Tucson Citizen.com
Freethought Arizona - Reason, Science, and Freedom of Expression

Ideological Proxy Wars and the US Debt

by on Jan. 26, 2012, under Arizona Families, AZ Politics, Campaign 2012, Clarity, Conservatism vs. Liberalism, Critical Thinking, Economics, Education, Environment, Government, History, Libertarianism, Logic, Lying G.O.P., Middle Class, Reason, Responsible Government, Separation of Church & State, Supreme Court

Several days ago, I received an email with the following:

Vote for Obama, and here’s the reason you should …

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/02/opinion/krugman-nobody-understands-debt.html?_r=1&src=me&ref=general

This debt discussion is a symptom of what I like to call an ideological proxy war. Krugman himself has done an about face on the debt issue as described here:
http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2012/01/krugman-v-krugman.html

My point isn’t to say that Krugman was wrong in 2003 or that he’s wrong today. My point is that both sides discuss things like the national debt primarily in service to larger agendas that are uncomfortable for them to talk about directly.

In 2003, Krugman wanted the government to do less of what it was doing at the time – invading the middle east and lowering tax rates - so he criticized the debt. Obama criticized the debt too, and voted against raising the debt ceiling as a Senator. Today, Krugman wants the government to do more of what it is doing – spending on social programs and infrastructure projects - so now he defends the debt, and Obama and the Democrats are the ones creating it.

Prominent Republicans did the exact same thing only in reverse: According to the Republican establishment during the Bush years the debt was no problem, a temporary necessity caused by the war on terror, and Democrats who warned about the deficit were portrayed as chicken littles. But now that there’s a Democrat in the white house you’d think all the Republicans went to college and got a PhD in sustainable financial practices. What a crock of bull. You’ll see how quickly all this fiscal discipline goes right out the window if the Republicans get back control of both the legislative and executive branches.

This is not a Republican or Democrat issue. This is a failure to face reality issue. The national debt is just a symptom of political choices made about how much to tax and how much to spend. Those are the things people should be thinking about.

The size of our national debt reflects that as a society we are habitually addicted to having government do more than we are willing to tax ourselves to pay for. This isn’t a temporary situation caused by a war or a recession. It doesn’t reflect “special needs” or compassionate priorities or sound management of the economy. Instead, this is a chronic condition that has applied every year for decades upon decades, regardless of which party nominally controlled Washington. The only exception was a couple of years in the late ’90s when new technology caused the economy to grow so much faster than anticipated that it took the politicians a little while to figure out how to screw up the budget again.

This is exacerbated by the fact that people are deliberately led to think they won’t have to pay a dollar (either now -or- later) for every dollar of services the government provides. Taxes are usually sold to the public as falling pimarily on someone else: Tax the rich! Tax the 1%! Tax the corporations! These are appealing to most people simply because most people are not rich, not in the top 1% of income, and are not large shareholders in corporations. Whereas government services are pitched as being primarily for our own benefit or the benefit of “the needy”: Fix our health care! Fix our schools! Fix our roads! Fix our retirements! Fix the environment!

Such broad-based appeals run smack into the political reality few talk about: politicians on both sides of the aisle get the vast majority of their campaign contributions and lobbyist input from the people they purport to tax, and very little from the people that they purport to benefit. Expecting your mark on a ballot to send someone to Washington who actually represents your interests rather than his or her own interests is the same kind of wishful thinking that we criticize religious fanatics for.  He who pays the piper calls the tune, which is how it’s always been. And no, marking a ballot does not constitute paying the piper. So who gets the best return on their money from government? Those who contribute the most to the political campaigns and lobbyists for those who run the show – the “1%ers”. Everyone else is just a pawn in the giant political chess game, and is lucky to get ten cents on the dollar.

Lest you think this is just promoting another ideology, it’s not. Whether you or I think that real wealth should be redistributed from the rich to the needy in our society is irrelevant to the fact that in the current political system the government is pretty much incapable of doing so. Whether financing of spending is done by debt or by taxation, the primary beneficiaries are always at the top: the rich, powerful, and well connected. The only thing a major party shift in Washington changes about that is which elites benefit and which lose out.

