When "conservatives" were actually...uh...conservative

In the wake of the near-insane radicalism of contemporary "conservatism" it's useful to look back at the governing policies of Margaret Thatcher,  an authentic conservative.

She's no hero of mine, but neither was Margaret Thatcher a far-right radical along the lines of so many who invoke as icons the lady and her good buddy Ronald Reagan (who, himself, despite starting out with large tax cuts that began the trend toward large deficits, rolled back about half of his initial tax reductions, with as many as 11 tax increases over the course of his Presidency, when reality started to collide with rhetoric.)

Bruce Bartlett - our favorite conservative commentator based on his connection to reality over ideology and wishful thinking - offers this view:  

While Mrs. Thatcher is a towering figure in British political history, well deserving of admiration, the conservative legend about her time in power is at odds with the facts. In this legend, she was even more aggressive than Reagan in cutting taxes and the welfare state. But that is not true...

Paul Krugman's latest over-the-top, shrill, vituperative, anti-GOP column in the New York Times...

(T)he Republican Party may no longer be a normal party...it has been infected by a faction that is more of a psychological protest than a practical, governing alternative. The members of this movement do not accept the logic of compromise...

The members of this movement do not accept the legitimacy of scholars and intellectual authorities...

The members of this movement have no sense of moral decency...

The members of this movement have no economic theory worthy of the name....

The struggles of the next few weeks are about...an odd protest movement that has separated itself from normal governance, the normal rules of evidence and the ancient habits of our nation.

Oh wait a minute.  That's not Prof. Krugman - it's that other Times columnist David Brooks, musing on the incoherence of GOP Mad Hatters, fearful of chickens that have come home to roost on his carefully trimmed front lawn, smelling the noxious stuff that has hit his "conservative" fan, chafing at the inmates taking over his asylum and obviously angered at long-ago losing any shot at gaining the driver's seat in the GOP Clown Car.

"A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on." - Winston Churchill

Apparently via George Will's cherry-picking a new book on the finanical crisis, the "Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (and Community Reinvestment Act and Democrats) caused the financial crisis" fairy tale is finding new currency.  Pushing this phony narrative is of utmost importance for the right because it puts government rather than Wall Street at the center of the ugly story that's caused the country so much pain.

We went through this fraudulent "history" at the rarified levels of polite parlor conservatism already with David Brooks parroting the nonsense that generally emanates from crazy old Know-Nothings with tea bags taped to funny hats.

Now it's George Will, whose words will be echoed "halfway around the world" in certain ideological and intellectually vulnerable circles before they are countered. Certainly Will's pronouncements have more cachet than a guy holding a hand-lettered sign at a Michele Bachmann rally or  the ravings of one of the usual suspects on FOX News. Will's voluminous commentaries are larded with the Ivy League erudition of 19th Century historical references and lots of Winston Churchill quotes.

Will once wrote "A politician's words reveal less about what he thinks about his subject than what he thinks about his audience." Apparently - given Will's willfull misrepresentations, aka Big Lies, regarding Fannie, Freddie and the CRA - this applies to pundits as well. George Will thinks his readers are as ignorant and eager to swallow fabrications based on his long-standing ideological resentments as the Tea Partiers he echoes. 

We'll let Dean Baker at Council for Economic and Policy Research do the necessary debunking:

It really is incredible to see such a concerted effort to rewrite history in front of our faces. There is not much ambiguity in the story of the housing bubble. The private financial sector went nuts. They made a fortune issuing bad and often fraudulent loans which they could quickly resell in the secondary market. The big actors in the junk market were the private issuers like Goldman Sachs, Citigroup, and Lehman Brothers. However, George Will and Co. are determined to blame this disaster on government "compassion" for low-income families.

This land...

Crisis at the state level

The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities:

States have enacted deep cuts in education, health care, and other important public services in their budgets for fiscal year 2012 (which begins July 1 in most states).

It is the fourth year in a row of budget-cutting for states, and the 2012 cuts are deeper than in past years. Of the 32 states that have enacted budgets, as least 24 are imposing significant cuts. These cuts will delay the nation’s economic recovery and undermine efforts to create jobs...

Excellent advice from strange places

Via Krugman's "Conscience of a Liberal":

Barton Biggs, re-born in Keynesia

Speaking exclusively with The Wall Street Journal, Barton Biggs, managing partner at multibillion dollar hedge fund Traxis Partners, painted a bleak outlook for the developed world with only huge government intervention likely to improve things...

Mr. Biggs, former chief global strategist for U.S. investment banking powerhouse Morgan Stanley, demanded the U.S. government temporarily return to ideas used in the Great Depression as a way to get the country back to higher growth.

“What the U.S. really needs is a massive infrastructure program … similar to the WPA back in the 1930s,” he says.

The plan would be to employ some of the many unemployed people, jump start the economy, as well as help catch up with Asia, which is building state-of-the-art infrastructure from new mechanized port facilities to high-speed trains.

He suggested financing such building through the sale of U.S. Treasuries.

Just for the heck of it, I checked Wikipedia on Barton Biggs and found he was chief global strategist for Morgan Stanley for 30 years before partnering at Traxis.  Institutional Investor rated him the "top global investor" from 1996 to 2000 and he's been "the premier prognisticator on the global scene" according to Smart Money mag.

