By E.J. Dionne Jr.
The Washington Post --- July 29, 2010
Can a nation remain a superpower if its internal politics are incorrigibly stupid?
Political stupidity, U.S. style
Start with taxes. In every other serious democracy, conservative political parties feel at least some obligation to match their tax policies with their spending plans. David Cameron, the new Conservative prime minister in Britain, is a leading example.
He recently offered a rather brutal budget that includes severe cutbacks. I have doubts about some of them, but at least Cameron cared enough about reducing his country's deficit that alongside the cuts he also proposed an increase in the value-added tax, from 17.5 percent to 20 percent. Imagine: a fiscal conservative who really is a fiscal conservative.
That could never happen here because the fairy tale of supply-side economics insists that taxes are always too high, especially on the rich.
This is why Democrats will be fools if they don't try to turn the Republicans' refusal to raise taxes on families earning more than $250,000 a year into an election issue. If Democrats go into a headlong retreat on this, they will have no standing to govern.
The simple truth is that the wealthy in the United States -- the people who have made almost all the income gains in recent years -- are undertaxed compared with everyone else.
Consider two reports from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. One, issued last month, highlighted findings from the Congressional Budget Office showing that "the gaps in after-tax income between the richest 1 percent of Americans and the middle and poorest fifths of the country more than tripled between 1979 and 2007."
The other, from February, used Internal Revenue Service data to show that the effective federal income tax rate for the 400 taxpayers with the very highest incomes declined by nearly half in just over a decade, even as their pre-tax incomes have grown five times larger.
The study found that the top 400 households "paid 16.6 percent of their income in federal individual income taxes in 2007, down from 30 percent in 1995." We are talking here about truly rich people. Using 2007 dollars, it took an adjusted gross income of at least $35 million to make the top 400 in 1992, and $139 million in 2007.
The notion that when we are fighting two wars, we're not supposed to consider raising taxes on such Americans is one sign of a country that's no longer serious. Why do so few foreign policy hawks acknowledge that if they lack the gumption to ask taxpayers to finance the projection of American military power, we won't be able to project it in the long run?
And if we are unwilling to have a full-scale debate over whether nation-building abroad is getting in the way of nation-building at home, we will accomplish neither.
Our discussion of the economic stimulus is another symptom of political irrationality. It's entirely true that the $787 billion recovery package passed last year was not big enough to keep unemployment from rising above 9 percent.
But this is not actually an argument against the stimulus. On the contrary, studies showing that the stimulus created or saved as many as 3 million jobs are very hard to refute. It's much easier to pretend that all this money was wasted, although the evidence is overwhelming that we should have stimulated more.
Then there's the structure of our government. Does any other democracy have a powerful legislative branch as undemocratic as the U.S. Senate?
When our republic was created, the population ratio between the largest and smallest state was 13 to 1. Now, it's 68 to 1. Because of the abuse of the filibuster, 41 senators representing less than 11 percent of the nation's population can, in principle, block action supported by 59 senators representing more than 89 percent of our population. And you wonder why it's so hard to get anything done in Washington?
I'm a chronic optimist about America. But we are letting stupid politics, irrational ideas on fiscal policy and an antiquated political structure undermine our power.
We need a new conservatism in our country that is worthy of the name. We need liberals willing to speak out on the threat our daft politics poses to our influence in the world. We need moderates who do more than stick their fingers in the wind to calculate the halfway point between two political poles.
And, yes, we need to reform a Senate that has become an embarrassment to our democratic claims.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
12 comments:
What you are failing to mention here is that the value added tax is killing the British people.
"Three-in-five respondents (60%) expect the budget to hurt their financial situation, while 18 per cent think it will not make a difference, and five per cent say it will provide help."
http://www.visioncritical.com/2010/06/most-britons-think-new-budget-will-hurt-their-financial-situation/
Gee...A value added tax. There's something wonderful! Sure won't hurt the poor or the unemployed, right? Get real. You don't raise taxes in a recession. Period. And even at that, it wouldn't be so bad if coupled with drastic spending cuts, but this administration that isn't going to happen. No, it would go more like, "we are taking in more money, so now we can spend more!"
"You don't raise taxes in a recession. Period."
You cons with your voodoo economics are not exactly the financial experts. After a near collapse of the worlds financial system, after adherence to all con tried and true principles, cut regulations, cut taxes for the rich, no one is listening anymore.
This GD Google account is really starting to suck. Doing this to make sure I see reply emails.
I find it humorous that liberals criticize "Supply-Side"/"Horse and Sparrow" economics yet turn around and advocate Keynesian economic theory as though it is somehow BETTER.
Both systems rely on the theory of "trickle-down".
For instance, "Supply-Side" suggests trickle-down growth through tax cuts for the private sector while Keynesian theory suggests trickle-down growth through the government RETURNING TAX dollars to the private sector.
Such a cursory understanding of both theories would suggest then that they are the same. Sadly, they are not, since one is fatally flawed while the other has proven its worth time and again.
The flaw lies in the Keynesian theory which our current president advocates. Keynesian methodology relies on tax dollars to induce growth in the economy while Supply-Side simply relies on a greater amount of raw capital being allowed to circulate in the economy.
