Friday, January 25, 2008

The GOP Will Have to Steal the Next Election Because They Cannot Win it

The Republican party is losing its "business base" because it's on the wrong side of every issue that will decide the Presidency and the make up of congress. Those issues include the economy, the endless war, ballooning deficits and health care. A killer issue is a fact gaining traction even among the GOP: the GOP is bad for a good economy. I've got the stats to prove that beyond any reasonable doubt. Also spelling doom for the GOP is the fact that even hard-nose businessmen are "fed up" with GOP myopia, its fanatical obsession with so-called "social issues", primarily, abortion and gay marriage. These are not the "wedge issues" they used to be. People are just sick of hearing about it! Give it a frickin' rest.
Focus On Social Issues. Countless businessmen I know tell me they are exhausted with the Republicans' focus on abortion, gay marriage, and the host of social issues the party insists on putting on the front burner. Business journals have similar reports. This is not surprising, for all polls show that for most Americans, these are not the centrally important issues.

--John Dean, The Dwindling Republican Business Base: It's the Economy, Stupid
This is expected from so-called progressives and liberals, but the growing sense of discontent and malaise found among those who would normally vote or consider themselves GOP may spell utter disaster come election day. Like everyone else, it seems, business people are likewise fed up with the endless war against Iraq.

The War In Iraq. Just as many other Americans find the war in Iraq an unqualified disaster, businesspeople tell reporters that they do not like the lies Bush and Cheney told, to take us into a war that will likely only create more terrorists hating America. Like many others, they see this as dangerous folly. In addition, the war has been a fiscal disaster, with billions thrown away and no accounting whatsoever. As a retired Westinghouse manager and lifelong Republican told the Wall Street Journal, "'We've lost control of spending,' and the administration's execution of the Iraq war has been 'incompetent.'" Businesspeople have little tolerance for incompetence; only true ideologues can over look it.

--John Dean, The Dwindling Republican Business Base: It's the Economy, Stupid
With all due respect to John Dean, whose columns for Findlaw never fail to cut to the chase, I have been saying for years that when it comes to the economy, any credit given the GOP is unfounded. The GOP has presided over worse economic growth married to increased federal spending at least since World War II. The administration of Ronald Reagan should have been the wake up call. Reagan's tax cut of 1982 was followed by a depression of some two years. GOP types counter that following the recession, the economy rebounded with a boom. Hardly! At the end of two years of negative growth, in fact the worst "depression" since the crash of 1929, Americans were lucky that the economy merely resumed an anemic 3 percent growth rate, nothing to write home about. Big corporations could write off many losses but inividuals and families, as usual, were stuck with the tab. Many never really fully recovered.

We haven't seen incompetence on this scale since Warren Harding, Calvin Coolidge, Herbert Hoover, Ronald Reagan or Bush Sr. (all Republicans, need I remind?)

The time has come to bury forever two tired, old, worn-out GOP shibboleths: 1) Wealth does not and never will trickle down; 2) there is no invisible hand! Just ask Larry Craig. In the meantime, check out these budget deficits below, caused primarily by profligate tax cuts which have never stimulated the economy and have, in fact, never trickled down. Notice that the worst deficits --like terrorism --are worse during GOP regimes.
According to supply-side theory, these actions should have nudged the economy in the right direction, not plunged it into the worst recession in 40 years. Other problems involve timing: Reagan's first tax cuts went into effect in 1982, but this was also the summer that the Federal Reserve Board slashed interest rates and expanded the money supply. Most economists believe the Fed, not Reagan, was responsible for the following recovery. Finally, the recession of 1990 began four months before Bush broke his "no new taxes" pledge. The recession began in July 1990; Bush signed his tax increases into law in November 1990.