So Biggs is a formidable, greatly respected character in the upper echelons of global finance.  And he's currently pushing hard-core "New Deal" style Keynesianism in response to the economic crisis that puts him approximately in Bernie Sanders' territory.

Welcome aboard, Mr. Biggs.  Now, not to be rude, but what about those bizarre super-low tax rates on your mega-compensation as a hedge fund manager?

Giving Larry Summers his due...

American Public Media's Marketplace correspondent Jeremy Hobson had an interesting interview with the much-maligned Summers that helps put some perspective on his role and views within the Obama administration and suggests he's on the side of the need for more stimulus:

HOBSON: You recently called for a new stimulus in the form of a payroll tax cut. But it's been reported over and over again that within the Obama administration -- when you were in the administration -- you were actually on the side of a smaller stimulus back in 2009.  

SUMMERS: Not accurately. Not accurately.

HOBSON: That's not true? You weren't pushing for a less-than $1.2 trillion stimulus?

SUMMERS: No, I mean it's a much more complicated story, but those reports are not accurate. It was my judgment as an economist that there was no danger of doing too much stimulus and one should achieve as much stimulus as possible. There were a set of political calculations having to do with what the Congress could accept that were mostly determined by the president's political advisers and ultimately by the president which pointed towards the size of the program that was ultimately passed. But the economic advice that I gave was that the stimulus program should be as large as it could be.

HOBSON: Do you think it was too small in the end?

The crisis is jobs, not deficits

Yes, we have a serious need to reduce spending over the long-term - with rising health care costs in both private and public markets the key area that appears out-of-control.

But at this point in a weak, essentially "jobless" recovery, the focus on deficit reduction is a fool's errand.  This entire deficit debate has been generated, cynically, by a GOP that has put their fetish for fiscally profligate tax cuts over balancing budgets.

Underlying the GOP's apparent cognitive dissonance on fiscal matters is a long-term strategy to use a deficit crisis to destroy essential government social programs.  In the nearer term, their aim is to weaken the President even if it means economic ruin.

Clinton administration economic advisor Laura Tyson brings some sensible thought about serious priorities into the heated atmosphere of deficit hysterics and debt-ceiling roulette - smokescreens obscuring our very real problems that, frankly, too many Democrats have bought into:

Long term, the United States faces a fiscal challenge that must be tackled –- but it is not an immediate fiscal emergency. In the labor market, though, there is an immediate crisis, the worst since the Great Depression...

The Jobless and Wageless "Recovery"

Steven Greenhouse at NYT's Economix has disturbing - but not really surprising - news on the unequal benefits at the center of a historically weak economic recovery. 

Regular folks aren't making signficant gains, while the corporate and economic elites are doing just fine and taking the lion's share of increases in national income. The arc of inequality that's predominated over the last thirty years continues, in extremis:

Economists at Northeastern University have found that the current economic recovery in the United States has been unusually skewed in favor of corporate profits and against increased wages for workers.

In their newly released study, the Northeastern economists found that since the recovery began in June 2009 following a deep 18-month recession, “corporate profits captured 88 percent of the growth in real national income while aggregate wages and salaries accounted for only slightly more than 1 percent” of that growth.

"Obama and the Democrats are fighting to get what the Republicans and the right-wing economic think tanks originally proposed they should do, and the GOP just keeps walking the goalposts to the right"

 We are truly screwed.

The Democrats are seeking to impose the conservative approach to deficit reduction, while the GOP has chosen to simply take the terrorist route and threaten to blow up the economy unless anti-tax zealot Grover Norquist - to whom the Republicans have literally pledged allegiance as maximal leader in their anti-tax cult - gains victory in his "drown the US government in a bathtub" jihad.

It appears that no one - save perhaps Bernie Sanders - is pushing for a balanced fiscal approach that actually makes economic sense in the context of deep recession and a jobs crisis. 

Mike Konczak at "Rortybomb" has this depressing insight into the depths - and rather pathetic ironies -  of the present impasse:

Republicans Reject the Republican Offer on Deficit Cutting Mix, or Democrats Propose the (Rightwing) AEI Plan on Tax Increases vs Spending Cuts

"When taxpayers hear a bank chief complaining, it’s worth keeping in mind that his 10-figure paycheck is largely coming courtesy of us"

 Jesse Eisinger, of ProPublica, writing in the NYT's "Dealbook":

The most pronounced development in banking today is that executives have become bolder as their business has gotten worse.

The economy is clearly weaker than expected, and housing prices are falling throughout the land, eroding bank asset values. Yet regulators are on their heels in Washington as bankers and their lobbyists push back against the postcrisis regulations, even publicly condemning the new rules.

In a well-covered exchange, Jamie Dimon, JPMorgan Chase’s chief executive, challenged Ben S. Bernanke, the Federal Reserve chairman, about the costs and benefits of the Dodd-Frank rules. More attention has been paid to the banker’s audacity, but the response of the world’s most powerful banking regulator was more troubling. Mr. Bernanke scraped and bowed in apology without mentioning the staggering costs of the crisis the banks led us into.

So this is a good occasion to step way back to understand just how good the banks have it today.

