Hillary says No

CNN’s Wolf Blitzer has released an interview with SOS Hillary Clinton. Blitzer asked if she was going to either serve a second term or run for President in 2012.  This is pretty clear evidence the Clinton is planning on returning to private life shortly. Blitzer interviewed Clinton during her visit to the U.S. Embassy in Cairo on March 16, 2011.

Q- If the president is reelected, do you want to serve a second term as secretary of state?

No

Q- Would you like to serve as secretary of defense?

No

Q- Would you like to be vice president of the United States?

No

Q- Would you like to be president of the United States?

No

Q- Why not?

Because I have the best job I could ever have. This is a moment in history where it is almost hard to catch your breath. There are both the tragedies and disasters that we have seen from Haiti to Japan and there are the extraordinary opportunities and challenges that we see right here in Egypt and in the rest of the region. So I want to be part of helping to represent the United States at this critical moment in time, to do everything I can in support of the president and our government and the people of our country to stand for our values and our ideals, to stand up for our security, which has to remain first and foremost in my mind and to advance America’s interests. And there isn’t anything that I can imagine doing after this that would be as demanding, as challenging or rewarding.

Q- President of the United States?

You know, I had a wonderful experience running and I am very proud of the support I had and very grateful for the opportunity, but I’m going to be, you know, moving on.

Q- I asked my viewers and followers on Twitter to send questions and a lot of them said, “Ask her if she’ll run in 2016 for the presidency.” A lot of folks would like to you to do that.

Well that’s very kind, but I am doing what I want to do right now and I have no intention or any idea even of running again. I’m going to do the best I can at this job for the next two years.

Clinton also spoke of democratic reforms in Egypt while visiting that nation and Tunisia. She was greeted with protests in Tunisia.

Clinton toured Cairo’s Tahrir Square, the epicenter of the pro-democracy uprising that led to last month’s resignation of Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak.

Clinton said visiting the square was a “great reminder of the power of the human spirit and desire for freedom and human rights and democracy.”

She was welcomed by Egyptian citizens and shook hands with passersby in the square before meeting with Egyptian Prime Minister Essam Sharaf.

Before leaving for Tunisia on Wednesday, Clinton was set to meet with Arab League Secretary General Amr Moussa. Moussa, 74, is a veteran Egyptian diplomat and has announced his candidacy for the country’s presidency.

Clinton also met with pro-democracy activists and members of Egypt’s civil society. She is the highest-ranking U.S. official to visit Egypt since the anti-government protests.

Clinton arrived in Cairo Tuesday after attending a Group of Eight foreign ministers’ meeting in Paris.

After wrapping up talks in Egypt, she travels to Tunisia – the starting point of the pro-democracy movement that has swept through much of the Middle East and North Africa this year.

Dozens of Tunisians took to the streets in Tunis on Wednesday to protest against Clinton’s visit.  The demonstrators said they oppose foreign intervention in their country.

There appears to be no break through in her meetings with the G8 in terms of backing a no-fly zone for Libya.  While she met with Egypt’s Prime Minister, some details of their meeting have not been released.

On Tuesday, Clinton issued a strong statement of praise for Egypt’s political revolution, declaring she was “deeply inspired” by the dramatic change and promising new assistance for America’s longtime Middle East ally.

Clinton pledged $90 million in emergency economic assistance during a meeting in Cairo with Foreign Minister Nabil Al-Araby. She is the highest ranking U.S. official to visit Egypt since the overthrow of Mubarak.

“The United States will work to ensure that the economic gains Egypt has forged in recent years continue, and that all parts of Egyptian society benefit from these gains,” a State Department statement noted.

She’s not yet discussed her plans after she retires from the position of US Secretary of State.


Backlash

The only positive thing to come out of the Tea Party, its John Birch Society Roots and funding sources, and its election of right wing reactionaries is the amount of backlash that is coming as a result of imposing their extremist policies.  Their agenda is obvious. Many of the states that are suffering at the hands of governors and legislators that are more interested in ideology than solutions for their state’s problems are looking at recalls. It seems there’s a huge amount of blow-back now.  Just check out some of these polls.

