Letters to the Editor
Reality-based Liberal
Published Letters: 774 Editor's Choice: 100
-
Two issues with this essay:
[Read the article: Did somebody say "recession"?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]First, I'd disagree with this statement:
The failure to match those tax cuts with equivalent cuts in spending has ensured ongoing budget deficits that spell long-term trouble for the economy.
Deficit spending in down times is not a bad thing, and the talk of balanced budgets is overblown. Growth out of debt, through economic expansion or inflation, is a better bet for long term survival than cutting the public pump. What matters is how we spend that money. Right now we spend more on "defense" that we have available for discretionary spending (around $700 billion per year when you add our wars to the defense budget -- more if you add in nukes and military benefits housed in other budgets). So we can't get a balanced budget whatever non-defense cuts we make, and even Democrats oppose defense cuts. But if we had the will and morality to cut defense dramatically -- spending that largely doesn't cycle through the economy -- and deficit-spend on hiring Americans to rebuild our infrastructure (light rail, water systems, fiber optic cable, etc.), then we will not only be putting money directly into the hands of American workers, we will be setting the stage for that growth out of debt that I refer to above.
The second problem with Leonard's analysis is his assumption that Democrats won't let Bush add/extend tax cuts for the rich. The Democrats need to raise money for the election from the same rich people as the GOP, and have shown concerted disinterest in standing up for their principles. In fact, candidate Clinton has said she'd freeze Bush's estate tax in place and candidate Obama does not vow to get rid of other Bush tax cuts for the rich. Smart money would be on an outcome that preserves/augments tax cuts on the rich. It will be called "bipartisan compromise." That too will increase the deficit, but in ways far less useful as the infrastructure plan above.
-
@ Baldie McEagle
[Read the article: Did somebody say "recession"?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]You are right. I shouldn't have said, "need."
However, the way the party is currently constructed, it's their chosen money pot.
-
Be fair
[Read the article: Mike Huckabee's selective federalism]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I do not support Huckabee in any way. But to be fair, the whole Right Wing is composed of fair weather federalists. Consider how many Federalist Society members have fought against allowing state courts to hear tort cases against big business, or fought for the federal government's right to spy, lock people away without trial, etc.
-
What Jumps Out
[Read the article: Joe Klein rewrites his role in the 1990s]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]While Glenn points it out, it’s worth emphasizing the chasm between the doubting, aggressive, knowingly-destructive coverage of Clinton’s trivial acts, and the willfully ignorant coverage of Bush II – especially by “establishment” or “centrist” media figures.
Imagine a Democrat like Klein writing as scathingly of Bush: “there’s something wrong with this guy.” Can you conceive of a mainstreamer like Russert giving an hour to someone more reputable, like Studs Terkel or Bill Moyers, to question Bush’s soul?
Of course, the media never fanned controversy around Clinton when it came to his real betrayals: NAFTA, The Effective Death Penalty and Terrorism Act, media deregulation, welfare “reform,” and beyond.
It is transparent that the media is not simply allied with corporate government, it is corporate government’s primary weapon.
-
rupert_c is flat out wrong
[Read the article: The politics of an economic nightmare]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I hate the war -- it's a crime against humanity and a permanent stain on the U.S. But it is not the reason we are collapsing economically. In fact, in an awful way, it is pumping tax dollars into our economy (albeit in an unproductive way, much like the rest of our inflated defense budget).
The war costs less than our annual deficits (when you count the money we're borrowing from Social Security, which is real debt held in U.S. bonds). That's a teacup compared to the spending required to stimulate a new economic base, assuming you agree that we have to make stuff in order to survive.
Now if we stopped the war and eliminated 90 percent of our defense spending, then we could talk single payer healthcare and a rocking Social Security that won't go bust -- which would be the moral thing to do in a depression -- but it won't stop the depression.
-
Kind of pointless post
[Read the article: Russert 1, McCain 0]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]A) The GOP field lies constantly, about everything. It is amazing how low Bush has lowered the bar.
and
B) Showing that McCain or any of these candidates are not to be trusted on the economy, or anything, is less well served by finding contradicting spin than by simply looking at what they propose. McCain isn't an idiot on the economy because he said he was three years ago -- he's an idiot because he's pushing massive tax cuts TODAY while also claiming he'd be the best at balancing the budget. Either he doesn't know that we'd still run a deficit if we cut EVERY AREA OF DISCRETIONARY SPENDING BUT DEFENSE (a deficit made all the worse with massive tax cuts), or he's just full of shit. Either way, that tells us more about his economic competency than his own rhetorical record.
-
@ RichEmery
[Read the article: Russert 1, McCain 0]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]You're right that our "defense" budget, as defined, is all discretionary (though one could argue that non-discretionary spending on government pensions and the like contribute to defense). The over $700 billion a year we spend on our current wars and the annual defense budget is completely fungible.
Unfortunately, none of the major candidates from either party will acknowledge a willingness to cut even a penny. Which means all candidates either support deficit spending or plan to raise taxes substantially. But as Rich implies, the media just lets them all live in a fantasy world, so long as they all inhabit the same fantasy world.