Whose fault is the Deficit? (posted by DT)

In my debates on budget matters with conservatives, I am always trying to remind them that the reason we have a huge budget deficit is because we have lowered taxes to an unsustainable level. I should probably also mention more that the 2000s also saw huge spending increases on the military in Iraq and Afghanistan and on the Medicare prescription drug benefit, which were completely unfunded (mind you, I don't oppose all that spending, but it's sort of outrageous that the same people who wouldn't consider paying for spending in good times are now arguing for budget austerity now).

The reply from conservatives keeps coming back: What about Obama's deficit explosion? Well, let's just keep things in perspective:



Stimulus spending, the light blue area, is indeed a huge contributor to the deficit this year. But it's projected to decrease to very little by 2012. The Bush tax cuts (orange), however, continue forever if they are made permanent. And they're a way bigger factor. Also of note, the economic downturn (dark blue) is a really big piece of the puzzle too.

I don't know any more ways to say it: the Republican/ Tea Party position at this time is not about balancing the budget- it's about tax cuts for the wealthy. If taxes don't go up, we'll stay in the red, even in good times.

Income Inequality (posted by DT)

This graph says a lot about what happens to income when Democrats are in charge and when Republicans are in charge (from: http://www.slate.com/id/2266174/slideshow/2266174/fs/0//entry/2266218/ )



Notice that, while the poor do much better under Democrats, the rich do better too! It's just better all around when people with lower incomes are allowed to increase their quality of life- because they buy stuff, which benefits the rich too.

Summing up the 2000s (posted by DT)

From Ezra Klein's blog at the Washington Post. (sorry it's tough to read- the graph shows the decline (!) in real wages from 2000 to 2007-that end point is before the Crash, mind you). I wish more people would think about this before restoring the wage-deadening GOP to power.

More on the Cordoba Center (posted by DT)

I want to post my fisking of an article sent to me recently about the "Ground Zero Mosque" controversy. My comments are in blue.

The Ground Zero Mosque - Lessons from Israel

A Jerusalem Post Column by Daniel Gordis

September 3, 2010
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



The Jerusalem Post
September 3, 2010
In its basic form, the Ground Zero mosque debate boils down to a conflict between two competing values - American freedom of religion versus the sensitivities of the families of the victims of 9/11.

Right off the bat he's wrong. Some families of 9/11 victims have come out in favor of the center. Many victims of 9/11 were Muslim themselves.

The freedom-of-religion argument suggests that if Jews sought to build a synagogue at Ground Zero (or anywhere else, for that matter), they would be within their rights. That's the American way. The opposing view suggests that while not every Catholic was guilty in the Holocaust, and not every Muslim perpetrated the crimes of 9/11, sensitivities still matter. Pope John Paul II had the decency to force the Carmelite nuns out of Auschwitz, and Muslim leaders, too, ought to relocate their project.

Similarly, the mutual accusations are parallel: If you are opposed to
the mosque, you are an Islamophobic racist. And if you're in favor of it, you're
simply insensitive to the pain of those who lost loved ones in the attack.

But we Israelis have learned from our experience that matters are more
complicated. One need not be racist or Islamophobic to be concerned about the
mosque. For life in our region has taught us that the first necessary step to
defending yourself is acknowledging that someone else is out to destroy you. This really ticks me off. It's a straw man argument used constantly by the Right. Everyone knows and understands that Al Qaeda is out to get us. The organization developing the Cordoba Center is not out to destroy us.

In the suburban, well-educated, politically and Jewishly liberal America in which I grew up, we didn't use the label "enemy." "Enemy" was a dirty word, because it implied the immutability of conflict.

Yes, there were people who fought us, but only because we hadn't yet arrived at a fair resolution of our conflict. We needed to understand them, so we could then
resolve the conflicts that divided us.

I still recall being jarred, when we made aliya, by the matter-of-factness with which Israelis use the word "enemy." But it wasn't a judgment or an accusation. It was simply a fact: There are people out to destroy our state, who seek to kill us and our children. And as the intifada later amply demonstrated, they did not yearn for our
understanding or our friendship. They wanted our demise. Making this point here implies that all Muslims are our enemies. That may be true in Israel (though I don't think so), but it's certainly not been shown to be true here.

YEARS AGO, we took our then teenage daughter to an evening sponsored by the army, at which religious parents could ask questions about what the army would be like for their daughters. Some of the parents were downright hostile, clearly opposed to the prospect of their daughters joining the IDF. At one point, an obviously angry father stood up, turned to the base commander and asked (or more accurately hissed), "Do you make the girls work on Shabbat?" The room was perfectly silent, for everyone knew the answer. No one moved. Even the base rabbi said nothing. He stood at the podium, leaned into the mike and, lost in thought, played with his beard.