Public Policy Polling reports on “brutal numbers” for Ohio’s John Kasich.  Not only do independents and nonunion households support a recall of his collective-bargaining killing bill, they don’t support him. They want him gone.

Ohio Senate Bill 5 may not be in effect for very long…54% of voters in the state say they’d repeal it in an election later this year while just 31% say they’d vote to let the bill stand.

The support for repealing SB 5 is reflective of a high level of support for unions and workers in Ohio, more so than we saw in Wisconsin a couple of weeks ago. 63% of voters in the state supportive collective bargaining for public employees to only 29% who oppose it. 52% of voters think public employees should have the right to strike, to 42% who think they should not. And 65% think public employees should have the same rights they do now- or more- while only 32% believe they should have fewer rights.

There are two things particularly notable in the crosstabs on all of these questions. The first is that non-union households are supportive of the public employees. 54% support their collective bargaining rights to 36% in opposition and 44% say they would vote to repeal SB 5 to 38% who would let it stand. Obviously that level of support is not nearly as high as among union households but it still shows that the workers have even most of the non-union public behind them.

The other thing that’s worth noting is the independents. A lot of attention has been given to the way what’s been going on in Ohio and Wisconsin is galvanizing the Democratic base, but it’s also turning independents who were strongly supportive of the GOP in the Midwest last year back against the party. 62% of independents support collective bargaining for public employees to 32% opposed and 53% support repeal of SB 5 to 32% who would let it stand.

All of this is having an absolutely brutal effect on John Kasich’s numbers. We find him with just a 35% approval rating and 54% of voters disapproving of him. His approval with people who voted for him is already all the way down to 71%, while he’s won over just 5% of folks who report having voted for Ted Strickland last fall. Particularly concerning for him is a 33/54 spread with independents.

The site calls this “significant buyer’s remorse”.  This is the pollster for DKos that has polled on the Wisconsin effort to recall at least 8 Republican State Senators.

Three Republican incumbents actually trail “generic Dem”: Luther Olsen, Randy Hopper, and Dan Kapanke. Two more have very narrow leads and garner less than 50% support: Rob Cowles and Sheila Harsdorf. And one more, Alberta Darling, holds a clear lead but is still potentially vulnerable. (Two recall-eligible senators, Mary Lazich and Glenn Grothman, sit in extremely red districts and look to have safe leads.) These numbers suggest we have a chance to make five and possibly six recall races highly competitive.

David Weigel–now of Slate--reports on similar trends for Rick Scott and Scott Walker. Rasmussen has Governor Walker hanging in there with a 43% approval rating.  It’s interesting when you get the same results  from a less liberal-affiliated polling company.

Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker won his job last November with 52% of the vote, but his popularity has slipped since then.

A new Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of Likely Wisconsin Voters finds that just 34% Strongly Approve of the job he is doing, while 48% Strongly Disapprove. Overall, including those who somewhat approve or disapprove, the new Republican governor earns positive reviews from 43% and negative reviews from 57% of voters statewide.

In addition to the usual partisan and demographic breakdowns, it’s interesting to note that Walker, now engaged in a budget battle with unionized state workers, receives a total approval rating of 46% from households with private sector union members. However, among households with a public sector union member, only 19% offer their approval. Among all other households in the state, opinion is nearly evenly divided—49% favorable and 51% unfavorable.

It’s also interesting to note that among households with children in the public school system, only 32% approve of the governor’s performance. Sixty-seven percent (67%) disapprove, including 54% who Strongly Disapprove.

Wiegel writes that Democratic strategist believe the blowback will have signficant positive effects for the re-election of Obama come 2012.

I was talking the other day to a Democrat who’d been battle-scarred by the 2010 Florida campaign, in which Democrats lost everything. Everything. Alan Grayson’s career died quickly. Kendrick Meek became a trivia question. One of the people Palin endorsed, Pam Bondi, actually won. And Rick Scott pipped Alex Sink, the most talented statewide Democratic candidate since Lawton Chiles, to become governor.

