Dead Presidents

Comic Book Reagan

It’s only fitting that some one who completely mangles American history, world geography, and the English language gets to deliver yet another eulogy on Reagan.  We come not to bury Caesar, but to completely reinvent the guy into something we want him to be because we have no better narrative.  Many liberal sites are rightly pointing out that we knew Ronald Reagan and he was not the Ronald Reagan we’re hearing about now.  Here’s a good list of  ‘10 Things Conservatives Don’t Want you to now about Ronald Reagan’.  I’ll hit the top four because,well, I’m an economist and these four things resonate with me the most.

1. Reagan was a serial tax raiser. As governor of California, Reagan “signed into law the largest tax increase in the history of any state up till then.” Meanwhile, state spending nearly doubled. As president, Reagan “raised taxes in seven of his eight years in office,” including four times in just two years. As former GOP Senator Alan Simpson, who called Reagan “a dear friend,” told NPR, “Ronald Reagan raised taxes 11 times in his administration — I was there.” “Reagan was never afraid to raise taxes,” said historian Douglas Brinkley, who edited Reagan’s memoir. Reagan the anti-tax zealot is “false mythology,” Brinkley said.

2. Reagan nearly tripled the federal budget deficit. During the Reagan years, the debt increased to nearly $3 trillion, “roughly three times as much as the first 80 years of the century had done altogether.” Reagan enacted a major tax cut his first year in office and government revenue dropped off precipitously. Despite the conservative myth that tax cuts somehow increase revenue, the government went deeper into debt and Reagan had to raise taxes just a year after he enacted his tax cut. Despite ten more tax hikes on everything from gasoline to corporate income, Reagan was never able to get the deficit under control.

3. Unemployment soared after Reagan’s 1981 tax cuts. Unemployment jumped to 10.8 percent after Reagan enacted his much-touted tax cut, and it took years for the rate to get back down to its previous level. Meanwhile, income inequality exploded. Despite the myth that Reagan presided over an era of unmatched economic boom for all Americans, Reagan disproportionately taxed the poor and middle class, but the economic growth of the 1980′s did little help them. “Since 1980, median household income has risen only 30 percent, adjusted for inflation, while average incomes at the top have tripled or quadrupled,” the New York Times’ David Leonhardt noted.

4. Reagan grew the size of the federal government tremendously. Reagan promised “to move boldly, decisively, and quickly to control the runaway growth of federal spending,” but federal spending “ballooned” under Reagan. He bailed out Social Security in 1983 after attempting to privatize it, and set up a progressive taxation system to keep it funded into the future. He promised to cut government agencies like the Department of Energy and Education but ended up adding one of the largest — the Department of Veterans’ Affairs, which today has a budget of nearly $90 billion and close to 300,000 employees. He also hiked defense spending by over $100 billion a year to a level not seen since the height of the Vietnam war.

So, in the real world, Ronald Reagan was the archetype for the Republican much hated “tax and spend Keynesian”  if there ever was one.  Reagan’s former Budget Director David Stockman has said as much. His former economic adviser Bruce Bartlett has changed his tiger stripes too.    Now, compare that to this tripe in a speech completely missing the facts and the history. Oh, and it’s kind’ve stolen from the Gipper yet heavily revised to meet today’s modern propaganda needs.

“He saw our nation at a critical turning point. We could choose one direction or the other. Socialism or freedom and free markets. Collectivism or individualism. In his words, we can choose ‘the swamp’ or ‘the stars.'”

Take a quick look at the source of the cribbed statement and notice the difference.  It seems that not one of our political spokesmodels can originate thoughts these days.  We have a rip-it-off-then-mangle-it pol culture these days.

“We are at war with the most dangerous enemy that has ever faced mankind in his long climb from the swamp to the stars, and it has been said if we lose that war, and in so doing lose this way of freedom of ours, history will record with the greatest astonishment that those who had the most to lose did the least to prevent its happening,” Reagan said.

