You may not have noticed some interesting Republican flips that occurred in the DC-policy world in recent weeks.
In both cases, top conservatives, most notably President Bush and candidate John McCain, appear to have changed their minds on legislation designed to help folks who have been hurt by recent economic events. Congress passed two bills, both by veto-proof margins: an extension to unemployment insurance benefits and a bill to help homeowners facing foreclosure (the housing bill is actually stuck in the Senate, but is likely to pass after the July recess).
Bush stonewalled on both bills, but the word on the street is that he'll now sign them. McCain initially opposed the foreclosure relief legislation, and was at first silent on the UI extension. Now he likes both.
That's a good thing -- they're both pretty good bills -- and I come not to disparage these pols for seeing the light. But their changes of heart are revealing in the context of Republican economic ideology in general and the McCain campaign in particular.
The rap on the conservative side of the street is that Bush wasn't a real fiscal conservative because he didn't hold the line on spending. The facts don't really support that argument: federal spending as a share of GDP averaged 20.3% from 1959 to 2001 and 19.9% from 2001 to 2008.
No matter. That reality simply amplifies my point: all this conservative talk about cutting spending is just that: idle chatter. When push comes to shove and political forces are in play -- and when aren't they? -- McCain will support most government spending as much as the next guy or gal.
Conservatives from Bruce Bartlett to Larry Kudlow to Grover Norquist can caterwaul from here to eternity about "holding the line on spending," but the phrase is meaningless. It all comes down to cases, and there will always be cases, like these two bills targeted at offsetting the current failures in housing and labor markets, that are worth supporting. And enough politicians will support them such that they become law.
Since 1959, Federal spending as a share of the economy has averaged 20.2% of GDP, with a standard deviation of 1.5%, meaning relatively little dispersion around the mean. In the Reagan years, it was 22.3%; under Clinton, 20.2%. If anything, the pressing needs of the environment, public infrastructure, and health care suggest that share is likely to go up before it comes down.
Of course, there are big differences between the D's and the R's on the role of government. But barring a percentage point of GDP either way, the differences amount less to the level of spending and more to competence and fiscal stewardship.
That is, under a McCain or any other modern conservative administration, it's not that there would be noticeably less government. It's that there would be worse government. It's not that they'd get rid of FEMA or the Food and Drug Administration. It's that they'd perform less efficiently and effectively.
If you don't believe me, look at the Medicare Drug bill championed by the Bush administration. The damn thing outlawed competitive bidding for lower prices on medications, and forced the Federal government, i.e., the taxpayer, to subsidize private coverage that is demonstrably less efficient than Medicare itself. When someone opts into one of the private "Medicare Advantage" plans created by the law, the Feds have to cough up a 12% subsidy compared to what the patient would have paid under Medicare.
And by the way, on Friday, Senate Republicans filibustered a Medicare bill that would have cutback on these wasteful payments (McCain skipped the vote). It's a perfect case in point. No matter who runs the show, there will be spending, and it will cost roughly the same to have good government or lousy government.
Of course, given their addiction to big tax cuts and war, a conservative government would also be an evermore indebted government.
To be fair, McCain's track record reveals examples of opposing popular bills he has judged to be wasteful, including the Bush tax cuts, and more recently, the energy and farm bills. But he's since flipped big time on the Bush tax cuts--extending the Bush cuts are less than half of his proposed cuts--and on the moratorium on offshore drilling. And of course he has big spending plans for the war and the defense budget.
So, when you hear conservatives in general and McCain in particular rant against government spending, think back to the microcosmic flips of this past week. They remind us of the reality that we live in a complex world, where markets can provide only partial solutions to the challenges we face. Market failures abound, and government will unquestionably be called upon to repair these failures.
For years, we've elected politicians who've railed against this reality, pretending that they can refund that fifth of the economy that we spend on government --"it's your money!"-- and still provide the services we want and need. To put it mildly, it hasn't worked. We're spending the same share as ever, yet we've squandered years when we could have been making progress against the challenges of globalization, of environmental degradation, of deteriorating infrastructure, of economic inequality, of costly inefficiencies in health care.
With this election, we have a chance to pursue another path. It's a chance we can't afford to pass up.
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Too bad bad gov't doesn't PAY as well. Especially to all the contractors who take the money and never do the work.
Jared Bernstein to voters:
For years, we, your government, have "squandered" 20 percent of GDP and still has failed to address fundamental economic damage caused by market failures.
Can we have some more?
http://pogoprinciple.wordpress.com/
Squandered? Really, the only parts that I consider to be squandered are the portions that went to the military!
I am still trying to figure out how you can eliminate the defense budget - 3/4 of a trillion dollars in direct spending - service on the national debt - another half trillion - and still need more money??????