The federal government, in ways explicit and implicit, profoundly subsidizes and shelters the banking industry. True since the 1930s, it is much more so today. And that makes Mr. Dimon no capitalist colossus astride the Isle of Manhattan, but one of the great welfare queens in America.

"Could Obama just ignore the debt ceiling?"

Catherine Rampell at NYT's Economix:

In the ongoing debate over raising the debt ceiling, one option has not had much prominence: whether the Obama administration could ignore it altogether, and just spend the money it owes anyway. Would that be legal?

Matthew Zeitlin at The New Republic spoke with a few political scientists, budget wonks and constitutional scholars who argue that it would be.  An excerpt:

"Health Care Law Ruled Constitutional (Again)"

Jun 29, 2011 | By ThinkProgress War Room

Decision Day: Federal Appeals Court Upholds the Affordable Care Act

In exciting (and hugely important) news that broke earlier this afternoon, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the health care law, including the key individual responsibility provision that requires everyone to purchase health insurance, as constitutional. Here’s the rundown of everything you need to know to talk about this at dinner tonight.

Home on the range...

Reuters - Dateline: Cheyenne, Wyoming.

At a single address in this sleepy city of 60,000 people, more than 2,000 companies are registered. The building, 2710 Thomes Avenue, isn't a shimmering skyscraper filled with A-list corporations. It's a 1,700-square-foot brick house with a manicured lawn, a few blocks from the State Capitol.

Neighbors say they see little activity there besides regular mail deliveries and a woman who steps outside for smoke breaks. Inside, however, the walls of the main room are covered floor to ceiling with numbered mailboxes labeled as corporate "suites." A bulky copy machine sits in the kitchen. In the living room, a woman in a headset answers calls and sorts bushels of mail.

A Reuters investigation has found the house at 2710 Thomes Avenue serves as a little Cayman Island on the Great Plains. It is the headquarters for Wyoming Corporate Services, a business-incorporation specialist that establishes firms which can be used as "shell" companies, paper entities able to hide assets.

Mr. President...

Bernie makes the case on the budget "deal".



Complete transcript of Senator Sanders' 90 minute speech HERE.

Via Balloon Juice

Dire stakes

I hope Paul Krugman is being hyperbolic. I fear he's not:

Debt Limit Stakes

So, here’s where we are on the debt limit discussions: Democrats have agreed to large spending cuts, but are holding out for doing something about

a rule that lets businesses value their inventory at less than they bought it for in order to lower their tax burden, a loophole that lets hedge-fund managers count their income as capital gains and pay a 15 percent marginal tax rate, the tax treatment of private jets, oil and gas subsidies, and a limit on itemized deductions for the wealthy.

And Republicans walked out.

Think about it. There’s a significant chance that failing to raise the debt limit could provoke a renewed financial crisis — and Republicans would rather take that chance than allow a reduction in tax breaks on corporate jets.

What this says to me is that Obama cannot, must not, concede here. If he does, he’s signaling that the GOP can extract even the most outrageous demands; he’s setting himself up for endless blackmail. A line has to be drawn somewhere; it should have been drawn last fall; but to concede now would effectively mean the end of the presidency.

The dangers of playing politics with the debt ceiling

Jared Bernstein, former chief economic advisor for Vice President Biden:

Does underscoring the sense of urgency simply give strength to dark forces who are trying to leverage the threat of default for their political gains? Perhaps so, but the other way lies madness.

We’ve got to talk truth about the stakes here because they’re so high...

(W)hy do interest rates remain low?  Why are investors in ten-year US treasury bonds accepting 2.93% interest today instead of insisting on a big rate premium the way bond investors in, oh, I don’t know…GREECE are??

Because they assume we’ll get our act together and raise the debt ceiling well in advance of Aug 2.  That’s the date when the Treasury will have exhausted their ability to move money around to cover their obligations while staying under the debt limit.

But what if that assumption should weaken?

Friends shouldn't let friends vote for Republicans

      Via Washington Monthly

"The federal budget deficit is a distraction"

So says Robert H. Frank, an economics professor at the Johnson Graduate School of Management at Cornell University, writing in today's New York Times:

It’s important, yes, and must be addressed. But by a wide margin, it’s not the nation’s most pressing economic problem. That would be the widespread and persistent joblessness that has plagued the labor market since the Great Recession began in 2008.

Almost 14 million people — 9.1 percent of the labor force — were officially counted as unemployed last month. But that’s just the tip of the iceberg. There were almost 9 million part-time workers who wanted, but couldn’t find, full-time jobs; 28 million in jobs they would have quit under normal conditions; and an additional 2.2 million who wanted work but couldn’t find any and dropped out of the labor force.

If the economy could generate jobs at the median wage for even half of these people, national income would grow by more than 10 times the total interest cost of the 2011 deficit (which was less than $40 billion). So anyone who says that reducing the deficit is more urgent than reducing unemployment is saying, in effect, that we should burn hundreds of billions of dollars worth of goods and services in a national bonfire.

Taxes are lower than ever - so why are taxes "off the table" for Eric Cantor and his ideological confreres?

Paul Krugman has this regarding the tax side of any debt ceiling deal:

(Republicans) are willing to risk the good faith and credit of the federal government, rather than accept so much as a single penny of tax increases as part of a deal.