Need a final example of willful ignorance surrounding this? Krugman says of the debt, “U.S. debt is, to a large extent, money we owe to ourselves.” That’s true only if by ”ourselves” he refers mostly to the same rich 1% who primarily benefit from everything else the government does. Who collects the lion’s share of the interest on the debt? Not the poor and needy. Think about it.

 

This entry was posted on Thursday, January 26th, 2012 at 6:00 am and is filed under Arizona Families, AZ Politics, Campaign 2012, Clarity, Conservatism vs. Liberalism, Critical Thinking, Economics, Education, Environment, Government, History, Libertarianism, Logic, Lying G.O.P., Middle Class, Reason, Responsible Government, Separation of Church & State, Supreme Court. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.

RSS feed for this post (comments)
  • leftfield

    Actually very good, Jason.  While I agree that the government is probably incapable of correcting the disparity of wealth and power without revolutionary change and I deplore the use of the term “redistribution” (it’s hardly a neutral term anymore, having been co-opted by the radical right), I would hasten to add that under the current circumstances, there seems to be no problem in “redistributing wealth” upwards.    

  • Jim

    “The size of our national debt reflects that as a society we are habitually addicted to having government do more than we are willing to tax ourselves to pay for.”
    I at least partially disagree with that.  I strongly believe that during much of my lifetime our government has given power to people who have intentionally spent irresponsibly in attempt to bankrupt the liberal state.  This is especially true of Reagan and the Bush administrations, both deliberately increased spending while decreasing taxes and the trend seems to be continuing under Obama. 
    Conservatives know that they can severely tie a liberal administration’s hands and have a huge ideological tool  if they create a huge deficit when in power.  I think all this is completely intentional. 

    • jason

      “…our government has given power to people who have intentionally spent irresponsibly in attempt to bankrupt the liberal state.”

      Can you explain how this contradicts my statement “…as a society we are habitually addicted to having government do more than we are willing to tax ourselves to pay for.”?  

      Were the elections of the people who “intentionally spent irresponsibly” to “bankrupt the welfare state” not indicative of the will of the American people? If not, why not?  And if so, then do you think the majority of Americans want the welfare state to end?

      Is there something preventing Americans from electing politicians who will spend responsibly (regardless of whether or not there’s a welfare state)? If so, what is preventing that?

      I’m not a huge fan of democracy, which sometimes boils down to two wolves and a sheep voting on what’s for dinner. However, democrarcy does seem to be a better system than any alternative, subject to the rule that more binding constraints on government power are generally better than less.

      Though politicians often lie, it seems to me that the politicians who spent and continue to spend irresponsibly got elected more or less by promising to do it.

      Promising tax cuts gets politicians elected. Promising tax increases makes politicians lose. Promising benefits gets politicians elected. Promising *specific* benefit cuts makes politicians lose. There are so few counter-examples of these rules I think it’s relatively safe to say that they reflect the will of the people.

      As a result, politicians who promise tax cuts but no specific benefit cuts, and politicians who promise benefits but no tax increases, and especially politicians who promise tax cuts AND benefit increases,  get elected.  And if they keep their promises (sometimes they do and sometimes they don’t) the result is irresponsible spending.

      Do you see any flaws in this reasoning?

