OK I Admit It- Republicans are Courageous

As I keep reading the reports of Republican proposals on the budget, I've been struck by something: yes Republicans are mendacious, lying constantly about Obama's policies and past behavior, and yes they've carefully been cute about what they want to cut in their budget (no specifics, so they can complain when Obama denounces cuts to Head Start that would have to be part of it).

But overall, the Ryan plan, which has been adopted by Mitt Romney, is a pretty stark description of where the far right wants to take this country.  Huge tax cuts for upper incomes.  Increased defense spending.  Medicare turned into a voucher system with no guarantee of full benefit coverage.  Social Security with reduced benefits to seniors.  And although they don't specify other cuts, the clear implication is the dismantling of the modern social welfare state in the US.

I don't say this as an hysterical or outrageous statement; it's just a statement of fact- that's what the Ryan budget would mean, and when I talk to the informed rabid right wingers I know, that's what they say they want- no more Food Stamps, no more welfare, etc.  They also want a huge reduction in regulation of all industries, meaning the FDA would be weakened, pollution controls would be loosened, etc.

Look, a lot of Americans really do want to end these programs.  The stuff for the poor they see as helping lazy shiftless leeches.  They see government red tape, which is indeed a big burden on businesses, as not worth the corresponding safety is ensures.

I'd like to see this next election as a referendum on the Republican vision for our future.  I honestly don't know how Americans will vote on such a referendum.  Obviously I'm in favor of the welfare state, but I wonder if enough Americans are.  Let's have an honest debate about that.  Through all the Republican lies, there is space there for an honest debate- bring it on!

Prediction for 2012

I might have written this before, but I want to make it easy for my future self to find this, so here it is:

The economy is recovering.  No matter who is elected president, and no matter who controls the congress, the economy will continue to recover in some fashion.  Unemployment will be lower in 2015 than it is today, perhaps much lower.

Whoever is elected (or re-elected) President in 2012 will get the credit for this recovery.  If that person is Mitt Romney, I want to go on record right now for saying that well ahead of time.  Similarly, if President Obama is a two-termer, he'll get more credit than he probably will deserve.

Recoveries always happen eventually.

Econo-Thoughts

Some thoughts about the good economic news that came out this week.

Job numbers are really good.  The economy is creating jobs at a steady rate in the private sector.  Unemployment, while still high, is coming down.  We can't really say that the economy is booming, but we can say it's recovering.

• If things keep going like this through the year, Obama would be very likely to be re-elected.  Elections can usually be predicted by the economy, and when it's good the incumbent generally gets the credit.
• That doesn't mean that Obama deserves the credit for the economy, of course.  All recessions end, and recoveries always happen eventually, even when the government screws things up.  One fear I've had is that the economy would continue to stink through 2012, leading to a Republican sweep, and then things would improve right on schedule in 2013, just in time for the GOP to claim credit.  Of course, that would have meant that Obama had not succeeded in getting things moving fast enough, so in a sense he would have deserved it.
• In another sense, however, he wouldn't have deserved it, since he's been successfully stymied by Congress from implementing any jobs bills.
• On the other other hand, though, that's a good reason to say that the President doesn't really deserve credit now, since he's been stymied by Congress- one can argue that Washington's inaction has worked out a lot better than proposed actions would have.

Economics is frustrating this way, as good experiments are hard to come by in the real world.  So I return to the standard I've been talking about for a few years now- the one experiment we could identify.  That's the US vs. Europe.  Both went into recession at the same time for similar reasons.  The US did significant stimulus (though not enough according to liberal economists), while Europe did relatively much less stimulus.  Thus far, the US recovery has been quicker and better than just about anywhere in the Eurozone.  Now in fairness, they're dealing with a sovereign debt crisis there, which we don't have here, so it's not a perfect experiment, but nothing is.

Another way to look at it is to note that the Right has been forecasting Doom due to the huge budget deficit and loose money policy of the Fed.  It's clear that we haven't seen that come to pass.  I guess it could still be coming, but I don't think so.

Photo is of Panama Canal workers.  I'm reading the David McCullough book about the canal now, which I highly recommend!

Parties Get the Candidates They Deserve

I get really tired of the whining from establishment Republicans that they are totally set up to win the 2012 presidential election, but might lose because their candidates are terrible.  And they kind of have a point, in that every candidate has huge glaring weaknesses that seem to render it impossible for him/her to be nominated, except that someone has to win the nomination.

