Now THAT's a Gaffe!

Mitt Romney really stepped in it here:

There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it. That that's an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what…These are people who pay no income tax.  [M]y job is is not to worry about those people. I'll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives.
 

Wow.  Now I've been hearing this crap about how the bottom half of Americans pay no taxes in the Right Wing Chamber for a while.  The theory is that Democrats' strategy is to get most of American dependent on government transfer payments so they'll vote for liberals, destroying the country in the process by taxing the job creators to death.

The 47% number fits the style of Romney-Ryan.  It's not an absolute lie, just totally misleading.

• The number refers to the percentage of American who pay federal income taxes.  Many many more pay payroll taxes and local taxes, and of course everyone pays sales taxes.
• A big percentage of the 47% are Senior Citizens, who pay nothing because Social Security payouts are exempt.  But of course most of them have paid lots of taxes throughout their lives.
• Another big chunk of the 47% are young people- students, low-wage workers who will soon be making enough money to crack the taxing barrier.  These people will be paying federal income taxes in the future.
• Some are even multi-millionaires who had big paper losses and can carry over their capital loss, paying no income taxes in some years.  Heck, Mitt Romney himself might even be in that category!

The interesting, almost diabolical thing here is that those in the above categories don't think of themselves as part of the 47%, so Republicans hope they'll get all outraged too, even though this is aimed at them!  Maybe it will work, but I doubt it.

Krugman puts up this helpful graph:


So from ages 25 to 57 the percentage of Americans paying federal income taxes is around 70%.  Include payroll taxes and it's more like 82%.

Krugman's commentary in his next post makes the point that what's going on here is that the intellectuals in the movement made up this meme to hoodwink and rile up the masses, only to find out that even the supposedly sophisticated Wall Street guys have come to believe it too!

Jon Chait is great on this stuff too, noting that Romney surprised him in that he clearly believes this stuff sincerely- Chait insists this isn't a pander to the audience, but looks more like his true beliefs.

I know that if Romney loses the election, then right wingers are going to blame the candidate, but really this is all about the right wing; Romney has had to move so far right that he's just over the cliff.  If he says what the nuts want, he sounds like a nut.  But he's too boxed in to "etch a sketch" back to the center with any credibility.  I almost felt sorry for the guy, who seems to have no plausible message exept to tear down Obama.  But after hearing this, I'm with Chait- he really believes it.  I guess you're really a good pandering flip-flopper when you actually believe what you've flopped to.

9/11/01 Thoughts

I didn't know anyone who died on that day.  But it's the Moment of communality for my generation.  The Greatest Generation had Pearl Harbor.  The Boomers had the JFK assassination.  And we have 9/11.

I'm always struck by the nihilism of the terrorist mindset, the sheer pointlessness of the whole operation.  Yes, they succeeded spectacularly in killing lots of Americans, but on the other hand their attack served no military purpose, brought Al Qaeda no closer to the Caliphate that they desire, and in fact set back the organization and its supporters in the Taliban, as they brought down the might of a focused United States upon them.  They lashed out in an angry rage, but the actions seem really ill-considered even for their own cause.

I don't think it's helpful to talk about "evil" when confronting the mindset of the hijackers.  I think "twisted" covers it better.  Somehow they convinced themselves that what they were doing was not only not evil, but in fact morally just and righteous.  Among this subset of radical Islamists, morality has been altered beyond recognition as a way to focus their rage (some of it legitimate) over their station and the relative lack of power of their people.  Maybe that's what Evil is, after all.

Anyway, no political statements here.  Innocent people shouldn't be made to die for a cause.  Any cause for which innocents are intentionally targeted is inherently immoral.

Mitt Romney Believes in Stimulus After All!

It's true.  Mitt Romney believes in the virtues of government spending to boost the economy..... as long as the spending is on the military.  He's running a series of ads in swing states slamming the President for cutting military spending, and promises to boost defense spending.  We're familiar with some of the reasoning- it's important that America remain the strongest country in the world.  Heck, the military is like other departments in that there is always more need if the money is out there.

