The Perils of Policy Victory

Chart From Slate

Most of what I write is recycled dreck from other liberal writers ("Hey there, CannonFoundry, no we love you and know you're really original!"), but every once in a while I come up with an original though.  Here's one I was proud of, in which I compare the problems of AIPAC and the NRA- two organizations that are cursed by their amazing success in implementing their agendas in the USA.  With support for Israel just about unopposed in Congress, and with gun control on nobody's agenda in the US, these organizations have to come up with new goals to justify their continued existence.

So I thought of another example of this phenomenon.  It was suggested to me by this Bruce Bartlett article

I had written an op-ed for the New York Times in 2007 suggesting that it was time to retire “supply-side economics” as a school of thought. Having been deeply involved in its development, I felt that everything important the supply-siders had to say had now been fully incorporated into mainstream economics... I said the supply-siders should declare victory and go home.
 

To look at it another way, tax rates were in the stratosphere throughout the 1960s and 1970s, and Ronald Reagan and the Supply Siders came in during the '80s and totally changed the dynamic on taxes.  Although marginal tax rates have wandered up and down since 1981, they've never come close to the 50+% top marginal rate that prevailed before that time, and such a rate isn't even being considered by either party.  Hell, even I, more liberal than nearly everyone in Congress, don't support a top tax rate that high. 

So the Reaganites have won on this: historically low taxes are now the new normal.  And yet Republicans continue to double down on lowering taxes.  No matter how low taxes go, they're still way too high according to the Right.  They don't know how to declare victory and continue on to something else.  Like the NRA desperately inventing conspiracy theories, they just can't figure out how to move on.

Oh, and look at the accompanying chart, which shows that marginal tax rates have no apparent effect on economic growth!

Fiscal "Cliff" Reminders

So Washington continues to jockey for negotiating position on the upcoming changes in tax and spending levels that kick in January 1.  Summing up where I stand:

• The whole conversation continues to get sidetracked in ways that make no sense.  The hysteria about the Fiscal Cliff seems to blend in with hysteria about the allegedly ballooning deficit (I say "allegedly" because the deficit has been going down the last two years, though it's still very high).  People seem to forget that if congress does nothing and allows the sequester to happen and the Bush tax cuts to expire and doesn't do the annual Medicare "doc fix", then the deficit problem in the short to medium term is just about totally solved.  In other words, jumping off the Fiscal Cliff would be good for the deficit.
• But that doesn't mean it would be good for the economy- it seems like economists from all over the political spectrum agree that so much austerity at one time, with an economy still very fragile, could drive the US back into recession.  All one needs to look at for evidence is what happened in Spain, Greece, Ireland, and the UK when they hiked taxes and cut spending all at once in a bad economy- it got much worse.
• Americans just don't seem to understand this- we equate deficit problem with job market problems, when in fact the difficulty is that higher deficits help the job market- if we fix one problem, we worsen the other.
• What's eventually needed on the tax side is really a middle class tax hike along with the upper class tax hike.  We need Clinton-era rates across the board.  That's not a very exciting platform to run on for Democrats, though, so I can understand Obama's refusal to consider it.  Still, no deficit is likely to be solved in the long run without more revenue from the middle.  I'm fine with putting off that revenue hike until the economy is cooking, but I fear a permanent tax cut for the middle class, leaving the government underfunded in the long term.
• I would really like a liberal position to enter the conversation on entitlements.  Social Security is not a mess; it just needs tweaks.  All the tweaks I hear about involve fewer benefits for recipients down the road.  At the same time, there's a very easy tweak right in front of us: raise the ceiling of income subject to social security taxes.  Right now incomes over $106,000 aren't subject to social security taxes.  Raise that to something higher, and the program becomes solvent just like that, and elderly people can continue to live with some dignity. 
• Medicare is a much harder problem to solve.  But it would be a mistake to solve it by offloading all the cost to Seniors who can't pay it.  Especially when we haven't tried much else to rein the costs in.

In Which I Grapple with the Israel-Gaza Mess

My readers know that while I'm an unapologetic liberal on nearly all issues, I'm sometimes conflicted by the actions of the place I love the most, Israel.  The source of my conflict is that the political Left is generally on the side of Palestinians in the conflict.  This is understandable- the Left has a knee-jerk affinity for the underdog in any conflict, and concern is first felt for the oppressed, not the powerful.

I feel that way too, about many issues; I look for reasons to support factory workers over their bosses in labor disputes.  I am tremendously concerned about the overuse of military and surveillance power by the US.  I prefer that my sports teams win as a scrappy underdogs than as awesome powerhouses (though there I'll take the powerhouses too, but the Pats 2001 season was way better than 2004 for example).

