FB friend B.R. posted this:
Pretend one is an elephant. This is the new bipartisan strategy. Sound good?
Me: step six never happens.
B.R.: how do you mean?
Me: Compromise is only a one way street in politics.
B.R.: You're saying the only compromise that ever happens is one side giving into the request of the other? There's no mutually beneficial compromises in politics?
Me: Pretty much. "Compromise" has been invoked for many years in politics, but compromise has always manifested as one side giving in to the other. You will recall that the debt ceiling deal in August of 2011 was characterized as being republican obstructionism. The same happened during the government shutdown under Newt.
The reason your comments captured my interest was today's opinion piece in my local paper: http://mountainmantrails.blogspot.com/2012/11/steve-daines-can-reach-across-aisle-for.html - And another one here: http://mountainmantrails.blogspot.com/2012/10/voters-should-support-compromise-in.html
Compromise, as far as I can tell, is when Republicans are persuaded to agree with Democrats.
J.R.: I can't believe that these poor folks are called "Obstructionists" just because they announce their intentions publicly and privately to never cooperate with the other side.
Me: Republicans: Public pronouncements, but private caving vs. Democrats: public pronouncements, but private inflexibility.
K.B.: I wish the GOP would quit signing all those pledges! As one media analyst remarked, "What is this, the Boy Scouts?"
When you sign a pledge, you've attached your name, your reputation, and your honor to a single idea, thereby making it impossible to embrace any alternatives without looking like a doofus and a weakling.
Pledging a single, inflexible point of view and then vowing to maintain it no matter what has no place in politics. Politics, by its very nature, is a fluid thing.
Anwar Sadat compromised. The West gave him the Nobel Peace Prize and hailed him as a hero. At the same time, he was the most despised person in all the Arab world. The extreme point of view won out when Sadat was assassinated.
Compromise is much more civil. And nobody needs to get killed over it.
K.B.: Or, to give a more modern example, the elder Bush said "Read my lips! No ... New ... Taxes!!"
When necessity forced him to depart from that pledge, it cost him all hope of a second term.
Me: Only one alternative has ever been tried: increasing taxes and spending more money. Increasing taxes has never reduced the national debt. I applaud those politicians who have the courage to try another way.
B.R.: What other way?
K.B.: If you are going broke, two things make a lot of sense ...
1) Cool it on the spending, and
2) Think of ways to bring in more money.
Me: Lower spending. Hasn't been tried yet. Cut spending for five straight years and I will embrace every tax increase you propose. If still needed.
J.R.: Are you kidding? "Lower spending," also known as "austerity measures," has been attempted as a solution many, many times throughout history (in the US and throughout the world) in response to recession. It always has the same effect: it prolongs the recession. Recent examples include Japan (mid-90s to present) and currently in Europe, notably Greece.
Me: Except that "austerity measures" are comprised almost exclusively of tax increases and benefit delays. I challenge you to find a single austerity measure that has cut total real spending by any amount. http://mountainmantrails.blogspot.com/2012/11/greece-narrowly-passes-crucial.html
http://mountainmantrails.blogspot.com/2012/10/austerity-in-czech-republic-is.html
Sorry to refer you continuously to my blog, but I have already covered this ground there.
J.R.: Examples of recent significant austerity cuts include those in Ireland, Spain, Greece, and the UK making drastic cuts in social welfare and aid to families with dependent children, as well as broad reductions in wages for government employees, ranging from 3 year freezes to as much as 25% wage cuts.
Me: I have noticed some reports of that nature, but what I asked for was an austerity measure that cut total real spending by any amount. My point being, there is no government austerity, there is only taxpayers having to pony up more dough.
J.R.: Hmm, maybe I don't understand your point. The examples I gave represent direct reductions in government spending... Are you looking for austerity measures that reduce the SIZE of government (e.g. eliminating the Dept of Homeland Security)?
Me: Well, if a department is eliminated, the government can still grow (remember the "peace dividend?"). The elimination of a department has never happened anyway.
However, austerity in common parlance is the reining in of expenses, cutting back and reducing obligations. No government has ever done this in an attempt to avert a financial crisis.
Austerity as it applies to government means enhancing the financial take of government at the expense of the taxpayer. Therefore, the only party experiencing austerity in this scenario is the people.
J.R.: Gosh Rich, I'm trying but I just can't figure out where our disconnect is. You're saying that no government has ever reined in expenses, cut back, and reduced their obligations, and it seems to me that the examples I offered did exactly that. Is your main point that "austerity measures" ultimately hurt people without truly shrinking the size & power of government itself?