      • Jim

        Can you explain how this contradicts my statement “as a society we are habitually addicted to having government do more than we are willing to tax ourselves to pay for.”?  
        I’m not sure it contradicts it, but I think the issue I am bringing up is a separate problem.   It’s one thing to elect people promising to expand entitlements and having them increase the deficit to do it.  It’s another to elect people running on a “get governments off our backs” ticket and have them triple the deficit, in order to defend entitlements.  
        If so, what is preventing that?
        I honestly think that would require a some radical restructuring, our politics and media are pretty much dominated by a 2 party political establishment, that is friendly to the status quo. 
        Theoretically a constitutional democracy is supposed to be more like two wolves and a sheep voting on whats for dinner that is not one of them.  Realistically, I am of the opinion that governments have a tendency to bend whatever rules they have as needed to keep the existing system and the interest it serves intact, and as long as there are huge concentrations of wealth within society there will always be some apparatus for this. 
        It seems to me that the politicians who spent and continue to spend irresponsibly got elected more or less by promising to do it.  I’m not sure how much I buy it.  I most campaigns I hear from both sides, include promises of reducing the deficit and returning to some level of fiscal responsibility.  It may the one hand saying this while the other hand is promising more entitlements, but I don’t think it is always the case.
        I think your reasoning follows but over looks a major part of the story.  I think we are living in an intentionally engineered debt crisis, created to compromise the regulatory and entitlement aspects of the state, and a huge amount of the money has been spent on things that were completely off the radar for much of the population.  We’ve been electing people who see defeating the liberal state and as the chief goal and are way too comfortable with the idea of using fiscal crisis to do it.

        • jason

          “It’s one thing to elect people promising to expand entitlements and having them increase the deficit to do it. It’s another to elect people running on a “get governments off our backs” ticket and have them triple the deficit, in order to defend entitlements. ”

          Yes it’s two different things. The first “thing” is the left wing’s strategy to accommodate the American Public’s desire to have the government do more than we are willing to tax ourselves to pay for; the second “thing” is the right wing’s strategy to accommodate the same. If you want to discuss the merits of left wing policy vs. right wing policy that’s fine, but it’s not the topic I was intending to address.

          “I honestly think that would require a some radical restructuring, our politics and media are pretty much dominated by a 2 party political establishment, that is friendly to the status quo. ”

          I can sympathize, but not agree. I am very much in favor of alternative parties and unseating the political establishment. Nevertheless, though I’m constantly criticized for having “radical” ideas I do not actually advocate radical restructuring – at least not over a short period of time. Radical changes are likely to cause more harm than good. A better approach is gradual reform.

          But whether it’s gradual or radical I’d like to hear what sort of reform, that the American people would actually support, you think would result in politicians spending responsibly? The Republicans have proposed a constitutional amendment requiring a balanced federal budget. Do you support that idea or oppose it? Do you think most Americans would support it or oppose it, when and if they understood what it would mean if it were actually enforced (highly doubtful, but that’s another matter)?

          Or do you have some other idea in mind when you advocate “radical restructuring” and if so, what is it?

          “I think we are living in an intentionally engineered debt crisis, created to compromise the regulatory and entitlement aspects of the state, and a huge amount of the money has been spent on things that were completely off the radar for much of the population. We’ve been electing people who see defeating the liberal state and as the chief goal and are way too comfortable with the idea of using fiscal crisis to do it.”

          So I’ll ask again another way: Suppose you are 100% correct about the situation above; was this result consistent with the wishes of the American people, or contrary to those wishes? If contrary, then how was that accomplished and what realistic means do you propose that would remedy the situation in the future?

          BTW – I ask these questions because there’s a very commonplace mental contradiction in democratic societies. Lots of people think that past elections didn’t accurately reflect the will of the people, but that the solution is in essence to make sure that we elect “the right people” *next* time. I call this the “vote harder” strategy, and it’s magical, wishful thinking. Every election, there are hoards of pundits of all political stripes expounding how important the election is, how much we need to inform voters and get out the vote and…yadda yadda yadda to make sure the right people get elected. Except they don’t. Or even if we think they do (i.e. the best “guy” in our judgment wins both the primary and the general election) they still turn out to be incompetants or scoundrels once in office. If you actually think the will of the people has been thwarted by past elections, then there has to be an answer other than “vote harder next time,” which is practically indistinguishable from “pray harder next time.” What do you propose?