But when it comes to Israel, I've been there, I'm in awe of what the Pioneers did to build the state (when the Jews really were the underdogs), and I know how important Israel is to Jews everywhere. I've often said that it would have been interesting if I had been in college, when I was full of Leftist fervor, when Israel was in the news.  It wasn't though- my college days were spent protesting Apartheid and Salvadoran killing squads, while Israel was relatively quiet.

So that's a roundabout introduction to my position in the current conflict, in which I wholeheartedly support Israel, but with some qualms about the use of power there.  To be clear, Israel has a right to defend itself from rocket fire coming from the territories, and there's no question that Hamas is not a partner for peace.  I don't think anything Israel does at this juncture will lead to peace any time soon.

But that doesn't mean that anything goes.

This story is troubling.  An Israeli missile destroys a home and kills more than ten members of a family.  Here's another one.  I thought I read one a few days ago about a militant who was killed in his home along with many members of his family, but I can't find that now.

Israel has a right to defend itself.  It has no right to send missiles at civilian homes, knowing that many civilians will be killed.  If Hamas is using people as "human shields", these issues get difficult, but Israel still has a responsibility to do everything possible to avoid killing civilians.  US drone attacks in Afghanistan present the same problem- blowing up the home of a Taliban commander, killing him along with his whole family and the two families that live on either side is totally unethical (even more so in Afghanistan, where Taliban are no real threat to the US, as Hamas certainly is to Israel).

It's to Israel's credit that while its enemy intentionally targets civilians, Israel kills them only by accident or when it's unavoidable.  But that doesn't seem entirely true right now.  I don't think it's worth it to kill a mid-level Hamas officer if we have to take out a dozen innocents along with him.

Thank God for the cease fire anyway- it was announced today.

I may have more to say on this later.  Now I'm just hopeful that hostilities will be kept to a minimum going forward.

First Take on a (Possibly) Approaching War in Gaza

Today Israel finally responded to the recent increase in rocket attacks launched from Gaza toward southern Israel by killing an important Hamas military leader in an air strike.  My zionist friends immediately look quite critically toward the media reports- when they say that Israel "escalated" the conflict, how prominently do they mention that militants have been launching 150 rockets a day into southern Israel over recent days?

So here's my take: Israel has every right to defend itself.  There is really no moral problem with using deadly force in response to unprovoked attacks on civilians.  Any country in the world would do the same.  The assassination of the Gaza military leader Ahmad Al-Jabari is completely justified.  Israelis have no responsibility to sit and wait for its citizens to be killed before responding.

BUT..... what is the goal of a Gaza attack?  What is the exit strategy?  Saying that the actions there are justified isn't the same thing as saying that they're wise.  The unfortunate truth is that no military action, including ignoring the situation, will totally stop Gazans from launching rockets into Israel.  If they keep launching them, eventually a rocket is going to kill Israelis.  This is unacceptable, but I'm not sure it's avoidable.

So this isn't an argument against military action exactly.  Just a caution that, while it feels good to finally take action in defense of the country, the next steps have to be thought through carefully.  I'm not sure the Israeli government is doing that.

Why the Republicans Lost

So my favorite right wingnut correspondent sent me a message whining that this Obama victory means that the "takers" now outnumber the "makers".  So that my family and friends can see what I respond to, I've decided to give my correspondent this forum.  Here's what he wrote (I'm keeping the colors and underlining and huge font, as it's really part of the message):

The Hispanics wanted millions of people who came here illegally to be given a Pardon, not to be sent home as our existing law requires.

He decided to violate the law unilaterally and gave them a Pardon a few months before the election. VOTE OBAMA!

That sets a good example for anyone in the world who wants to enjoy all that America offers.

DON'T BOTHER STANDING IN LINE LIKE OUR GRANDPARENTS DID,,,SNEAK IN!

The Blacks who were faced with the prospect that Romney would take away their Unemployment checks and several other "free" things like Food Stamps had no choice but to keep Obama printing the Tax Payer money they wanted. VOTE OBAMA!

The Single Women wanted "free" Birth Control Pills and Abortions were scared of Romney taking the Tax Payer funded stuff away.

VOTE OBAMA!

Then there's the Unemployed millions, the Food Stamp Millions, the Welfare Millions the so-called Disability millions.

Heck, they were so scared Romney would make them actually be responsible citizens and earn their own money, they tried to vote twice!

VOTE OBAMA!