Oh, the Barack Obama administration ISN"T going to eliminate the defense budget or debt service?
Never mind...
What is the difference between good government and bad government ? Good government is they --don't -lie to the people,they don't destroy the economy, they don't decieve the people,everyone is treated equally.Special interest doesn't take presence over the majority.The leaders don' feather the nest of their friends at the expense of the people.This is what we have had the last eight years. ''Bad government'. It's about time for good government.
Uhm-
I don't know, but I would think that the Federal government has spent more on this ridiculous "Iraq War" in the past few years than on ANYTHING ELSE, and if this financial bleeding of the American people's tax dollars would cease, it would free up funding for things that can actually help the majority of the American people.
Not to mention debt service, aircraft carriers prowling the Persian Gulf, agriculture subsidies, tax giveaways to energy companies...
http://pogoprinciple.wordpress.com/
3)-According to the non-partisan Tax Policy Institute (and as reported on CNN), 90% of Americans would pay less taxes under Obama's proposed tax plan compared to McCain's. People making under $112,000 a year in individual (not household) income will pay less taxes under Obama's plan.
posted by ihavenobias
Are you kidding me? Many people who blog on Huff Post make over the 112 thou a year but because they live in L.A. or NYC are struggling to make ends meet. This is not a small group of people and we're not going to go along with Obama's desire to keep us poor. We're not about to be the sacrificial lambs offered up as the cost of doing his business. If Democrats think this is okay they better think again.
This just in: if you make over $112,000 per year in individual income, YOU ARE NOT POOR, no matter where you live... I live comfortably in NYC and I don't make anywhere near that much, and neither do most of us here (the median income is currently about $45,000). If you're struggling on 6 figures, then maybe it's your spending that's out of control.
Three stunning facts:
1)-Over 70% of our National Debt was created by just 3 Republican presidents. And this is the party of fiscal conservatism?
2)-According to new research from Larry Bartels out of Princeton, middle class wage growth is double when a Democrat is president compared to when a Republican is president.
3)-According to the non-partisan Tax Policy Institute (and as reported on CNN), 90% of Americans would pay less taxes under Obama's proposed tax plan compared to McCain's. People making under $112,000 a year in individual (not household) income will pay less taxes under Obama's plan.
By contrast John McCain's tax cuts center around the top 10% of Americans. Under McCain's plan people making over 2.9 million dollars in individual annual income will get almost a million dollar tax break.
Decent point but I can't figure out why you accept big spending government at all. What about cutting the spending for once? What about getting rid of so many worthless government programs that fail time and time again?
Bad government is costing us A LOT MORE!!!
Actually, according to Jared, the cost of good government is greater than bad government:
"If anything, the pressing needs of the environment, public infrastructure, and health care suggest that share is likely to go up before it comes down."
So good government, apparently, has all the cost of bad government, PLUS the "progressive" shopping list.
http://pogoprinciple.wordpress.com/
Show me one government program that has failed before the lack of funding caused by ronnie raygun!
Now, now....there's no reason to bring reason into this conversation. We little people just don't get it ya know. We need Big Brother watching out for our safety, health and money because we sure as heck can't figure it out on our own. Now, just go back to sleep and let the govt take care of every one of your problems, kay?
Oversimplifying a bit aren't we? Of course, why would we need all those silly roads and bridges and that army and all those policemen and firefighters. No need for sewage treatment or regulation of our food chain (which could so easily become interchangeable). Yeah, let's just scrap the taxes completely and all build our own roads.
"Bad government" DOES cost more - a whole lot more in terms of run down schools, dangerous bridges, and the elderly just hanging on instead of having some kind of quality of life.
I know first hand. I have no health insurance, am 60 years old, working two part-time jobs and both have just been cut in hours because of the economy.
Bad government - as in the Enron loophole - brought us the mortgage crisis and soaring gas prices -
Bad Government costs plenty!!!!!!!!
Ah the human cost. Is it worth that fat bonus to put your cousin out of a job? Maybe it is, but there is nobody doing the calculation but the electorate, and the record keeping is spotty.
It seems that the invisible hand of the market is a bit stupid as well as invisible. When the going gets really good, one might say too good, the market just gets hungrier and ends up pushing the whole population to the political left.
The system is then, self regulating. It could just be done with more grace and reason than it has been, and with a lot less tragedy and suffering. But hey, tragedy and suffering build character, if they don't kill you.
Bad governments cost us all the progress that could have been made.
Look at what might have been if Gore had been allowed to be elected.
As Ike said, those resources spent on war could have been spent on
education, health care and infrastructure, making US all better for it!!!!
Now, now, don't be silly. Besides, there are a lot of millionaires COUNTING on bad government. Whaddaya want, broke war profiteers???
Would good government have allowed our economy to deteriorate?