Given all that, it seems almost redundant to mention that federal tax receipts as a percentage of GDP are near a historic low:

      Federal receipts as % of GDP

 
So why are we seeing what appears to be childish behavior on the part of Eric Cantor and his fellow GOP legislators in the context of critical "negotiations" over the debt ceiling as they refuse any effort to increase revenues rather than just taking an axe to critical programs like Medicare and Social Security?  Krugman answers that burning question in our "quote of the day":

(T)he GOP never cared about the deficit — not a bit. It has always been nothing but a club with which to beat down opposition to an ideological goal, namely the dissolution of the welfare state. They’re not interested, at all, in a genuine deficit-reduction deal if it does not serve that goal.

" A strange time for a deficit panic"

Mathew Yglesias at "Think Progress" makes the case against Deficit Hysteria by looking at the rather starkly low interest rates on government borrowing instruments:

Deficits can impede economic growth. No borrower is safer than the government. So when the government wants to borrow a lot of money and investors start charging it a high interest rate, the borrowing costs for everyone else go up. This “crowds out” lots of potentially useful economic activity. A business expansion that’s profitable at a 5 percent interest rate may be far too risky to invest in at a 7 percent interest rate. But as you can see here on the right, the interests rates being charged by the market to lend money to the US government are low and falling...

Note that 10-year interest rates were never below 3 percent at any point during the Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, or W. Bush administrations. So why is this on the agenda now?

So why is there a "deficit panic" when the impact of deficits on federal borrowing vs. availability of low-interest investment capital is nil?  And how does cutting the deficit - especially with an emphasis on cutting spending to balance the budget  - produce economic growth and jobs ?   Of course it doesn't.

"BoehnerCare"

"(Attacking deficits and cutting spending) wouldn't square with the way we normally think about economic activity in a depressed economy," (according to) Andrew Samwick, a former chief economist on President Bush's Council of Economic Advisers... When the economy suffers from a lack of demand, as it does now, Samwick explained, most economists think increasing spending is the more effective way to generate that demand and get things moving again.

Why has the opposite view begun to take hold?

"Defict reduction" is a cover for more "Starve the Beast" tax-cuts and attacks on health care reform

Ezra Klein at Wonkbook, clarifies the agenda underlying much of the fiscal debate, pointing out that under the revenue/spending scenario deemed by current law - with the Bush tax cuts due to expire unless revived by new legislation - "We'll only have giant deficits if Congress wants giant deficits":

If Congress lets the Bush tax cuts expire or offsets their extension, implements the Affordable Care Act as scheduled and makes or offset the Medicare cuts prescribed by the 1997 Balanced Budget Act — which (the Congressional Budget Office) calls the “extended baseline scenario” — the national debt will be totally manageable.

If Congress passes laws extending the Bush tax cuts without offsetting the cost, repealing the Affordable Care Act and its cost controls and protecting doctors from Medicare cuts without making up the savings elsewhere — the “alternative fiscal scenario” — the national debt will be totally out of control:

The Dangerous Fantasy of Targeting "Deficit Reduction" for Economic Growth

The Great Deficit Hype took a couple of hits in recent days. Tragically, it's not likely that anyone in the Beltway is listening, the priority of deficit reduction has taken such a tenacious hold.

But even in the apparent absence of  rational policy possibilities, it's worth paying attention to some saner voices - and from relatively stodgy circles. 

Professor of economics and and former vice-chairman of the Federal Reserve, Alan Blinder, had this warning in the Wall Street Journal (via Economist's View) :

"The Myth of Job-Killing Spending" ...  House Speaker John Boehner and other Republicans regularly rail against "job-killing government spending." ... Using the same illogic, employment should soar if we made massive cuts in public spending—as some are advocating right now.

Acting on such a belief would imperil a still-shaky economy that is not generating nearly enough jobs. So let's ask: How, exactly, could more government spending "kill jobs"? ...

The Great Republican Tax Lie

Reagan economic advisor Bruce Bartlett, interviewed by Lawrence O'Donnell, on the Big Republican Lie that "tax cuts pay for themselves":

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Why has no one gone to jail for the fraud and excess that brought the world economy to the brink, robbed millions of their savings and cost more millions jobs?

Woody Guthrie: "Some men rob you with a fountain pen..."

In receiving the Academy Award for his excellent documentary, Inside Job, on the 2008 financial meltdown that still haunts our broken economy, director Charles Ferguson brought a bit of cold water to the Oscar ceremonies last February:

“Forgive me, I must start by pointing out that three years after our horrific financial crisis caused by financial fraud, not a single financial executive has gone to jail, and that’s wrong.”

Ferguson raised an important question. At least part of the answer is addressed in the context of an extensive New Yorker article by George Packer on the prosecution of the Wall Street insider trading case against Raj Rajaratnam, head of Galleon hedge fund, which isn't directly related to the 2008 crisis.  The relevant sections from Packer's piece that speak to the lingering question raised by Ferguson and his documentary's investigation into the larger crisis follow:

'Tis the season

Stephen Colbert's commencement address to Northwestern University graduates.

"David Brooks sure reads a lot of books"

David Brooks wrote another of those "David Brooks columns" on Friday. Citing a recent book on the financial crisis, he targets Fannie Mae as "a cancer that helped spread risky behavior and low standards across the housing industry."  Brooks notes portentiously, "We all know what happened next."

Yes, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are examples of government agencies that acted irresponsibly and were co-opted by the financial industry. And, yes, "we all know" there was a financial crisis in 2008 triggered by the mortgage meltdown.

Brooks, who has read a lot of books.

But the notion - or even implication - that Fannie Mae was the "cancer" underlying the industry's "risky behavior and low standards" is a right-wing talking point that is so misleading and misdirected that it constitutes a Big Lie. It's provenance - desperation on the part of the right to blame government rather than markets for the greatest market failure in recent memory - is no mystery.  "Conservatives" need to  implicate government rather than under-regulation and and the voracious market velocity of the industry itself.

Dean Baker at Center for Economic and Policy Research responded definitively to Brooks:

More on the dangers inherent in "austerity" - pushing deficit reduction as policy priority when a damaged economy is still deep in the dumps

As if it wasn't apparent to anyone other than hard-core ideologues - and politicians who should know better running scared - the evidence increases that deficit mania in a recession is little more than a recipe for making things even worse.

John Cassidy at The New Yorker, offers his perspective on the evidence from Britain that an agenda of austerity - i.e. spending cuts and fixation on short-term deficit reduction - is  utterly wrong-headed in a deep recession:

With all the talk of a possible double-dip recession in the U.S. economy—here’s my own little contribution—it’s surprising (and somewhat scandalous) that more attention isn’t being paid to what is happening in Britain, where a second economic downturn began last fall and shows few signs of relenting.

About a year ago, with the British economy seemingly recovering fairly well from the financial crisis of 2008, David Cameron’s Conservative-Liberal coalition embarked on a vigorous policy of deficit reduction, raising taxes and cutting government spending in an effort to balance the budget by 2015. How this experiment in pre-Keynesian economic policy turns out obviously has important implications for the fiscal debate on this side of the Atlantic.

So far, the results aren’t looking very favorable.

"The Banking Miracle"

Joe Nocera, writing in today's New York Times, has a fascinating piece on the history - and the effectiveness - of the Glass-Steagall act regulating banking. Glass-Steagall, which established the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation and separated retail banks from the financial speculation of Wall Street investment banks, was passed in 1933 - June 16 to be exact.

Glass-Steagall's wall of separation between financial speculation and banks holding customer deposits was repealed by the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999.  Critics including Elizabeth Warren, Nouriel Roubini and Paul Volcker have suggested that the repeal contributed significantly to the financial crisis of 2008 and want to see such regulations re-implemented.

Read Nocera's piece HERE - a very useful history lesson.

On the critical need to raise the debt ceiling

"This country now possesses the strongest credit 
in the world. The full consequences of a default -- or even the serious prospect of default -- by the United States are impossible to predict and awesome to contemplate. Denigration of the full faith and credit of the United States would have substantial effects on the domestic financial markets and on the value of the dollar in exchange markets. The Nation can ill afford to allow such a result. The risks, the costs, the disruptions, and the incalculable damage lead me to but one conclusion: the Senate must pass this legislation before the Congress adjourns."

Ronald Reagan, November 16, 1983 in a letter to the Senate majority leader.

Craziest GOP campaign promise to date?

A long primary season begins in ToonTown.

I'm going to stick my neck out regarding the GOP primary candidates. In a field where you have pizza mogul Herman Cain complaining about President Obama growing up in Kenya and Michele Bachmann...uh...opening her mouth on just about anything, the suggestion that one among them has reached Peak Crazy is risky. But even given the tough Republican competition this election cycle for audacious ignorance and outrageous idiocy, Tim Pawlenty's tax cut proposal is going to be hard to beat. And the insanity aside, he's clearly got a lock in the key GOP category of cynical service to the economic elite:

Pushing spending cuts will kill a fragile recovery

Please don't "compromise" on a machete...

Deficit hysteria - pushed by a "Tea Partyized" GOP that refuses to take responsibility for creating the long-term deficits with their tax cut dogmas over three decades - has poisoned the debate over a responsible economic agenda.

The Republicans refuse to even discuss anything other than deep cuts in spending, killing government programs including Medicare and - of course - more across-the-board tax cuts benefiting the economic elite.  This is a recipe for disaster. Arguably it's a politically calculated strategy to target Obama for an economic crisis triggered under Bush by prolonging recession and unemployment.  Whether it's driven by pure cynicism or willful ignorance, we don't have to hypothesize the result - the evidence is in from overseas on the most likely outcome.

David Dayen, writing at American Prospect, has an excellent piece that looks at the apparent bi-partisan buy-in to deficit hysterics - under the gun of GOP/Tea Party fanaticism - and how it threatens to kill jobs. He notes that the austerity/spending cuts agenda hasn't worked in England and there's no reason to believe it can work here.  The danger of austerity when consumer demand is already in the dumps is a double-dip recession. As Dayen frames it, "I Ruined the Economy and All I Got Were These Lousy Tax Cuts":

The vicious cycle

Former Labor Secretary Robert Reich:

We’re in a vicious cycle in which lower wages and net job losses and high debt are causing consumers to cut their spending — which is causing businesses to cut back on hiring and reduce pay. There’s no way out of this morass without bold leadership from Washington to rekindle consumer demand.

