pundits

Weekly Audit: Attack of the Imaginary Budget Demons

by: The Media Consortium

Tue Feb 09, 2010 at 15:26

By Zach Carter, Media Consortium Blogger

On Feb. 1, President Barack Obama unveiled his 2011 budget proposal. While conservative pundits reacted with predictable, yet preposterous, wailing about the federal budget deficit, the short-term U.S. budget outlook is just fine. If anything, Obama's budget doesn't dedicate nearly enough funding to create jobs.

As John Nichols notes for The Nation, Obama budgets just $100 billion for jobs in fiscal 2011. The amount is nowhere near enough to make a significant dent in the epic unemployment rate. The government's fiscal 2011 calendar begins in October of this year, and by that time, the stimulus package Obama pushed through in February of 2009 will have been exhausted, leaving the labor market without serious support from the federal government.

The free market isn't going to take care of the jobs shortage on its own. While the unemployment rate fell from 10.0% to 9.7% during January, the "improvement" is really just a statistical mirage-the economy actually lost 20,000 jobs during the month.

If we had pushed through a bigger, or as Nichols notes, a better stimulus package in the first place, we might not be facing the same situation today. Part of the problem is that Obama redirected about $326 billion of the $787 billion bill away from direct job-creation efforts toward a set of tax cuts intended to appease Republican senators.

Tax cuts do not equal job growth

But as Art Levine emphasizes for Working In These Times, the $100 billion that Obama sets aside for job creation in 2011 appears once again to take the form of relatively inefficient tax cuts. Giving money to businesses, even small businesses, isn't really going to make them start hiring unless there's a real demand for what those businesses produce. When everybody is broke and out of work, that demand doesn't exist, since people don't have money to spend.

If the government wants to create jobs, it has to do it directly by hiring people to help rebuild the nation's infrastructure through institutions such as schools, transportation and green energy. Just as important, the federal government can provide funding to state and local governments to make sure that jobs that serve our communities-teachers, cops, etc.-don't disappear.

Sure, these things cost money. But the short-term budget deficit is nowhere near the current deficits of many European nations, or the deficits the U.S. ran during World War II. The budget deficit only matters to economics insofar as it raises concerns that the government will not be able to pay back its debt. But despite caterwauling from the right, investors just aren't worried about a U.S. debt default. If they were, they would demand very high interest rates on Treasury bonds, and Treasury rates are at their lowest levels in decades.

If policymakers want to keep the jobs bill from running the deficit higher, they could always raise taxes on somebody. Financial speculation on Wall Street seems like a good place to start, but just about any tax on the wealthy would work fine. Rich people don't get hammered by recessions. After all, they're rich.

Overzealous tax cuts hurt communities

In a piece for AlterNet, David Sirota details the budgetary disaster that has already befallen the city of Colorado Springs, CO., a conservative enclave where anti-tax extremists have managed to slash just about every basic government service imaginable. Rather than impose some modest taxes on the wealthy, Colorado Springs is going to lay off cops and firefighters, let its parks go to waste, shut-down rec centers and museums and even allow its streetlights to go out. This is the Republican plan for fiscal responsibility.

But several state governments recognize that shredding the social fabric just isn't a good idea. In Oregon, Sirota notes, voters just approved two ballot initiatives to raise taxes on corporations and wealthy individuals rather than allow their state to slide into social decay.

How to deal with a deficit

There are two ways to increase a budget deficit: You can either increase spending, or cut taxes. If you want to decrease the budget deficit, you can either cut spending, or raise taxes. As Kevin Drum notes for Mother Jones, Republicans both increased spending and cut taxes during the George W. Bush presidency. Now those same so-called fiscal conservatives are feigning outrage over the prospect of the government actually spending some money to put people back to work. These are not serious economic arguments-conservative politicians are just hoping to gut progressive policy priorities.

But while the attacks don't hold any water, conservative media outlets are latching on to them, and Obama isn't pushing back.

