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?