But that's not the only argument.

The one running in Virginia, near me, says: “Here in Virginia, we’re not better off under President Obama. His defense cuts threaten over 130,000 jobs—lowering home values, putting families at risk.” Similar ads in other states complain that Obama’s reductions in military spending threaten 20,000 jobs in Colorado, 20,000 in Ohio, and “thousands more” in Florida and North Carolina.
 

So the Pentagon is a jobs program too.

Now don't get me wrong- I actually agree with Mitt that increased military spending would boost the economy- it's stimulative.   But increasing the number of postal workers would stimulate too.  Same with teachers, firefighters, policemen, and IRS workers.  In other words, government spending can stimulate a demand-constrained economy like ours.  Mitt Romney- Keynesian hero!

But in the hermetically-sealed bubble of the Republican party, only defense spending can add jobs, while other spending actually kills jobs.  If Republicans want to use the government to add jobs, it has to involve blowing stuff up, or it just doesn't rate.

Economic Recovery Predictions

Here I go with another round of predictions for the economy.  I've been accused by one correspondent of confirmation bias when I predict that if Romney wins the election there will still be a recovery, implying that Obama will get the credit even if he's voted out of office.  So here goes:

My prediction is that the economy will indeed improve in a Romney administration, but the deficit situation will get worse. Under Obama the economy will also improve, but we'll have universal health care so I'm rooting for that. I think an Obama administration would be better for the deficit because it won't allow the crazy tax cuts being proposed by GOP.

To further muddy the waters, I'd predict that if Romney is elected and somehow does indeed follow through with a Ryan-type budget, successfully cutting spending as much as he says he will, then the economy will not improve and we'll have a double dip.

Obama doesn't get the credit from me for a Romney-led recovery, by the way. Improvement in the economy always happens eventually. If Obama loses the election, liberals like me are going to say he should have pushed for more stimulus early on when he had the chance- lost opportunity in 2009 is his own fault.

But then there's this: if Romney wins, and does the following:

• Cuts taxes below even Bush rates
• Increases defense spending
• Cuts programs to the poor, the only deficit-reducing thing on this list (and not enough to make up for the first two items)
• Repeals the ACA, increasing the deficit according to the CBO

...and thereby increases the deficit in the short term by a large amount,

Then isn't that a Keynesian policy by Romney?  Lowering taxes and increasing spending in an economic downturn is textbook Keynes.

Romney has already made statements on the stump and in his convention speech indicating that he buys into Keynes when the subject is military spending and tax cuts. He complained that the Sequestration military cuts would cost jobs, a strange statement if he really believes in smaller government as the most important way to create jobs.

We need to understand that the president is not King, and is highly constricted by Congress and events out of his control. That's why I think it's silly to completely blame Obama for failing to create jobs over the past two years when he's had a Congress that will never pass his Jobs Bill. And President Romney, if he has a Democratic Senate, will have the same problem. That's why I give no slack to GWB- he had 6 years of total control of Congress with no such excuses.

Past predictions are here and here.  I've been pretty consistent about 2012 results and the economy so far, but the Moment of Truth comes in the following years.



The Jobs Reality Nobody Seems to Know

Two charts from Krugman today:

Does anyone realize this?  Let's look at it this way: our policy makers can only directly control public spending, whereas private spending they can only affect indirectly.  So on the direct side, our elected officials have responded to the Great Recession by cutting government jobs.  Either because of that, or for reasons unrelated, private sector job growth has been just fine, in fact better than it was following the last recession. 

I want to stay away from giving President Obama all the credit or all the blame for any of this; one of the big problems we have in analyzing what's happening is that the House has been Republican since early 2011.  And they've gotten what they've demanded: fewer government jobs.

And one can make an argument that it's working- private sector growth is continuing, albeit at a slow pace.  So if we want to increase the pace of private sector growth, does that mean we need to keep cutting government jobs?  Or will hiring back some teachers and cops help more?  I guess that's open to debate, but I'm betting on the latter.

