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]

Yeah, always loved that quote. Thanks for the comment.

[wldhrsjen3]

I don't approve of what they're doing, either, but... when the budget is this far out of whack, how can you _not_ make cuts? Honestly, I think _both_ parties behave like irresponsible prigs while the rest of us get tossed around in the political $&*! storms.

[davidbcoe]

Jen, I certainly agree that the budget deficits need attention. But where were the Republicans when George Bush was squandering the Clinton Era surpluses on tax breaks for millionaires? Why would they support cuts in environmental regulation, nutrition programs for kids, women's health programs, etc. that account for $61 billion, but then turn around and continue to defend those same tax cuts for the wealthy that account for hundreds of billions of dollars? There is plenty of irresponsibility to go around -- you're right about that. But the GOP, in my opinion, isn't worried about the deficit as much as they are about pursuing an ideological agenda on social issues and scoring politically.

[hedwig_snowy]

Interesting take on that here. Also, when they're in charge, the debt has skyrocketed. So, they're not deficit hawks, they're hypocrites. Why else blast the debt and call for huge spending cuts...and then allow big oil subsidies to continue?

Yeah, they're really serious people...

[markwise]

It is a battle of ideologies, David. The Democrats tend to follow keynesian economics where you spend yourself out of reessions. Conservative Republicans (Tea Party Republicans (Yes there can be Tea Party Democrats)) believe in cutting excess spending and lowering taxes to spur long term sustainable growth. Your derided "tax cuts for the rich" helped keep the economy afloat during the economic downturns thanks to 9/11 and the Houseing bubble bursts.

These cuts in the budget have been building up ever since the Liberal Democrats and Liberal Republicans spent ourselves into a black hole. hey are hard and they will be unpopular, but our grandchildren and great grandchildren will thank us.

[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

[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... :)

[hedwig_snowy]

Yes...to them being that cynical.

Next question. :-)