This Democrat’s spin was that Sink’s loss wasn’t so bad after all. Scott was pissing off too many people — the Orlando-Tampa train he’d killed was popular — and Democrats could win back independents in 2012, saving the state for Barack Obama.

Further evidence of the extremist elements in both the Tea Party and the current incarnation of the Republican party show up in other polls.  A CNN poll shows that most people do not want the government shut down over budget issues.  The folks that object are basically tea party-affiliated.

Nearly six in ten people questioned in the poll say that it would be a bad thing for the government to shut down for a few days because Congress did not pass a new spending bill, with 36 percent saying it would be a good thing for the country. And if a government shutdown lasted a few weeks, that figure would rise to 73 percent.

“But Republicans think a shut down that lasts a few days would be a good thing. And a majority of Tea Party supporters approve of a shutdown even if it lasts several weeks,” says CNN Polling Director Keating Holland. “That puts pressure on House Speaker John Boehner and other GOP leaders to take a step which might hurt their standing with independents as well as some Republicans.”

The survey indicates wide partisan differences on the issue, with only 21 percent of Democrats saying a shutdown for a few days would be a good thing. That figure rises to 35 percent for independent voters, 53 percent for Republicans, and 62 percent for Tea Party supporters.

Couple this with a Gallup poll that shows that Huckabee and Bachmann have the most intense followers in the field of GOP presidential wannabes. There is definitely a crazy side to the Republican Party and it’s showing signs of taking the party into extreme positions supported by very few Americans. I personally can’t imagine voting for either of this people for dog catcher let alone president.  I don’t think they’re qualified to flip hamburgers, frankly.

Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee leads the field of possible GOP presidential candidates in “positive intensity” among Republicans nationwide with a score of +25 among Republicans who are familiar with him, followed by Rep. Michele Bachmann of Minnesota with a score of +20. Huckabee is recognized by 87% of Republicans, compared with Bachmann’s 52%. A number of other possible Republican presidential candidates trail these two in Positive Intensity Scores, including Sarah Palin, who is the best known of the group.

With these kinds of people rising to the top in party politics of one of the major parties, it’s no wonder we also have an ABC News-WAPO poll that shows Americans are not very confident in their system of government.

Only 26 percent of Americans in a new ABC News/Washington Post poll say they’re optimistic about “our system of government and how well it works,” down 7 points since October to the fewest in surveys dating to 1974. Almost as many, 23 percent, are pessimistic, the closest these measures ever have come. The rest, a record high, are “uncertain” about the system.

The causes are many. Despite a significant advance, more than half still say the economy has not yet begun to recover. And there’s trouble at the pump: Seventy-one percent in this poll, produced for ABC News by Langer Research Associates, report financial hardship as a result of rising gas prices. Forty-four percent call it a “serious” hardship.

People are desperately unhappy with the results of the two party system.  It doesn’t even appear that voting for party gridlock works much any more.   The Republican notion of big government is a white daddy government that restricts women’s rights, worker’s rights, and transfers wealth to the already rich and powerful.  What exactly is the Democratic notion these days?  While this backlash will work to the benefit of the sitting President and the Democratic politicians, will they just ride the backlash or actually articulate and run on some kind of vision for a change?  Let me be more specific.  How about some actions that match those fancy speeches for a change?

We now seem stuck the worst features of the two party system   We try for gridlock but get bugfug crazy from the Republicans.  We try for social justice but the Democratic Party never seems to be able to coalesce around a vision or agenda that does much other than respond to Republicans by caving-in and playing up to party donors.  I’m not sure that I see that changing much given we can’t even get this current President off his historical position of voting present.

The challenges that we’re facing today seem as severe as those we faced during the Bush years.  There’s a melt down in strongman governments in the MENA area, we’ve had two major energy-related disasters, and we’ve still got an economy that’s barely sustaining a recovery with high unemployment.  If there ever was time for leadership and vision from some corner of national politics, it would be now.  Voters keep turning the reigns of government over to the Dubyas, the Walkers, and the Kasichs because they can’t get what they want from Democrats.  They emerge from each party’s rule appalled.  It seems like some one reasonable could take advantage of that situation.  Why do I feel that the Democratic Party will just blow this opportunity away too?