But what you can't really do is blame liberals for failing to return us to full employment when we've had conservative policies in place.

Deval Patrick Rocks the DNC

I didn't watch the Republican National Convention much; just caught the highlights.  While not watching it I told myself that I don't really like any political speeches, and wasn't planning to watch the Democratic National Convention either.  But last night there was nothing else on TV, and I was trolling the internet reading my favorite bloggers comment on the DNC, so I figured I'd put it on and see what was up.

 

Generally it was what I expected- boring speeches filled with empty rhetoric.  I was only half-Ilistening.  But then Deval Patrick came on, and boy did he make me look up and sit up:

"It's time for Democrats to grow a backbone and stand up for what we believe".  AMEN!!!

 

Readers of this blog know how much Republicans anger me, but I don't emphasize often enough what Democrats do that makes me want to vomit.  Mealy mouthed whimps have no place in politics, and Democrats too often seem totally unwilling to fight for what they believe in.  Thankfully, last night they weren't running away from the Affordable Care Act but were embracing it.  I'm hoping for more of that.  Republicans certainly know how to fight, and if Democrats can't match it then the center left has no chance in America.

 

UPDATE: Well, that good feeling lasted about 23 hours, until the Democrats heard some conservatives carping about how God isn't mentioned in the Democratic platform, and about how they made an inconsequential change compared to four years ago in leaving out the plank about Jerusalem being the capital of Israel.  So tonight the Democrats put those things back in, while many delegates shouted their dissent.  The whole thing would have blown over, lost in the noise after Bill Clinton spoke later tonight, but now it's a Story.  Typical spineless Democrats once again.

 

Here's Goldblog on that issue.

Tikkun Olam Doesn't Mean What You Think it Means

I find this article sickening.

So with all due respect to all those Rabbis for Obama, maybe we should try another approach. If our goal is to heal the wounds in the world, maybe the right way to do that doesn’t involve seizing wealth from people who work hard to give it to people who don’t. Maybe it shouldn’t involve the construction of a vast super state of regulatory czars and czarinas, people capable of writing a rule that could, without review from elected legislators, destroy a citizen’s life work. Maybe we should ask ourselves whether tikkun olam means making people even more dependent on the goodwill of the state.

Maybe the best form of tikkun olam is to give people freedom and free markets as opposed to more state-sponsored goodies. Freedom and free markets have worked pretty well in lifting people out of poverty, creating strong middle-class societies, and supporting great voluntary and charitable institutions.

The economic arguments are familiar of course (leave aside the characterization that Obama has "increased the welfare state in all directions" when in fact the ACA is the only expansion of the welfare state and all the increase in Food Stamps etc is due to the economic downturn). But though I find the economics arguments unconvincing, I don't find those immoral or anything- right-wing economists believe everyone will be more prosperous with right-wing policies, and that's fine.

What's sickening is tying it to Tikkun Olam. In Jewish thought since the time of Moses, great emphasis has been placed on caring for the poor. When conservatives talk about gutting Medicaid, raising the social security retirement age to 67 or higher (which is a much greater burden on working class people than on professionals), and keeping taxes on the wealthy at historically low rates, that may be good economics, but it sure aint Tikkun Olam.

Similarly, I'm consistently appalled by how the conservative Christian churches have allowed their alliance with Republicans on social issues (which is understandable) to color their view of the economic world. I'm not that knowledgeable about Jesus, but I think he emphasized care for the poor a lot more than "personal responsibility" and the wonders of creative destruction.

To be clear, the real debate here is about whether a more "selfish" society with less of a safety net unleashes enough prosperity to compensate for the potential misery suffered by the lower classes. Maybe it does, though I don't think so. But the Utopian society of Ayn Rand isn't very consonant with the teachings our great religious sages- that's an argument that can't really be justified.

 

Tikkun Olam- it doesn't mean what Noam Nuesner thinks it means: