Respecting the Constitution

[Alan D. Hyde]

Courtesy of www.taemag.com (http://www.taemag.com) ---

Respect the Limits that Made the USA
By Karl Zinsmeister

As 2005 closes, and the next year’s federal budget season opens, fiscal conservatives are up in arms. Though he talks a good line about battling government bloat, our current President has shown an eerie lackawanna when it comes to actually keeping a lid on the federal Pandora’s box. Quite apart from Katrina or the war on terror, there has been a pattern of troublesome spending spikes right from the beginning of the Bush Administration: Dubya’s 2001 education bill (“No Child Left Behind”) was the most expensive in history. His 2002 farm bill was the highest priced ever. His 2003 Medicare law was our most costly entitlement expansion. George Bush has not vetoed a single spending bill during his Presidency.

There’s no sense in exaggerating how profligate the current Administration has been. In the latest fiscal year, federal spending totaled 20.1 percent of our national output. Compared to the recent low of 18.4 percent in 2000, that’s an ugly loss of ground over five years. It’s not, however, the Great Society all over again, as some hyperventilating commentators are now claiming. Every single year from 1975 to 1995, federal spending as a percentage of our economy was higher than in our latest budget, with the peak being a heart-clogging 23.5 percent in 1983.

The talking heads who say a Republican President and Congress have proven no more thrifty than LBJ or Senator Kerry might be surprised how quickly the budget needle would jump today were true enthusiasts for government given the keys to the vehicle. The truth is, it’s senators like Olympia Snowe and congressmen like Sherwood Boehlert and Jim Leach working in parallel with Democrats who are feeding budget bloat much more than anyone in the White House. As I write, Snowe and the Democrats have unilaterally blocked extension of federal tax cuts, while a couple dozen GOP squishes in the House have joined with Nancy Pelosi to reject modest 2006 spending cuts (even demanding an extra billion dollars in home heating subsidies with one hand while torpedoing oil and gas production from ANWR and other parts of the U.S. with the other).

The evaporation of a Congressional majority in favor of budget austerity and limited government is linked to public opinion shifts. In 1990-’94 polls, 67 percent of Americans said the biggest threat to the U.S. in the future was big government; 69 percent said government creates more problems than it solves; 69 percent said the federal government controls too much of our daily lives; 79 percent stated that a smaller government would be more effective than a larger government.

That strong consensus has now broken up. In 2005 balloting, California voters rejected state spending caps, and voters in Colorado suspended (narrowly) a measure that limited growth of their state government for a decade. A poll taken this September, my colleague Karlyn Bowman warns, found that 57 percent of Americans now want public officials to take charge of rescuing household pets after natural disasters. A state charged with tracking down cats and hamsters (among many other desiderata) will never be slender.

Our slip-sliding toward a mommy state has taken place in incremental steps. Here’s one little indicator: Before 1993, no snowstorm had ever been declared a federal disaster by a U.S. President. Twelve inches of powder overnight in Syracuse? We’ve handled that sort of thing for generations without handwringing on CNN. Then, in the first four years of the Clinton White House, more than 40 winter storms were designated as official traumas—opening the spigots for FEMA payments from D.C. In 1996 alone, President Clinton declared a record 83 federal disasters and emergencies of all sorts.

So a path was gradually paved toward the indiscriminate trucking of federal money to the Gulf Coast, ordered by George Bush amidst a gush of post-Katrina pathos. To be fair, the President had been hammered day after day by some of the most unbalanced reporting since the rise of television—emotional and inaccurate (as we found out later) to the point of unhinged irrationality.

After the storm, Louisiana’s congressional delegation asked the feds, without blinking, for $250 billion in aid for their state alone. That is the equivalent of handing every single Louisianan $56,000; paying for it would require taking an extra $1,900 from every single American household. That amount of aid would be two and a half times what the U.S. spent to rebuild all of Europe after World War II (adjusted for inflation). And the requested federal money was above and beyond what private insurers, charities, and corporations were already pouring into the area.

For another illustration of how the sturdy independence of Americans has been traded for a place at the federal teat, take farm subsidies. The 1996 farm bill put U.S. agriculture on the road to more reliance on market mechanisms, international sales, private insurance, and innovation in production—an exciting departure from the destructive interference of production controls and checks in the mailbox that Uncle Sam had long used to manipulate our agricultural economy (and buy farm votes). Almost immediately, though, D.C. lobbyists went to work, and every single year from 1998 to 2001 Congress passed “emergency” ad hoc subsidies for ag producers. Then came the 2002 farm bill, which put the government massively back into the business of controlling farming.

To, again, give the Bushies their due, they did make one stab at shrinking farm subsidies before capitulating. Secretary of Agriculture Ann Veneman floated a reform plan, but Democrats and Republicans in Congress—determined to protect their role as kingmakers in the rural economy—screamed, and small government advocates beat a hasty retreat.

One big reason farm subsidies have been so difficult to kill is because there is a kind of international arms race in rural socialism, where the Europeans have repeatedly trumped us. In the U.S., 17 percent of agricultural revenue currently comes from the government—a glum indication of how manipulated our farm sector is. But in the European Union, fully twice as much farm income—34 percent—comes from the state.