There are others who actually work and pay taxes. Union Workers, Government Employees, Socialists and yes,,a few thousand Communists and the die-hard Liberals who think the Euro-Zone (who incidentally are worse off than we are) is the kind of Government we need here.

 

You're probably asking why I bother responding to this drivel.  I ask myself the same question very often, but this is a failing of mine I guess- I can't leave well enough alone.  So here's my response, lightly edited:

See, what you and your ilk fail to understand is that this very attitude is the reason you lost this very winnable election.

I was just talking to a work colleague about this today. He is a successful psychiatrist, makes good money, and he is Latino.  He told me that Latinos are really excited about this election because they know they were the difference, and he says the Republicans won't do any better with them and not because of immigration. It's because when he hears people like Romney (and you if he heard you) talk, it's just clear to him that you have no respect for his people and believe that he should be scrubbing floors, not practicing medicine. He said "they think we want to collect checks from the government! But we want to work!" He describes his 12 year old daughter asking him "but Daddy, don't you like Republicans, because you'll make more money?", and he responded to her, in a teaching moment "No, because I care about the whole country and about other people, not just about my own paycheck".

You worry that welfare-collecting junkies are voting Democrat because of the gravy train. But you're missing an important point: people don't like being told that they're lazy leeches. If your party keeps telling Latinos that they're lazy leeches, then they're not going to vote for you. If you tell gays that they're perverts, they're not going to vote for you. If you tell single women that they're sluts, they're not going to vote for you.

Now I don't happent to think this is the end of the Republican party; I think your leaders will adjust and will find a way to make the bigots less prominent so they can find a way to a majority again. People like you, though, are the ones who are going to be shut down because your message is a guarantee of a permanent minority.

You are fundamentally and completely wrong about this army of the 47% voting for government benefits. Maybe you haven't spent much time lately with poor people, but I do it a lot in my work. Let me tell you, people on TANF and SSDI are not rolling in dough and driving Escalades- most of them want good jobs that pay a living wage, because life on the dole is really sucky. Your guys talk about jobs, but want to lower minimum wage so workers won't be able to live on their salaries. You want to destroy unions completely so factory workers will make the same crap wages as other unskilled workers. If you cared about poor people and wanted them to work instead of collect welfare, then you'd be in favor of making sure that it's worthwhile to work- but you don't.

Anyway, your lack of understanding is working fine for me! Keep it up, and you'll keep losing.

UPDATE: Matt Taibbi says much of the same thing as me here.

A Perfect Example of the Right's Epistemic Closure

Karl Rove's meltdown on Fox last night was wonderful for those of us who can't resist a little schadenfreude for the right.  Right after the Fox News desk called Ohio for Obama, ending the drama, Rove reignited it by insisting that in fact Ohio was not definitely in Obama's column- this dispute was aired live on the station.

It seems to me that you have a great example of what has happened to the conservative mind.  Dick Morris succumbed to it too- they live so completely in their bubble that they can't conceive that their conventional wisdom is wrong, and it no amount of data will change their minds.

Two other examples:

• Climate change, which is basically a settled scientific issue, is just not believed by the Right. It doesn't matter how many studies there are, or how many record heat waves, or how many extreme weather events, the entire mainstream right now denies that climate change is real.
• The belief that tax cuts pay for themselves, the so-called Laffer Theory, continues in many corners in spite of all evidence.
• When Reagan/Bush I/Clinton raised taxes to balance the budget, the economy nevertheless boomed.  When Bush II cut taxes to spur growth, nothing of the kind happened.  There is zero evidence to suggest that minor changes in marginal tax rates strongly affects economic growth.  Nevertheless, the right persists in believing that another round of tax cuts will do the trick.

Epistemic Closure.  They just can't believe anything that doesn't meet their preconceived notions.  If these guys ever manage to take power again, I'm not very optimistic about their ability to be analytical.

UPDATE: The Romney campaign itself was locked in this same epistemic closure.  This report notes how shocked the main players all were- didn't they bother reading the independent polling?

A Quick Point About Deficits and Jobs Growth

It gets a little frustrating hearing conservatives complain on the one hand that the deficit needs to be brought under control, and on the other hand that job growth is too stagnant due to government policy.

Frustrating because in a demand-caused recession those two goals are in tension.  We could choose a truly massive stimulus policy, and that would lead to lots of job growth, getting us out of the doldrums much faster (this is what Krugman and other liberals wanted)- but this would involve increased deficits.  Or we could choose to close the deficit faster, cut spending severely, and head toward a balanced budget (as conservatives want, or as the Bowles-Simpson plan recommends), but that would almost certainly curtail job growth.

