Author: lemkin

…these are the basic points liberals should be arguing:

• These vouchers would be grossly inadequate.
• For that reason, most seniors wouldn’t be able to afford adequate coverage.
• Medicare as it exists today is indeed sustainable.

If you find yourself arguing about something else, you may already have lost.

Bob Somerby, speaking the truth. Keep it simple and to the point. Pizza, the Marine Corps, and their relative similarities or interchange rates need not enter into it and our arguments tend to be weakened or just diffused by the presence of these things.
The Democrats have a uniquely potent message to offer here, one that polls almost uniformly in their favor; as a result, constantly going off to fight ultimately pointless side-battles is precisely what the GOP would love to have happen. It muddies an otherwise crystal clear dichotomy. The GOP wants to end Medicare as we know it. The Democrats do not. This is because Medicare, even as currently figured, is sustainable. Long term fixes and cost (and rate of cost-growth) containment through mechanisms installed in the ACA? Of course. Wholesale gutting that leaves only the name in place: not necessary. Period.

The fact that I’m in favor of going back to the Clinton tax structure is merely an indicator of how scared I am of this debt problem that has emerged and its order of magnitude.

Former Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan, an enthusiastic supporter of the Bush-era tax cuts for the rich, now supports raising top marginal tax rates on high earners. Last week, Joel Slemrod, a top economic adviser to Ronald Reagan, said the same thing. (via andrewgraham)
One wonders just how many seconds will elapse until FOXnews is running “Greenspan: Just how insane was he?” documentaries 24/7. May already be live.

In a Decent World

jeffmiller:

There’s a lot I simply don’t understand here, but let’s talk for a second about the thing in bold.  Forget all of the problems with the chart and sustained unemployment and people dropping out of the job market and people accepting lower pay or benefits and everything else that your red and blue chart doesn’t address.  That “steepest climb” you’re talking about … that climb doesn’t show job growth.  Every one of those months shows continued job losses.   And the time when the stimulus end?—that’s the time where there is actual job growth.  The chart, in other words, can tell a story that’s exactly the opposite of what you’re saying in bold.  

Now, you can argue that the stimulus resulted in smaller job losses than there would have otherwise have been, or that the job growth at the tail end of the chart was sparked by the stimulus that preceded it—you can argue these things, but the chart doesn’t prove these things.  The chart is just data, with its flaws and limitations.

Seriously? Leaving aside the bit about your troubles with pesky “data”, your expectation is that one month: catastrophic job loss. Next month: spectacular, robust return to full employment of the go-go days of old. In the history of the world, I challenge you to show me a recession that ended abruptly. The one you might point out is the one you also wouldn’t want to mention, as it ended as a direct result of massive and sustained government spending (see: World War II, in which basically everyone in the country had a fake “government” job. How’d that work out for us?). They all end more or less like what we’re seeing now, a gradual improvement in “bad” numbers, then progressive and building improvement on “good” numbers. Businesses don’t simply rehire x-million workers overnight; in fact, they only hire when they absolutely have to, and are thus not typically leading indicators of a recovery. You’ll recall that this recession was declared “over” in September of 2010.

Likewise, you can see the same trending in the diminishing output gap. I know, I know, more dread data. The Democrat and his empirical reality crap again. But it’s a fact: the economy is improving, if slowly. It improved more quickly during the time of the stimulus. Were said stimulus still unspooling, we’d be seeing faster improvement now. The sooner we close said output gap, the sooner revenues improve and the sooner the deficit “crisis” is at an end.

The GOP, of course, knows this too. That’s why they’re riding this particular hobby horse so hard right now. It’s the opportunity to jam their view of society down our throats while the public is scared and feeling serious economic pain. Once things noticeably improve there will be even less stomach for “shared sacrifice” at the hands of eviscerating the social safety net coupled to deep tax cuts for the rich. So, from their perspective it’s now or never. That fact, as much as anything, is why they all voted for the Ryan plan. They see this moment as their last, best chance to end Medicare this decade.

In a Decent World

jeffmiller:

Let me see if understand this:  You originally posted a quote that suggested we’re living in a conservative dream-world in which government has shrunk over the past two years, and that this has caused economic stagnation.  Now you’re arguing that things have gotten better these last two years because of Democrat policies.  I don’t think there’s a consistency here, but I have to tip my hat to the partisan dexterity.  

In, as Yglesias likes to say, a “decent world,” we’d all agree that (1) a job loss chart can’t tell the whole story of the economy, (2) the job loss chart doesn’t reflect the number of people who have given up and dropped out of the labor market, and (3) throwing red and blue colors on a chart doesn’t mean you’ve shown causation. 

Nope. I’m pretty clearly pining for a world in which the media questions conservative desires and their likely outcomes based on real world observations. How’s austerity working out in the UK? How’s government-based job loss affecting our larger economy, re: the jobs chart? Why do you think more job loss at the hands of state and local cutbacks will magically create jobs when, in fact, more people will be out of work and have no money to spend in the broader economy? That sort of thing.

I’m also saying that in a world with larger implementation of “Democrat policies” that the jobs graph would look better than it does. That’s not “partisan dexterity,” it’s cold reality. Government funded jobs are jobs. Period. People are employed to do something and receive a paycheck. That money feeds back into the larger economy. As the private economic situation improves, those government backed jobs can begin to taper. It’s no coincidence that the steepest climb in that chart is also the period of highest government stimulus and the graph flattens as the stimulus ends.
Predictably, we’re also seeing exactly this model play out in the auto industry. Government directly funds US auto companies. Those companies and their suppliers remain in business. People are employed. Conditions improve. Companies repay government and go their merry way. And but also: no Serious People seem to notice. Ever.