Suddenly, one of the three soldiers who'd been brought to address the parents, a young woman with her uniform shirt buttoned up to her chin, her sleeves extending to her wrists and her armyissued skirt down to her ankles, looked the father right in the eye, and without being called on, said to him, "Of course we work on Shabbat." And then, after a second's pause, she added, "Gam ha'oyev oved beshabbat" - the enemy also works on Shabbat.

It was a game changer. "What?" she essentially asked. "You think we do this for fun?
There are people out there trying to destroy us. Either we're as serious about
this conflict as they are, or they're going to win." Nice story (really- I do like it), but again it has nothing to do with the Cordoba Center.

I hadn't thought of that young woman in years, but ever since the Cordoba Initiative controversy erupted, I've remembered her repeatedly. For Israelis do have something to teach Americans, and it's very similar to what she said to that father.

It goes something like this: It's fine to say that "America is not at war with Islam," to point out that most Muslims are not terrorists and that many American Muslims are moderates. That's true, as far as it goes. Obviously the author doesn't think
it is true. But in fact the vast majority of Muslims in the US, including most especially the Muslims building the Cordoba Center, are not jihadists.

But it only goes so far. Because America is at war and its enemies are Muslims. Politically correct hairsplitting runs the risk of Americans blinding themselves to that simple but critical fact. I think it's time to point out how stupid this argument is. Does he really think that we're going to forget the 9/11 terrorists are Muslim, or that Osama Bin Laden is Muslim? When we were at war with Japan, the US government locked up Japanese-Americans in concentration camps- after all, we were at war and our enemies were Japanese! That's not seen as a very cogent policy now. It makes no difference what percentage of the world's Muslims wants to destroy America. So if 0.000000000001% is the number it's the same as if it's 50%? By that reasoning, there's no ethnic group that can be trusted. There are enough of them that US air travel is now abominably unpleasant and, more importantly, enough of them that more strikes on America appear inevitable. So what do the attacks by Tim McVeigh and subsequent terror incidents by White Americans mean? What are we
supposed to do about those?

The US got lucky on Christmas Day when the bomber headed to Detroit failed to detonate his explosives, and was lucky again in Times Square in May, but less fortunate at Fort Hood. Yet those may be but the beginning. We could, heaven forbid, come to see 9/11 as child's play. 9/11 as child's play? Building off 2 incompetent
attacks by lone people or small groups and one successful attack by a member of
the US armed forces working alone? Where's the trend?

THE UNITED States' future is under attack, but Americans resist admitting it. President Barack Obama has sent 30,000 additional troops to Afghanistan, but he has also said that he intends to pull them out by July. Can we imagine FDR declaring war on Germany, but then adding that the war had to be over in a year, or in two? It
would have been laughable. And America would have lost. The US has to decide - is it committed to destroying those who wish it ill, or is it willing to be destroyed bythem? Those, sadly, are its only two alternatives. Not really. In Iraq and Afghanistan we need a mission that is attainable. Creating a peaceful democracy that likes us is not realistic. Unlike in WW II, we can bring our army anywhere we want, even to the heart of Afghanistan, but we'll just see the enemy melt away and reform elsewhere. The proper analogy is to Vietnam, not Germany.

When my parents were teenagers, they watched as evil took hold of Europe. But then they saw America turn itself into an unprecedented, enormous military machine. For America's leaders understood that if the Nazis won, the world as we knew it would be over; we could either destroy Nazism, or have no reason to go on.

But when my children were teenagers, a different evil took root across their eastern
horizon. This time, though, the world has feigned impotence.

Iran is at the nuclear threshold. Iraq was at best a "non-failure." The battle against the Taliban and al-Qaida may take years, or decades, and may require many lives
sacrificed if we are to win. But how do we win? We can conquer territory, but that's not winning. I haven't seen a realistic definition of what it means to "win" in Iraq or in Afghanistan. But America has grown war-weary. Americans see the pointlessness of
continuing an occupation that by its very nature sustains the resistance. Obama is already planning to bring the troops home Why wouldn't he? What is to be accomplished in the next few years that hasn't already been accomplished? What's the next goal?; the word "terrorist" is increasingly off-limits in the US because it is considered "politically loaded." That's just BS. The word "terrorist" is used constantly.

Americans simply want the conflict to be over.

Its tendency to gentility is part of what has made America great. But an unwillingness to call an "enemy" an enemy could lead to America's demise. Again, nobody disputes that Al Qaeda is our enemy. For Islam's radical leaders tell us clearly what they seek: a world united under Islam, with America's sacred freedoms eradicated as a new "morality" replaces them. Yes, and I seek ten million dollars. I'm not going to get it and neither are they. Islamic fundamentalism is not an existential threat. What is much less clear is whether Americans are willing to fight - to die and to kill - to protect those freedoms. I think it's been clearly shown that
America is quite willing to kill to protect those freedoms- tens of thousands of
Iraqis have had the good fortune to be examples. The question is whether
doing so is effective.