Me: Sorry for my lack of clarity. This might represent a paradigm shift of sorts, since the news so poorly reports the issue.
Your examples in some fashion represent reductions in benefit payouts, "cuts" if you will. However, we may also call that a tax increase, since the net effect is to deprive someone of money they would have otherwise had.
But we must note that this says nothing at all about the totality of government spending, because most certainly that saved money was spent elsewhere, plus even more money, and certainly, enhanced by additional taxation.
Those "cuts" were only cuts to specific expenditures, not cuts to government. And they were very small compared to the increase in taxes, removal of deductions and tax credits, and the delay of benefits eligibility. In any case, you can see that government imposed no austerity on itself, it only did so on its people.
Just to restate, unless government expenditures were subject to a real reduction as compared to prior expenditures (or even kept flat!), there has been no austerity.
O.C.: Your examples in some fashion represent reductions in benefit payouts, "cuts" if you will. However, we may also call that a tax increase, since the net effect is to deprive someone of money they would have otherwise had. "
No. If your definitions are that muddy and you're willing to make blurry statments like that then no one reasonable will ever be able to follow your logic. Come again?
Your last paragraph is much clearer though.
Me: My premise is that there is no government austerity. Only the people themselves are being made to sacrifice. Giving up a benefit is a sacrifice of the people, not government. My assertions remain intact.
B.R.: Then how can a government take actual austerity measures?
Me: Ahhhh... you nailed it. The people always bear the cost of government. Every place the government takes wealth from some of the people and pays it out to others, it creates a group of people who will be hurt by government if it cannot pay its obligations.
Austerity for government would represent a fundamental shift in structure that it will never do. there is too much power at stake, and government never willingly gives up power.
B.R.: Then what's the definition of "lower spending", since you say it's the real solution that we haven't tried yet?
Me: When the actual amount spend this year is lower than the prior year. I'll accept flat spending as an acceptable definition, since inflation is part of the equation.
B.R.: Even though the people will be the only ones negatively affected by that lowered spending?
Me: We have seen the results of the interruption of the flow of cash in European nations. This is the nature of entitlement.
The decision ultimately is not if people will be hurt, it's which ones. You can be sure that government won't be.
B.R.: how do you mean?
Me: Compromise is only a one way street in politics.
B.R.: You're saying the only compromise that ever happens is one side giving into the request of the other? There's no mutually beneficial compromises in politics?
Me: Pretty much. "Compromise" has been invoked for many years in politics, but compromise has always manifested as one side giving in to the other. You will recall that the debt ceiling deal in August of 2011 was characterized as being republican obstructionism. The same happened during the government shutdown under Newt.
The reason your comments captured my interest was today's opinion piece in my local paper: http://mountainmantrails.blogspot.com/2012/11/steve-daines-can-reach-across-aisle-for.html - And another one here: http://mountainmantrails.blogspot.com/2012/10/voters-should-support-compromise-in.html
Compromise, as far as I can tell, is when Republicans are persuaded to agree with Democrats.
J.R.: I can't believe that these poor folks are called "Obstructionists" just because they announce their intentions publicly and privately to never cooperate with the other side.
Me: Republicans: Public pronouncements, but private caving vs. Democrats: public pronouncements, but private inflexibility.
K.B.: I wish the GOP would quit signing all those pledges! As one media analyst remarked, "What is this, the Boy Scouts?"
When you sign a pledge, you've attached your name, your reputation, and your honor to a single idea, thereby making it impossible to embrace any alternatives without looking like a doofus and a weakling.
Pledging a single, inflexible point of view and then vowing to maintain it no matter what has no place in politics. Politics, by its very nature, is a fluid thing.
Anwar Sadat compromised. The West gave him the Nobel Peace Prize and hailed him as a hero. At the same time, he was the most despised person in all the Arab world. The extreme point of view won out when Sadat was assassinated.
Compromise is much more civil. And nobody needs to get killed over it.
K.B.: Or, to give a more modern example, the elder Bush said "Read my lips! No ... New ... Taxes!!"
When necessity forced him to depart from that pledge, it cost him all hope of a second term.
Me: Only one alternative has ever been tried: increasing taxes and spending more money. Increasing taxes has never reduced the national debt. I applaud those politicians who have the courage to try another way.
B.R.: What other way?
K.B.: If you are going broke, two things make a lot of sense ...