Would good government ignore New Orleans?
Would good government have lied about an unprovoked Oil Grab War?
What is the price of the 4,000 + American souls lost in Iraq?
What is the price of the maimed and traumatized?
What is the price of 1,000,000 Iraqi dead?
How many new enemies did each one of those unnecessary deaths create?
Does good government transfer public wealth to political allies and cronies?
Does good government steal elections and prosecute perceived political enemies?
Does good government place dishonest, incompetent loyalists in important positions?
Get serious. Bad government is too expensive now matter how you look at it.
Republicans are so heavily invested in the idea that government is inefficient that they run on that big lie and, as P.J. O'Rourke says, once they are in office, they prove it. At great cost to taxpayers other than the big crony capitalists they cater to. Feel the love trickling down?
The idea that government can work responsibly, just as corporations and other big businesses can (in theory, if not in practice) is an idea that is undercut by Republicans who are primarily interested in carving up the budget and handing it to the big donors. They railed about the Clinton takeover of the White House travel agency, but once in power they gave away the store in no-bid contracts to Bush and Cheney cronies.
These agencies, emboldened by the lack of accountability built into their no-bid contracts, have stolen money with more hands than a Hindu deity and have refined their aggressive billing so that it rhymes with billions.
Republicans view government as costly and inefficient...and then work to make it so that it is exactly that.
Actually, it's at great cost to EVERYONE! It's just that the costs come later to the crony capitalists, in the form of a destroyed economy!
You've skipped over the big issue of taxes. Taxes with Obama in the White House will go up, up , up. Yeah, I know, you're going to say only the wealthy will be affected by these increases. Wrong, wrong. wrong. And how about the message the Dems are sending to the middle class which is basically, given how we're going to tax you if you actually become successful you'll never move ahead. You're stuck right there in the middle class. Under the Democrats, hard work and success is punished not rewarded. And while we're on the subject of finances, how many of these people facing foreclosure on their homes had no business taking out those easy loans to begin with? Not all of them are victims. And not all of them want to be treated like victims. There's a very big difference between Obama and McCain. Obama seeks to infantilize voters and encourage them to lean on Big Daddy Government. The Republicans prefer voters grow up and be responsible for themselves and not look to Big Daddy. Question is do you want to be a child or a grown-up.
Yes, eliza-they will go up -to pay for Bush's unnecessary war and all of the no-bid contracts that he borrowed from the Chinese and others to pay for. Along with devaluing the dollar-messing up the mortgage business and real estate market and just generally ruining the economy.
Bad government costs a LOT more than good government. We can't afford bad government!
elizaW,
Have you even LOOKED at his proposals??? First, unless you are making more than $125,000, you will see your taxes go DOWN. Second, since the US government is currently almost $10,000,000,000,000 in debt right now, I'd say some increased taxes among those who aren't paying their fair share is about due!
And by the way, I know that it's hard to understand that number that I wrote, so let's look at it a different way:
1 year equals 31,557,600 seconds. At the rate of $1/second, which is more money than most people will see in their lifetimes, it would take 316,880 years, 320 days, 17 hours, 46 minutes, and 40 seconds to pay down the debt of $10 trillion. That's assuming that we never borrowed another dollar, and that there was no interest charged on the loans. This is more than 1.5 times the entirety of human EXISTENCE!!! It's almost FORTY times the entirety of human HISTORY!!!!!!
Yeah, we need a tax increase on the richest 5% of Americans!!
I'd rather have higher taxes and actually see something done with the money. The taxes we pay now go either straight down the drain or into cronies pockets--oh that's right, they're both the same thing.
"...appear to have changed their minds on legislation designed to help folks who have been hurt by recent economic events..."
I wonder what the magic number was?
How many Americans had to be drowned by Republican fiscal, social, tax, and diplomatic policy before the Republicans felt they they had to respond humanely?
And what was the motivating emotion behind the flip-flops?
Fear of the numbers of Americans who now hate Republicans? Greed, in that they could see the cash cow that is the control of our government and the U.S. Treasury slipping away?
lollll...I utterly reject remorse or compassion as their motivation...
Memo to Dr. James Dobson on his comments on Senator Obama: I believe in one God and hope for happiness beyond this life. I believe God sees all men and women as equals, and holds everyone to be completely honest and trustworthy towards each other. We all must love mercy and endeavor to help every citizen whenever possible. I also believe that all those claiming to be God-fearing religious leaders who terrify, enslave, and exploit their followers with false words and deeds, to gain power and profit, will answer to God on Judgment Day! -Signed - Thomas Paine
I agree with many of the salient points you raised, but bad government costs more than good government. If you don't have time to do it right, WHEN will you have time (and money) to do it over?
Posted June 29, 2008 | 10:20 PM (EST)