The most dangerous enemy we have ever faced is ignorance.  The face of ignorance is the modern day Know Nothing Wing of the Republican Party.  The old Known Nothing party was rooted in nativism and anti-Catholicism.  This one is rooted in similar phobias and bigotry.  Ralph Waldo Emerson once wrote:  “All history becomes subjective; in other words there is properly no history, only biography”.

Read the rest of this entry »


Late Night Drifts

Snowdrifts in a shopping center parking lot South of Boston

I thought I put up a little news for your late night reading pleasure.

I hope all you East Coast folks have finished shoveling your driveways and sidewalks. The drifts in my driveway are almost as high as my car roof, and my sidewalk is just a narrow strip cutting through waist-high snow. When will it end?

You’ve probably heard by now that President Obama has announced his choice for Press Secretary. Jay Carney, formerly of Time Magazine and for the past two years Joe Biden’s communications director, got the nod to replace Robert Gibbs. Frankly, I always thought Carney was a Republican. Oh wait–that makes him perfect for Obama. Also, Carney is married to ABC news correspondent Claire Shipman–isn’t that a bit of a conflict?

Jay Carney and Claire Shipman

Anyway, a few bloggers have been dishing about Carney’s past history.

At FDL, David Dayen reminisced about a Yearly Kos panel that Carney was on in 2007, and also linked to this anecdote by Jay Rosen

Jay Carney is Time magazine’s Washington bureau chief. Andrew Golis interviewed him too, on the sidewalk outside the party that Time threw on Friday night to promote its political blog, Swampland. (I read Swampland and I was there: good party.) “The blogosphere’s critique of the mainstream media has been overwhelmingly healthy and it’s made the mainstream media pay a lot of attention to details it should have been paying attention to,” he said, echoing Scherer and Fournier.

He then added something unintentionally revealing of how political journalists got themselves into the very trouble that’s forcing at least some of them to look inward. “Karen Tumulty and I— we’re not advocates, we’re not columnists.” (Tumulty, a contributor to Swampland, is Time’s national political correspondent.) “It’s our responsibility not to be labeled left or right.”

Is it now?

“That is just so wrong,” said a commenter (Lee) at Swampland, who had watched the interview. “Your job is to tell the truth.” (Regardless of how it gets you categorized.)

He sounds perfect for our post-partisan POTUS.

Read the rest of this entry »


CNN’s Extremist Shill

Where's the blood?

For some reason, the media has decided to respond to right wing outrage for perceived ‘liberal’ biases by allowing access to any one with a half truth to tell or some radical right viewpoint.  It’s one thing to air the views of a politician holding a public office–like Michelle Bachmann–whose grasp of reality, history, and science is demonstrably lacking, it’s completely another thing to hire and continually promote some one with extremist views and agendas.  This is especially true when it is for no other reason than to air a given view point in some perceived act of fairness when no equally extreme voice on the left exists any where on the network.  In fact, no equally extreme leftist voice exists in any media outlet.

Again, I say perceived fairness  because there is never a real left wing equivalent out there equal to the likes of Red State’s Erick Erickson.  If so, they’d have also hired at least some equivalent of Noam Chomsky or some one who is honestly liberal and honestly left wing.  The continued employment of  Erick Erickson goes beyond even the lowest standards set by the likes of the Buchanans.   He’s about one hyperbole short of Pat Robertson; but just barely.  The deal is that this guy is no Bob Novak or George Will conservative.  He’s an extremist and radical because he constantly advocates violence and uses revolutionary rhetoric.

Here at RedState, we too have drawn a line. We will not endorse any candidate who will not reject the judicial usurpation of Roe v. Wade and affirm that the unborn are no less entitled to a right to live simply because of their size or their physical location. Those who wish to write on the front page of RedState must make the same pledge. The reason for this is simple: once before, our nation was forced to repudiate the Supreme Court with mass bloodshed. We remain steadfast in our belief that this will not be necessary again, but only if those committed to justice do not waiver or compromise, and send a clear and unmistakable signal to their elected officials of what must be necessary to earn our support.

