, tens of billions of dollars for investment in alternative energy, and increased spending on education and infrastructure."
"the budget deficit is at record levels and resources are scarce"
"Obama has promised to reduce the budget deficit and not to increase the overall size of government."
The government will spend more money while spending less.
The government will provide more resources with fewer resources available.
I can't wait to see how this all is going to happen.
Sioux Rose
DR WU: Good post.
What the article didn't say was that the Bush team managed to so thoroughly mangle the vast array of government programs so as to MAKE people believe less in government's competence. This, of course, is the Grover Norquist wet dream.
There must always be a balance between the naked lust for profit and the price paid in terms of natural ecology (nature's interlocking ecosystems) and human well being. When under Bush the pendulum was allowed to swing ONLY towards the profit motive, everything else collapsed. This is a "teaching moment" insofar as pointing out what the love of money alone means, or redirecting the whole of the nation's ciizenry towards ideals of conservation and using less, while also appreciating more. There is poverty in this land of plenty, but many who call themselves middle class have a lot more assets than those in the 3rd world, and take these amenities for granted. GRACE is the thing made conspicuous by its absence in modern American life. I'd like to see more of that engaged.
There he is, in all His Glory . . . The Big Doofus with the doofus face, the smug doofus grin, the dyed doofus hair, the brown doofus suit and the idea that Americans were even bigger Doofuses (or Doofi) than he was. How right he was. After all, this is the man who stated, shortly after assuming power, that there was no more racism in America. He was probably the one yelling "Kill him!" at the Palin rallies. The real Evil Empire is Hell and I don't think Ronald Wetboy Reagan is an Alpha Dog in that place.
actually, he didn't dye his hair.........he bleached his face.
Isn't that title the inderstatement of all time. eh? And to even have the audacity to call it by his name. The man was a puppet, numb and clueless most of his administration.
The Reagan crowd believed in the "Invisible hand." That fairy tale went like this: Somehow when the rich make their fortunes, everyone will benefit. The hand takes care of things. No, it wasn't "The Case of the Missing Hand" (an early Reagan thriller)that Reagan believed in, it was the old Adam Smith canard. Sadly, the hand didn't work, never did, not even in the picture. Just another scam perpetrated by the ruling rich. Let's look at their latest ponzi scheme:
Bank after bank is falling like ten-pins. UBS, the Swiss bank gets bailed out with 60 billion from the Swiss government; Citigroup, the American giant, loses 2.8 billion. They claim sub–prime mortgages ruined them. Sure it ruined them and they got only themselves to blame. The used giving credit (mortgages, cars, student loans, etc) as money making machines. The way I look at it is that all Wall Streeters do is flip papers and enter arcane formulas into spreadsheets. They don't make anything (that's the Chinese). They just sit at their computers and click and sure enough they take some junk mortgages and slice and dice them and turn them into AAA rated securities. They're alchemists, really--they shovel in toxic junk mortgages handed out to anyone with a pulse and turn them into gold. Then everything gets leveraged--a dollar's worth of sow’s ears are leveraged into 60 dollars of silk. And they sell the formerly worthless junk all over the world. And they get fabulously rich. And when things hit the fan and the housing market goes bust, and the government of Iceland goes bankrupt, these people want government hand-outs. But more than banks need “hand-outs.” We’re in for troubling times. Bank bail outs are just the beginning. With 70% of our GDP based on consumer spending, the government will need to put money in consumer’s pockets by resorting to deficit spending (this is what got us out of the “Great Depression”): extend Unemployment Insurance benefits, stop foreclosures; subsidize failing mortgagees, rebuild the infrastructure, “green energize” America, professionalize and give living wages to health care workers, pre-k teachers and encourage unionism.
And dammit, don't put Rubin/Paulson in any government office. Unregulated capitalism is out of juice. Put some fan of Arnold Greenspan or Ayn Rand in office like John McCain and things will only get worse. Time to put the "creative destruction" of capitalism to bed.
Dr Wu, the last of the big-time thinkers
This is troubling...and a conundrum. On the one hand, I'd like to see some kind of nationalized health care system, on the other hand, I don't think a government of any kind can govern 300 million people without getting out of control and moving into totalitarianism.