If the Democrats remain silent, the vacuum will be filled by the Republican snake oil of federal spending cuts and cut taxes on big corporations and the wealthy. Democrats — starting with the President — must have the courage and conviction to tell the nation the recovery is stalling, and what must be done.

In which I agree with a guy who says what he should have been saying when it really mattered...

Larry Summers at Financial Times:

Econ-advisor-in-chief in 2009 -"Sssshhhh!"

(W)e should recognize that it is a false economy to defer infrastructure maintenance and replacement, and take advantage of a moment when 10 year interest rates are below 3 per cent and construction unemployment approaches 20 per cent to expand infrastructure investment...

We averted Depression in 2008/2009 by acting decisively. Now we can avert a lost decade by recognising economic reality.

Focus on jobs, not deficits, Mr. President!

E.J. Dionne on the political gridlock over the economy and where the President needs to take the "national conversation":

Republicans have no interest in moving the nation’s debate toward investments in job creation because they gain twice over from keeping Washington mired in discussions on the deficit. It’s a brute fact that Republicans benefit if the economy stays sluggish. And despite their role in ballooning the deficit during the Bush years, they will always outbid Democrats on spending cuts.

So is there any way out for those looking to Washington? The recent disappointing jobs numbers have at least had the salutary effect of reminding Democrats that they cannot agree to anything that further slows the recovery. “The first principle has to be ‘do no harm,’ ” said Rep. Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, a key House Democratic negotiator in the deficit talks. “There is a danger of making things worse if you adopt very deep cuts in the short term.”...

But there is another player in all this. The broad feeling among congressional Democrats — a sentiment that moves toward impatience when it’s expressed off the record — is that President Obama needs to engineer a turn in the national conversation. Brown, for example, strongly defends Obama’s auto rescue and is happy the president is talking more about manufacturing lately. Yet he adds: “The president has got to get this discussion more on jobs and less on the budget.”

Controlling health care costs: The Democrats have a plan and Paul Ryan, GOP Budget Czar, doesn't

Ezra Klein at WaPo's "Wonkbook," on controlling health care costs:

(T)he reality is that Democrats have a plan and Ryan doesn’t. But the perception, at this point, is just the opposite.

At the heart of Ryan’s budget are policies tying the federal government’s contribution to Medicare and Medicaid to the rate of inflation — which is far, far slower than costs in the health-care sector typically grow. He achieves those caps through cost shifting. For Medicaid, the states have to figure out how to save the money, and for Medicare, seniors will now be purchasing their own insurance plans and, in their new role as consumers, have to figure out how to save the money. It won’t work, and because it won’t work, Ryan’s savings will not materialize.

"We don't have a Medicare problem, we have a health care cost problem"

Paul Krugman makes the essential (and often deliberately obfuscated) point that is central to any discussion of Medicare and health care costs:

Medicare actually does a better job of controlling costs than private insurers — not remotely good enough, but better.

If you look at Medicare in isolation, the cost rise looks terrible, because it is:

Source.

But it looks a bit different if you look at private insurance, too:

 

If Medicare costs had risen as fast as private insurance premiums, it would cost around 40 percent more than it does. If private insurers had done as well as Medicare at controlling costs, insurance would be a lot cheaper.

It’s a mystery why anyone claims that shifting more people into private insurance is a good idea. Actually, no, it isn’t a mystery; it’s an outrage.

The most significant fact about Medicare is not that it's too costly,  but that it saves Americans a lot of money.

Throwing seniors - of all people - back into the private insurance market would mean vastly greater % of GDP eaten up by health care costs. Or sick people simply going without care.

Neither option is acceptable.  Except perhaps to privatization fanatics and "free-market" ideologues like Congressman Paul Ryan (who admits to being inspired to go into politics by Ayn Rand, who conjured sociopathic narcissism into a pop philosophy that drives much of the libertarian movement.)

Clinging to the theory...

Dean Baker compares the faith-based economics of "deficit reduction" to creationism:

Sometimes, it can be fun to get inside a crazy worldview to ask how it deals with contradictory evidence. For example, how do creationists reconcile their view that all plants and animals were created in their current form around 10,000 years ago, with fossil evidence of life forms dating back hundreds of millions of years?

In this vein, it's worth asking how the proponents of deficit reduction think that lower deficits will lead to increased growth and job creation in an economy mired in a severe slump? There is not an easy answer.

There is a standard "econ 101" story about how reducing deficits can boost the economy. The theory goes that if the government reduces its deficit, and therefore borrows less, it will reduce interest rates. Lower interest rates will, in turn, give firms incentive to invest more.

Lower interest rates should also cause the dollar to decline, since it will make US government bonds and other dollar assets less attractive to foreign investors. If the dollar falls in value, then our goods will be more competitive on world markets. This will cause us to import less and export more, thereby creating jobs.