Don’t tell the truth if you want to keep your job in the Obama Administration

P.J. Crowley

PJ Crowley is gone as Hillary Clinton’s right hand man at the State Department simply because he spoke the truth to a small audience at MIT last week. From CNN (emphasis added):

P.J. Crowley abruptly resigned Sunday as State Department spokesman over controversial comments he made about the Bradley Manning case.

Sources close to the matter [said] the resignation, first reported by CNN, came under pressure from the White House, where officials were furious about his suggestion that the Obama administration is mistreating Manning, the Army private who is being held in solitary confinement in Quantico, Virginia, under suspicion that he leaked highly classified State Department cables to the website Wikileaks.

Speaking to a small group at MIT last week, Crowley was asked about allegations that Manning is being tortured and kicked up a firestorm by answering that what is being done to Manning by Defense Department officials “is ridiculous and counterproductive and stupid.”

Crowley did add that “nonetheless, Bradley Manning is in the right place” because of his alleged crimes, according to a blog post by BBC reporter Philippa Thomas, who was present at Crowley’s talk.

But that wasn’t good enough for our authoritarian President, who cannot abide criticism of any kind–at least from the liberal side of the aisle.

House Speaker John Boehner can question Obama’s American citizenship, and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell can say his main goal is to prevent Obama’s reelection, but let a State Department official question whether torturing whistleblower Bradley Manning is appropriate or smart policy, and he’s gone in the blink of an eye.

The writing was on the wall after President Obama’s cold and unfeeling remarks about Manning at his press conference on Friday.

“I’ve actually asked the Pentagon whether or not the procedures that have been taken in terms of his confinement are appropriate and are meeting our basic standards,” Obama said, suggesting some of those procedures were to protect Manning’s safety. “They have assured me that they are.”

Because the best way to find out if a crime is being committed is to ask the people who are perpetrating the crime, right?

Obama is the Commander and Chief of the armed forces. He could order the Defense Department to stop torturing Manning today. But at this point we’ve all learned not to expect any human decency or leadership of any kind from this man. He has now explicitly put his stamp of approval on the psychological torture of an American citizen, who has done nothing more than reveal war crimes committed by the U.S. military.

P.J. Crowley, who apparently does possess some human emotions and empathy, dared to speak his mind at a private meeting and when the word got out, Obama canned him.

According to Politico, Hillary Clinton wanted Crowley gone anyway and this just “controversy” speeded things up.

Crowley had been on the outs with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and rarely accompanied her on her travels abroad. Michael Hammer, President Barack Obama’s NSC spokesman, had been sent to State earlier this year, with the plan for him to succeed Crowley, sources said.

Is that the White House pushing the blame off on Hillary again or is it really true? I honestly don’t know, but I have some strong suspicions.

In a statement Sunday, Crowley notably made no apology for his remarks, but acknowledged that they made his continued service untenable.

“The unauthorized disclosure of classified information is a serious crime under U.S. law. My recent comments regarding the conditions of the pre-trial detention of Private First Class Bradley Manning were intended to highlight the broader, even strategic impact of discreet actions undertaken by national security agencies every day and their impact on our global standing and leadership. The exercise of power in today’s challenging times and relentless media environment must be prudent and consistent with our laws and values,” Crowley said.

“Given the impact of my remarks, for which I take full responsibility, I have submitted my resignation as Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs and Spokesman for the Department of State,” Crowley said.

Clinton said in a statement that she accepted Crowley’s resignation “with regret.” His service, she wrote, “is motivated by a deep devotion to public policy and public diplomacy, and I wish him the very best.”

Best wishes to Crowley. I hope he lands a job where he is allowed to speak the truth and doesn’t have to defend torture.


