Clear as mud

Americans are essentially equally divided in their views of the role of the federal government, with one-third tilting toward a preference for a government that actively takes steps to improve the lives of its citizens, one-third preferring a limited government that performs mostly basic functions, and the remainder in the middle.

Gallup

As the Daily Kos piece that I took this quote from says, this is as "clear as mud." Reading the Gallup piece, the definitions don't get any more specific. Unsurprisingly, opinions form a bell curve, with small numbers at either end and the majority nestled in the middle. This has been a several-decades-old problem with the whole idea of limited government. The Republican/Tea Party candidate for Kentucky Rand Paul and his opponent, Democrat Jack Conway, had a debate on October 2nd. What are Paul's ideas on how to fix the economy? Well, Conway stated that the election was a choice between someone who "has said that he is against the American Disabilities Act, between someone who is going to stand up and protect Medicare and someone who says Medicare needs a $2,000 deductible.” Paul at first defended his view on the Medicare deductible, even though Conway ran a video that quotes a senior citizen saying "That's crazy. I can't afford that." Paul then put out a new ad that "declares that 'Rand Paul doesn't support higher Medicare deductibles for seniors' and accuses Conway of distorting Paul's views."

So, in the battle of ideas, when it came to defining government responsibility concerning how much Medicare patients would pay in out-of-pocket costs and how much the government should pick up, the Republican/Tea Party candidate at first declared that patients should pay for a really big proportion of Medicare costs, but quickly relented and wants to keep deductibles where they are.

So what exactly does it mean when even the Tea Party candidate wants to keep Medicare deductibles where they are? Does it mean that he supports a "government that actively takes steps" or does it mean he supports "limited government"? This is not a new problem. This has been a problem with the whole concept of "limited government" since well before Ronald Reagan became President. 30 years later, the problem hasn't moved a single inch. Everybody, his brother, Aunt Margaret and even little Suzy loves the idea of "limited government," as long as that doesn't mean cuts to his or her favorite program.

See, here’s the problem…

A short video explains in clear terms just what's wrong with today's economy and how to fix it.

Republican Senate candidate and World Wrestling Entertainment CEO Linda McMahon (CT) demonstrates she doesn't have the vaguest clue about how the economy works or, of course, how to even begin fixing it.

Basic problem that the video focuses on is the problem of insufficient consumer demand, which means that capitalists have no reason to invest in new production as there's no indication that any new products will ever get purchased. McMahon wants to give businesspeople veto power over whether to increase the minimum wage or not ("I think we ought to look at all of those issues in terms of what mandates are being placed on businesses and can they afford them. I think we should get input from our business community"). As businesspeople have wanted to lower or eliminate the minimum wage ever since it was instituted, it's clear beyond the slightest shadow of a doubt what the "input from our business community" would be.

Problem is, lowering the minimum wage would be precisely the wrong thing to do at this time! That would have the effect of reducing consumer demand at exactly the time when the economy desperately needs maximum consumer demand to spur more production.

A few months back, a commenter on my local newspaper's message boards said that only businesspeople have the competence to comment on political issues. McMahon is a businessperson, but very clearly, she has absolutely no idea about how economics works. Now, I don't believe businesspeople should be denied a seat at the table where political decisions are made, but no, I very strongly disagree that businesspeople have any special competence at political or economic issues.

Update: McMahon's opponent, Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal (D) is of course jumping all over McMahon's faux pas, drawing a connection between her history as a businessperson and how she'd run Connecticut: "Linda McMahon laid off ten percent of her workers and takes home $46 million a year so it's no surprise she's thinking about lowering the minimum wage."

They’re doing just what I’d do

This reminds me of a Fantastic Four story when the FF is trying to decide what Dr. Doom will do. Reed says with no uncertainty what it is that Doom will do. Johnny asks him how he knows that. "That's what I'd do if I were in his position." Johnny agreed that, yeah okay, that made sense.

Republicans are refusing to join Democrats on the Cat Food Commission and are insisting they will not fulfill their assigned role in the anticipated "grand bargain." They're refusing to raise taxes in response to Democrats cutting expenditures. Democrats can take a "cuts-only" solution or no solution at all. If I were a Republican, I'd do precisely what they're doing. Democrats are highly likely to simply roll over and accept a cuts-only solution.

Fire the damn commission and send everyone home!!!  Just dissolve the whole damned thing and accept that nothing good will ever come out of it!

How the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan affect economy

Good piece in New Deal 2.0 discusses how military spending is indeed stimulative, but it provides the least bang for the buck and how the military's "cost-plus" contracting leads to distortions in how private businesses design their products. Inevitably, these problems bleed over from one division of the company into all the other divisions.

I really liked this line

From C&L:

Pitiful, but typical, and tiresome. If these fools [Republican "Young Guns" Eric Cantor and Kevin McCarthy] knew how to get the "economy back on track" it would have been on track when Bush left office.

Don’t Kill Growth And Jobs In The Name Of Deficit Reduction

The statement on this page, signed by more than 300 economists and major civic leaders, reflects a grave concern that the “austerity economics” being advocated by many politicians in Washington will derail our already weak economic recovery. This statement outlines a progressive approach to reviving the economy and addressing the federal deficit, with the top priority being putting people back to work and investing in the foundational elements of a new economy of broad prosperity.

continued...

Update: Slightly different subject, the above post refers to "austerity economics," and I just saw a review of a post which talks about extending the Bush tax cuts for the top 2% of earners in the population. But MMFA refers to a CNNMoney poll which looks at the viewpoints of economists and wow! What a complete and utter frakin' mess! What a marvelous example of how NOT to talk about the viewpoints of a profession!

Oh, good grief!

What is wrong with the Democratic Party?!?!?! Why can't they stand up for their own professed values? Why are members peeling off from the party to support maintaining Bush's tax cuts for the rich?

I know, I know. The woman asked Will Rogers what organized political party he subscribed to. His response was "Organized? Aw heck no, Ma'am, I'm a Democrat!"

Oh, and Alan Simpson thinks he's found a way to get the money to extend those tax cuts!  Why, we'll just take it out of medical care for veterans! Hey, not a problem! Tax cuts for the rich are SO much more important than medical care for veterans! President Obama is fully supporting the "Cat Food Commission,"  which obviously wants to see your grandparents choosing between various cat chows for their dinner.

I still just don't understand why party members can't just to the line on such a basic issue of Democratic priorities.

Update: At least some folks have the right priorities!  The Congressional Progressive Caucus has said that if the Cat Food Commission report recommends cuts or other changes to Social Security, they will say, you'll lose our support. Ya-a-ayyy!!!!!