But here's the thing: the reason that there are no good candidates goes back to the wild and radical right turn made by the party over the past decade.  People don't run for president if they haven't been around politics (except for Herman Cain I guess, but I think we can agree he has a different set of problems), but ten years ago virtually nobody was in favor of the policies that are now mainstream.  Imagine the current positions from a Republican politician in 2000:

• Health insurance mandate= authoritarianism
• Taxes are too low on poor people
• Climate change is a hoax, and nothing should be done about pollution
• Muslims are dangerous, and should not be allowed the same religious freedoms as the rest of us
• Deficits are always bad, and the US should balance its budget (a particular howler given the runaway GOP deficit from 2001-2007).
• Illegal immigrants are a scourge, and must be rounded up and deported even if they've been here since infancy
• Medicare should be privatized and moved to a voucher system
• Social Security is a Ponzi Scheme and needs to be cut back severely

With so many areas in which the party has been dragged to the Right, no long-serving politician can possibly have started out his career with such positions.  I've said before that Romney and Perry have been unfarily burned by past positions that were actually quite sane and intelligent, because they don't fit the current mood of GOP primary voters.

"But what about Chris Christie?  He would have been great!".  Chris Christie who hires Mulsims in his administration?  Who is compassionate toward illegal aliens?  Who believes in climate change?  He would have come up with warts just like everyone else.  Jeb Bush too. 

The Republican party has gone completely off the rails.  And they still might win the presidency!  But to get the nomination its candidates are going to have to turn themselves into pretzels to come down on the right side of all these issues.  That's going to look ugly no matter how you slice it.  So don't blame Mitt for his serial flip-flopping- blame his party.

"But both parties have been radicalized! That's the problem!"  I've heard a version of this from a few Republican and centrist friends of mine.  I generally answer them with this challenge:

Think about both parties and their mainstream platforms in, say, 2000. I can name you a half dozen major issues on which the Republican party has moved way Right (torture, religious diversity for Muslims, cap & trade/ environment, health care, progressive taxation, etc). Now think about areas in which the Democrats have moved Left- I can come up with one- Gay Rights/marriage/civil unions. That's it. If you can think of any more I'd love to hear it. (I hope you're not thinking Health Care, in which Democrats passed a bill much less liberal than that proposed by the Clintons, with ideas drawn originally from Right Wing think tanks in response to ClintonCare. The only thing that makes it seem more liberal is that it succeeded in passing).

That's a direct quote from an email to one such friend.  I sent it 11 days ago and haven't seen an answer yet.  In fact, nobody has ever given me even a lame attempt at an answer.

Rick Perry's Brain Fart

Well, it's fun for us liberals watching conservatives have uncomfortable moments while campaigning, particularly a candidate as arrogant and undeserving as Rick Perry. 

At the same time, his inability to remember the third department he'd cut if he were president is understandable.  I've drawn a blank under pressure like that, and I suspect most of us have.  Unfortunately for Perry though, it fits the narrative that's already hurting him, that he's not very bright and he's too lazy to prepare for debates.

But to build on the point I posted about a few days ago, the gaffe isn't the reason Perry should be finished as a candidate.  The more we get to know about this guy, the more clear it is that he's a lot like George W. Bush- not too bright, and more importantly a man with no intellectual curiosity or sense of seriousness.  We can't picture him soberly sitting down and studying an issue.  Like Bush, I'm sure he'd make decisions "from the gut", and we saw how that went in the 2000s.

As an aside, I'm reminded again of the puzzling Republican talking point that Obama can't speak without a teleprompter.  Obama is remarkably articulate and good at thinking on his feet- he's actually great at speaking extemporaneously.  Rick Perry is the guy who really needs a teleprompter.  Sometimes I think Republicans have gotten so good at creating negative narratives of their opponents that they just pick issues that don't even have a grain of truth, just to prove to themselves that they can do it.  It's like they get bored 'cause it's so easy for them. 

"Hey, let's start hammering Obama for the way he talks so technocratically and boringly now that he's president!"
"No, that's too easy!  Let's say he's so dumb he needs a teleprompter all the time!"
"No way- that's so obviously untrue that Americans will never buy it"
"Hey, let's try it anyway!  A hundred bucks says I can pull it off"
"Alright, you're on!"