Any President who wants to cut government finagling of the farm economy needs to press our trading partners to make corresponding trims. George Bush has made the right noises about reducing ag welfare—offering this fall to eliminate U.S. payments over 15 years if other nations will do the same. It remains to be seen whether he will press for reductions in next year’s farm bill.

So: While there are caveats qualifying his role in our recent federal weight gain, the undodgeable reality is that President Bush is the only person positioned to halt the gorge-out. Up to now it hasn’t been clear whether the growth of government on the Bush watch was a sin of omission—a failure to push back against the natural empire-building of congressmen and special interests—or whether Bush actually has a soft spot for big government (like most of official Washington).

The re-ballooning of the federal waistline that commenced in 2000 (see graph on page 9) began just a couple of years after a few prominent conservatives, led by Bill Kristol and David Brooks, started arguing that the Right should stop being “unfriendly” to government. They called for using federal power and spending to further “national greatness.” Liberal commentator E. J. Dionne rejoiced that this indicated “the era of bashing government is ending”; he bubbled that “using government on behalf of ‘national greatness’ could get you right back to the New Deal.” He even asked Bill Kristol about this in a follow-up interview, to which Kristol replied: “Are we willing to say that the country is worse off because of FDR or JFK or LBJ? I’m not willing to say that.”

The lesson from all this, it seems to me, is that whenever conservatives become ambiguous about maintaining strict limits on government, self-aggrandizing forces in D.C. will cause the state to overflow its banks and intrude on many other sectors of life. The expansion of government as a portion of our economy is only one manifestation of this. The growth of state diktats will also be felt in obnoxious courts, intrusive regulators, and pressures on individual liberty—symptoms all on display in 2005 America, as Christopher DeMuth illustrates in his essay on page 18.

Is there really so much to be lost in this? Need it be a problem if government in America comes to resemble the heavier, more intrusive style of rule that prevails, for instance, in Europe?

One thing’s for certain—it would be a momentous change. Ours has always been an extremely lightly ruled nation. At the turn of the twentieth century there were still only a total of 21,000 people working for the federal government in Washington, D.C. Even at the opening of George Bush’s Presidency, the U.S. federal apparatus remained smaller than counterparts in most other industrial nations by a third or more.

Our sharply limited government has been a central element of American distinctiveness and success. As one historical observer put it, the voice of Adam Smith “has been ringing in the world’s ears for years…but it is only in the United States that he is listened to, reverenced, and followed.”

And why would anyone discard the formula that has made America America?

Karl Zinsmeister is editor in chief of The American Enterprise.

***

Alan

[Ian McColgin]

I don't get the thread title reference. There is nothing constitutional in this trashy little essay.

Zinsmeister is simply hand-wringing as he with deliberate deception spouts that "It’s not, however, the Great Society all over again" to hide the fact that it was the administration most devoted to slashing Great Society programs that budgeted to "the peak being a heart-clogging 23.5 percent in 1983."

He goes on to lump the problems of disaster relief and farm subsidies into a blame Clinton for all momism game. Yeah, right. Blame excess and stupidly corrupt spending in this administration on the guy who managed to reverse the excesses of the Reagan-Bush years.

If this twaddle represents the best of what passes for conservatism today, Goldwater and Taft must be sharing a bit of celestial chagrin.

[Norman Bernstein]

Interesting article.... except for the swipe at Democrats.

The article might have been a bit less disingenuous if the writer had pointed out that budget deficits and the growth of government have been the hallmark of Republican administrations, not Democratic ones. A graph of deficits in recent decades illustrates that deficits skyrocketed under the Reagan, Bush I, and Bush II administrations.. and dropped precipitously under the Clinton administration... even under full control of the legislative process in the Bush II reign, the growth is huge.... can't blame THAT on the Dems.

(To be completely fair, the Clinton administration existed during a decided economic boom, partially a 'bubble', based on hi tech growth... but also to be fair, Clinton didn't encourage spending it in anywhere near the proportion of growth).

[Joe ( Cold Spring on Hudson )]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_American_Enterprise

The American Enterprise is a public policy magazine published by the American Enterprise Institute in Washington, D.C. that publishes 10 issues per year. Like AEI, its editorial stance is politically conservative, generally advocating free-market economics and a neoconservative U.S. foreign policy.

Why am I not surprized that Alan C&P from them :rolleyes:

Duh :rolleyes:

[ 12-12-2005, 12:23 PM: Message edited by: Joe ( Cold Spring on Hudson ) ]

[ljb5]

Originally posted by Alan D. Hyde:
As I write, Snowe and the Democrats have unilaterally blocked extension of federal tax cuts...Snowe is a Republican, no?

How can a bipartisan move be labeled "unilateral"?

Nice try, Alan.

This article tells us two things we already knew:
</font> Republicans are fiscally irresponsible</font> They try to blame everything on Democrats</font>

[Keith Wilson]

Our sharply limited government has been a central element of American distinctiveness and success. As one historical observer put it, the voice of Adam Smith “has been ringing in the world’s ears for years…but it is only in the United States that he is listened to, reverenced, and followed.”

And why would anyone discard the formula that has made America America? Alan, this is worse than usual.

According to this guy, "America hasn't been America" since before the administration of Teddy Roosevelt. The last time Adam Smith was revered (rather than "reverenced" :rolleyes: ) to that extent, the last time government was that limited, was about 1900. I suppose the "American century” happened despite anti-trust laws, universal free public education, pure food and drug laws, wages and hours laws, any of that. The enormous growth of the American economy and American power since WWII was because we had "sharply limited government", huh? And we’re trying to reverse the excesses of – who? Clinton, when we had a budget surplus?

This is an article about religion, not economics; belief uncontaminated by evidence. Utter complete hogwash, history distorted out of all resemblance to reality in the service of faith. :rolleyes:

[ 12-12-2005, 12:49 PM: Message edited by: Keith Wilson ]

[Harry Miller]

Can we please have Stan V back. At least he was succinct.

[Keith Wilson]

Another howler:


The re-ballooning of the federal waistline that commenced in 2000 (see graph on page 9) began just a couple of years after a few prominent conservatives . . . started arguing that the Right should stop being “unfriendly” to government. Yo, Karl! Wake up and smell the coffee! We had an election in 2000, remember? The "re-ballooning of the federal waistline" coincides with the election of George W. Bush! At least those on the left who wanted to expand the federal budget had the honesty to try to raise taxes to pay for it, rather than borrowing it all.

[Norman Bernstein]

I widsh I could find that analysis done by Kevin Drum which illustrated in hard, cold, statistical fact, that over the past 4 or 5 decades, economic growth and retraint of spending was palpably better under Democratic regimes than Republican ones... I'll email Kevin Drum and see if I can't retrieve it.

[Keith Wilson]

Is this it? (http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2005_05/006282.php)

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/blogphotos/Blog_Bartels_1.gif

It was based on a paper by Larry Bartels (http://www.princeton.edu/~bartels/income.pdf) at Princeton, IIRC.

[ 12-12-2005, 01:33 PM: Message edited by: Keith Wilson ]

[Meerkat]

As for actually respecting the constitution, that's not somehing the Bush administration could ever be accused of! tongue.gif

[Rick Tyler]

Kevin and I have been personal friends for more than 20 years, despite his Keynesian economic views (I'm more of a monetarist, although I think both theories explain parts of the real world). His analysis is pretty sensitive to how you decide to set your sampling periods. If you want to use his conclusions, you might ask him about his methodology, too. Tell him I said "Hi."

My alternate hypothesis. Federal fiscal restraint is best served by having a Congress and President from different parties. The Clinton administrations's financial success might have been a different thing altogether if a hostile Republican Congress hadn't torpedoed his nascent healthcare reform. Similarly, the Eisenhower period was fiscally stable when Congress was Democratic. It makes me very nervous that we currently have a one-party majority in both houses of Congress and the President. This is always a bad thing.

Exogenous factors (European wars, great natural disasters, disruptive technologies) also have huge impacts on Federal spending and tax revenues. While I accept Kevin's correlations, I question some of his methodology, and really question his assumption of causality. The historical period he chooses is not, I believe, big enough to be statistically significant.

[Osborne Russel]

Self-respect is what they need. The typical Republican is Randy Duke Cunningham. He wants a Rolls Royce and a French Commode. If this weren't America, these would remain the dreams of peasants. They consider the greatness of America the ability to one day be rich.

[uncas]

Osborne...come on...how many came to this country...went through Ellis Island and did not have that dream...and they were not a member of any party at the time.

[Norman Bernstein]

Yes, Keith... or should I say, it's part of the analysis... and recommoended reading for anyone with an open mind.

Here's the summary from the Princeton paper:


Census Bureau data reveal large, consistent differences in patterns of real pre-tax income growth under Democratic and Republican presidents in the post-war U.S.

Democratic presidents have produced slightly more income growth for poor families than for rich families, resulting in a modest decrease in overall inequality. Republican presidents have produced a great deal more income growth for rich families than for poor families, resulting in a substantial increase in inequality.

On average, families at the 95th percentile of the income distribution have experienced identical income growth under Democratic and Republican presidents, while those at the 20th percentile have experienced more than four times as much income growth under Democrats as they have under Republicans. These differences are attributable to partisan differences in unemployment (which has been 30 percent lower under Democratic presidents, on average) and GDP growth (which has been 30 percent higher under Democratic presidents, on average); both unemployment and GDP growth have much stronger effects on income growth at the bottom of the income distribution than at the top.

Similar partisan differences appear in the distribution of post-tax income growth of households since 1980, despite the fact that the corresponding pre-tax income growth data for that period show little evidence of partisan differences. To summarize:

Democratic administrations have produced

1) 30% higher GDP growth
2) 30% less unemployment
3) four times as much growth for those at the bottom 20% of the economic pile, while barely affecting the growth of those in the 95th percentile

What say, Alan?

[Norman Bernstein]

While I accept Kevin's correlations, I question some of his methodology, and really question his assumption of causality. The historical period he chooses is not, I believe, big enough to be statistically significant. By saying that, you're implicitly giving us Bush opponents the right to disassociate his economic policies with any improvement in the economy over the past 5 years? smile.gif

I'd fully agree that a 5 year look-back is too short a period... but Kevin's analysis was over four or five DECADES!


His analysis is pretty sensitive to how you decide to set your sampling periods. In his original analysis (which I can't find)m he bent over BACKWARDS to try to be fair, skewing the observation periods to allow for the lingering effects of previous administrations.

[ 12-12-2005, 01:47 PM: Message edited by: Norman Bernstein ]

[uncas]

Norman...well then elect a democrat...they outnumber the rep...so what's the problem... :D
Just don't put Hillary in the forefront of choices.

[George Roberts]

According to recent figures I have obtained from various sources:

Net individual worth of the US is $51T (trillion).

Current debt is $8T.

It appears that excess spending will take care of itself in time.

[Norman Bernstein]

Norman...well then elect a democrat...they outnumber the rep... They DON'T, by a long shot. There are more people who identify themselves as Republicans than Democrat.... and the number of people who identify as Independents is larger than either Dem or Republican.

However, we may just elect a Democrat next time... and if 4 or 5 dcades of analysis is consistent, the rich will do just as well, but the poor will do a lot better... and the deficits will DROP, not rise.

[ 12-12-2005, 01:50 PM: Message edited by: Norman Bernstein ]

[uncas]

Norman...trying to find some stats re: number registered in each party...can't locate one...will keep trying but I think you are wrong...Unless you show me differently.

[Norman Bernstein]

I was referring to self-identification, not registration. I rhought www.pollingreport.com (http://www.pollingreport.com) would have it, but it doesn't... however, I've seen the statistic a number of times.... from memory, it's about 36% Republican, 23% dem, and 41% independent.

[uncas]

Well...if they are registered democrats...the democratic party must be screwing up.
I don't think your figures on independents is right. Way too high...source if ya can find it...
I mean...half the south was democratic...what happened.

[ 12-12-2005, 02:13 PM: Message edited by: uncas ]

[Meerkat]

Originally posted by uncas:
...half the south was democratic...what happened.Too much fried chicken... ;)

[Norman Bernstein]

According to This statistical site, (http://www.umich.edu/~nes/nesguide/toptable/tab3_1.htm) the following seems to be true:

People who describe themselves as moderately or very conservative: 19%

People who describe themselves as moderately or very liberal: 11%

People who describe themselves as between mildly liberal and mildly conservative: 51%

[uncas]

That helps...but outta that...how many actually vote...?
Perhaps more republican vote....Doesn't mean there are more of them
Now if the dems gave us a person who would be a good president...they would get that Ind. vote...
The problem is two fold...they don't have anyone...and 2....the party has lost its identity...
Heck...just look at the DNC chair...what a hoot.

[ 12-12-2005, 02:28 PM: Message edited by: uncas ]

[ljb5]

Uncas, the main problem is that people identify with a political party (or vote for a candidate) for many different reasons -- not all of them very good.

The Republican party advertises itself as the party of fiscal responsibility, but it's clearly not true.

They also claim to be the party of ethics, but they're having some problems there.

And if you believed that hog wash about 'no nation building,' I've got a bridge to sell you.

If all voters were smart and well-informed, the elections would be very different. Republicans profit from ignorant, gullible people.

[Rick Tyler]

USA Today is a useless rag, but if it can be relied on to repeat simple facts reliably, of the 200 million or so Americans eligible to vote, "about 55 million are registered Republicans (and) about 72 million (are) registered Democrats." This was in a 2004 column by Al Neuharth. (http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/columnist/neuharth/2004-01-22-neuharth_x.htm)

[Norman Bernstein]

The problem is two fold...they don't have anyone...and 2....the party has lost its identity...
The Democratic party is unquestionably troubled and challenged, for sure.

However, anyone who would count them out for 2008 is utterly ignorant of history. The Dems may be having trouble finding a message and a candidate... but they're not in power. The Republicans are controlling all the strings and have been shooting themselves in the feet, repeatedly.

National politics is like New England weather.... just wait a minute, and it will change.

[uncas]

ljb...so...as everyone seems to know what the republicans stand for...what do the dems stand for...where is their identity...right or wrong...The party just doesn't seem to have one...even if they are lies...
And Norm...even if the dems screw up big time...and I suspect they will...I know that a dem will be elected...But for all of the wrong reasons...
Hell...the party could run Dean and win...
I just pray that Bill Clinton is not the "First Husband"...But afraid she would win..over common sense.

[ 12-12-2005, 02:36 PM: Message edited by: uncas ]

[Norman Bernstein]

USA Today is a useless rag, but if it can be relied on to repeat simple facts reliably, of the 200 million or so Americans eligible to vote, "about 55 million are registered Republicans (and) about 72 million (are) registered Democrats." This was in a 2004 column by Al Neuharth. I wouldn't argue with that cited reference, Rick... but I'd tend to think that self-identification is a lot more meaningful. If you accept the Neuharth numbers on face value, then you have to explain why Bush was elected and re-elected. The self-identification numbers obviously correspond a lot more closely with voting patterns.

[Norman Bernstein]

I just pray that Bill Clinton is not the "First Husband". I think a dark horse candidate is much more likely: Richardson, Vislack, or possibly Fiengold.

[uncas]

Richardson...rumor has it...too much bagage
Fiengold...possibility...but...it would be an uphill struggle...name rec.
Vislack...I think he was mayor of either Cin...or Detroit...and I try to keep up with the candidtaes or potential candidates...If I'm not sure...either is 90 percent of the voters.

