The United States of Amnesia and the Reagan Myth

A year and a half after Obama’s inauguration, the economy has lost another 3 million jobs. Republicans/Conservatives/Libertarians are claiming they told us so, and are happily bringing up Obama’s low approval ratings. It's not uncommon to see clever logos on shirts and Facebook pages messages like "NOBAMA" and "GTFO" using Obama 2008 campaign logo colors. Alongside this, seems to be an almost religious-like notion among many (no doubt, mainly conservatives) that Reagan stepped into office and cleaned Jimmy Carter’s ‘mess’ virtually overnight. That what we really need is a Reagan (or for that matter, a Ron Paul). With their fiscally responsible economic theories and eloquent lip service to the free market, America would find itself in a faster recovery.

But taking employment numbers from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, we can see things didn’t work so smoothly for Reagan. And we see yet another example of how, for all the superficially impressive “cutting spending” sounds, its actual application has been a complete failure. In comparing time lines (the year before being inaugurated to the year after), we can see what Reagan’s progress would look like during this time in President Obama’s time in office.

Obama was inaugurated as the economy was losing jobs (in fact, nearly 800,000 jobs were lost the month he was inaugurated). Within a few months, we see the job losses level out and even slightly recover.



Reagan was inaugurated as the economy was gaining jobs. Within a few months, we see this trend reverse, and job losses would continue beyond the period being measured.




In comparing unemployment rates, it looks like this (note the unemployment rates change after Obama and Reagan’s policies).



In fact, this is what Reagan’s poll numbers looked like around this time. As you can see, during this time in his presidency, the unemployment rate was worse and his approval ratings were in the toilet. Anyone predicting his re-election at this point in his presidency would sound crazy. His re-election took place with the unemployment was still around 9%. Unemployment will likely hover around 7.5-8% when the 2012 election cycle comes around.



Fiscal conservatives are also fond of reciting Reagan’s tax cuts and how they grew the economy. The problem with this is that the “growth” is virtually indistinguishable with a typical economic recovery phase of a business cycle. This ‘growth’ is also dwarfed by the growth that preceded Clinton’s raising taxes on the top income earners (important to keep in mind considering conservatives are arguing against Obama’s pledge to allow the Bush tax cuts on the top earners to expire). The Clinton-era growth goes well beyond a typical recovery. It was true economic growth that grew even a fully employed economy. Raising taxes on the top earners apparently didn't prevent economic growth.


Whether or not we can really attribute unemployment rates and GDP growth to the policies passed under these presidents is debatable. The point is, religious-like memory of Reagan is false, and the constant lambasting of Obama is based on partisan bias and/or a misunderstanding of economic recoveries.



In understanding the usual trends that come with recessions and looking back at previous cycles it's not at all surprising the economy is taking awhile to recover. It's easy to point the finger at Obama (in fact, before Obama was even inaugurated, Fox news was already referring to the "Obama Recession") and assume it's his fault businesses aren't hiring. But the more you compare this to previous recessions and take into account that the financial crisis threatened to be the next Great Depression, the less likely you are to play the blame game (and that includes blaming Bush).

Unfortunately, it seems we've mostly been conditioned to think in the short term. We assume that if a President makes the right decisions the effect will be felt overnight. Instead of learning about recessions and realizing that stock market rallies and GDP growth precede job growth, and that job growth doesn't happen overnight, we simply look to point fingers at politicians. It never quite occurred to me what Gore Vidal meant when he says that we live in the United States of Amnesia until I really began to follow politics and current events 2 years ago.

The Jobs Bill & Republican self-fulfilling prophecies

Once again, Republicans are united in their opposition to a bill (this time, the "Small Business Jobs and Credit Act of 2010") that Democrats are attempting to pass through the Senate. It doesn't matter that the Democrats have a majority; there are now enough Republicans to successfully filibuster a bill even without the aid of a handful of moderate/conservative/sellout Democrat Senators/House members.

Conveniently, this allows Republicans/Libertarians (and anyone else who parrots the "bloated government" mantra) to use this as another example of bureaucratic inefficiency. The tactic works fine for Republican politicians, as they benefit from strengthening their argument that privatization is the answer to everything. Any blame regarding the stalled economic recovery is automatically passed on to "the party in control."

See also: Small businesses hold off spending while waiting for aid

PR: wait... I: wait... L: wait... LD: wait... I: wait... wait... Rank: wait... Traffic: wait... Price: wait... C: wait...