Predictions (updated 11/5/2011)

I do not look like this

I want to put some stuff on the record, for future "I told you so's" or future "Doh's!":

1. If the economy is really bad in 2012, it doesn't matter who the Republican nominee for president is, he'll win.  If the economy is so-so, like it is now, it's a toss-up
2. If the Republicans sweep in 2012, and implement the austerity policies they are campaigning on, the US economy will do very badly- tax cuts and spending cuts will not revive the economy, and will in fact make it worse.  Plus the deficit will be even worse.
3. It is possible, however, that President Romney, knowing that #2 is true, will somehow find a way to avoid these cuts and will do much of what Obama would do.  I think it's more likely, though, that he'll be forced into self-defeating policies.  After all, the House will be Republican and filled with True Believers, and they won't let him do stimulus.
4. It looks like the European debt crisis might lead to Greek and other default along with the end of the Euro.  If this happens, there will be a terrible worldwide recession no matter what the US does.  In that case, whoever is president of the US at the time will be blamed, even though he will be totally powerless to do anything about it.
5. UPDATE- One more point 11/5/2011: The actions of the Federal Reserve Board have been undercovered in the news.  The Fed announced this week that it expects unemployment to remain high for three years, but intends to do nothing about it in order to keep prices stable.  The Fed could do things- print money essentially, to spur inflation- but won't do that right now.  So on to the prediction: If the Fed takes massive action, such as targeting nominal GDP as many are urging, that would lead to economic growth and lots of good things.  If this happens soon, President Obama will get the credit.  If it happens in 2013, the next president will get the credit for the recovery.  Neither President Obama nor President Romney/Perry/Cain will have any control or deserve any credit for Fed action.  Obama can, however, be credited with the blame for the Fed not doing anything yet, since he re-appointed Bernanke and has not pushed for other Fed governors who would be more inclined to activity.
6. OK Still another point 11/5/2011: While I'm updating my predictions, I want to repeat one I've put down here before: If Republicans take control of the Senate, they will eliminate the filibuster as soon as the Democrats make noises about using it the way Republicans have been using it these past three years.

Over the Cliff Politics

I was thinking today about our current political climate and trying to think back to 2008 and what I thought then about the Republican party.  After McCain's defeat, it seemed that the GOP was going completely crazy in a hard turn to the Right.  Many of us on the Left were gloating about how the next decade would belong to us because independents couldn't possibly follow the Republican party over the cliff into total Supply Side economics, neocon foreign policy, extremist anti-abortion and anti-gay policies, etc.

Wrong again I guess.  It seems that the Right turn has worked out pretty well for them (I try not to stab myself in the eye while thinking about how the Republicans can create the worst recession in recent history, get voted out of office for it, and then come back only two years later to clean up the mess, but I digress).  So I have to change my position- the Republican party is going to be in full power again some day, perhaps as soon as 2012, even though their policy positions would make Ronald Reagan and Milton Friedman turn over (to the Left) in their graves.

So what next?  I believe that a few years of bringing the Full Crazy to the economy ought to make things bad enough in a hurry and bring the Left back around to victory.  That's a pretty hollow win, though- they get to screw everything up, and we have to clean up the mess, which they somehow get to keep blaming on us.  And around we go.....

Beware 2012 (posted by DT)

I was watching "Morning Joe" on MSNBC this morning, and there was speculation about whether Sarah Pailin was a legitimate candidate for president in 2012. The pundits were talking about what sort of strategy she would need to win the primary, etc. Finally, Mike Barnicle (not one of my favorite people, but that's a topic for another day) opined that she would get crushed in the general election if she won the primary.

Unfortunately, I'm not so sure. I've come around to the belief (well stated by one of my favorite bloggers Matt Yglesias) that general elections are decided by the Fundamentals. If the economy is in the toilet, the incumbent loses. If things are great, the incumbent wins. So while part of me would root for a Pailin victory over a more electable Mitt Romney, the other part of me worries that if things are bad, Obama goes down regardless and I should probably hope for a less crazy Republican candidate. Romney turns my stomach and is an opportunistic liar with no real beliefs, but I think he has better judgment than Sarah Pailin and her ilk.