Size or physical location?   WTF kind of demented language is that? This man just made a call for women to be dehumanized into incubators, to have their liberty and privacy removed, and to have their personal religious viewpoints usurped by his own.  How can CNN justify maintaining the likes of Erickson without–minimally–giving air time to a Marxist which would be a leftie equivalent.  Bet yet, they need to fire him.

Nearly every one who has cracked a legitimate history book and read documents written by the founders knows that the basic ‘state’s rights’ vs. federal government’s rights was about slave ownership. The constitution was crafted carefully so that slave owning states could find enough leeway in the ‘state’s right provision’ to allow slavery.  That was  the purpose of the entire deal in a nutshell.  The 13th amendment was required to close that particular loophole.  The descendant’s of those folks that scream state’s rights now and limited constitutional authority support similar devious schemes that prevent key individuals from fully exercising their constitutional rights.  They used it for Jim Crow Laws until specific laws and SCOTUS findings closed the loophole.  They’ve extended its use to women’s bodies and medical treatment and relationship status for GLBT.  Erickson’s terminology of judicial usurpation is justification for involuntary servitude and seeks to deprive certain classes of people of their liberty.  That is radical.  How can CNN provide a safe harbor for a radical?

Any one who invokes the term ‘state’s right’s’ invariably is evoking the use of state laws to abridge  some one else’s liberties and freedoms.  Putting Erickson and his arguments on TV is like handing the public airways over to slave owners and folks that rationalized Jim Crow Laws.  He’s absolutely no different.  His outrageous positions are far out of the mainstream .  My guess is that CNN would never hire Noam Chomsky or socialist Brian Patrick Moore a seat for one segment, let alone an ongoing salaried position.  But Erickson not only uses radical language, he uses revolutionary language.  This makes him an extremist.

Read the rest of this entry »


About 99 percent of us have that sinking feeling

You know me and my wonky graphs.  You also know I blog a lot about rising income inequality and that I think it’s a huge problem.  So, this MOJO Power graph and the article it came with piqued my curiosity.  It’s from an article by Kevin Drum writing on a Timothy B Lee blogpost on the preemption of ‘genuine left wing voices’ by libertarians.   I’m not sure how libertarians could be confused for moderates, liberals or lefties but given that establishment conservatives have an orthodoxy so tight that few fit, I suppose everything else gets to wear the liberal label. But, maybe there’s more to it than that.

We talked about this a little on a thread yesterday.  Both Ariana Huffington and Kos used to be Republicans.  They left the party when the religious right took over and because, frankly, I don’t think they like the fact that so many blue collar Reagan Democrats had just up and joined their old country club.  There’s also the odd phenomenon of tea party populists that don’t seem to know where they are or where they belong either.  We’ve seen how a  lot of these folks have made their way into policy circles through their support or their horror of the current administration so I think it’s worth viewing three blog writers on that topic.  Why are so many people confused about their political identity any more?

Libertarian ‘insight’ used to the butt of jokes at academic cocktail parties where you discussed Utopian moonbattery and even worse fiction.  Now there seems to be an industry around producing what they call journals, institutions, and philosophy that is some how running loose in mainstream conversations demanding to be taken seriously.    It’s hard to do that because they don’t associate with data and they seem to thrive on passing memes that have no basis in reality.  (The ones on the FED just kill me.) They’re in the tea party, they’re all for Rand and Ron Paul, and yet, some of them have made their way to the liberal blogosphere.  What’s going on? Plus, what’s the deal with all these solid working class–in some cases UNION folks–heading to tea party rallies?  Haven’t they ever heard of Dick Armey?

Drum shows how the worst of the libertarian assumptions they hold up as facts just don’t hold up to the light of day.  He starts with a shared assumption from the right wing and libertarians as described by Will Wilkinson. This meme is the mild form libertarianism from the Hayek-Friedman sect.