The "Ground Zero Mosque"

The proposed building of a cultural center/mosque near Ground Zero (or in it, depending on what exactly you consider Ground Zero) has sparked a heated debate over its appropriateness and its potential danger. Conservative pundits are selling their audiences on the idea that Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf (head of the Cordoba Initiative--the organization would be building the center) is an Islamic extremist with anti-American views and a potential anti-American agenda.

As far as I can tell, the allegedly liberal media hasn't done a very good job of explaining a few things;

Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf;

* Aided the Bush administration in anti-terrorism efforts
* Has been outspoken against Islamic terrorism
* Is not the only one who's voiced dissent against American military involvement in the Middle East. In Marching Towards Hell, Michael Scheuer (form CIA Chief of the Bin Laden Issue Station) makes the case that America has been backing unpopular dictatorships in the Middle East, and that this has driven anti-American sentiment in the middle east. Ron Paul also attempted to make this point in the Republican Primary "Debates" (it's odd that we only give our potential eventual a number of seconds to answer complicated questions--the result is a slinging of sound bytes that passes for a "debate") leaders only to lambasted by Rudy Guiliani who framed Paul's comment as though he were claiming America "invited" the attacks.
* Is actually a Sufi (a more mystical brand of Islam...Think of "The Qur'an meets The Secret") and is a liberal western appeaser by the standards of Osama Bin Laden

Also

* Islam is already part of the WTC area. It's not as though the area is currently devoid of Muslims and will remain so unless the cultural center is built.
* Some 9/11 family members themselves are in support of building this cultural center
* The New York City Landmarks Preservation Commission has voted to allow it to be built
* The ‘Mosque' is actually a cultural center which indeed includes a mosque.
But it is inaccurate to merely refer to this as a building of a mosque
* As of right now (8/24/10) NO money has actually been raised for the project (despite rhetorical questions regarding where the money is coming from).
* The cultural center is actually 2 blocks from where the planes crashed. While it's true that the cultural center is being built in place of a building was hit by a plane on it's way to its eventual target, claiming it's being built "on ground zero" leaves with many, the impression that it's being built exactly where the planes ended up.

I personally don't believe that the cultural center introduces increases the threat of a new 9/11. I would argue that the real debate should be over the symbolism of this new building. How will it affect the 9/11 family members (there doesn't seem to be ‘one' answer since they themselves appear to be split on the matter). Will it empower and enable radical Jihadists? Will it be seen as a sign of weakness? Will it actually take the potential support away from Jihadists in the form of losing ground with more moderate muslisms?

Mind-Boggling Stats on Wealth Inequality

When I first accidentally ran into a video of Nobel Prize winning Paul Krugman explaining the trend in wealth inequality in America, and how among industrialized nations, this trend was unqiue to America (meaning, the usual suspects like globalization and immigration couldn't be so easily scapegoated), there seemed to be very few other sources talking about these trands. I just ran into this piece in the SF gate, which compiles several of these trends and provides easy-to-understand graphs, along with their sources. This one on the right pretty much explains the fallacy behind the assumption that tax decreases on the top earners will have a trickle-down effect, and make everyone better off.

Here is the article;
15 Mind-Blowing Facts about Wealth and Ineqiality in America

This is the Paul Krugman video I was referring to.

The Small Government Movement

I have posted several times about much of the rhetorical firepower for small government/lasseiz faire capitalism movement coming from think tanks which exist for the sole sake or arguing for small government/laissez faire capitalism as opposed to objectively crunching data and returning unbiased results. A recent firing from such an institution certainly drives the point;

David Frum and the Closing of the Conservative Mind

As some readers of this blog may know, I was fired by a right wing think tank called the National Center for Policy Analysis in 2005 for writing a book critical of George W. Bush's policies, especially his support for Medicare Part D. In the years since, I have lost a great many friends and been shunned by conservative society in Washington, DC.

Now the same thing has happened to David Frum, who has been fired by the American Enterprise Institute. I don't know all the details, but I presume that his Waterloo post on Sunday condemning Republicans for failing to work with Democrats on healthcare reform was the final straw.

Since, he is no longer affiliated with AEI, I feel free to say publicly something he told me in private a few months ago. He asked if I had noticed any comments by AEI "scholars" on the subject of health care reform. I said no and he said that was because they had been ordered not to speak to the media because they agreed with too much of what Obama was trying to do.

The Liberal Mainstream Media?

This page has moved here

Obama: Big Business Sellout or Bolshevik Schemer?

So a neutered version of Obama's original health care proposal finally passed (so far at least). The existing fragmented private insurance system will get a tetanus shot that will help bend the cost curve. Yippee.

