Bushie writes Open Letter to Obama, encourages Obama to be even more Republican than he already is
Posted: January 2, 2011 Filed under: income inequality, Populism, POTUS | Tags: culture of life my ass, education, Mankiw's Rules of Dumb, No Profit Left Behind 32 Comments
The caving is by design, and so is the wingnut slide further to the right of anything that makes sense.
Alright, so the letter is not as blunt as I am. But, that’s how this reads to me. To appear in Sunday morning’s NY Times, an open letter to President Obama by Bushie N. Gregory Mankiw titled “How to Break Bread With the Republicans“:
DEAR President Obama:
Sorry to bother you. I know you are busy. But I have the sense that you could use a few words of advice.
In a matter of days, Republicans will control the House of Representatives and have a larger voting bloc in the Senate. If economic policy is to make any progress over the next two years, you really will have to be bipartisan. To do so, you’ll need to get inside the heads of the opposition.
I am here to help. As a sometime adviser to Republicans, I’d like to offer a few guidelines to understanding their approach to economic policy. Follow these rules of thumb and your job will be a lot easier.
Right. Well lucky for Obama it is not too difficult for him to get inside the heads of Republicans since he’s essentially one himself in everything but name. But, I’m sure he is ever so grateful for Mankiw’s pointers. I can picture Obama reading them with his chin peevishly up in the air. He’s got to be grateful for all the cover the right wing gives him to keep on telling the Democratic base to suck it up and quit whining about all the magnificent crumbs they are getting.
Mankiw’s letter continues with his first Rule of Thumb Dumb:
FOCUS ON THE LONG RUN Charles L. Schultze, chief economist for former President Jimmy Carter, once proposed a simple test for telling a conservative economist from a liberal one. Ask each to fill in the blanks in this sentence with the words “long” and “short”: “Take care of the ____ run and the ____ run will take care of itself.”
Liberals, Mr. Schultze suggested, tend to worry most about short-run policy. And, indeed, starting with the stimulus package in early 2009, your economic policy has focused on the short-run problem of promoting recovery from the financial crisis and economic downturn.
But now it is time to pivot and address the long-term fiscal problem. In last year’s proposed budget, you projected a rising debt-to-G.D.P. ratio for as far as the eye can see. That is not sustainable. Conservatives believe that if the nation credibly addresses this long-term problem, such a change will bolster confidence and have positive short-run effects as well.
Fortunately, the fiscal commission you appointed assembled a good set of spending and tax reforms. The question you now face is whether to embrace their sensible but politically difficult proposals in your own budget.
WTF? “Liberals tend to worry most about short-run policy…” While what? Republicans focus on the long run? Funny that, I seem to remember 8 years of Bush-Cheney not planning for a damn thing, be it when it came to national security, the wars, the economy, natural disasters, infrastructure, the environment, energy, etc. That’s largely how we got in the mess we are in today, with Bush-Cheney allowing 9-11 to take our eyes off the prize and let our standard of living fall by the wayside, though Obama sure has yet to answer the call of getting us out of any of this either.
Second Rule of Dumb:
THINK AT THE MARGIN Republicans worry about the adverse incentive effects of high marginal tax rates. A marginal tax rate is the additional tax that a person pays on an extra dollar of income.
From this perspective, many of the tax cuts you have championed look more like tax increases. For example, the so-called Making Work Pay Tax Credit is phased out for individuals making more than $75,000 a year. That is, because many Americans lose some of the credit as they earn more, the credit reduces their incentive to work. In effect, it is an increase in their marginal tax rate.
From the standpoint of incentives, a tax cut is worthy of its name only if it increases the reward for earning additional income.
Republicans are something else with the way they worry about “the reward for earning additional income” but not about unemployment benefits and benefits for the 9-11 first responders. I’m starting a new tag for this kind of crap: Culture of life, my ass. It’s always been a culture of No Profit Left Behind for these social darwinists.
Third Rule of Dumb:
STOP TRYING TO SPREAD THE WEALTH Ever since your famous exchange with Joe the Plumber, it has been clear that you believe that the redistribution of income is a crucial function of government. A long philosophical tradition supports your view. It includes John Rawls’s treatise “A Theory of Justice,” which concludes that the main goal of public policy should be to transfer resources to those at the bottom of the economic ladder.