And supply-siders are careful to note that Reagan's was the longest peacetime expansion since World War II. In truth, the Kennedy-Johnson expansion was longer: 106 months compared to Reagan's 92.1

--The Reagan Years

Moreover, the Fed's "peace time expansion" following Ronald Reagan's "depression" of almost two years was uneven. The worst income disparities in American history had already been triggered. As if by design, Reagan's rich base got even richer and everyone else lost ground. They are still losing ground despite an all to brief respite in Bill Clinton's second term. The GOP has ruined the American economy, perhaps forever. The budget shown below --your money squandered by Bush.




The terms "liberal" and "conservative" are all but meaningless in the world apres-Bush. Both terms already mean something different than they did in the 19th Century. For example, British economist John Maynard Keynes was until very recently scorned by the right wing; his brand of economics was called "liberal" and he was simplistically, perhaps, simple-mindedly, associated with Marx. Yet, Keynes took issue with Karl Marx on key points. "I don't want a social revolution", Keynes said. He went on to characterize poverty as a "...dysfunctional threat" to a capitalist system which he favored. Fact is, Keynes, for all his notoriety was conservative.

Nevertheless, that Keynes denounced "poverty" is enough to earn him the enmity of modern conservatives who obviously like the feelings of superiority they experience when millions of others are without jobs and scrambling to feed themselves or, as Bush put it, to "...put food on your families".

It is Keynes' use of the phrase "...extending the traditional functions of government" that inspires conservatives to cross themselves and wear garlic. It was by "extending" those traditional functions that Keynes believed unemployment could be eliminated. This is, of course, anathema to laissez-faire throwbacks like Ron Paul whose economic thinking is stuck in 19th Century mud.

The same conservatives are not bothered by "extensions of government" effected by Reagan, Bush Sr., and now the Shrub. Ronald Reagan's program would have been thought "liberal" had the same program been advocated by a Democrat. As Richard Nixon committed the nation to deficits of truly "liberal" proportions, he famously said: "We are all Keynesians now".

The GOP has managed to screw up even that tried and proven formula. When Democrats practice Keynesian economics, it works. When the GOP does it, the nation slides into recession or depression as the rich get rich off the carcasses left behind. Check the chart! The reason for that is the fact that GOP "tax cuts" enrich an already elite. Very little of any of those "tax cut windfalls" ever trickle down to anyone in any way at any time. It is probably found offshore like every job that the GOP has managed to export despite the bullshit that was told me by Milton Friedman personally.

The biggest spending "liberals" are the GOP, yet, unlike "big spending Democrats" whose deficits were accompanied by handsome and egalitarian growth, GOP big spending is invariably associated with depression, stagflation, outsourcing and rising unemployment! If this is done deliberately to enrich cronies, then the GOP leadership should be tried en masse for criminal conspiracy. If not, they should be pilloried as the lying incompetents that they have proven themselves to be.

The GOP find hypocrisy expedient and a recent "debate" is a case in point. All GOPcandidates all but bowed low to praise Herr Bush who has now outspent Ronald Reagan with even less good, Keynesian effect! Reagan had been our biggest spending liberal, tripling the national debt, running up historically high deficits, doubling the size of the Federal Bureaucracy. None of it worked as planned because none of it benefited working Americans. Reagan had in mind "extending the traditional functions of government" but only in order to benefit the wealthy and the corporate.

Even the GOP cannot ignore the effect that the war against Iraq has had on the US economy. But, as John Dean points out, business folk, normally considered the GOP base, are just as fed up with the war as are most other, normal Americans. No one can now deny the fact that the war against Iraq has very nearly defeated the US economy, now on the brink of economic collapse. Google the title: "Terrorism is always worse under GOP Regimes". That was originally my article and it would appear that it has gone "viral". I am grateful that those who have graciously published it on hundreds, if not thousands of blogs and other sites, are kind enough to link back to the original which is parked right here on this cowboy's ranch. Let us hope that another irrefutable truth goes viral: the Republican party is bad for a good economy!

14 comments:

Anonymous said...