[Norman Bernstein]

Clinton was an unknown at this same point in the 1992 election cycle. It can happen.

[Rick Tyler]

Originally posted by Norman Bernstein:
By saying that, you're implicitly giving us Bush opponents the right to disassociate his economic policies with any improvement in the economy over the past 5 years? smile.gif

I'll do better than that -- I'll say that presidents deserve almost no credit for good economic times and no blame for bad ones. The US economy is too big and complex for a politician to understand, let alone manage. So, yes, I would say that the current economic strength has more to do with the economy absorbing the capital spending orgy of the 90s than with anything else.


I'd fully agree that a 5 year look-back is too short a period... but Kevin's analysis was over four or five DECADES!

I'd have to dig out his original email to me on this (wrong computer), but IIRC he didn't start his analysis until after WWII. If he had gone back to the beginning of the third cycle of US presidential politics (roughly 1900 to 1940) I wonder what his data would show?


In his original analysis (which I can't find)m he bent over BACKWARDS to try to be fair, skewing the observation periods to allow for the lingering effects of previous administrations.What Kevin did was not assigning "responsibility" for an economic period until a president's second or third budget cycle. His completely reasonable assumption is that the first couple of years of an administration are more properly "assigned" to the previous administration. If you don't like this assumption, you might get different results. He's a fair guy despite viewing the world through ideological glasses, and a pretty fair bridge player, too.

[Norman Bernstein]

I'd have to dig out his original email to me on this (wrong computer), but IIRC he didn't start his analysis until after WWII. If he had gone back to the beginning of the third cycle of US presidential politics (roughly 1900 to 1940) I wonder what his data would show?
While I agree that a short time horizon is probably insufficient to establish a pattern.... but too long of a period of observation results in skews that are a consequence of vast structural differences in U.S. politics over long time periods. I think WWII until today is a very fair period of observation... not a LOT of structural difference in U.S. politics over that time period... but surely long enough to filter out short term phenomena.

No matter how you slice and dice the period of observation, there's hardly much question that the statistical correlation is FAR too great to ignore. I'm not claiming that Democratic idealogy is responsible for good economic performance, as much as I believe the data tells us that Republican economic idealogy simply doesn't correlate to actual results.

Simply put, if one wasn't swayed by idealogy, and cared to look at the actual RECORD, they would have to be convinced that Democratic administrations are substantively better for the economy than Republican ones.


What Kevin did was not assigning "responsibility" for an economic period until a president's second or third budget cycle. His completely reasonable assumption is that the first couple of years of an administration are more properly "assigned" to the previous administration. If you don't like this assumption, you might get different results. His analysis was re-run for multiple 'hangover' periods. If you tweak the 'hangover' time, you might indeed get different results.. but are you suggesting that there's a tweak which would reach the opposite conclusion, overall? I think not.... besides, if you're suggesting that the assumptions be 'tweaked' like that, are you sure you'd want to accuse KEVIN of wearing idealogical blinders? :D

[ 12-12-2005, 03:35 PM: Message edited by: Norman Bernstein ]

[Keith Wilson]

Vilsack...I think he was mayor of either Cin...or Detroit... No, just Iowa. Mayor of Mt Pleasant Iowa, Iowa state senate, then governor for two terms. Here's his bio. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Vilsack)

[ljb5]

Sure, there's something wrong with every Dem you can think of.

And something wrong with every Rep too.

Some of us still believe that war is worse than sex.

[Keith Wilson]

It's a terrible thing that we only have human beings to vote for, isn't it? Perhaps that's why some folks seem to favor a theocracy.

[Alan D. Hyde]

As fallible as ALL we humans are, it's a source of amazement to me that otherwise intelligent-appearing people would wish to be governed by anything but a small government, of strictly limited powers.

Alan

[ljb5]

Originally posted by Alan D. Hyde:
As fallible as ALL we humans are, it's a source of amazement to me that otherwise intelligent-appearing people would wish to be governed by anything but a small government, of strictly limited powers.I concur.

What amazes me more is that some people think that voting for Republicans will accomplish that.

[Meerkat]

Originally posted by Alan D. Hyde:
As fallible as ALL we humans are, it's a source of amazement to me that otherwise intelligent-appearing people would wish to be governed by anything but a small government, of strictly limited powers.

AlanPerhaps some of us are smart enough to recognize that government is a better way to accomplish some things than resorting to a lot of petty bickering and incompatible ways of doing things from one place to another.

You really want a car that has to comply with 50 different state standards, instead of the 2 we have now? (Calif. vs non-Cailf.)

[Norman Bernstein]

As fallible as ALL we humans are, it's a source of amazement to me that otherwise intelligent-appearing people would wish to be governed by anything but a small government, of strictly limited powers.
And it's a source of amazement to ME, Alan, that you'd presume that anyone who doesn't think like YOU do must somehow be lacking in intelligence....

Maybe the problem is not the lack of our intelligence... but the lack of your HUMILITY?

[Keith Wilson]

. . . it's a source of amazement to me that otherwise intelligent-appearing people would wish to be governed by anything but a small government, of strictly limited powers. Well, it’s a little snide (those who disagree with you only appear intelligent?), but it’s a legitimate question to which I’ll try to respond.