However, is this what the deficit hawks believe will happen now? The interest rate on 10-year Treasury bonds is already down to 3.0%. Assuming a 2% inflation rate, this translates into a real rate of about 1%. How much lower do the deficit hawks think interest rates will fall if we were to sharply cut the deficit? Furthermore, how much more investment do they think we can induce even if we got a large reduction (for example, 0.5 percentage point) in real interest rates?

Do they think that this sort of decline in interest rates will send the dollar tumbling and thereby improve our trade balance? Against which currencies will a lower interest rate cause the dollar to fall sharply?

Neither of these stories really passes the laugh test. At best, we may hope to see modestly lower interest rates if cutting the budget deficit slows growth further. But there is no reason to expect any future decline to have any more impact than the recent decline in the 10-year Treasury rate from 3.6% in the winter to near 3.0% present this month.

There is another story that the deficit hawks occasionally push. This one says that if we lay off workers in the public sector, that will increase employment in the private sector. The story here is, presumably, that mass layoffs of public sector workers will depress the wages of workers further, thereby making it more profitable for employers to hire them. There's a simple problem in this picture. In order for wages to actually fall, the additional employment in the private sector must not be as large as the job loss in the public sector.

"The Sickness Beneath the Slump"

Economist Robert Shiller of Yale offers some thoughts - and data - on the roots of the financial crisis, the long-term effects on consumer spending, "rational market expectations" and a major failure of his profession in recent decades:

THE origins of the current economic crisis can be traced to a particular kind of social epidemic: a speculative bubble that generated pervasive optimism and complacency. That epidemic has run its course. But we are now living with the malaise it caused.

News accounts of the economic crisis rarely put it in these terms. They tend to focus on distinct short-term developments or on the roles of prominent people like Federal Reserve governors, members of Congress or Wall Street financiers. These stories grab attention and may be supported by some of the economic statistics that the government and private institutions collect.

But the economic situation is primarily driven by hard-to-quantify sociological factors that play out over many years.

The uptick in the unemployment rate, to 9.1 percent from 8.8 percent two months earlier and the drop in stock prices over the last month have attracted notice, yet in a sense they are symptoms of a deeper economic sickness.

Tim Pawlenty confuses "belief in the American people" with his foolish fantasies of tax cut pixie dust

One of the more desperate candidates for the GOP's presidential nomination, former Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty, has doubled down on the party's Tax Cuts Uber Alles dogma and equated his crank faith-based economic strategy with belief in America.

Actually he's "tripled down" on massive tax giveaways structured to further enrich the economic elite:

According to Bloomberg/Businessweek:

Pawlenty’s $11.6 trillion tax-cut plan, which reduces rates on income, capital gains, interest, estates and dividends, is almost three times larger than the proposals endorsed by House Republicans...Almost half of the benefits would flow to taxpayers in the top 1 percent of income distribution, or those earning more than $593,011 in 2013...

Pawlenty...said 5 percent annual average economic growth would help make up the revenue gap... (S)uch growth would be driven by the tax plan as well as by spending cuts, regulatory overhaul and monetary policy changes that Pawlenty is proposing.

So we're getting a version of the "tax cuts pay for themselves" mantra on steroids.  Paul Krugman, NYT's columnist and Nobel Prize-winning economist at Princeton, looks at Pawlenty's "plan" and the promise - 5% economic growth driven by massive reductions in taxes:

Tim Pawlenty — who has turned out to be a much bigger fool than I or, I think, anyone imagined — replies to criticism of his claim that he can get 10 years of GDP growth at 5 percent:

Obama’s economic team doesn’t have a plan, so their spokespeople attack ours. The idea that they don’t believe in the American people enough to say that we can grow the economy at 5% GDP really says everything. You have to wonder if in fact Obama’s grand plan is that we don’t grow at all — and if so — he and the central planners are doing a great job of that.

Well, here are 10-year growth rates starting with 1929-39:

   

Bureau of Economic Analysis Data here.

Except for the big jump from the depths of the Great Depression to the height of World War II, we have never had a decade of growth at 5%.

What’s also notable in this figure is the invisibility of all the supposed economic miracles we hear about. Saint Reagan was supposed to have revitalized the economy; can’t see it here. All you can really see is that the 60s were very good, and the recent slump has been very, very bad.

At least we can thank Pawlenty for erasing any doubts that he's one of the biggest fools out there - even by GOP presidential aspirant standards (or lack of them.)

Dreaming of Unicorns - when folks on the Right get "philosophical" about the issues

Ezra Klein wrote an excellent piece that examines the care-effective results delivered at low cost by the Veteran's Health Administration hospitals.  He references the column David Brooks recently published on the difference between Republican and Democratic approaches to the health care problem with this insight:

One way of thinking of health-care reform is, as David Brooks put it in his Tuesday column, that it presents “a basic philosophical choice.” I disagree. I think it’s a policy question.

Various models present us with substantial evidence of the benefits and drawbacks to the different choices we can make. Unfortunately, those models don’t present us with substantial evidence as to the benefits of the choices we would like to make. And that’s when we get philosophical.

Brooks gets "philosophical" in discussing health care reform because the empirical evidence doesn't back up his private market biases.  That's largely where the GOP is coming from these days.  Ideology and wishful thinking trumps reality-based problem solving.