Yes, that's Keynesian theory at work.  Obama has settled on a middle course, pushing less stimulus than some wanted, and then pivoting to deficit reduction to placate conservatives.  Obviously, this didn't placate conservatives, but that's what he wanted to do.

But this middle course of mild stimulus has performed the way Keynesians expected- there has been no double dip, as is happening in much of Europe where there was little or no stimulus.

I know, I know..... conservatives now deny that Keynes was right about anything.  I guess when they're out of office they forget all about their past support of stimulus.  Sigh....

In the Self-Hatred Department

Oh My God.  The Log Cabin Republicans are endorsing Mitt Romney for president.  Here's the most heart-stopping line from the article:

In interviews with HuffPost over the past several months, members of Log Cabin have said that while they are troubled by Romney's positions on the gay rights issues of the day, they feel that deep down inside, Romney is a friend to gay people. As one Log Cabin Republican board member explained at the Republican National Convention this year, “We don’t listen to what a candidate actually says. We try to feel where they seem to stand.”
 

Is this not the very definition of denial?

Look, I can understand the dilemna of a gay person who is also a fiscal conservative.  The Democrats really do want to spend more government money than Republicans do.  But when the people who agree with you on the budget also consider you less than human, and continue to support legislation making it impossible to marry or have other rights, isn't that a little more important than keeping your marginal tax rate below 40%?

And then, in a similar vein, here's David Frum, the apostate Republican, explaining why he's voting for Romney even though he thinks the party has gone crazy.  The notable passage for me is here:

The question over his head is not a question about [Romney] at all. It's a question about his party - and that question is the same whether Romney wins or loses. The congressional Republicans have shown themselves a destructive and irrational force in American politics. But we won't reform the congressional GOP by re-electing President Obama. If anything, an Obama re-election will not only aggravate the extremism of the congressional GOP, but also empower them: an Obama re-election raises the odds in favor of big sixth-year sweep for the congressional GOP - and very possibly a seventh-year impeachment. A Romney election will at least discourage the congressional GOP from deliberately pushing the US into recession in 2013. Added bonus: a Romney presidency likely means that the congressional GOP will lose seats in 2014, as they deserve.

Huh?  A Republican victory will end up, through some sort of 7-dimensional chess game, chastising them in 2014 to change their ways???  That's a lot of gymnastics to obscure the truth, which is that the best way to get the Republican party to return to the planet Earth is for them to suffer defeat- now. Any victory for the Tea Party is just that- a victory for the Tea Party.

Electoral Predictions, and a quick thought

It's been a while since I've blogged, and I apologize to all my loyal fans out there for the delay.

Actually, politics is a bit boring now, which is an odd thing to say given that the election is three days away and everything is in high gear.  But the reality is that everything has been said, all the points have been made, and we're just recycling the same old arguments.

So during this, probably my last blog post before the 2012 elections, here are some predictions:

• Barack Obama will win the election.  This isn't any kind of brilliant analysis.  It's just that fact-based aggregators of polls are all saying that state-by-state polling indicates a small but solid lead in Ohio for Obama, and lots of virtual ties in other key states like Florida.  Romney has to sweep these to win, and that isn't likely.  It looks like Obama could well lose the popular vote, which would be a fitting bookend to 2000.  I might get a sort of sick pleasure out of the hypocritical Republican talking points that would inevitably follow, touting Obama's illegitimacy.
• It looks like the Democrats are going to keep the Senate, which is shocking because they are defending many more seats than the Republicans (the Democratic sweep in 2006 means that all those seats are up in 2012).  Somehow, Republicans have squandered many seats they could have had by nominating extreme candidates, spouting incredibly extreme views on abortion among other things. 
• Here in Massachusetts, Elizabeth Warren and Scott Brown are in a tight battle.  But it looks like Warren is going to pull it out according to polls.  I'm surprised about this; anecdotally, I know a lot of people who are Brown supporters.  It seems like he's done a great job positioning himself as the centrist, "bipartisan" senator.  But I guess moderate liberals in Massachusetts have bought Warren's argument that the national Republican party is so extreme that we just have to have a Democratic controlled Senate.  I'm pleasantly surprised to see that message working.

I guess those predictions are kind of boring, though- just my reflection of the current polling data.  GEEK!!!!

This election is really important, though.  I guess we say that about every election.  But an Obama defeat means that the health care act will be gutted before it gets to really take hold.  This is the last major piece of the liberal welfare state, and once it's established I think it will be very hard to repeal. This is the GOP's last chance to take it out before it starts.