Many Republicans, however, reject this view of the state. From their perspective, it is not the proper role of government to fix the income distribution in an attempt to achieve some utopian vision of fairness. They believe, instead, that in a free society, people make money when they produce goods and services that others value, and that, as a result, what they earn is rightfully theirs.
This view also has a long intellectual tradition. The libertarian philosopher Robert Nozick has suggested revising the old leftist slogan “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs” to “From each as they choose, to each as they are chosen.”
Obama is not a socialist, he is a corporate stooge. Even Ron Paul gets that much.
Fourth Rule of Dumb:
SPREAD OPPORTUNITY INSTEAD Despite their rejection of spreading the wealth, Republicans recognize that times are hard for the less fortunate. Their solution is not to adjust the slices of the economic pie, as if they had been doled out by careless cutting, but to expand the pie by providing greater opportunity for all.
Since the mid-1970s, the gap between rich and poor has grown considerably. One of best analyses of this long-term trend is by the Harvard economics professors Claudia Goldin and Lawrence Katz in their book, “The Race Between Education and Technology.” The authors conclude that widening inequality is largely a symptom of the educational system’s failure to provide enough skilled workers to keep up with the ever increasing demand.
Educational reform, therefore, should be a high priority. To be sure, this is easier said than done. But research suggests that one key is getting rid of bad teachers. In a recent study, the economist Eric Hanushek says that “replacing the bottom 5 to 8 percent of teachers with average teachers could move the U.S. near the top of international math and science rankings.”
Oh, so we’re back to this. Education reform is the place where Obama and the rightwing are open about their shared agenda, after all.
Last Rule of Dumb:
DON’T MAKE THE OPPOSITION YOUR ENEMY Last month, when you struck your tax deal with Republican leaders, you said you were negotiating with “hostage takers.” In the future, please choose your metaphors more carefully.
Republicans are not terrorists. They are not the enemy. Like you, they love their country, and they want what is best for the American people. They just have a different judgment about what that is.
Let me propose a New Year’s resolution for you: Have a beer with a Republican at least once a week. The two of you won’t necessarily agree, but you might end up with a bit more respect for each other’s differences.
Gah. I am so tired of this political theatre. I’m going to rant in the form of my own open letter.
Dear President Obama,
I know you won’t follow my suggestions, but here they are.
- FOCUS ON THE LEAST OF THESE. It’s a very Christian thing for you to do, since you seem obsessed with convincing the zombie class of your religiosity.
- THINK AT THE MARGINS OF SOCIETY, NOT AT THE MARGINS OF PROFIT. You were elected by human beings, not dollar signs, although I can see why with all the heavy marketing and big money that went into your campaign, you might get confused.
- STOP USING THE WINGNUTS WHO SHRIEK ABOUT SOCIALISM AS COVER TO GET AWAY WITH THE WEALTH TRANSFER TO WALL STREET AS IF IT IS SOME KIND OF COMPROMISE THAT BENEFITS MAIN STREET. It’s bad karma. You can finagle on this one all you want, but the American people have already figured out you’re just a bagel. (I never tire of that finagle/bagel line from Chicago‘s “Razzle Dazzle.”)
- DO SPREAD OPPORTUNITY. Using charter schools as a catch-all solution to the education system is not spreading opportunity. It is a backdoor to privatization. Don’t listen to Wall Street on education. Listen to what educators say. Where charter schools work, study why they worked. And, where charter schools do not work, let an honest discussion of those failures happen. And, until we can solve the big picture problem of our education system, let’s focus on the opportunities we can spread to workers right now. That means jobs and a strengthened social safety net, instead of more expensive and unnecessary war, less civil liberties, less opportunities to work, and less benefits.
- DO MAKE GOP CORPORATE CONSERVATISM THE ENEMY. It is a failed ideology. You and Bush have already proved it. You need to do what you should have done when you were elected. Lead on something genuinely populist and socially democratic, as if your own well-being depended on it. You have nothing left to lose, though you probably foolishly believe otherwise.
peej
Carissa
bostonboomer
ecocatwoman
mablue2
peggysue22
quixote
skydancingguestblogger
Mona (aka Wonk the Vote)
Sky Dancing 
Great post, Wonk. Obviously, I prefer your list.