What to do?
"It is not true that it's one damn thing after another - it's one damn thing over and over." Edna St. Vincent Millay
Mr. Markow, I find your remark concerning an inability to govern rather troubling, especially coming from a self-professed democrat ( am I wrong here?).
300 or 300 million the democratic process remains the same, does it not? The problem has been and continues to be twofold, I believe. Those who think like Reagan and the GOP that government must die and free up business to continue the rapine we have observed since Ronnie corrupted this nations impression of that institution. The second problem is the lack of understanding as to the role of government in the social contract between it and its citizenry.
Every industrialised nation on earth excepting one has a form of nationalised health care, so I guess I am not alone in believing it the duty of my government to provide such. They manage, by the way, quite well in avoiding the straw man of totalitarianism. In fact, isnt it those who seek to throttle big government who prove to be closer to fascism than is comfortable?
.
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
I don't think a government of any kind can govern 300 million people without getting out of control and moving into totalitarianism.
----------------------------------------------------------
Any kind of government, Mr. Markov? We already have a government of secret cabal not much different than infamous Kremlin. Our government already HAS total unimpeded control over our life, physically, mentally, and financially, so what are afraid of?
It is that cabal who decides what can you buy for $1, not the market.
It is that cabal who decides how much cost gas for your, not the market.
It is that cabal who decides how much cost your house, not the market.
It is that cabal who decides whether you have meaningful job producing meaningful things, rather that being afraid of such a job moving elsewhere; it is cabal, not the market.
It is that cabal who decides whom it will bomb next time, Baghdad or WTC, not the market.
So, what you're afraid of? We're already there where you're afraid to go. Our only way to throw away powerful cabal, which proclaimed openly its goal to drawn our government in the bathtub.
Do we risk to exchange cabal for George Hitler? We already have it either.
v.purto
Single payer health care weorks very well in most of the civilized world. This "Merkin exceptionalism" stuff has to stop! If it ever was true (which I doubt) it no longer is!
I find it absurd to the extreme that "liberals (neo?) will cal on govt to bailout their IRAs , and, then cry about how the govt cant run health care.
How about HR 676? Conyers and Kucinich have alot of experience. You know how many other countries do it, so I wont humor you. We already have single payer in Medicare.
Its just a fricking excuse! If you just dont want to pay for it--say so!!Or would that interfere with your "i feel your pain" sensibilities? Id almost rather have a neo-con tell me to my face (and the 20,000 dead faces) "I just dont care."
This one just really pisses me off! 20,000 people DIE every year here! It is shameful, with so many rich people here! "Liberals" should be ashamed to allow a so-=called progressive candidate to campaign at such a ripe time without supporting single payer.
Which side are you on??
Why not ask these countries what to do: Lets start with Canada.
http://www.yesmagazine.org/article.asp?ID=1503
We could move on to ask: Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Costa Ruica, Cuba, Panama, Peru, Utruguay, Venezuela.......,
UK.
Mexico is introducing it this year.
EU--Austria, Belgium, Bosnia, Bulgaris, Croatis, Czech Rep, Denmark, Finland, Estonia, France, Georgia, Germany.....on and on
China, Singapore, Thailand, India Austrailia, New Zealand.
What is it about thset countries economies is it that you briliant PhDs do not understand?
BTW--I have used the sytems in Denmark, Italy adn Canada--so dont say that they dont work.
NO MORE EXCUSES! People are DYING!
"What is it about thset countries economies is it that you briliant PhDs do not understand?"
US imperialism is not only military and economic but cultural and intellectual too. It's taboo to talk about, but US academia is hyper-imperialistic. The academics suppress awareness of what goes on in the rest of the world by avoiding it in public discussion, unless of course this helps advance the US imperial agenda. This topic is taboo. Thou shalt not discuss it.
Good point.
US "education" (higher level, anyway) adds something--but also "takes away".
Nietzsche
There never was a better time for us to insist on single payer precisely for the reasons cited above.
Lets insist to Obama. According to surveys, it would give him voters--even in "toss up" statse.