Lessons in Overreach

Politicians within the beltway seem to live in a world of their own.  No place is this more clear than in the results of the last two elections where voters in desperate need of solutions for big problems have been misunderstood as providing ‘overwhelming mandates’ for the two party’s special interests’ agendas.  The 2008 election was a resounding no to the direction the country ushered in by Dubya and his neocons.  The 2010 election was a resounding no to the continued mess of partisanship and the passage of bailouts and a health care reform that no one understood.  I don’t think voters understood why this issue was put above solving the basic unemployment and recession-based problems.   Polls appear to indicate that neither side gets the message these days even though it appears very loud and clear to many of us.

There’s several places that this is really clear.  First, the tea party is a prime example.  This movement has been a hodgepodge of people looking for ways to send a populist message to the beltway. However, the movement has funding and leadership that’s hell bent on returning the country to the excesses of Robber Baron days.  Some of the electorate voted for tea party candidates thinking more on the folksy rhetoric and less of the hardcore John Bircher philosophy championed by movement organizers.  Plus, they just wanted some gridlock until they could get their minds around what was going on with a flurry of laws passed that seemed less related to what they asked for than what US bankers and businesses demanded.  They wanted jobs.  They got bailouts of Detroit and Wall Street and forced into a health care plan that benefited big Pharma and insurance company interests.  It seems like the Democratic party just looked at the election numbers, smiled, and went their merry way.  Republicans aren’t doing much better since they just looked at the last election numbers, smiled, and went their merry way.

A Bloomberg national poll indicates that the Washington crowd just doesn’t get it. It has to be a deliberate misconnect. You can’t be so wrong so many times.  They just don’t want to listen.  People don’t like paying taxes that are then used to fund politician’s pet projects and bailouts for big businesses and banks.  They don’t mind tax cuts to the middle class but they’re getting tired of footing the bill for the beneficiaries of the nation’s army of lobbyists.  The Republicans have missed the mark with their current assaults on collective bargaining and programs that impact just plain folks.  Why can’t both parties just shut up and listen for a change?

Americans are sending a message to congressional Republicans: Don’t shut down the federal government or slash spending on popular programs.

Almost 8 in 10 people say Republicans and Democrats should reach a compromise on a plan to reduce the federal budget deficit to keep the government running, a Bloomberg National Poll shows. At the same time, lopsided margins oppose cuts to Medicare, education, environmental protection, medical research and community-renewal programs.

While Americans say it’s important to improve the government’s fiscal situation, among the few deficit-reducing moves they back are cutting foreign aid, pulling U.S. troops out of Afghanistan and Iraq, and repealing the Bush-era tax cuts for households earning more than $250,000 a year.

The results of the March 4-7 poll underscore the hazards confronting Republicans, as well as President Barack Obama and Democrats, as they face a showdown over funding the government and seek a broader deficit-reduction plan.

The rejection of Dubya and cronies in 2008 wasn’t an invitation for further bailouts of fat cats, expansion of unpopular wars and invention of a health care program while current programs have such severe issues.  The Republicans need to understand that the ‘shellacking’ in November wasn’t an invitation for a full on assault on Sesame Street, Yellowstone National Park, and women’s ability to have a menstrual cycle without fearing manslaughter charges.   Here’s the message.

When given five choices for the most important issue facing the nation, unemployment and jobs ranked first with 43 percent – – down from 50 percent in Bloomberg’s December 2010 poll — with the deficit and spending cited by 29 percent, up from 25 percent. Health care was chosen by 12 percent, the war in Afghanistan by 7 percent, and immigration by 3 percent.

Asked to choose between jobs and the deficit, 56 percent called creating jobs the government’s more important priority now, while 42 percent said cutting spending was.

Why couldn’t we have gotten a decent jobs program and stimulus right off the bat during the first few months of Obama’s term?  We’d have been in a much better position politically, economically, and fiscally.  Instead, we got a bunch of worthless tax cuts that siphoned money off to investments abroad and just enough money to stem about 2 years of fiscal disaster in the states.

There are two follies that should haunt a few leaders for the rest of their natural born days.  Blame goes first to Obama for carving out the health care reform instead of focusing laserlike on job creation.  He clearly created a lot of unnecessary strife and tempests in teabots by taking his eye off the job markets.  The second heap of guilt goes to Mitch McConnell and his party of no. The Republicans seem intent on pleasing their base and burying the rest of the country in joblessness and despair.   Clearly, this is a man that will do anything to regain a Republican White House.  This includes taking our country down with the plan.