First, the question is not limited or unlimited powers. No one argues for an absolute monarchy or an all-powerful totalitarian state. The question is about precisely where the strict limits on state power should be set. This is not generally a left-right issue, except that those on the left and tight tend to favor restrictions on state power in different areas. Many who identify themselves as conservative are very much in favor of expanded government powers in law enforcement, and in the regulation of private morality. State sodomy laws were only recently overturned, and conservatives have historically tended to favor censorship of things they find morally repugnant. “Otherwise intelligent-appearing people” have made the argument here that the government should be able to arrest and imprison (and even torture) anyone it believes is a terrorist, without any trial, charges, oversight or accountability whatsoever.

Second, if the end is to maximize freedom and justice, a point on which I think we’d agree, minimizing a democratic government’s role in society is not necessarily best. There are many other powerful forces in addition to government, most not nearly as responsible to the will of the people. Wealth gives power over others, and when there are extremely wealthy people, they will have great power. When this power is turned to self-interest against the common good (as it inevitably will sometimes be) it can only be restrained by collective action, i.e. a democratic government. When corporations become far more powerful than any human being, and are required by law to behave far more amorally than any person (maximize return to shareholders by any means within the law, yes?), they again must be restrained by collective action, by a democratic government. It is one of the great lies of modern politics that reducing federal government necessarily means greater freedom; in reality, it may mean more power for corporations and those who are already very powerful, and less freedom for those who aren’t wealthy

Alan, you know your history pretty well. Do you really think that American society was better off before the federal government did much of anything but national defense and border control, say in 1890? Before the power of corporations and the very rich was controlled, at least a little? Before corporate responsiblity and transparency was not enforced, at least partially? Although it’s very reasonable to argue that many federal functions are bloated and inefficient, would you really like to get rid of the FDA? The NLRB? The EPA? The SEC? How about the CDC?

Government power is a blunt instrument, but in a democracy it is, if imperfectly, under the control of the people. Corporate power is not. The power of wealth is not.

[ 12-12-2005, 04:47 PM: Message edited by: Keith Wilson ]

[Donn]

http://img52.exs.cx/img52/8140/pot1.jpg

[Meerkat]

Originally posted by Keith Wilson:

Government power is a blunt instrument, but in a democracy it is, if imperfectly, under the control of the people. Well, at one time it may have been, but these days it's exploitation of the people, by the goverment, for the corporations. Money is what votes now.

[uncas]

Before the power of corporations and the very rich was controlled, at least a little?

Tell that to the railroad barons...the oil barons...
Controlled I don't think so...Those guys were iin the political drivers' seats and knew it.
Then ya got Taminy Hall....

[Keith Wilson]

Meerkat, if you think it's bad now, you should read about how things were before all this expansion of government power that Alan so deplores. uncas has it right, the business interests ran things to a far greter degree than they do now.

[ 12-12-2005, 04:55 PM: Message edited by: Keith Wilson ]

[Norman Bernstein]

Very well stated, Keith...

If there's anything I could add, it is the notion that people who do not believe in drastically limited government, as do Alan and others of the same opinion, are not by any means believers in LARGE government....

Quite the contrary. What I want is APPROPRIATE government... which is not small for the sake of smallness, nor large for the sake of largeness. I want EFFECTIVE and EFFICIENT government... size is a secondary consideration.

I have no desire to return to the turn of the last century, when manufacturers produced dangerous or even poisonous products and subjected it's workers to extremely hazardous conditions, when robber barons monopolized great industries to the detriment of society at large, and when Tammany Hall ruled this country despite the appearance (but not the actuality) of representative government.

I WANT federal election laws, the FTC, the FDA, and all of the other innumerable agencies that provide safeguards to our society, and make it more equitable... and I want those agencies and those laws to be sensible and efficient, and no larger than necessary...

No, us 'progressives' don't want LARGE government.

We want GOOD government.

[ 12-12-2005, 04:53 PM: Message edited by: Norman Bernstein ]

[Alan D. Hyde]

Keith, many of those "robber barons" of the late 19th Century got their wealth via the corruption of governmental or quasi-governmental sources.

Railroads (with land grants and exclusive rights-of-way), stock markets (via unethical if not then unlawful manipulation and stock-watering), steel and oil (consolidation effected by bullying at best, often by mobster-like intimidation).

IF small governments and their office-holders had not in that era frequently succumbed to bribery and various types of duress, then many of the worst abuses of the gilded age would have been prevented. Abuse does not argue against use, unless that abuse can be demonstrated to be inherent...

Alan

[ 12-12-2005, 04:54 PM: Message edited by: Alan D. Hyde ]

[huisjen]

What an amazing article. It managed to blame education, the farm bill, medicare, and Katrina, but somehow never touches on tax cuts for the super wealthy and an unnecessary war in Iraq. Just astounding.

Dan

[uncas]

I can't remember...who was the king (president ) maker at the turn of the 20 cent...Tip of my tongue...
Basically put McKinley in office...ran the convention etc...

[LeeG]

Good job Alan,,everyone else got off on the same amazement. So how small do you think the gov't for the sole superpower in the world should be? The size of Switzerlands, Sao Tome, Apple Computers?