1) Cool it on the spending, and
2) Think of ways to bring in more money.
Me: Lower spending. Hasn't been tried yet. Cut spending for five straight years and I will embrace every tax increase you propose. If still needed.
J.R.: Are you kidding? "Lower spending," also known as "austerity measures," has been attempted as a solution many, many times throughout history (in the US and throughout the world) in response to recession. It always has the same effect: it prolongs the recession. Recent examples include Japan (mid-90s to present) and currently in Europe, notably Greece.
Me: Except that "austerity measures" are comprised almost exclusively of tax increases and benefit delays. I challenge you to find a single austerity measure that has cut total real spending by any amount. http://mountainmantrails.blogspot.com/2012/11/greece-narrowly-passes-crucial.html
http://mountainmantrails.blogspot.com/2012/10/austerity-in-czech-republic-is.html
Sorry to refer you continuously to my blog, but I have already covered this ground there.
J.R.: Examples of recent significant austerity cuts include those in Ireland, Spain, Greece, and the UK making drastic cuts in social welfare and aid to families with dependent children, as well as broad reductions in wages for government employees, ranging from 3 year freezes to as much as 25% wage cuts.
Me: I have noticed some reports of that nature, but what I asked for was an austerity measure that cut total real spending by any amount. My point being, there is no government austerity, there is only taxpayers having to pony up more dough.
J.R.: Hmm, maybe I don't understand your point. The examples I gave represent direct reductions in government spending... Are you looking for austerity measures that reduce the SIZE of government (e.g. eliminating the Dept of Homeland Security)?
Me: Well, if a department is eliminated, the government can still grow (remember the "peace dividend?"). The elimination of a department has never happened anyway.
However, austerity in common parlance is the reining in of expenses, cutting back and reducing obligations. No government has ever done this in an attempt to avert a financial crisis.
Austerity as it applies to government means enhancing the financial take of government at the expense of the taxpayer. Therefore, the only party experiencing austerity in this scenario is the people.
J.R.: Gosh Rich, I'm trying but I just can't figure out where our disconnect is. You're saying that no government has ever reined in expenses, cut back, and reduced their obligations, and it seems to me that the examples I offered did exactly that. Is your main point that "austerity measures" ultimately hurt people without truly shrinking the size & power of government itself?
Me: Sorry for my lack of clarity. This might represent a paradigm shift of sorts, since the news so poorly reports the issue.
Your examples in some fashion represent reductions in benefit payouts, "cuts" if you will. However, we may also call that a tax increase, since the net effect is to deprive someone of money they would have otherwise had.
But we must note that this says nothing at all about the totality of government spending, because most certainly that saved money was spent elsewhere, plus even more money, and certainly, enhanced by additional taxation.
Those "cuts" were only cuts to specific expenditures, not cuts to government. And they were very small compared to the increase in taxes, removal of deductions and tax credits, and the delay of benefits eligibility. In any case, you can see that government imposed no austerity on itself, it only did so on its people.
Just to restate, unless government expenditures were subject to a real reduction as compared to prior expenditures (or even kept flat!), there has been no austerity.
O.C.: Your examples in some fashion represent reductions in benefit payouts, "cuts" if you will. However, we may also call that a tax increase, since the net effect is to deprive someone of money they would have otherwise had. "
No. If your definitions are that muddy and you're willing to make blurry statments like that then no one reasonable will ever be able to follow your logic. Come again?
Your last paragraph is much clearer though.
Me: My premise is that there is no government austerity. Only the people themselves are being made to sacrifice. Giving up a benefit is a sacrifice of the people, not government. My assertions remain intact.
B.R.: Then how can a government take actual austerity measures?
Me: Ahhhh... you nailed it. The people always bear the cost of government. Every place the government takes wealth from some of the people and pays it out to others, it creates a group of people who will be hurt by government if it cannot pay its obligations.
Austerity for government would represent a fundamental shift in structure that it will never do. there is too much power at stake, and government never willingly gives up power.
B.R.: Then what's the definition of "lower spending", since you say it's the real solution that we haven't tried yet?
Me: When the actual amount spend this year is lower than the prior year. I'll accept flat spending as an acceptable definition, since inflation is part of the equation.
B.R.: Even though the people will be the only ones negatively affected by that lowered spending?
Me: We have seen the results of the interruption of the flow of cash in European nations. This is the nature of entitlement.
The decision ultimately is not if people will be hurt, it's which ones. You can be sure that government won't be.
No comments:
Post a Comment