From the standpoint of free market fanatics, this is still "socialism." Obama is still apparently killing the free market and imposing his communist agenda. It's still "Obamacare." No matter what the Congressional Budget Office says about this bill actually bending the cost curve on health care and reducing the deficit (especially in the long run), they still kick and scream that "we can't afford it."

From the standpoint of the extremely (and borderline socialist) liberal, Obama totally catered to the special interests. He is no different than Bush. In fact, they've been angry since they realized he wasn't pushing for Single Payer health care (I guess they never read his health care plan when he was campaigning).

And on one hand you have the people who claim he should have been more partisan on this; that he should have included more Republican ideas (read Politifact's explanation of the borderline satirical Republican health care plan). On the other hand there are those that claim Obama didn't have the courage of his convictions to stick to his original plan. Similarly, some feel he did health care 'too early' (I wonder what they think of Bill Clinton's timing).

You would think these two viewpoints would cancel each other out. That the two sides would at least take the time to understand the plan from the other's point of view and realize that this is a very centrist plan and that it's the most that could possibly pass given the political climate. There exists a mandate because it's the only way for health insurers to cover people with pre-existing conditions without going bankrupt. The mandate wouldn't be necessary with a public option. Obama doesn't control Congress. The Republican minority was working lock-step to make this Obama's "waterloo." And just because the majority of Congress happens to be Democrat doesn't mean that these Senators and House Representatives are the same people with different heads. Harry Reid and Bart Stupak are not the same person. It's not Nancy Pelosi's fault that a good portion of the Democrats are borderline Republicans. And every member of Congress has their own geographically-based constituency to cater to.

To be fair, the plan does what it was intended to do. Those who can't afford coverage will mostly be covered now. Young adults can stay on their parent's insurance policy much longer. Insurance companies can no longer deny coverage based on pre-existing conditions (the mandate is necessary to keep people from gaming insurance companies by signing up when they need treatment, getting treated, then canceling their policies). Medicaid will be expanded and those still above the Medicaid threshold will receive subsidies to help pay for this mandated coverage. Medicare will become leaner and more efficient.

Unfortunately, pointing the finger is the easy thing to do. It seems finding a specific boogie man or at least a scape goat to point to is human nature. Or perhaps this is mainly an American thing? Are our political viewpoints affected by our love-hate relationship with villains and expectation of watching heroes eventually take it to them?

Health Care (H.R. 4872 ) Finally Passed

So Health Care passed (technically there could still exist one more painstaking battle in the Senate, but Democrats only need 51 votes to pass it). It's a historic moment that will largely be overshadowed by liberals who are disappointed that there's no public option (think of it is a Medicare that anyone can opt into so long as they pay premiums which would be much more affordable than private insurance companies), and conservatives who will wrangle on about inflated costs (as though what we have now wasn't scheduled to inflate far worse) and falsely claim that their ideas would have actually done anything to cut costs and increase coverage, and an endless debate on the obscure abortion funding.

Nevertheless, this bill is a big deal and had it not passed now, we'd of probably been looking at another 10-15 years before there was a large enough Democratic majority in Congress to get this done.

The essentials of this bill are:

1- A National Exchange where people can comparison shop for coverage (think Orbitz/Travelocity)

2- Tougher regulations/rules on insurers (no more denying coverage because you forgot to mention you had asthma as a kid and this counts as a pre-existing condition which you failed to account for in your coverage).

3- Required coverage for everyone. This makes many people gasp, but the truth is, #2 couldn't work without this one, since insurance companies would be overrun by people buying coverage when they get sick or injured, getting treatment, then canceling afterwards.

4- Subsidies for people with incomes low enough to make private coverage unaffordable but too high to qualify for Medicaid (makes #3 more palatable).

It will be interesting to see how this all plays out in the November primaries this year.

Politics and Current Events...Not Difficult to Follow

Lately I've had several friends tell me they don't 'get politics' or that it's too hard to follow. Oddly enough, most of them are able to keep up with sporting events, remembering which team is on a roll and how many times team X has kicked the crap out of team Y since 1996, as long as their quarterback/pitcher/defender/small forward/etc has Z attributes.

The point is, it's not hard at all. It only seems overwhelming at first (the way Fantasy Football seems to me). Once you get your head around it, it's pretty easy to follow, and you can stay reasonably informed with just tidbits of information here and there. When I have time, I may put together a political crib sheet, er, post to make it easier to understand.