The graphs do not lie...to bad this will fall on deaf ears and blind eyes when it comes to the republican base. In ten years, they will treat Bush just like Reagan, (no doubt with media compliance) it will never be said he was a wasteful spender, putting the economy in a ditch.

The conservative punditry will admit it today (like they have a choice) but in the future it will all be forgotten or rewritten and down played in their usual revisionist gibberish. Of course, in no time the rhetoric will be back on target, you know it's the Democrat that give all the money away to the poor... (it is an amazing feat..just how do they do it?...with those shabby clothes and broken grocery carts, amazing they manage to run up such a deficit!) I do hope some of the last few years sticks with some of the citizenry, and these liars do not get another round at promoting their bullshit.

Republicans have been riding high in Florida for the past 12 years, and boy have things gone sour. They are currently pushing some bogus tax referendum of sorts...all I know is that all the wealthy out of state semi-residents and every large corporation is for it, along with most republican legislators...I keep telling people THOSE signs should be enough to automatically reject it... they vote on Tuesday here, and the poll has it 55% for and 35% against...this state is pure stupid, hands down. Apparently people here do not under stand the "fuck me twice (or three times if you like) shame on me " part of life.

benmerc

Anonymous said...

Even the GOP cannot ignore the effect that the war against Iraq has had on the US economy. -- exactly, Len.

Steven Lesser notes that it is the Iraq war and Bush tax cuts that have really magnified the present economic crisis:

If Bush had never engineered the tax cuts he put into place over the first three years of his tenure, and he had not fought the Iraq war, we would have a federal budget that had a several hundred billion dollar surplus. We would have a lot less government spending and a lot less money in circulation, meaning lower prices and less inflationary pressure. If, in 2001 and 2003, Bush had listened to the consensus of the best economic minds in the country and instead of tax cuts had enacted temporary demand-side stimulus packages, lower and middle income Americans would have had the money they needed to ride out the recession but the government would have not had the loss of $1.7 Trillion in revenue over the last six years. You can talk about the housing bubble and sub-prime mortgages and the lending crisis, but without the loss of $1.7 trillion dollars in revenue and without the expenditures of $600 Billion on the Iraq war, I feel confident in saying we could have dealt with those issues.

Lesser also says that we are not dealing with an ordinary recession, but stagflation, and that by choosing the wrong remedies (cash handouts and interest rate reductions) Bush is simply giving the markets a "dead cat bounce". As one commentator put it "The Bernanke fix was about as helpful as a shot and a beer for a heroin junkie.". The real action will start in six months or so with an even bigger share market slide.

Sorry to sound so pessimistic on this one but I was just watching some financial air head on Nightly Business Report insisting we've seen the bottom of the current stock market falls. I guess he hasn't noticed that property trusts and even banks are looking at freezing withdrawals for up to 12 months (1 2 3 4) and that it's not just home loans that are failing. US commercial real estate is also crashing.

There is no meaningful US economic leadership at the moment. It's the good ship Titanic with no one at the helm and ice water around our ankles.

Anonymous said...

Larry Beinhart also has an excellent account of how the GOP has been engaged in a "leveraged buyout of the national economy". They could never hope to simply steal the nations assets so they loaded everything down with debt and now intend to asset-strip what's left and leave a permanent US underclass. This is the point: they know exactly what they're doing and that's what makes them criminals. Assholes.

Christopher said...

Historically, the performances of capitalist economies always decline to the extent that the gaps between the rich and poor widen, where the numbers of the poor increase faster than the numbers of the rich.

There is a link between "depressed" people and a "depressed" economy. The greater the spread of economic insecurity and unemployment in a society, the more emotionally "depressed" people are, which leads them to spend less, leading to slackening demand for goods and services.

So the disciplines economics and psychology are connected through the word "depression".

Are most Americans happier or less "depressed" during Democratic administrations than during Republican ones? If yes, it would follow that the economy does better under Democratic administrations than Republican.

