Conservatives Have Ideas—Really Bad Ideas

March 11th, 2010 posted by Dwight Furrow

Much has been made of the fact that modern conservatism seems to have run out of ideas. Aside from “tax cuts will solve every problem” and “anything Obama does is bad”, there is not much of substance to conservative politics these days. (No. The lunatic ravings of tea partiers do not count as ideas let alone ideas of substance).

So Washington conservatives have been full of praise for Wisconsin Representative Paul Ryan who has stepped up to the plate with a comprehensive budget plan based on conservative principles and designed to eliminate the deficit.

Of course, as expected from a conservative, the plan calls not only for substantial cuts in Pell Grants, support for schools, law enforcement, job training, health research, and food stamps, but draconian cuts in social security and Medicare. In fact, social security and Medicare would be effectively eliminated by his plan.

And also, as expected, Ryan’s plan calls for significant tax cuts for the wealthy. According to  Citizens for Tax Justice the richest citizens would see their tax bills go down by an average of over $200,000 while those with incomes under $100,000 would see their taxes go up by about $2,000 per year.

Most taxpayers will pay much more and receive much less.

One would think that with all that sacrifice by ordinary Americans, we might really see a dent in the deficit. But if you thought that you would be wrong.

The Center for Budget and Policy Priorities has an analysis of the plan. They conclude:

As a result of its costly new tax cuts for the wealthy, the Ryan plan would allow the federal debt to continue rising in relation to the size of the economy for at least four decades. Even in CBO’s analysis of the Ryan plan, which assumed — as Ryan’s staff specified but the Tax Policy Center has found to be incorrect — that revenues would not fall below their projected levels under current tax policies until after 2030, the federal debt would grow as a share of GDP until 2043, and the budget would not reach balance until 2063. Under the much more realistic revenue estimates that the Tax Policy Center has prepared, the budgetary outlook under the Ryan plan would be substantially worse.

 Using TPC’s new revenue estimates, we estimate that the budget deficit under the Ryan plan would reach about 7 percent of GDP and the debt would grow to 90 percent of GDP by 2020. TPC estimates that revenues under the Ryan plan would average 16.3 percent of GDP over the period from 2011 through 2020. […]

Extrapolating TPC’s revenue estimates beyond 2020 shows that the Ryan plan would fail to stem the rising tide of debt for years to come. [5] The debt would continue to grow in relation to the size of the economy for at least 40 more years — reaching over 175 percent of GDP by 2050. (See Figure 1.) Even by 2080, the debt would still equal about 100 percent of GDP.

Keep in mind that if the Republicans win back Congress, Ryan will be in charge of budget policy.

Everyone would be better off if conservatives went back to having no ideas again.

Bookmark and Share

No More Mister Nice Guy

March 10th, 2010 posted by Dwight Furrow

President Obama’s speech last week marked a significant departure from his approach to governance during his first year in office.

In his speech today in the White House East Room, President Obama clearly indicated that he is going to press for a comprehensive, and not a piecemeal or “skinny,” health care reform bill. He also made it abundantly clear that he will accept, if necessary, a party-line simple majority vote in the House and the Senate in order to get the bill through. Reconciliation here we come.

During his campaign and throughout year one, Obama promised to “change the way Washington works” and emphasized bipartisanship, especially during the debate over health care reform. Apparently, he believed that if he just tried hard enough to get Republicans on board, some of them would work with him to solve our problems.

But no more. As John Judis writes:

But it is now evident that Obama’s approach was what he understood about American politics—it was the guiding light gleaned from his years as an Illinois state senator—and he planned to apply it to Congress. And it was, of course, nonsense. Republicans were able to use Obama’s naiveté about their motives to undermine his initiatives. As Noam Scheiber explains in his profile of Rahm Emanuel, the principal obstacle to getting health care reform through Congress last year was Obama’s dogged insistence last summer that Senate Finance Chairman Max Baucus continue to plug away at nailing down a bipartisan agreement. What Obama got was not an amicable agreement but a summer of discontent, highlighted by Senator Charles Grassley’s  denunciation of Democratic “death panels” and by the emergence of the Tea Party movement.

But it’s not an easy job being president. It took Bill Clinton most of his first term to figure out how to do domestic and foreign policy. Like Clinton, Obama has stumbled, but his slip-ups have been more dramatic because, with the economy cratering and two wars raging, the stakes have been higher from the first.

However, in Obama’s speech today, and in his artful performance at the health care summit last week, he showed that he has learned something from his first year in office. Obama is now using the rhetoric of bipartisanship as Schmitt and other liberals thought he was doing in 2008: He is using it to paint Republicans as intransigent. He clearly no longer believes that a bipartisan agreement on health care is possible.

The challenges are still daunting:

How to frame government initiatives in a way that acknowledges but also overcomes American anti-statism has been, and remains, a major political challenge for Democrats. But in beginning to draw clear distinctions between the Democratic and Republican approaches, Obama has taken the first important step toward meeting that challenge.

It will be difficult to succeed in a country that is reflexively anti-government. Judis is guardedly optimistic.

I am a bit less so.

It may be that American voters are so profoundly delusional that there is little Obama (or anyone else) can do to rescue us from the ignorant tirades of tea partiers, global warming denialists, and free market fanatics.

Bookmark and Share

Cutting Down America

March 9th, 2010 posted by Dwight Furrow

According to news reports, the Obama administration will succumb to political pressure and try Khalid Sheikh Mohammed—mastermind of the 9/11 attacks—in a military rather than civilian court.

This is simply caving in to the politics of fear.

The implicit argument for military trials is that our civilian judicial system can’t handle these terrorists, who must have super-natural powers that would enable them to escape from custody before our eyes, despite the proven competence of the regular court system that has successfully put countless terrorists on trial.

As David Shorr writes:

As we build up the terrorists into some kind of superhumans, are we losing sight of how this diminishes us? It seems to me that this shows a profound lack of faith in our system, our values. Think of the contradiction at work here: America is a mighty and upstanding nation; it should cower in fear.

The thing about worst-case scenarios is that they are a slippery slope toward darker and darker predictions. Where do you stop? What keeps the scenarios moored in reality? And this is the really disturbing thing, the politics of the terror threat are propelling this great nation toward a policy based essentially on a freak-out.

These attacks on our judicial system are of course made by conservatives who claim to be patriotic proselytizers for American strength.

book-section-book-cover2 Dwight Furrow is author of

Reviving the Left: The Need to Restore Liberal Values in America

For political commentary by Dwight Furrow visit: www.revivingliberalism.com

Bookmark and Share