What caused the current crisis

Writing for The American Prospect, Robert Kuttner notes Obama's recent support for a proposal from right-wing deficit hawks to create a commission to evaluate the causes of our so-called fiscal crisis. But we already know what put us in the current fiscal situation: Rising health care costs, a brutal recession, and the Bush era. The commission is being pushed by radical conservatives for a reason-it's part of an effort to gut Social Security. It's bad economics, bad public policy and it badly misreads the real source of public discontent. Kuttner explains:

"Public concern about deficits is really a proxy for broader unease that government is not delivering enough practical help . . . . The president should be helping citizens sort this out, not caving in to the fear-mongers."

Fortunately, as Steve Benen notes for The Washington Monthly, Senate leaders appear committed to passing at least some kind of legislation to help put people back to work.

Whatever right-wing pundits say, the U.S. fiscal crisis remains a totally theoretical problem. Someday, if the U.S. budget does not come down, it is conceivable that investors would be reluctant to purchase U.S. debt. For now, that is simply not the case. But the crisis in the job market is very real and requires direct action. Put simply, the deficit is no excuse for inaction.

This post features links to the best independent, progressive reporting about the economy by members of The Media Consortium. It is free to reprint. Visit the Audit for a complete list of articles on economic issues, or follow us on Twitter. And for the best progressive reporting on critical economy, environment, health care and immigration issues, check out The Mulch, The Pulse and The Diaspora. This is a project of The Media Consortium, a network of leading independent media outlets.

Discuss :: (0 Comments)

Is it possible to transcend the expectations game in evaluating the debates?

by: ThomasPaine

Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 09:48

In this article, entitled, "How to win a presidential debate,"Paul Waldman repeats a bit of standard wisdom, which I've long since accepted:  


there are a few things a candidate and a campaign must do if they hope to win these debates.  The first is to understand that the goal is not so much to win the debate but to convince the press that you won the debate. The first step to doing that is to shape their definition of "winning." In the next week and a half, we'll see an absurd amount of discussion about "expectations," as though an election were a round of golf in which everyone is judged according to his or her handicap.

Waldman acknowledges that managing expectations is not the whole game; among other things, the occurrence of a "single, crystallizing moment" is key in determining a debate's significance.

In any event, here's my question: is it possible that this year the expectations game and opinions of the pundits may - at long last - not turn out to be the most important factor in resolving who "wins" the debates?

More under the fold:

There's More... :: (0 Comments, 157 words in story)

post-speech vent about the stark raving madness of the talking heads

by: ThomasPaine

Fri Sep 05, 2008 at 08:42

I need to vent.  After the speech, I heard pundit after pundit absolutely rave about how good the speech was, including the historians on PBS.  The only ones who seemed to dissent were Jeffrey Toobin, Rachel Maddow and Michael Gerson.

What in the wide, wide world of sports is going on here? Did they get caught up in the mood of the convention hall? Or is it as simple as they are all part of a conspiracy to make this race closer than it really is?

If you like to hear venting, join me under the fold.

There's More... :: (1 Comments, 197 words in story)

A List of 50 Top Pundits Illustrates Conservative Hegemony In Action

by: Paul Rosenberg

Sat May 10, 2008 at 14:50

For some time now, I've been writing about the Gramscian concept of "hegemony" and a "war of position"/"culture war" to control the cultural institutions that in turn shape our "common sense" understanding of things.  It's my contention that for the 30-40 years, extreme cultural conservatives have been waging a one-sided culture war of precisely this sort-a culture war to control cultural institutions.  And in response, moderates, liberals, even progrerssives have basically been asleep at the switch.  I've also argued that while all the extreme conservatives' plans have produced impressive institutional successes, the realworld results have been utterly disasterous, which puts us on the cusp of a potentially historic realigning election.

A large part of my disappointment with Barack Obama stems from his unwillingness to confront the conservative establishment.  But it's more than that: Obama is genuinely hostile to the notion of others engaging in such confrontation.  He insists that the problem is partisanship per se-on both sides. This simply is not so.  Logically, of course, it could be so, if the left had been fighting the same sort of well-coordinated culture war that the right is figthing.  But historically, this simply did not happen.

Comes now the British newspaper, The Telegraph to provide dramatic truth that the culture war has been one-sided-and to remind us of why Obama dares not tell the truth about this. The Telegraph has produced a list of  "the 50 most influential political pundits" who "help drive the national conversation and shape public opinion."