Read Klein's entire column on the VHA below - "When socialism works in America" - it's a breath of fresh air in a stale and increasingly dishonest debate between pragmatic policy choices and promises of unicorns that exist in a land of dreams:

The dangerous politics of the debt ceiling

The Financial Times' conservative columnist Clive Crook warns:

Tea Party true believers may be salivating at the prospect of the coming Battle of the Debt Ceiling, but the GOP’s leaders are dreading it. Shutting down the government is a button they dare not press – not if they retain the least grip on reality. They did it once before, during the Clinton administration, and were slammed: the shutdown rescued the Clinton presidency. To do it in 2011, with the economy laid low and financial markets still twitchy, would be the limit of irresponsibility. It would be betting the recovery to make a point. This time, political annihilation might follow, and the party would deserve it.

The fraud and fallacies of "Ryancare"

Jared Bernstein, former chief economic advisor to Joe Biden, offers this critical commentary on a Paul Ryan Youtube touting the GOP's plan to kill Medicare:

The basic flaw is that Ryan and his video pretend that the R’s Medicare plan gives consumers the power to negotiate directly with health care providers, who can thus use their voucher-driven bargaining clout to hold down prices.  But, in fact, that’s not how his plan works at all.  Under his plan, seniors get to negotiate with insurance companies, not service providers (doctors, hospitals, etc.).

Ten years ago - George W. Bush launches his pre-emptive attack on budget surplus...

Lest we forget, it's been a full decade since George W. Bush went on the offensive against the threat to our nation of the Democrats' weapons of fiscal responsibility.  From an AP report shortly after George W. Bush entered the White House in 2001:

Mission Accomplished -June 7, 2001

(AP)  President Bush said Saturday that the most important number in the budget he sends to Congress next week is the $5.6 trillion surplus it projects over the next 10 years.

That huge projected surplus provides the underpinning of all the administration's tax-cut and spending plans, Mr. Bush said in his recorded weekly radio address.

"A surplus in tax revenue, after all, means that taxpayers have been overcharged," the president said. "And usually when you've been overcharged, you expect to get something back." The surplus figure "counts more than any other" in the budget, he said.

Democrats cautioned that surpluses projected over so long a period can turn into elusive fool's gold. And they continued to insist that as it stands the Bush tax-cut plan unfairly favors the wealthy over those of more modest means.

Deep thinker David Brooks fails to tell the truth about health care costs

In his Monday New York Times column titled - apparently without irony - "Where Wisdom Lives",  David Brooks discussed health care systems and the future cost-effectiveness of Medicare, posing Democrats as believing in "top down centralized planning" while Republicans favor "the decentralized discovery system of the market."

Brooks characterizes the Republican Ryancare alternative dishonestly because he doesn't mention that the CBO has projected costs - out-of-pocket and aggregate - as skyrocketing under the scheme to end Medicare in favor of capped vouchers:

Republicans point out that Medicare has tried to control costs centrally for decades with terrible results. They argue that a decentralized process of trial and error will work better, as long as the underlying incentives are right. They suggest replacing the fee-for-service with a premium support system. Seniors would select from a menu of insurance plans. Their consumer choices would drive a continual, bottom-up process of innovation. Providers could use local knowledge to meet specific circumstances.

Of course, Medicare as it stands is the most cost-effective piece of our health insurance puzzle.  It's been more successful - as a "volume buyer" negotiating prices - at controlling costs "centrally" than the multiplicity of private insurers have been.  Based on Medicare's current performance versus private insurers the CBO has rated and projected the difference in future cost of privatized Ryancare over Medicare, and it doesn't look good for Brook's "consumer choices" system. (See chart at right.)

And that's leaving aside any questions about the proposition that seniors - nearly all with pre-existing conditions, most with deep concerns about allocating out-of-pocket expenses within the limitations of a fixed and likely very modest income, and inevitably facing increased physical and mental frailty as they age -  would be more interested in ongoing participation in a "continual bottom up process of innovation" rather than security and systemic integrity - the "known" over a "process of discovery."

But Brooks truly goes off the deep end with this allegation:

Asymmetric warfare

Ezra Klein, at "Wonkbook", on the deficit debate:

(W)e’re not having a balanced argument over the deficit. We’re having an asymmetric argument over deficit reduction. Republicans see the deficit as an opportunity to push for dramatic and permanent changes to the state — including some that would technically increase the deficit... 

As for the Obama administration, they’re proposing a much more modest package that doesn’t use the deficit to push for long-term priorities, and in fact looks like a slightly more conservative version of the Simpson-Bowles report. It’s fallen to liberal think tanks to promote plans that see the deficit as an opportunity to push for major progressive policy changes. But without the support of the White House, those plans aren’t going to get very far...

In the end, Ryan’s plan has made a deal a lot harder than it would’ve been if the two parties had decided to do negotiations first and come out with a final plan together. But from the perspective of Republicans, it’s probably made a good deal a lot likelier. 

"A slightly more conservative version of the Simpson-Bowles report" is being negotiated versus GOP Budget Czar Ryan's anti-government radicalism.  The Republicans - despite the deep unpopularity of their "plan" that includes killing Medicare - couldn't ask for a playing field tilted much farther to the right. Whatever compromise comes of this can't be good. Except, as Klein notes, "from the perspective of the Republicans."