Far from it. The conservatives and their media enablers act as if none of this has transpired. Cuts today, cuts tomorrow, cuts forever! Couple that with some high income tax breaks and a ban on abortions and the country would start to grow again! Huzzah!

In a Decent World

jeffmiller:

lemkin:

“…in a decent world, conservatives would be forced to acknowledge that these are the [employment] results they claim to want. The private sector’s not being held back by the grasping arm of big government. Government is shrinking. And the shrinking of the government sector isn’t leading to any kind of private sector explosion. It’s simply offsetting meager private sector growth. Indeed, I’d say it’s holding it back. Fewer state and local government layoffs would mean more customers for private businesses and even stronger growth on the private side.”

— **Matt Yglesias**, pining for a decent world. That sort of attention to detail would require the media to leave critical questions about Weiner’s penis on the cutting room floor. I don’t think *anyone* wants to live in an America that’s like that.

What’s sad about this is that Yglesias knows he’s being disingenuous.  He knows the the size of government isn’t measured by the number of people it employs.  He knows that federal spending has increased substantially during Obama’s presidency.  He knows that federal contractors are counted in the private sector employment numbers.  He knows that there are more, not fewer, regulations now than there were two years ago.  He knows that there are more, not fewer, laws on the books now than there were two years ago.  

Democrats had control of this country for two years, and things are terrible.  I understand it’s the job of the political hack to spin this as a Republican failure, but it isn’t one.  In a decent world, Yglesias would acknowledge this.

Indeed, our troubles began on Jan 19, 2009 and haven’t improved a whit since. Goddamned Democrat monsters:

…in a decent world, conservatives would be forced to acknowledge that these are the [employment] results they claim to want. The private sector’s not being held back by the grasping arm of big government. Government is shrinking. And the shrinking of the government sector isn’t leading to any kind of private sector explosion. It’s simply offsetting meager private sector growth. Indeed, I’d say it’s holding it back. Fewer state and local government layoffs would mean more customers for private businesses and even stronger growth on the private side.

Matt Yglesias, pining for a decent world. That sort of attention to detail would require the media to leave critical questions about Weiner’s penis on the cutting room floor. I don’t think anyone wants to live in an America that’s like that.

2.96

Emphasis added:

…if even 1/50 of the austerity-induced decline in current output flows through to reduce the economy’s productive potential, that austerity today worsens the debt burden.

This is an unusual result: it applies only to a country with a substantial fiscal multiplier that can fund its debt at very low interest rates. But we are a country with a substantial fiscal multiplier that can fund it’s debt at very low interest rates…

Indeed we are. But no one seems interested in noticing. We can borrow against a 10-year Treasury at a 2.96% yield. The money behind that rate is clearly not concerned with either deficits or the capability of the United States to meet the debt incurred by their purchase yesterday or all the days before that. As Jared Bernstein notes, the current “budget math” still strongly favors a jobs target and not a deficit target.

This is very simple stuff. How many ways do you have to prove that cuts today worsen our long-term fiscal situation before somebody with a D after their name starts talking about this in a compelling, no-nonsense fashion? We can borrow, cheaply, and those dollars (when pumped into the economy) would hasten the closing of our current output gap. This would simultaneously a) obviate the need for further borrowing, b) close the revenue shortfalls of Great Recession, and c) coupled with a do-nothing legislative approach relative to the Bush tax cuts would almost entirely close the existing budget deficits within a few years.

But, by all means, let’s go on pretending that deep, punitive cuts to the social safety net and eliminating access to abortions are the only Serious Person positions possible given the current situation.

2.96

Who has egg on their face if there is a sovereign debt crisis, House Republicans or the president?

A “Senior GOP Lawmaker,” making explicit the GOP’s intention to shitcan the sovereign debt of the United States in the hopes of short-term political gain. Make no mistake, they plan to default. They think it’s a good idea. It’s the only way they can imagine winning the White House in 2012; they’re sure as hell not going to get there on the back of their brilliant “end Medicare, give proceeds to the rich” gambit. Default is the plan, was the plan, will always be the plan.
And, no, they haven’t considered whether it will be worth winning executive leadership of a country utterly crippled by a combination of existing debts and the inability to borrow on the global markets (such as they will even exist after default) for eternal wars and deep tax cuts for the wealthiest. They’re not big thinkers in the GOP. In fact, they are actively and openly against thinking about anything. So that’s just the sort of governance we’re going to get from President Bachman, elected in a landslide post default and post economic apocalypse.
Source: politico.com

The governor does not reimburse for security and travel. The use of air travel has been extremely limited and appropriate.

Kevin Roberts, spokesman for Chris Christie, responding to this clear misuse of a federally funded helicopter to fly Christie to his son’s little league game.
Again: we’re supposed to be happy that he didn’t take the car to another, smaller helicopter that could then deposit him directly adjacent to his seat. Really, the only sensible way I see for him to claw his way out of this kerfuffle is through deep cuts to Medicaid and infrastructure investments concomitant with a hefty tax cut for the super-rich. It’s the Serious Thing to do.