Here are a couple clear thinking articles relating to our current political and economic scene:
"Spread it around," at
http://www.slate.com/?id=2203433
"There's such a thing as a smart deficit", at
http://marketplace.publicradio.org/display/web/2008/10/31/deficit/
"Spread it around," at
http://www.slate.com/?id=2203433
"There's such a thing as a smart deficit", at
http://marketplace.publicradio.org/display/web/2008/10/31/deficit/
The authors of these two articles are correct; McCain is just as bad as Obama. However, the concept of the “smart deficit” is fundamentally flawed. Thomas Frank argues that current deficits that “benefit the rich and well-connected” are stupid deficits. While he says smart deficits would be spent on “infrastructure, on stabilizing the housing market and on energy independence program.” Who do you think will receive the money in his scenario? Only the rich and well-connected will get government money. For 10,000 years, government has always taken money from the poor and unconnected and given it to its friends. Why would that change now?
ReplyDeleteAugie,
ReplyDeleteGood point! All things being equal, it is better to not run deficits at all. Given that 70% of our national debt was signed into law by presidents named Reagan and Bush, however, while both cutting taxes on the rich and not cutting spending, the idea that the GOP is fiscally conservative is bankrupt. Wasn't the last president to balance a budget Bill Clinton? Imagine how much better off we'd be without all that debt we are saddled with.
To be fair, Reagan and Bush cut taxes for everyone earning income, rich and poor. However, their massive increases in government spending negated the benefits of their tax cuts.
ReplyDeleteIf the best we can hope for is that Obama will govern like Clinton, well, suddenly I have a sick feeling in the pit of my stomach. Neither McCain nor Obama offer any hope of change. If you want change, vote third party.