Some one needs to tell the President that ending bipartisan strife doesn’t mean selling out to other side.  That’s what brought us a health care plan that assaults women’s rights and forces every one to pay and play.  The Republican strategy of petulance has been paying off big time for them in terms of policy gains.  They need to pay for that petulance.   Giving into Republican demands is not bipartisanship.  The Republican agenda is clear now.  The political moves by Republican governors to force their will no matter what is being met resistance by Democratic legislators.   Polls are showing that the public is taking the side of these legislators.  The President needs to take a page from their playbooks rather than doing his version of bipartisanship (i.e. giving into Republican bullying on things like tax cuts for billionaires).  The leadership shown by Democrats in the heartland is being rewarded and is clearly showing the politicians in Washington the type of future the voters want.  Now, if we could only get Washington to listen before the presidential campaign silly season begins.


Are Republicans the new Confederate Holdouts?

That’s a pretty interesting header for what is essentially a discussion among economics/finance bloggers over the ongoing disconnect between revenues and government spending, isn’t it?  There’s no doubt that Nixon’s southern strategy and Reagan’s appeal to social reactionaries ushered in the current mixture that represents the Republican Party.  This has basically become the new base of the Republican party since establishment Republicans and their business base couldn’t get a critical mass of voters back in the day. We’ve seen it lead to policy measures that would dismantle everything from civil rights to basic collective bargaining and workplace rights recently.

Economist Karl Smith believes that eventually this Republican coalition will fail.  He wrote on this at Modelled Behavior in a post called ‘Starving the Moral Beast’ which is quite worth a read and a discussion. So far, it has elicited responses from Mark Thoma at Economist’s View and Matt Yglesias at Think Progress.

All I keep thinking is the old Keynesian wisdom of  “in the long run, we are all dead”.  So much for any optimism on my part.  Here’s some tidbits from Smith.

If we want to build a model of what the government spends money on we would be best to start this way: ask people what social obligations do they believe “society” has. Look around for the cheapest – though not necessarily most efficient – programs that could credibly – though not necessarily effectively– address those obligations. Sum the cost of those programs. That will be government spending.

Contrary to Jonah Goldberg and others who see Canada and the United States as examples of two clashing ideologies, they are actually examples of two different ethic distributions.  The United States is not Canada because there is ethnic strife between Southern Blacks and Southern Whites. That strife reduces the sense of moral obligation on the part of the white majority and so reduces government spending.

I want to be very clear that I don’t say this to paint those against social spending as racists. From where I sit I am betting that most of the intellectuals lined up against expanding the welfare state are naively unaware that their support rests upon racial strife. Otherwise they would realize that as America integrates they are doomed. They are fighting as if they believe they have a chance of winning. Given the strong secular trend in racial harmony, they do not.

I point this out also to show why the major Republican strategy for limiting government was doomed from the start and why I am also not particularly worried about Americas fiscal future per se.

Again, Smith argues that the Republicans will be on the losing end of the argument because they are increasingly outnumbered by the very people they want to suppress.  Eventually, they will have to increase taxes and fund the part of the beast they’ve so tried to starve.

In the 1980s some conservatives believed that the might not be able to cut government but they could cut taxes and thereby starve the beast. Rising deficits would force the hand of future governments. Spending would have to be cut in order to bring the budget into balance.

Much of the handwringing about fiscal irresponsibility is a sense of alarm not only on the right, but throughout much of the political center, that these spending cuts are not actually materializing.

But, by what theory of government did you ever believe they would? Governments don’t look at how much money they have and then decide what they want to buy. They decide what they want to buy and then they look for ways to find the revenue.

Divorcing the two – through sustained deficits – was only going to lead to ever increasing levels of debt. This is what we got. At no point was the beast ever starved. The peace dividend lowered government spending growth somewhat, but that was undone by the war on terror. Otherwise spending hummed along, as it always will, with the government buying things the public thinks it ought to buy.

