Often politicians pack so many misleading strains into a sentence that I step back in awe, almost impressed by the linguistic gymnastics.
In that regard, and speaking exclusively in policy terms, I found this framing by Gov. Romney to be deeply troubling, though potentially effective.
"The test is pretty simple. Is the program so critical, it's worth borrowing money from China to pay for it?" Romney said of federal programs. "And on that basis of course you get rid of Obamacare, that's the easy one. Planned Parenthood, we're going to get rid of that. The subsidy for Amtrak, I'd eliminate that. The National Endowment for the Arts, the National Endowment for the Humanities."
Let's unpack this. First, there's the reference to the feared other, China. This should be considered in the context of this type of analysis, particularly the graph showing the positive correlation between altruism (WITT) and relatedness. It's a classic, divisive YOYO (you're on your own) framing... oh, and I should mention that China holds 10% of our sovereign debt.
Then there's the signal around borrowing -- always bad! Except it's not by a long shot. I don't suppose any politician would defend it, but substantively, government borrowing is an essential tool for offsetting demand contractions or supporting investments with long-term returns. The problem is not budget deficits -- it's structural budget deficits, the one's that keep growing even when the private sector is back up and running. And in this regard, Gov. Romney's fiscal policy is itself implicated.
Then there's the slap at the inefficiency of government programs. But "Obamacare" isn't close to being fully implemented yet -- states are now setting up the health care exchanges at the core of the law. So we really don't know how well it will work. What we do know is that the path to fiscal reform must incorporate a new approach to financing and delivering public and private health care (remember, cost pressures are worse in the private sector).
Though conservatives refer to its implementation as somehow optional, the Affordable Care Act is the law of the land! I don't know how well it will work and neither does Gov. Romney (though his similar plan in MA is working pretty well). If it fails to meet its goals of coverage and cost containment, we'll need to get under the hood and try to fix it. Or try something else. But tearing it down before it's up makes no sense
Oh, and as a colleague pointed out, the ACA is paid for and doesn't require borrowing (h/t, PVW).
Then there's the usual signaling re Planned Parenthood, the National Endowments (I'm not going to defend Amtrak -- though as a former VP Biden employee I should -- there's a solid rationale for the service which I'll try to visit in a forthcoming post).
Get rid of "the other!" -- don't borrow! -- fear the Chinese dragon! -- take down Obamacare! The rhetoric to substance ratio in there is disturbingly high.
This post originally appeared at Jared Bernstein's On The Economy blog.
Just as Obama chooses which laws his administration will enforce and those it won't as well as those it will defend in court, e.g. immigration law, Defense of marriage Act, etc., a president opposed to ObamaCare can let it self immolate through purposeful neglect, removing its current administration and refusing to appoint replacements, along with a broad refusal to enforce this controversial law.
Moreover, once the individual mandate is struck down by the Supreme Court, either congress or the administration can simply let ObamaCare hang by the weight of its own inadequacies.
More importantly, congress can refuse to fund the non-entitlement expenses of ObamaCare, while steadfastly refusing to EVER allow the failures of ObamaCare to be repaired through legislation.
What social democrats fail to understand is that their takeover of 1/6th of the economy in their desperate pursuit to complete a Euro-social-democratic state has launched a war from which there will NEVER be acquiescence or peace - until the entire social democratic state is dismantled and freedom restored to all Americans.
One must wonder what part of War they fail to understand.
The descriptive ' obama toady' comes to mind.
So, they rely on rhetoric. Or lies. Or fear-mongering. Or hate-mongering. Or misrepresentation. Or ... well anything but substance.
wonder if there isn’t scope for a goodie-bag game called “Political Jingo”. Each player has a mixture of emotive words and phrases in a paper sac. Kind of like those newspaper cuttings used for ransom notes. These are shaken up and picked from at random. To produce the most preposterous pronouncements possible.
"the graph showing the positive correlation between altruism (WITT) and relatedness"
is an exact match, when inverted, for another graph. Which shows the negative correlation between acquisitiveness (WTF Do You Want All That For?) and repulsiveness.
"It's a classic, divisive YOYO (you're on your own) framing... oh, and I should mention that China holds 10% of our sovereign debt"
And almost 100% of Yoyo patents.
"Then there's the usual signaling re Planned Parenthood"
Has Rick noticed that although it does indeed say: Spill not thy seed on the ground. No similar restrictive mention whatsoever, is made concerning tissues.
A third of the story, presented as self-contained truth, is sorta-kinda rubbishy. The other two legs of the triad we've been sorely missing for three decades and more are: a) a budget that's balanced over the course of the business cycle, and b) a balanced foreign trade account. Government borrowing might possibly be justified in the context of the complete Keynesian prescription, but we haven't done the hard part since any of us were kids.
"Though conservatives refer to its implementation as somehow optional, the Affordable Care Act is the law of the land"
I don't know if I'm conservative or not, but what I see in this is the most breathtaking expansion of federal power in two generations. When private citizens come to rely on the federal government to fix things up for them, everything changes. No more Hoover Dam, no more Greatest Generation, no more nation of entrepreneurs, no more space program. These are the facts. I challenge any supporter of ACA to explain to me how we go about building the Hoover Dam today, or fighting WWII, or empowering people to move from unemployment to business ownership, or how we go back to the moon. *chirp* *chirp*
But all that's outside the Beltway, so it doesn't really count, eh?
Yes, if you take a few catch words and mix them into a confused rant, you might be a conservative. (Do you have a "Political Jingo" game as mentioned in comment above?).
You say, "When private citizens come to rely on the federal government to fix things up for them, everything changes. No more Hoover Dam, no more Greatest Generation, no more nation of entrepreneurs, no more space program."
A- The federal government funded the Hoover Dam, created the space program, and invested in programs that made the Greatest Generation possible (google FDR, The New Deal). What part of this do you think was done, or could have been possible, by private citizens without investment from the federal government?
B- The ACA is fully paid for (adds nothing to our debt). It costs less than our current fragmented health INSURANCE system. Even better would be Enhanced Medicare for All (HR 676) which would cost HALF AS MUCH as we pay now and give us MORE HEALTHCARE (like, dental and vision would be covered).
"A- The federal government funded the Hoover Dam, created the space program, and invested in programs that made the Greatest Generation possible (google FDR, The New Deal). What part of this do you think was done, or could have been possible, by private citizens without investment from the federal government?"
First, FDR did not "create" the Greatest Generation, if anything it was the other way around. Second, you completely missed my point, which was: LET'S SEE THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT DO THOSE KINDS OF THINGS AGAIN ... eh?!?!?! As opposed to handouts to the needy.
"B- The ACA is fully paid for (adds nothing to our debt)."
That is a completely unsubstantiated claim, and every indication is that the books were so seriously cooked that there is NO REASON to believe that claim. It's pure "blue sky".
In closing: Do you now see how you respond to a person's positions without resorting to personal insults?
...he's like the Matisse of mendacity.
We have seen 401's, IRA's and other traps for low incomes reach the point where costs over time exceed returns if measured in constant dollars from the point of investment. I think Evelyn Rothschild has noticed investments in the U.S. don't have returns except for exec compensation.
(1) http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/data-chart-center/interest-rates/Pages/TextView.aspx?data=yield
Big money might get him the nomination, but every time he opens his mouth, he loses more voters. It will be Obama in 2012, and if the economy improves during his next term, the neocons won't get a foot in the political door for the foreseeable future.
IMHO he is at least a thousand times better than any other candidate that the modern GOP & TEA-Zombies would otherwise nominate
WHICH IS WHY HE IS SO UNLOVED BY THEM.