          • Jim

            “I am very much in favor of alternative parties and unseating the political establishment.”
            Yeah, I think we are in agreement here.  I’ve been telling people, especially, those who do not live in swing states to support anyone other that the two major candidates for presidency (and to do the same for other elections).  I also, I recognize that to a great extent, the major media outlets are in the hand of the political establishment and when alternative figures get play at all they are treated like buffoons.  Most Americans could not name a non-major party candidate, much less would consider voting for them.  Much of what I mean when I say radical refers to change in the way people think about these issues. 
            “But whether it’s gradual or radical I’d like to hear what sort of reform, that the American people would actually support, you think would result in politicians spending responsibly?”
            I’ll admit to not being sure, I think those who wanted to bankrupt the country have for a large part already won, and just becuase a measure gets support by the American people does not  mean it will be supported by the political class.  I’d support the proposal for a balanced budget, if I thought the Republicans would go along with it too.  But, It seems more likely to me that they would use it to force the Democrats hand, and then go back to spending astronomical amounts when in power.  Otherwise I support cutting back foreign intervention, reducing the warfare-state, getting rid of a lot of subsidies, ending the war on drugs and much of the expense.  I think the political climate is currently right for some-sort of visible right/left coalition of social-liberals and libertarians and am trying to put a platform for it together, and am wanting to put something about physical conservatism on it, including opposition to reducing government scope through wasteful spending. 
            “Suppose you are 100% correct about the situation above; was this result consistent with the wishes of the American people, or contrary to those wishes?”
            Mostly, contrary to the wishes of most, and as I pointed out before a lot of this spending was on things that are not even most people’s radar.  I suspect, that if most people voters were asked, should the current administration intentionally bankrupt the government almost everyone would say no.  
            “Then how was that accomplished and what realistic means do you propose that would remedy the situation in the future?”
            As I said, before, the public does not actually have very much say over the policies that are enacted.  They are asked to choose once every election cycle between two lesser of two evil candidates, that for the most part are alike.  Additionally campaigns often work to encourage people vote based on hot-button issues rather than fiscal policy. There is a lot of bait and switch going on and both parties routinely do things when in power that the people who voted for them either do not know about or would object to if they did know about them.  Obama’s record number of immigrant deportations is a good example. 
            Also I think both parties have a much stronger need to meet the needs of economic elites than that of ordinary people.  During the late 60s and early 70s the business class lost patience with much of the regulatory and welfare aspects of government and started giving more support to politicians willing to fight these. Around this time there was also a huge effort to develop think tanks and outlets for a more business friendly ideology. When it was discovered that cutting taxes does not create enough revenue to offset spending increases, it was continued anyway becuase it was apparent that bringing the state to near bankruptcy could greatly limit the activities of any liberal administrations that gained power in the future.  Especially if more of the money could be directed to the warfare state from the welfare state.  
            I’m not really sure how this can be remedied (& I am of the opinion that those who wanted to bankrupt the government have largely won, anyway and we are soon going to have to face the impacts of this) other than with huge changes in attitude on both the right and left in this country.  Especially the right, since they have dominated the political dialogue during my lifetime, and since many of their leaders explicitly accept that bankrupting the government and making it inefficient and wasteful is a good thing. 

  • Tip O’Neill

    > politicians who promise tax cuts but no specific benefit cuts, and politicians who promise benefits but no tax increases, and especially politicians who promise tax cuts AND benefit increases,  get elected.

    That pretty much sums up the rhetoric, at least.

    But it isn’t neccesarily true that people vote solely on economic issues. 
    They vote on a lot of other issues too – going to war is a very popular one.
    And in the past voters were happy to go to war and pay additional taxes to support it. It’s only been recently that we have had governments that
    embarked on major expensive projects while at the same time telling
    voters that they wouldn’t be taxed to pay for them.

    “Deficits don’t matter” – Dick Cheney 

    • jason

      “But it isn’t neccesarily true that people vote solely on economic issues.
      They vote on a lot of other issues too – going to war is a very popular one.”

      That’s true, but war isn’t that good of an example. War can and often is framed as an economic issue just below the surface. “Protecting the free flow of oil at market prices” is politician-speak for going to war to keep the price of gas low and create a defense contractor jobs program.

      Issues that have little or nothing to do with economics but still influence elections are things like abortion, gay marriage, and separation of church and state. But these issues have comparatively little impact on the deficit as well.

«
»