[Alan D. Hyde]

Dan, under those "tax cuts" the wealthy are in fact paying MORE taxes, dollar-for-dollar, than they have EVER paid before.

Alan

[Norman Bernstein]

IF small governments and their office-holders had not in that era frequently succumbed to bribery and various types of duress.. ...but they DIDN'T, then, and they DON'T, today... and it has NOTHING to do with size of government... except for the fact that the regulatory agencies that conservatives love to trash are the only things standing between us and the 'robber baron' behavior of that earlier era.

[Norman Bernstein]

Dan, under those "tax cuts" the wealthy are in fact paying MORE taxes, dollar-for-dollar, than they have EVER paid before.
But they're paying LESS as a percentage of income than they ever did before.

[Keith Wilson]

Dan, under those "tax cuts" the wealthy are in fact paying MORE taxes, dollar-for-dollar, than they have EVER paid before.
That's because they have an EVER GREATER PERCENTAGE OF THE MONEY!!

Kids, can you say "disingenuous?" :rolleyes:

[Norman Bernstein]

Kids, can you say "disingenuous?" It's the classic dodge of the conservatives, Keith... to quote absolute dollars rather than percentage of income.... sure makes it seem as if it's a 'soak the rich' world, doesn't it? :D :D :D

[Alan D. Hyde]

The higher you raise the rates, Norman, the more cost-effective is for high income-earners (not the same as "the wealthy," BTW) to use legitimate avoidance mechanisms which distort economic behavior into less generally productive paths.

Alan

[ 12-12-2005, 05:03 PM: Message edited by: Alan D. Hyde ]

[Meerkat]

Originally posted by Alan D. Hyde:
The higher you raise the rates, Norman, the more cost-effective is for high income-earners (not the same as "the wealthy," BTW) to use legitimate avoidance mechanisms which distort economic behavior into less generally productive paths.

AlanDubious, if not out and out illegal, "tax shelters" - the gains outweigh the eventual interest and penalties.

KPMG are experts on the practice, although they got spanked hard recently by the IRS. They took the fees and their customers faced the music.

[uncas]

Ya know...All of this conservative bashing...all of these generalizations about conservatives...and bush bashing ( and I don't like him either as a republican )
I say...if ya don't like what is going on...and I don't instead of bashing left and right...come up with some alternatives..
Now perhaps...somewhere hidden in page after page of C&Ps alternatives have been offered...But put them in your own words...Perhaps its me...I see paragraph after paragraph of a C&P...and I just don't bother reading them all...
Look at Alan...P&C'd the entire history of the kilt...for one paragraph that was relevent...Wich I C&P'd independently...
To me...C&Ps are just regurgitated media stories...that's why I read the papers.
So...Guess I'll just hop on my Swift Boat and head south.
So much for the rant of the day....

[Keith Wilson]

For progressive taxation as well as other things, abuse does not necessarily argue against use.

And uncas, for all I may have been verbose, I didn't C&P anything except one chart.

[ 12-12-2005, 05:10 PM: Message edited by: Keith Wilson ]

[Norman Bernstein]

The higher you raise the rates, Norman, the more cost-effective is for high income-earners (not the same as "the wealthy," BTW) to use legitimate avoidance mechanisms which distort economic behavior into less generally productive paths.
The very EXISTENCE of the so-called 'legitamate avoidance mechanisms', Alan, is absolute testimony of the power of wealth to distort the economic landscape... those mechanisms serve the wealthy, not the poor or middle class.

I'm one of those 'high income earners' you talk about, and the opportunities for ME to 'avoid' taxation are substantially more advantageous than what is offered to the true middle class.

I'm not a hypocrite; I take advantage of them wherever I can... but if they ended tomorrow, we'd have a more equitable society.

Furthermore, who is talking about 'raising' rates? If rates were high, and were relatively recently lowered, I'd say that rates would be 'restored', not 'raised'. It's a clever game to play.... drop the rates, and then claim that any rollback to previous rates are some sort of 'raise'.

[uncas]

I apologize for inferring that you two did...A generalization...as conservatives seem to be put all in one generalized category... :D

[Norman Bernstein]

The very EXISTENCE of the so-called 'legitamate avoidance mechanisms', Alan, is absolute testimony of the power of wealth to distort the economic landscape... those mechanisms serve the wealthy, not the poor or middle class.
I suppose it would only be fair for me to provide a real example, rather than presuming you all know what I'm talking about.

An ordinary working stiff can shelter a limited amount of money via an IRA account... although if he's covered by a 401K account at his job, he can't even do that (he can shelter SOME money by voluntary contributions via the 401K, but not much).

If our ordinary working stiff, like so many others, doesn't have a 401K account with his employer, he can shelter around $4k in an IRA, I believe, each year.... PRESUMING, of course, that he HAS the money to contribute. A guy earning the median $42K/yr and supporting a family probably can't aford to shelter that much... have you seen college tuition bills lately?

A 'high income earner' like me, by virtue of my status as 'self employed' can shelter over $18,000 per year.... via the SIMPLE IRA plan (and other plans may allow even MORE to be sheltered)... this is done by putting my wife on the payroll (she does the books), and sheltering the max per person (currently around $9K, I believe).