…had his own head up their a$$es since he declared his candidacy.
yep except I think he’s had his head up ’em since before. The Reagan obsession was from before he announced he was running for president–it was in his Audacity to be a DINO book (or was it Dreams from My Conservative Forefathers)?
Mankiw needs to go back and read some Keynes who infamously said “in the long run, we’re all dead”
Pretty good article. However I really wonder about the credentials of Mankiw. He has the degree and tenured staff positon, but he realy is a lazy professor who likes to sell books. I hope that Dak has a chance to share with us the relevance of his academic research.
When we talk about education standards, the first rule has to be move to a school district that cares. The second requirment is to have parents who religiously attend parent teacher conferences and oh by the way the most important thing is the spelling list goes on the refrigerator monday and recited daily untill when the test is given that Friday.
Each president rolls out a new program which seems to enhance the coffers of the educational consultants. The most effective program could be a weekly public announcement reminding parents of their responsibility of educating their kids. I maintain 60% of a kids education is associated with parental attitude.
Somehow emphasis of the basics has to be the focus. Our average graduation rates are a national shame.
I don’t think he’s in any danger of ever being given a Nobel, aspirational or real. He is highly cited but by people that use him to try to support right wing agendas because he’s a Keynes Skeptic.
He thinks outsourcing is going to be a long run win for the country and said so when he was a Bush adviser so, like many neoclassical economists, he thinks things will work out by letting them take their natural path so the government should do nothing. That’s the kind of thinking that lead Keynes to say ‘in the long run we’re all dead’ to the Roosevelt people.
What I remember him most for is that dumb comment about how McDonald’s might be considered manufacturing because they put together a hamburger in steps. I’m not sure what kind of dumb it takes to put that kind’ve logic together.
The only publishing he does now are textbooks I’ve never adopted or used. Although his publisher has even sent them to me with my name embossed with gold leaf to get us to adopt. I’ve taught out of so many different text books–Samuelson being the first–I can tell a good one from a bad one in about two blinks of an eye. I’d never recommend adopting his book.
His first pubs came from his dissertation–per usual–and are now really dated because those models don’t hold up empirically so they didn’t go into the current body of theory. They’re only covered as ‘developmental’ models on the way to theory. He grabbed on to popular stuff instead of things that required critical thinking at the time. No outside of the box thinking. Very typical 80s stuff.
He focused on the idea of flexible vs. sticky prices which is at the heart of the freshwater vs. the saltwater debate. Over and 0ver again, we’ve seen that sticky prices just rule the labor market. Stiglitz work on information asymmetries blew his research agenda out of the water. Empirical evidence has willed out over ideological wishful thinking again and again.
He’s got a textbook that probably brings in scads of money and a bunch of Republicans that don’t care that he doesn’t really do any research. They pay him to talk about stuff that was basically dumped out of any chance of being included in theory by the mid-to-late 90s. I’d characterize him as irrelevant more than anything else but he has a voice because he’s one of the few that will still give the Republicans cover albeit not a lot of cover because even he knows the data doesn’t match his narrative and you can usually see that he doesn’t buy it in his face when he gives speeches. I would LOVE to play poker with him.
Thanks for adding that, dak. I think this really sums it all up: “He is highly cited but by people that use him to try to support right wing agendas because he’s a Keynes Skeptic.”
To me, he’s a wannabe sophist too (not very sophisticated at it). Take this from Nov.:
Here was Delong’s response to Mankiw:
you can’t get away with talking out both sides of your mouth these days with the Internet keeping track of you and the stories so easily googled
COLMA, you said it there Wonk…I think your analysis is right on the money.
HONK!
Great post and a fine list for Obama’s attention. If he would only work number 1, the other four would probably fall in line.
What a putz!
See: Social Security, Medicare, CHIP (Children’s Health Insurance Program).
Great post, Wonk. Love love love this:
Meant to say this earlier–that’s an excellent point, Zal! When Dems actually govern like Dems, they are the ones planning for the long term.
Perfectly expressed rant, Wonk, perfect. And I agree 100%, so,
‘Hear, Hear!’.
yup, agree to infinity and beyond!!!!
I see Mark Thoma as finally awakened!!