It’s best to just maximize growth rates, pre-tax distribution be damned, and then fund wicked-good social insurance with huge revenues from an optimal tax scheme.

We’ve got scads of data that show this meme to be a completely false assumption.  We’d have a better economy right now if that were true.  In fact, the only time we had a decent economy in recent history was when that particular assumption was rolled back during the Clinton years.   But, don’t take it from me, read what Kevin Drum has to say.  Those assumptions are very wrong.

First, it contains an implicit conviction that libertarian notions of tax and regulatory structures will maximize growth rates. This is practically an article of faith on the right, but there’s virtually no empirical evidence to support it. As it happens, I’d argue that my preferred brand of the modern mixed economy is, on the whole, probably more efficient than a stripped down libertarian state, even one that includes lots of centrally-directed income redistribution. But not by much. Personally, I’d be pretty happy if both sides accepted the notion that within a fairly wide range of modern capitalist systems — from Sweden to the U.S., say — overall growth rates change very little. For the most part, we’re really arguing about other things.

Second, I suspect there’s no feasible path to Will’s state of the world. The problem is that a system that generates enormous income inequality also generates enormous power inequality — and if corporations and the rich are allowed to amass huge amounts of economic power, they’ll always use that power to keep their own tax rates low. It’s nearly impossible to create a high-tax/high-service state if your starting point is a near oligarchy where the rich control the levers of political power.

Third, look at the graph. We’ve had this trickle up to the one percent form of economic nonsense since the Reagan years and all it’s done is made things radically worse.   It’s led to this situation where the supply side of the curve completely craps all over the demand side of the curve in product markets.  The outright hostility to unions and the abuse and disempowerment of human beings–not human “capital”–have completely shifted  income levels and underlying market power to some place where you truly think you’d see some kind of general revolt, strike, or overthrow.

It should be patently obvious now that Wall Street has recovered, bonuses have recovered, and corporate profits have recovered while  any one not up at the top of that racket can hardly survive these days.  The unemployment rate, the numbers of foreclosures, and the numbers of bankruptcies are tips of the icebergs.  We’re not going to see growth rates of GDP that will clear that up too.  More frightening is that the powers that be don’t seem to even fake caring.

When you point all these things out to libertarians, they’ll shift the ground on you and say point me where it says in the constitution and mutter something about Wilson and the imperial presidency.  This is the place where they firmly intersect the right wing. Look, Wilson is dead.  The Bush legacy lives and the Obama legacy is still being written.  Still, some of them have crept over and become neoliberals and identified with the left.  Why?

Read the rest of this entry »


Gaslighting America

Some people really do live in alternative realities.  A good deal of them are not confined to obscure blogs or city street blocks screaming things that people frankly know aren’t true.  However, if you manage to get yourself a show on Fox News and you get to repeat the lies day in and day out, people think some one may actually fact check you.  Critical masses of people can mistakenly believe the lies. Glenn Beck just keeps gaslighting America and a good number of people appear to be stupid enough to believe him.

I frankly can’t watch him.  He’s so obviously got issues that you wonder how he has managed to escape treatment for mental health problems.  I guess if you’re a gravy train, people will ride you no matter what. What really bothers me is that he actually does have an impact on some people.

Just ask an obscure 78 year old professor retired from CUNY, Frances Piven, who is receiving death threats because Beck’s decided that something she wrote 45 years ago has brought the “United States to its knees”.  It’s amazing to me what a really disturbed mind can self create.  Facts are abused out of necessity.  Beck seems to think if you just keep writing the same things and saying the same things over and over you can gaslight enough of the people enough of the time.  He manages to make a living and stay within the disturbed little bubble he’s created to rationalize his own failures.  He’s empowered by delusions and denial and paid very well for them.  Every thing that happens to Frances Piven as a result of his words is just one more symptom of poor little Beck.  It’s all about his suffering, his problems, his brilliance, and his deluded truth.

Read the rest of this entry »