It is not a perfect list, by any means.  Any number of influential people have been left off the list, while some who are on it seem rather over-rated, even from the perspective of simply having influence for whatever reason.  Still, it seems generally accurate in terms of the distribution of influence across the political spectrum, and in that regard, it is quite telling.  Here is the list, without the accompanying explanations:

1. Karl Rove
2. Chris Matthews
3. Sean Hannity
4. Rush Limbaugh
5. John Harris And Jim Vandehei
6. Matt Drudge
7. Tim Russert
8. Jon Stewart
9. David Brooks
10. Mark Halperin
11. Stephen Colbert
12. Bill O'Reilly
13. Keith Olbermann
14. Chuck Todd
15. Bill Maher
16. Glenn Beck
17. Andrew Sullivan
18. Frank Luntz
19. Donna Brazile
20. Joe Klein
21. David Gergen
22. Dick Morris
23. Mike Allen
24. Laura Ingraham
25. Michael Savage
26. Arianna Huffington
27. Pat Buchanan
28. James Carville
29. Ron Fournier
30. Peggy Noonan
31. Juan Williams
32. William Kristol
33. Roland Martin
34. Howard Kurtz
35. Joe Trippi
36. Newt Gingrich
37. Eugene Robinson
38. Michael Barone
39. Dee Dee Myers
40. Tony Snow
41. Mark Shields
42. Bill Bennett
43. Paul Begala
44. Jeffrey Toobin
45. Fred Barnes
46. Mark Levin
47. JC Watts
48. Paul Krugman
49. Mary Matalin
50. Rachel Maddow

It's worth noting that three of the top four voices from the left side of the spectrum are comedians.  The fourth is a career sports commentator, whose show includes a fair amount of what can only be called "cultural fluff." Then again, perhaps that's all to the good, since the only other entries from the Democratic side of things in the top 20 are Donna Brazile and Joe Klein, taking up the last two slots.  This is indicative of how thoroughly liberal and progressive voices are excluded from positions of media influence.

There's More... :: (79 Comments, 818 words in story)

Open Columnist: A Call for Input (January Edition)

by: David Sirota

Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 17:15

This is the third installment of what I have been calling Open Columnist - a call for reader input into the nationally syndicated newspaper column I write every week for Creators Syndicate. As the first nationally syndicated newspaper columnist with direct connections to the Netroots, I am working hard to make this column something very different on all sorts of levels, one of which is its use of new technologies to stay as close to readers - and thus, the real world - as possible.

In the four months since the column officially kicked off, readers and editors have sent me an incredible amount of valuable information and feedback - and my writing is all the better for it, and I hope you will give me your input today.

There's More... :: (4 Comments, 739 words in story)

OpenColumnist - Asking for Input From Readers

by: David Sirota

Tue Oct 09, 2007 at 11:44

I write the regular Strategery section here at OpenLeft, but I wanted to break off from that for a moment and ask for some help. As many of you know, I have just started writing a nationally syndicated weekly newspaper column through Creators Syndicate. From the beginning, I set out to make this column different from the typical inside-the-Beltway, divorced-from-everyday-reality bromides that fill our media - and that means more than just being one of the only columnists anchored in and reporting from a non-DC/New York location. It means rejecting the old model whereby a columnist simply issues their edicts to the masses from Mt. Olympus. It means engaging readers in a far more serious way than the rest of the insulated Punditburo. And I feel a special responsibility to this considering I (think) I am one of the first - if not the first - syndicated newspaper columnists to come out of the Netroots.

To kick this off, I want to ask readers for some input on my first few columns. As I said, this is just the initial step - I have some more ideas on how to really try to pursue the spirit of transparency inherent in Open Source culture. I was really inspired by the OpenLeft effort to open up the legislative process a few months ago as it related to Sen. Durbin's telecom bill. I want to try to be the first OpenColumnist, if you will - and this is just the beginning.

There's More... :: (18 Comments, 643 words in story)
USER MENU

Open Left Campaigns

SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

QUICK HITS
STATE BLOGS
Powered by: SoapBlox