Capitalism without the moderating hand of the public sector destroys itself, as the Great Depression showed. The Great Depression came to an end on a single day, December 7th 1941, when the public sector, unfortunately in the form of war, arguably saved capitalism from itself.

The monies pumped into the economy because of the war, and during during the 1950's, was Keynesianism writ hugely. The result was the transformation of America into a middle-class society, leading to the greatest economic expansion in history.

Doubtless Richard Nixon knew this, and so famously said "We are all Keynesians now".

Even George Bush is a Keynesian, although he would probably never admit this - assuming he's heard of the word "Keynesian".

Anonymous said...

"They could never hope to simply steal the nations assets so they loaded everything down with debt and now intend to asset-strip what's left and leave a permanent US underclass" -damien


I have heard this theory before;As once they have dumbed down the middle class, removing vestiges of any significant economic and political power, it will be relatively easy to finish whittling away yet other levels of constitutional rights, creating a legal maze of a national security state... allowing an elite authoritarianism of some over-class to evolve ( I believe we are already in a similar condition presently).

If at all any of this is being entertained, I believe it is a great underestimation of the average American's value on their individuality, and rights, no matter how unsophisticated the perception of loss may be to these "decider's". The immediate plan of the neo-cons, is officially unknown, other then transferring wealth up, and consolidating power amongst themselves.

The saving grace is to just look at Iraq, how utterly misguided in design and implementation that whole effort has become, it is near a total failure, and I do not believe anyone at this point really knows whats next. Also, I do not buy into the theory's that this is how they wanted it to turn out, I believe there was some of that element in the equation, but not wholesale loss of most regional controls to the extent that has occurred. The only reason it is somewhat quieted down over there, is that the most powerful insurgent groups apparently have presently agreed to make it so...for now. My point is, the neo-cons and their spin -off supporters are not only delusional, they are poor planners and rift with cronyism and corruption, which will take down any "movement" in short order. But, there is no denying the immense damage they have caused, and the bills we have yet to encounter, let alone square up with..

benmerc

Unknown said...

benmerc wrote...

...in no time the rhetoric will be back on target, you know it's the Democrat that give all the money away to the poor

I think the progressive community has been somewhat lax to have let the right wing get away with re-writing history. It's the Orwellian way.

Damien wrote...

Steven Lesser notes that it is the Iraq war and Bush tax cuts that have really magnified the present economic crisis

But count on the right wing to come up with some kind of absurd spin. The R. Reagan spin machine was at work re-writing the "Reagan legacy" while the incompetent boob was still in the White House. Milton Friedman told me personally that "no jobs" had been "exported" during the Reagan years. I wished that he had tried telling that big windy to the millions who lost not merely jobs but careers during Reagan's missrule.

There is no meaningful US economic leadership at the moment.

It's just a mad scramble to get what you can while the "gettin' is good", a symptom of a major crash.

Christopher said...

Historically, the performances of capitalist economies always decline to the extent that the gaps between the rich and poor widen, where the numbers of the poor increase faster than the numbers of the rich.

Precisely so, Christopher. It's almost silly sometimes to argue the chicken/egg question. Do disparities cause or are they the symptom of economic decline? A bit of both, I think. They are both symptom and cause. Things move more quickly in modern times. Rome experienced all the "phases" but it was, for the most part, a long decline. The US won't be so lucky.

The rise of Bush himself was symptomatic of several portentous developments over the last few decades. Once elected, he became a catalyst, a cause of precipitous decline.

The monies pumped into the economy because of the war, and during during the 1950's, was Keynesianism writ hugely.