Before you tell me that a low income self-employed person gets the same benefit... let me point out that a lower income self-employed person simply doesn't have the cash to put aside like that.

[Meerkat]

In a consumer-driven economy, there is little motivation to save. Therefore, the government, on behalf of the corporations that dominate it, does not provide much in the way of incentives.

Malwart is pleased.

[ljb5]

Originally posted by Alan D. Hyde:
Dan, under those "tax cuts" the wealthy are in fact paying MORE taxes, dollar-for-dollar, than they have EVER paid before.So Bush is a complete failure.

According to Al, he can't even give a tax cut properly without screwing that up!

[John of Phoenix]

Norman, if you *really* want to stiff the tax man, forego your salary (as income, it's taxed as high as 35%) and pay your self a monthly "dividend" (15% rate) instead.
Same amount - drastically different tax bill.

[uncas]

According to Al, he can't even give a tax cut properly without screwing that up

Coming from a guy who couldn't even win his home state....talkin about disgruntled...

[Norman Bernstein]

Norman, if you *really* want to stiff the tax man, forego your salary (as income, it's taxed as high as 35%) and pay your self a monthly "dividend" (15% rate) instead.
Same amount - drastically different tax bill. Yeah, sure... I might just as well wave a red flag in the face of the nearest IRS examiner and yell 'come and GET me'! :D

[ljb5]

Originally posted by uncas:
Coming from a guy who couldn't even win his home state....talkin about disgruntled...Who are you talking about?

[uncas]

Gore!

[John of Phoenix]

Norman, I thought of it when the law changed and asked our CPA. He said that was one of the reasons it was implemented, then I read where Buffett was talking about it too.

He's furious because so many people are doing just that - dividends in lieu of salary and screwing the IRS big time. My wife owns her company but, so far, hasn't done it. I asked her if she was happy how her taxes were being spent. Pointed out that she could take the savings and give to the charities of her choice. She’s going to ask the CPA about it. smile.gif

[ljb5]

Oh, because the way you phrased it, "coming from a guy," made it sound like you were talking about me.

Newsflash: It's a national election. Winning your home state doesn't matter. At any rate, Gore got more votes, but let's not rehash that.

The point I was trying to make is that elections depend on the voters as much as they depend on the candidates. It's not enough to have better ideas -- the voters must understand them and vote for them.

A lot of people feel they were duped by Bush. They wanted smaller government, fiscal responsibility, ethics and no nation-building.

That's what they voted for, but not what they got.

[Osborne Russel]

Originally posted by uncas:
Osborne...come on...how many came to this country...went through Ellis Island and did not have that dream...and they were not a member of any party at the time.Yeah, right, they came for enlightenment.

They rapidly and enthusiastically joined parties which all assured them that they could become Americans and remain peasants in their hearts.

[Norman Bernstein]

Norman, I thought of it when the law changed and asked our CPA. He said that was one of the reasons it was implemented, then I read where Buffett was talking about it too.

He's furious because so many people are doing just that - dividends in lieu of salary and screwing the IRS big time. John, it's just enother example of how money equates to power in our political system...and nowhere more so than in tax policy.

I find it infuriating every time some comservative whines about how taxes are such a terrible disincentive to investment and entrepeneurship in America... do they really think that taxes are any LESS of an incentive to someone earning minimum wage? Yet, tax law is so incredibly biased in favor of the wealthy and powerful, who are provided copious 'incentives' to reduce their taxes, while the average shnook pays the full freight. The incredibly high taxes of the 60's and 70's might have put a damper on speculative or risky economic entrepeneurship... but that didn't prevent whole industries from being born and turning those entrepeneurs into multi-millionaires.. and even billionaires. Now taxes are vastly lower than long term historical levels... and we've still got wealthy people whining about the difference between 35% and 39.6%..... especially NOW, when the rates on dividends and capital gains are actually less than the rates of the average working man's pay.

Do people really think this is GOOD for America?

[John of Phoenix]

Do people really think this is GOOD for America? When it's done in the name of "Stimulating the Economy" it becomes sacrosanct. It’s good for everyone, sure - some more than others, but it benefits Everyman. (Wink, nudge, wink, wink.)

[Meerkat]

Originally posted by John Teetsel:
Norman, I thought of it when the law changed and asked our CPA. He said that was one of the reasons it was implemented, then I read where Buffett was talking about it too.

He's furious because so many people are doing just that - dividends in lieu of salary and screwing the IRS big time. NO, it's not "screwing the IRS big time", it's screwing the people who are either not trying to evade taxes or can't afford to play the game in the first place.

[John of Phoenix]

NO, it's not "screwing the IRS big time", it's screwing the people who are either not trying to evade taxes or can't afford to play the game in the first place. Under normal circumstances, I'd agree Meer, but when you consider what's happening in DC these days, my feeling is "The less those morons get, the less they'll screw up."

You saw the recent cuts in social programs and where that money went. If I can, I'll give it to whom I choose before I'll have it handed to Halliburton.

[Meerkat]

I sincerely HOPE I'm not going to "see" the cuts in social programs: I may be in the affected group! :eek: Kinda close to home, eh?

Trouble with keeping it and giving it to particular charities is that, the richer one is, the less one donates, according to stuides I'v read (that's a generalization, there will of course be exceptions).