The Cynical Right

[davidbcoe]

There are, I believe, two ways to read what the GOP is doing at the Congressional and state levels.  On the one hand, this may be all driven by ideologues -- it's easy to dismiss the budget battle in Washington and the craziness in Wisconsin as the overreaching of Tea Party Republicans emboldened by their electoral success.  That would explain why

Comments

[davidbcoe]

Thanks for the comment, Mark. Not surprisingly, I disagree with your interpretation of events a bit, but as always I appreciate your willingness to share your views and discuss this stuff civilly. I would argue that what drive the post-9/11 economy was not spending by the wealthiest 2% of the nation, but instead middle-class spending, which, I will admit, was spurred in part by the Bush tax cuts (tax cuts, I'll add, that President Obama has vowed to preserve). As for the housing bubble, when it burst the economy went to hell, and the continued low marginal rates for the richest in our society did nothing to slow the economic crash. Nor have they spurred a recovery. This is the problem with all the arguments in favor of keeping those tax cuts in place. They've been there this whole time. There's nothing new about them. They have been there, and they have done nothing except balloon the deficit. This stands in stark contrast to the Obama stimulus package, which absolutely did have a positive impact. Did it do enough? Clearly not. But the President and Dems in Congress didn't get all that they wanted. Most economists agree that a larger stimulus would have helped even more. Yes, I'm a Keynesian, because Keynesian economics has been proven to work again and again, unlike "supply-side," or "trickle down," or whatever else you want to call it.

But you're right. This is an ideological issue at root. And I also agree with you that we have to get the debt under control. I'll support cuts if they're targeted and reasonable. Will you support raising some taxes if they meet the same criteria?

[markwise]

I am always loathe to raise taxes, thereby increasing government touch in our lives. However, if I was given bi-partisan affirmative advice that doing so would spur our economy, I would agree to tax increases for a limited time only. In the long run, high taxes are a poison to a healthy nation. Any increase would have to be targeted and limited in scope. I believe keepnig money in the hands of those who earn it rather than having the government beuracracy grab a hold of it.

As for what is better between Keynesian Economics and Reaganomics.... well that debate would take more space/time than we have here. I will just have to assert that I think Reaganomics is better for long term growth of the nation and for keeping the government small.

Thank you for allowing my dissenting opinion on your blog. It is interesting to read the other perspective on these matters.

[markwise]

EDIT: In that last sentence, I mean to say that I enjoy reading your (and your other reader's) opinion on these matters as they often represent one different from my own.

I am terrible with words sometimes... :)