Indeed, but there is a fundamental difference in the manner in which the GOP practices Keynesian economics and that of Democrats. As you point out, when Democrats practice Keynesianism, the entire society prospered. The US, in the years following WWII, had never been so "egalitarian" and, thanks to the GOP, would never be so again. As I pointed out in the article, when the Democratic party practices Keynesian economics, it works more or less. When the GOP practices it, it is a catatrophic failure. Why? It's because GOP "Keynesianism" exacerbates inequities and rewards ONLY the investor class which, in fact, produces nothing. True Keynesian economics is premised upon the "labor theory" of value despised by the GOP. Trickle-down tax cuts cannot be shown to have ever benefited anyone but the investor class and they cannot be shown to have ever "sparked" a substantial period of growth. The much vaunted "Reagan recovery", for example, was two years in starting. And at the end of that two year long "depression", the growth rate never exceeded growth prior to Reagan's
tax cut. That rate was three percent! So --nothing had been gained unless you were among the tiny elite that squirreled the tax cuts away in offshore banks or other safe havens. Clearly --NO new jobs and no new industries resulted. The rich continued to get richer and the poor poorer even through recessions, a trend that did not abate until Clinton's second term. Bush put an end to that last hope! Put another way --Reagan put the nation through a ruinous "depression" and not only was the nation itself no better off for it, millions of individuals would never fully recover.

Anonymous said...

Fuzzflash sez...

Great discussion, all. This economic crisis thing is building up more back pressure the pending Yellowstone big bang. But like Mt. St. Helen in 1980, hardly anybody realised it was gonna blow sideways with extreme prejudice because "vulcanologists" were blinded by Hawaii'n modelling. They'd been there and seen it all before. No worries. These people were experts. Of course we could trust them. The MSM and high raking government mules told us so.

The ugly truth is that The Experts fucked-up bigtime then, and are doing so now.

"Don't worry about it already, the government's Economic Stimulus Package will have things all fixed up in a jiffy. Just like after 9/11, git out to them darned malls and start spendin' again like patriotic Americans."

Yeah right! Get ready to kiss your 401k adios.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=SJ_qK4g6ntM

Unknown said...

That's the scary part, fuzz. Millions have no other prospects than the 401K. In the 1930s the "establishment" was shaking in their cowardly boots. There was a very real chance of revolution. That same class had best be frightened now! People are a helluva lot better informed now and, I dare say, much more pissed off. Livid! Angry! The GOP is in deep shit and Democrats only slightly better off. Pelosi had much to answer for. Bush should have been frogged marched out of the White House, forced to stand trial for capital crimes.

Anonymous said...

Things are so bad for *both* political parties that they are trying to buy voters.

Here are a couple graphs that explain things better than I could.

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/BORROW?rid=19

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/NFORBRES?rid=19

Unknown said...

The GOP is cheap...they will just steal them. In fact, plans are already afoot. The GOP will just steal however many votes they need to swing the key states.

Anonymous said...

Fuzz sez…

LH: “In the 1930s the "establishment" was shaking in their cowardly boots. There was a very real chance of revolution. That same class had best be frightened now! People are a helluva lot better informed now and, I dare say, much more pissed off.”

This is true Len, although two important differences between now and then spring to what’s left of my mind.
First, Posse Comitatus was still intactus in the 30’s; US troops were less likely to fire upon US citizens(a la Beijing born Chinese troops in the early days of the Tiannamin massacre), despite what Douglas “Nuke Them Yellah Perils” Macarthur did to unpaid WW1 US soldiers in Washington D.C. in 1919.
BlackwaterUSA mercs will happily slaughter who they are told to as long as their paychecks and kill bonuses keep accumulating. Nothing personal, you understand.

Secondly, there is no Culture of Dissent as there was in the 30’s. Unions had shown people the power of organizing and speaking with one voice. These days the ungulates are more informed about the flibberty-gibbert that daily spews upon them from their MSM controlled home plasma screens. Sure, they are frightened, angry and frustrated but their consent has been manufactured by their relentless dumbing down and regular re-enforcement by a ruthlessly efficient propaganda machine.
The ungulates have been corralled and conquered. One of their few remaining weapons is where they spend their diminishing incomes. Such a sweet irony really that “Good” goppers are waking up to the fact that BushCo are seriously bad for bidness long term.