Whether or not the Ground Zero mosque ultimately gets built may not matter nearly as much as whether or not Americans are willing to gird themselves for the battles that sadly lie ahead. Now here's some truth- the "Ground Zero mosque" doesn't
matter in this war- it's a red herring. We Israelis understand the fatigue that comes with war. We, like Americans, would much prefer a world in which we did not have mortal enemies.

We, like Americans, would much prefer that our children went to college at 18, and not to years of military service. But we've learned that anything short of absolute clear-sightedness and honesty - coupled with extraordinary sacrifice - could destroy us.

The same is true for America. The truly important question that the "Islamophobia"
accusation raises is not what will transpire with a proposed building, but what
will happen with a worldview. Exactly! Is our worldview that the US is dedicated to diversity and religious freedom? Or are we just a mirror image of Islamic fundamentalists, engaged in a holy war, Judeo-Christianity vs. Islam?

It still remains to be seen if America will do what it must if it is to guarantee the survival of the very values it is now debating. America can remain the "land of the free," but only if it is also the "home of the brave." WOW what a twisted view of American values! American values are first and foremost entrenched in our constitution and the Bill of Rights. Nothing is more antithetical to our values than opposing a religious center being built on private property and dedicated to peace with other religions.

Oh, one more thing: "The Ground Zero Mosque" is neither a mosque nor is it located at Ground Zero. It's two city blocks away, with numerous large buildings in between, and is a cultural center with a prayer space- no minaret.

Stimulus one year later (posted by DT)

Here's some correspondence with a conservative email buddy. I asked him what he thought of stimulus spending, now that the CBO has declared that it worked to keep us out of a much deeper hole. He is unconvinced:

This is classic economics, in that it is impossible to know definitively what the null hypothesis result is. What would the state be if everything else were held constant? What if a different policy were followed? I personally can't answer these questions. I have generally found that economists that supported the stimulus think that it worked, while those who did not support it think that it failed.

I remember asking you a long while back what you would take as proof that the stimulus did not work. You said that probably you would look at a country who followed a different policy to compare results. So, I think you should take a look at Germany, or at Canada. Both of these countries followed policies that involved controlling government spending - they are doing much better than we are. There are of course lots of variables that are different, so if you want to believe the stimulus worked, you'll discount these examples.

I think you should also look at what the President and his economists were saying prior to the stimulus. Without the stimulus, unemployment would rise to 9%, with the stimulus, unemployment would stay at 8% and then drop. Obama established he exact criteria by which he should be measured.

Me? I think that the overall policies following by the current administration - massive government spending, anti-business rhetoric, tax increases or the threat of tax increases, increased regulation, etc. have created a climate that is damaging the economy in a big way. This is the worst recovery from a recession ever. Unemployment is the highest in our lifetimes, with no sign that it will go down in a meaningful way for a long time. Obama owns these results, even if the recession started before he took office.

Oviously I disagree:

Of course counterfactuals are impossible in economics; but we have to go on the data we have. I've read some commentators who say that because we can't scientifically measure the effects, we should therefore not do stimulus, but of course that's absurd since any course of action can be criticized on that count, including inaction.

I think there are a few stances one could take on the stimulus:
It was a complete failure, the "multiplier" effect is 1, and we've gotten nothing from it except debt
Stimulus worked to boost production and increased GDP, but the effect wasn't enough to justify the debt incurred (i.e. it accepts Keynes theoretically but still isn't convinced). This argument could also encapsulate the Moral Hazard issue- moral hazard problem is too big to justify the temporary economic benefit.
Stimulus was a success, and without it things would have been much worse. It was worth the debt incurred.
Germany is an interesting comparison, but I don't think it can be looked at without seeing it as a part of the larger European Union, which makes economic decisions as a whole. I would see Germany as analogous to the Northeast Corridor, as the most educated and advanced part of the European economy. Like us here in the northeast, Germany has lower unemployment than southern Europe, which also didn't do much stimulus (as part of the same EU). Like the less developed parts of the US, southern Europe was hurt badly by this recession and isn't recovering well at all.

But I accept your point that we're all set in our preconceptions.

The President's economic team blundered badly in predicting an 8% top unemployment rate, but that speaks to their poor crystal-ball reading, and doesn't say anything about effects of stimulus. After all, unemployment went past 8% long before significant stimulus was in place.

As for your final point, it's true that the Democrats own the recovery (though not the Crash). I think they blundered in not doing enough stimulus (many on the economic team argued for stimulus well north of $1 trillion, and it ended up being $700 billion), but of course now we're into more counterfactuals.