I just have one wonky thing to add to this and that is if any one was serious about cutting taxes and making work pay at the margin, then they should advocate getting rid of taxes at the bottom rung and not the top. The biggest thing that stops a lot of the working poor is that they don’t get enough income to offset any benefits they may get from the state like SCHIP, or Food Supplements, etc. Allowing them to work, still maintain some safety net benefits and not taxing all their income away with regressive taxes like sales taxes and such would help a hell of a lot more than giving the top 2% money to invest in China.
That is all.
Agreed. One of the biggest problems imo is just what you expressed. The moment you appear to be even getting a little ahead, they yank the net out from under you. In some instances they yank the net out from under you when you need it more than ever. Case in point, a person who loses his/her job is supposed to report that if they have subsidized child care. They would then be forced to go back on a waiting list when they got a new job. The problem with that is most job interviews don’t usually want you to bring your child along. Children in the resource market are something frowned upon for the most part.
Another example of short sighted thinking is to require A in order to receive B. When my mother was receiving SS in order to receive help with medical coverage she was unable to get that help unless she also applied for a bevy of other services. While I get the idea that multiple servces might enable things to be a little easier for the recipient I find it offputing that we require people to take more than they actually want or may need.
Don’t even get me started on how a person making something like $16,000 in disability is making “too much” to receive help for medical coverage(at a time when they need medical help and coverage more than ever.)
The system definitely needs tweaking but none of the ideas the GOP has put forth offer any “opportunity” for the most vulnerable and weak. “Chosen” indeed!
Kat, I agree of course, but it seems to me that Mankiw et al aren’t serious about anything other than operating on the philosophy of “there’s a lot of ruin in an empire.”
Oh good gawd, tell me how this is diplomacy? Our State Department being used as New Vehicle Sales Pimps?
This is the high-stakes, international trading bazaar for large commercial jets, where tens of billions of dollars are on the line, along with hundreds of thousands of high-paying jobs. At its heart, it is a global wrestling match fought every day by executives at two giant companies, Boeing and Airbus, in which each controls about half of the global market for such planes.
To a greater degree than previously known, diplomats are a big part of the sales force, according to hundreds of cables released by WikiLeaks, which describe politicking and cajoling at the highest levels.
Oy. We are so f’d.
Ugh. Starts putting State Dept officials in the class with Pharm drug reps. They’ve already got the suits for it.
And if Obama was any more Republican he’d grow elephant ears.
His ears aren’t so dainty as it is.
Neither were Bush’s. Interesting, that. I wonder if all of us look like Donkey’s or whatever the green or socialist party icons are. I guess Rosie the Riveter for Socialist? Yep, I’d want to look like that!
lol This is one of my very favorite tropes. The rest of us are constantly forced to work harder and longer for less, because we have no choice, having become addicted to such initiative sapping activities as “eating.” We don’t like it, but we adjust because that’s the unfortunate reality. But our amazing go-getter entrepreneurial class, on whom all our hopes rest, are such whiny babies that a tiny bit of the same adversity everybody faces will sap them of all initiative, leaving them broken, confused, and unable to function? Shouldn’t making it harder to earn money actually spur them on to work harder, what with all this unstoppable go-getterism? And yet, we shouldn’t have a minimum wage because minimum wages should just use all of their energy and initiative traveling from coast to coast finding better pay and negotiating their own contracts.
and it sure is a trope with which we’re beaten mercilessly, isn’t it?
Yeah, you have to make sure to be born on the right side of the Tough Love divide.
Investment bankers get bailouts and bonuses. The rest of us get lectures on how we’re the cause of all the problems in the world.
Hey Seriously! Yay, now it’s 2011. Didn’t feel like a new anything here without reading you.
The rest of us are like Pink says…just too school for cool.
In all seriousness, I really think something happens to most people when they get to a certain level of power. They stop seeing people for people, they just see statistics. It’s the rare person at that level who keeps genuine sight of the fact that he’s just an ordinary person with extraordinary opportunities.
Sotomayor said that when she was nominated–that she was an “ordinary person blessed with extraordinary opportunities. ” I vaguely remember Hillary saying something similar, but I don’t remember the exact words now.
I often wonder about that, actually. I mean, how do you get so far from where you come from? At what point does it become your normal? Sure, it’s possible to become resigned to just about anything that you live with day in and day out, but–I feel like many people in that situation wouldn’t be able to shake their sense of cognative dissonance, to forget what they know. Maybe you have to have a certain personality type, for the most part, to attain that kind of power.