Anyway the future looks rather glum. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that Diebold dodgies will attempt to steal Nov. 2008 election, but we gather here on your porch, regular-like because the last and the greatest of human dreams still matters to us and we “don’ give up da fight", mon.

Damien, why do you suggest it will be 6 months before the caga grande kicks in? And can you point me to a site where I can learn to put numeric links in my comments here. Muchas gratias.
-------------------------
Stumbled into a mess of Deadwood on DVD recently and watched the first 6 episodes in two hits.
Right up there with the Sopranos and West Wing so far. The folks who put this together have deep insight into the human, which of course includes the American condition.
--------------------------------
Vale Heath Ledger who spoke out against the illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq, and who threatened sexually repressed bigots to the bone by portraying a homosexual as a human being; a shirt-liftin', sheep-herdin', strong silent type dressed as Marlboro Man. Hawks and homophobes hated Heath with passion.

Unknown said...

The Fuzz man wrote:

US troops were less likely to fire upon US citizens(a la Beijing born Chinese troops in the early days of the Tiannamin massacre

To pick a nit, the US has never hesitated to fire upon its own citizens. General Patton lead a cavalry charge into the "tent city" of WWI vets camped on the Mall. All they wanted was the bonus that had been promised them for fighting the Great War. At other times, "they" would simply look the other way when the steel magnates ordered their "strikebreakers" do the dirty work. There were lots of Joe Hill's in America's bloody, violent past. Howard Zinn is, perhaps, the only historian who has made an attempt to write our real history.

And I haven't even mentioned my own ancestors on my Mother's side of the famille: the Cherokee and Choctaw nations, proud, civilized folk, famrers, in fact, who were rounded up no less impolitely than Hitler rounded up Jews and gypsies. They were marched off their lands, their farms, to "concentration camps" in Oklahoma!

Forcing one to go to Oklahoma is a crime against humanity! I went north to OK from Texas once and was mistaken for a damn yankee! I shudder to think what might have happened had my pioneer ancestors took a right turn at the Sabine.

Ironically, that state's best export was its favorite son: Will Rogers, himself the product of the reservation. His was, perhaps, the sole voice of wit and wisdom throughout that dark, deep and extremely Republican depression.

Secondly, there is no Culture of Dissent as there was in the 30’s. Unions had shown people the power of organizing and speaking with one voice.

You are absolutely correct. As many Americans --at last --moved into the middle class, they fancied themselves aristocrats. They dare not dissent for fear of losing their corporate jobs and identities, their newly acquired, suburban status.

Few of us are truly free, the very, very poor perhaps and the very, very rich. Of the two, the very, very poor are perhaps freer than the very, very rich. I am reminded of Bobby MaGee: "Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose".

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

The Republicans say that lower taxes increase revenues. O.K., let's lower all the rates to 1% (the revenues would really be pouring in then, huh?). Democrats, on the other hand, say that high tax rates won't hamper incentive. O.K., let's increase all rates on the wealthy to 99% (all that frigging tax money and punitive, yes!!). Bottom line, folks, we gotta govern here.

Unknown said...

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

The Republicans say that lower taxes increase revenues. O.K., let's lower all the rates to 1% (the revenues would really be pouring in then, huh?).

Indeed! It is theoretically possible to draw a curve in which revenues might increase with lower rates of taxation but it is all premised upon a phenomenon that have probably never happened in fact. Specifically, big companies would immediately invest that money in crating new DOMESTIC jobs, raising wages or both. Nothing of the sort happened. Many benefiting from the tax cuts merely salted it away --some in offshore banks or other investments that had very little if any effect on jobs or wages.

The GOP would have been better off giving workers a "fair tax cut" that might have translated more quicly into purchases or savings that might have gotten back into the economy in the form of mortgages or small business loans.

GOP tax cuts --because they are inequitable --are a drag on the economy.