The continued poor economy will hurt Dems at the polls, as it should. You think it's because they're pursuing the wrong policies, and I think it's because they didn't have the courage of their convictions. Either way it's their fault though.

The nice thing about an undivided government (like 2009-2010, and of course 2001-2007) is that we can hold the majority responsible for their record. If the GOP takes one or both houses of congress, things get much murkier.

More Explication on the ADL (posted by DT)

I've had some discussions with friends recently about the "Ground Zero Mosque" controversy, and find myself quite firmly in the minority among my liberal and Jewish cohort. I want to explain a bit about what really gets me ginned up here:

The Anti Defamation League statement (read it here- it's short: http://www.adl.org/PresRele/CvlRt_32/5820_32.htm) is not a racist diatribe. It gives respect to the US Constitution and accepts that Muslims can build their community center wherever they wish. But it concludes that the building of the center is "not right" because it "will cause some victims more pain". OK, so the statement has some balance.

But here's the thing: the ADL is not a disinterested observer. This isn't like talking at a cocktail party about your opinion. The ADL's mission is to combat prejudice. At the top of their website is a line that says, in full: "To Stop the defamation of the Jewish people... to secure justice and fair treatment to all". Now if the American Psychological Association released a statement talking about the damage to victims of trauma, that would be one thing- their mission is about healing people. The ADL's mission is about justice ...for all. It's an organization dedicated to this one thing. When the ADL stands against Muslim Americans in this kind of matter, the organization forfeits its credibility in advocating for Jews. It becomes just another interest group advocating for Jews. It has to base its arguments on what's fair to Jews, but can't speak with credibility about universal themes of freedom and justice. If Abe Foxman wants to give money as a private citizen to an organization that opposes the Park51 project, he can do so, but as Director of the ADL such a stance just doesn't fit the mission.

I'm still seething about this. Why aren't more of us?

Worship of the Captains of Industry (posted by DT)

I'm a social worker, and proud of the work I do with people who are in psychiatric distress. I've worked a great deal with people at the bottom of the food chain during my career. Now when I used to tell people what I did, the most common response from those not in the field was something like "Oh, that's so noble!". It can feel a bit patronizing, actually, but it feels good too that people appreciate and value the work I do.

But in the past few years I think something has changed in America. It used to be that social workers, teachers, and police were, if not high-status in most ways, at least seen as people who sacrificed something of themselves for the good of society. Meanwhile, those in the business world were seen as people more out for themselves- not greedy bastards or anything, but also not noble do-gooders.

But now, as the works of Ayn Rand have swept the Right, the new Heroes are the captains of industry. They provide the jobs for the rest of us. They pay the taxes that support society (at least for now, until the Right gets its way on tax reform). They take the rest of us, the meek and helpless proletarians, on their shoulders and bequeath in their magnanimity the jobs that will allow us to maintain our bare existence.

Now I always thought that the executives and the successful enterpreneurs were pretty well compensated for their hard work and risk-taking. Our capitalist system rewards these winners with mountains of money; in fact the mountains have grown considerably over the past 10 years in comparison to the rest of us. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities reports that "two-thirds of the nation's total income gains from 2002 to 2007 flowed to the top 1 percent of U.S. households, and that top 1 percent held a larger share of income in 2007 than at any time since 1928..."

So I don't think one can argue that the winners are being disrespected by the market. But on top of the fact that the rules of the game are continuing to tilt further and further in the direction of the Haves, I also have to endure pundits telling me that I should be thanking the Captains on bended knee for allowing me to eat their scraps. And this after 2007-2008, when the creme de la creme of the Overclass at Goldman Sachs and AIG destroyed the economy along with five million jobs that look like they're not coming back for many years. I'm supposed to thank these thieves?

Look, I believe in capitalism. To paraphrase Churchill, capitalism is a terrible way to run an economy, and the only thing worse is Everything Else. We do need the Captains of Industry. But they need us too. And they're not sacrificing themselves for us- they're just doing what they've always done, which is try to make as much money as they can, however they can.

You don't get brownie points for that in my book. Your bank statement will just have to be enough.

UPDATE: Here's a Youtube of Sarah Pailin talking with a woman who is criticizing her for quitting the governorship of Alaska. The part that strikes me and many others is the look she gives her daughter when the woman they are talking with tells them that she is a teacher:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uKflKzmfRCw&feature=player_embedded

Maybe my faithful readers think I'm reading too much into a look, but look for yourselves and decide (at the 1:10 mark)

UPDATE 2: My friend the Gun Toting Liberal has a related post up here: http://guntotingliberal.blogspot.com/2010/08/capitalism-say-it-soft-and-its-almost.html with which I totally agree. I thought I'd bring my massive traffic his way.