The Tea Party and Public Opinion on the Health Care Bill

What appears to be a self-proclaimed journalism student attended a tea party protest, and interviewed several protesters. Not surprisingly, their opposition to the bill seems centered misinformation being spread by people like Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, and other right wing media sources. The infamous 'death pill' misconception whereby aging citizens are euthanized in order to ration health care costs finds its way in here. Others have an exaggerated idea of how effective tort reform will be at reducing costs (here is what the CBO says about tort reform). Republicans often cite large public opposition to the bill. I'd be curious to know how much of it stems from such basic misunderstanding of the plan itself.

How Climate Change/Global Warming Denial Works

Climatology is certainly one of those things few people know anything about. It's just not something we're exposed to. And let's face it, for most of us, it's pretty damn boring. The result? Few people, whether they accept or deny it, really understand it.

What this also means is that deniers can play fox in the henhouse with a misinformed audience. While there's no time to explain the science behind climate change, here are a couple of videos that give examples of the fallacies behind this shotgun approach deniers take.

Here is a great video from greenman3610's YouTube channel. It explains a couple of examples of quote mines and cherry picking of statistical analysis.

Remember Climategate? Those hacked emails that some deniers claimed exposed the rotten edifice that supported the data behind climate change? This is a perfect example of the aforementioned use of quote mining.

* Some of these skeptics aren't so much skeptics as they are climate change agnostics. And even within this subset, their agnosticism has more to do with the urgency or timing of projected warming trends. Nonetheless, deniers claim these groups as their own since it makes the size and quality of their numbers look much better.

Understanding Bias through Mission Statements

One of the frequent remarks I hear is the difficulty in finding good, unbiased sources of information. While biased interpretations can be difficult to filter out, I have found a certain consistency between the level of objectivity in which facts are presented and an organization's mission statement. Here are a few examples.

Current Events/Economics

Fiscal conservatives are often pointing to the CATO Institute and Heritage Foundation as objective think tanks. The irony is they openly admit a filtered presentation of facts on their own mission statements/about sections.

The CATO Institute:

Cato's Mission

The mission of the Cato Institute is to increase the understanding of public policies based on the principles of limited government, free markets, individual liberty, and peace. The Institute will use the most effective means to originate, advocate, promote, and disseminate applicable policy proposals that create free, open, and civil societies in the United States and throughout the world.

The Heritage Foundation:

Our Mission

To formulate and promote conservative public policies based on the principles of free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a strong national defense.

In other words, these organizations aren't here to crunch data and interpret results objectively. They are here to make the facts fit the argument for limited government and a freer markets. Right or wrong, the answers is always the same; government spending doesn't work (it requires more government so it mustn't work), climate change is a myth (and even if it isn't it's probably best to slowly let the free market handle it and not the government), in health care, single payer or a public option would be a disaster (it requires government) etc.

Creationism

Now let's take an example that may be a bit less ambiguous. Creation science (laugh all you want, but YouTube is filled with videos like this, the blogosphere is filled with blogs like this, because the United States lags in acceptance of evolution as well as an understanding of genetics.

The Institute for Creation Research

ICR Research

For nearly 40 years, ICR has been the leader in scientific research from a biblical perspective, conducting innovative laboratory and field research in the major disciplines of science, as well as in ancient biblical studies and graduate science education.

Answers in Genesis

Mission:

We take the absolute truth and authority of the Bible to the world.

We teach the relevance of a literal Genesis to the mission fields of the world.

We obey God’s call for global evangelism for all ethnic groups in the world.

More objective sources include the US Geological Society, NASA, The National Academy of Sciences, and the Congressional Budget Office. Note they tend to be at odds with the small government stance, climate change and evolution skepticism of the aforementioned sources.

US Geological Society

Mission: The USGS serves the Nation by providing reliable scientific information to describe and understand the Earth; minimize loss of life and property from natural disasters; manage water, biological, energy, and mineral resources; and enhance and protect our quality of life.

NASA

What Does NASA Do?

NASA's mission is to pioneer the future in space exploration, scientific discovery and aeronautics research.

The National Academy of Sciences

ABOUT

The National Academies perform an unparalleled public service by bringing together committees of experts in all areas of scientific and technological endeavor. These experts serve pro bono to address critical national issues and give advice to the federal government and the public.

Congressional Budget Office

About CBO

CBO's mandate is to provide the Congress with:

Objective, nonpartisan, and timely analyses to aid in economic and budgetary decisions on the wide array of programs covered by the federal budget and

The information and estimates required for the Congressional budget process.

In Summary

It's natural for people to take stances, quote the sources that verify their own and filter out contradicting data. Unfortunately it seems to be taken to the nth degree here in the US. Egos become embedded in opinions and what should become objective discourse becomes rhetorical guerilla warfare.

Unemployment Perspective: Reagan and Obama