As a result, we should understand that an increase in the tax burden results in less income declared. Less income declared equates to less tax dollars claimed by the government. Whereas, the only thing to stifle increased capital growth/"economic stimulus" in a Supply-Side system is to increase taxes.
Furthermore, if you increase the tax burden less capital is invested at all levels within the private sector. Economic stagnation results. Quite a flaw wouldn't you say?
RayGun made a mistake when he implied that conservative economic principles led to the near collapse of the worlds financial markets recently. I am sorry little buddy but you can thank Liberal Congressmen in the 1990's and in early 2000's that pushed the ULTRA-SOCIALIST program of FORCING banking institutions to write SUB-PRIME mortgages. Thank you Janet Reno and your henchmen! After all the shuffling that the banks had to do in order to give valueless mortgages some value, in order to insure their risk, this socialist program still failed when the housing market bubble burst.
No socialist program can exist without a conservative, capitalist system to support it. The sub-prime mortgage scheme, a scheme that liberal congressmen forced banks to support, was a perfect example.
Casey was exactly right; never increase taxes during a recession.
Economics is not that difficult to understand. I suggest that E.J. and RayGun take a basic economics course not only for their own benefit but for the benefit of us all.
I find it humorous that liberals criticize "Supply-Side"/"Horse and Sparrow" economics yet turn around and advocate Keynesian economic theory as though it is somehow BETTER.
Both systems rely on the theory of "trickle-down".
For instance, "Supply-Side" suggests trickle-down growth through tax cuts for the private sector while Keynesian theory suggests trickle-down growth through the government RETURNING TAX dollars to the private sector.
Such a cursory understanding of both theories would suggest then that they are the same. Sadly, they are not, since one is fatally flawed while the other has proven its worth time and again.
The flaw lies in the Keynesian theory which our current president advocates. Keynesian methodology relies on tax dollars to induce growth in the economy while Supply-Side simply relies on a greater amount of raw capital being allowed to circulate in the economy.
As a result, we should understand that an increase in the tax burden results in less income declared. Less income declared equates to less tax dollars claimed by the government. Whereas, the only thing to stifle increased capital growth/"economic stimulus" in a Supply-Side system is to increase taxes.
Furthermore, if you increase the tax burden less capital is invested at all levels within the private sector. Economic stagnation results. Quite a flaw wouldn't you say?
RayGun made a mistake when he implied that conservative economic principles led to the near collapse of the worlds financial markets recently. I am sorry little buddy but yo can thank Liberal Congressmen in the 1990's and in early 2000's that pushed the ULTRA-SOCIALIST program of FORCING banking institutions to write SUB-PRIME mortgages. Thank you Janet Reno and your henchmen! After all the shuffling that the banks had to do in order to give valueless mortgages some value, in order to insure their risk, this socialist program still failed when the housing market bubble burst.
No socialist program can exist without a conservative, capitalist system to support it. The sub-prime mortgage scheme, a scheme that liberal congressmen forced banks to support, was a perfect example.
Economics is not that difficult to understand. I suggest that E.J. and RayGun take a basic economics course not only for their own benefit but for the benefit of us all.
--
Religion is not that difficult to understand. I suggest MadMax take a course in basic religion, not only for his own benefit, but for the benefit of us all.
"When our republic was created, the population ratio between the largest and smallest state was 13 to 1. Now, it's 68 to 1. Because of the abuse of the filibuster, 41 senators representing less than 11 percent of the nation's population can, in principle, block action supported by 59 senators representing more than 89 percent of our population. And you wonder why it's so hard to get anything done in Washington?"
Re the above:
Thats REAL democracy at its best isn't it???? If it wasn't so sad, I'd LOL.
"After a near collapse of the worlds financial system, after adherence to all con tried and true principles, cut regulations, cut taxes for the rich, no one is listening anymore"--RG
Read up on it, RG. It's out there. Didn't I give a link to the US Treasury website article?
Bush was not a fiscal conservative, and he was not King. You had a Democratic Congress and Senate majority during the last 8 years of the Bush Presidency. Funny. That's when things started to fall apart.... and it is soooo much better now?
AntiMarxist:
Your assessment is absolutely on target. The problem is that these people don't believe in studying history, or listening to anyone other than Progressive economists. I am convinced that they are afraid that they might learn something, and then their whole belief system would be challenged!
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/07/30/pbs-ombudsman-defends-pal_n_664819.html
Watch the video LOL LOL
"In Borowitz's segment, seen below, he joked that should Palin become president in 2012, she will "cancel the agreement between nouns and verbs" and change the nation's official language to "Palinese, a language known only to her."
Lots more in the video.
As long as the Tundra Tart puts herself out there as an un-appointed mover and shaker, she leaves herself open to the ridicule that is sure to follow her verbal flatulence.
You are so good at name calling Anon2. You really are. unfortuately, you fail to make valid points, or back up your opinions, but you've got the name calling down pat!
"In Borowitz's segment, seen below, he joked that should Palin become president in 2012, she will "cancel the agreement between nouns and verbs" and change the nation's official language to "Palinese, a language known only to her."
It really is hilarious.
Post a Comment