Yet, if this is causing upset stomachs among many of my fellow bloggers it calms mine. Its quite clear how this will end. Racial strife will continue to abate. The public will coalesce around the welfare state and taxes will be raised to meet the cost.

Ygliesias–from which I borrowed the Jesusland graphic–argues the semantics of the Canada-US sociopolitical distributions.  For some reason, I don’t think either of them have spent much time in central Canada where there are many fairly moderate to conservative folks.

And on both sides of the border there are differences between the big cities and the rural areas. But Québec is quite different from Anglophone Canada and in the USA “the south is different.” The interesting thing is that not only do Québécois people speak French, they also have unusually left-wing views on economic policy. Meanwhile, white southerners have more rightwing views on economic policy than do other North American white Anglophones. If you redrew the borders, you’d get very different political outcomes.

Thoma takes on the crux of the argument which is the essential problem of funding our government.  I’ve always found it odd that Republicans say deficits don’t matter when the spending is for war, tax cuts for business and the wealthy, or distributing grants to religious groups but scream when the spending is used for your basic public goods.  I think he has a good point when he discusses how the relatively different political groups place value on various government activities.  This turns the entire framework into your basic supply/demand model with price sensitivity being determined by the degree to which you value or shun providing revenues or selecting a program.

I agree with a lot of what is said here, but I am not as sure that the decisions about how much to spend and how to pay for it can be separated in this way. What society wants to do — e.g. the social services it believes it should provide — is partly a function of what we collectively think we can afford. Ultimately, I think, just as price is determined by both supply and demand, decisions about the level of government services and how to pay for those services are made jointly, not sequentially. The decisions cannot be completely separated. Part of the worry about health care, for example, and hence part of the opposition is a worry that we cannot afford it.

However, I probably shouldn’t push this too hard, it’s not a pure joint decision either, and for some social obligations have little to do with their cost. In addition, in many cases those who benefit from social programs and those who pay are not the same which sets up a social conflict and a political dynamic that can lead to deficits. But I do think that the costs matter when we make decisions about what services we think government should provide. The big difference across people, I think, is the assessment of the net benefits of some of these programs, and the differences are on both the cost and benefit sides of the equation. For example, the racial divide affects the assessment of benefits, and libertarians see taxes as an assault on liberty and hence very costly.

I still think that the Clinton/Gore administration provided some of the results that many Americans found palatable.  Republicans tend to defund functions they hate, place vapid politicos in charge of the projects they loathe, then point to the miserable results when the inevitable blow ups occur as ‘typical government’.  The hated the lean mean working model of Clinton/Gore.   Think Heckuva -job-Brownie at FEMA compared to the pared down and efficient Clinton/Gore FEMA.   The other main issue that I can see is the large number of Federal contractors that just disrupt the process trying to get no bid contracts to privatize essential government services.  The privatization schemes have cost us dearly at many levels.  I think this war on Public Workers is part of the effort to grab more lucrative government work as much as it is to starve the beast or shrink government.  As every one here as said, we’ve only seen selective ‘shrinking’ .

Having spent my life in that big red blob in the middle, I get a front row seat to some of the craziest of the crazies who scream government overreach or states rights when it affronts their personal practices while applauding government overreach in other things.  Think how many Republicans want to stick their noses squarely in people’s sex lives and health because they value a particular religious belief over science.  I’m less hopeful than Smith that this will all work itself out in the long run because the fault lines seem pretty large from my vantage point.  One of these days the middle class will figure out that they really do get their tax dollars worth.  Now they should just make the corporations and the rich pay for theirs too.

There does seem to be a populist contagion afoot in the world.  A lot of it is push back from the proposed policies that force big changes on either side of the aisle.  There is also this sense that there’s a lot of wealth out there and only a small few seem to be able to grab hold of it.  The democracy bug in the MENA area is as inspiring to me as the Wisconsin, Ohio, and Indiana protests.  Perhaps, the little guys have had enough of being pushed around.

I guess we will see.