The New Republic

Chait's post looked to me like a kind of dog-bites-man story, the "story" being that the opposition Republicans are attacking the legislative record of the governing Democratic party. I thought Politico ran an interesting analysis of the Republican strategy http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0110/31481.html In particular, Politico cites the Republican strategy as trying to make the stimulus, health care and cap-and-trade bills the focus of their attack.

- malahat

January 14, 2010 at 4:46pm

Talk about a total lack of self-awareness -- Obama has not over-reached????? His unpopularity isn't due to his liberal agenda???? Ignorance is bliss evidently Earth to liberals -- independents have deserted Obama, and will not come back. Obama's unpopularity will only get worse. The economic crises was predicated on household assuming too much debt. As a response, the liberal agenda calls for the most Gov debt since WWII. Independents and Republicans know that Gov doesn't create jobs/or wealth/or economic value. Once we reach Gov debt = 100% of GDP, sometime next year, hell to pay. Increasing Gov employment, the only thing Obama has accomplished, will not help him as most of the public sector parasites are already avid supporters

- mr_rationale

January 14, 2010 at 5:20pm

Why does a debt equal to 100% of GDP equal "hell to pay?" The last time U.S. debt hit 100%, in WWII, this event was followed by three decades of prosperity and job growth, the creation of the modern middle class, and all-time records for the strength of the dollar. If that's the conservative idea of "hell to pay," I'll take some, please. Do conservatives have any better arguments than making things up and spitting on the cops, firefighters, and soldiers who risk their lives in service to America -- "public sector parasites" every one?

- rhubarbs

January 14, 2010 at 6:08pm

I think someone need a refresher course in John Maynard Keynes.

- zardoz67

January 14, 2010 at 6:15pm

I don't doubt the general accuracy that the economy affects a president's popularity, but those charts are deeply deceitful. It's manifestly dishonest to present three charts purporting to show the same thing (correlation between unemployment and presidential approval) even though a consistent scale would show no such thing. As one of the commenters to Judis' article put it: "How compelling would the charts look if a consistent unemployment scale were used, instead of one manipulated to make the lines coincide almost exactly? For example, if the Reagan chart's unemployment scale had been used for the Clinton chart, one would see his disapproval falling faster than unemployment. If that scale had been used for the Obama chart, it would appear that Obama's disapproval has risen much faster than unemployment. Indeed, it would look like Obama's disapproval has risen fairly quickly even as already high unemployment levels off following the end of its precipitous rise under Bush."

- bigm

January 14, 2010 at 6:34pm

come on rhubarbs, why bother responding to someone who calls the public sector "parasites?" The guy is obviously too far gone into the loony land of libertarian fanaticism. Ugga ugga Gummint bad. ugga ugga no gummint good. The idiot would crumble in a few days living in a society with no public sector. bigm, I wouldn't get to wrapped up in charts, either for or against. Suffice it to say, Republicans are banking on employment staying bad, but if it shows an ever expanding uptick, then Republicans will be left utterly bewildered by November, winning far less seats then the envision now. Remember, a significant share of the stimulus has still not be spent. And, long term, which is something that will screw Republicans, the Baby boomer generation has reached retirement age. Far greater numbers of people will retire in the next few years than the previous ones. I will go first and guarantee that the unemployment rate will be 7.2% come election time 2012, and going down at a nice clip.

- blackton

January 14, 2010 at 7:11pm

blackton, "come on rhubarbs, why bother responding to someone who calls the public sector "parasites?" The guy is obviously too far gone into the loony land of libertarian fanaticism. Ugga ugga Gummint bad. ugga ugga no gummint good. The idiot would crumble in a few days living in a society with no public sector..." You are in fine form today, blackie! Re: rhubarbs, "...The last time U.S. debt hit 100%, in WWII, this event was followed by three decades of prosperity and job growth, the creation of the modern middle class, and all-time records for the strength of the dollar..." Correlation is not causality.

- malahat

January 14, 2010 at 7:28pm

I'm not sure of the charts, as charts are one of the things that cause me to foam at the mouth and climb onto the roof of the apartment block and yell at folks walking their dogs, but I don't think there's a serious economist anywhere who doesn't accept that the stimulus staved off an even nastier economic lurch -- at least to an important degree. It's also the case that teachers who teach children (for example) are in "Gov jobs." In some states the stimulus funds were what prevented governors from laying off teachers to save money (a natural and sensible saving, as education is one of the least important things for America's future, as we all know). It's one thing to support GOP interpretations of facts, it's quite another to insist on the GOP owning their own facts.

- ironyroad

January 14, 2010 at 7:40pm

rhubarbs: Get a clue so you don't look like an idiot. We were able to dramatically reduce debt as % of GDP over the next 3 decades, that was the reason for prosperity. The economy grew far faster than debt as WW II ended. To recap for the mentally impaired --- prosperity after WWII was driven by fact that debt as % of GDP was dramatically reduced. No way that happens with OBama And to clarify, I would exempt police, firemen, and soliders (who are mostly conversative by the way). Referrring to the political establishment

- mr_rationale

January 14, 2010 at 11:43pm

ironyroad: the stimulus has been an abject failure, the unemployment rate has far exceeded the plan. WH spinning and spinning numbers. Gov does more harm than good by running up more debt to create make work public sector jobs that will dissapear as soon as funding dries up.

- mr_rationale

January 14, 2010 at 11:46pm

blackton: You don't acutally believe the Gov creates jobs do you? If I gave you $50K and told you to hire a police chief -- who created the job? If private sector funds the hiring of public sector employees -- who created the job?

- mr_rationale

January 14, 2010 at 11:50pm

"And to clarify, I would exempt police, firemen, and soliders." Interesting. On what, er, 'rational' basis would you do that?

- ironyroad

January 14, 2010 at 11:55pm

ironyroad: Obviously I was being overly dramatic and combative. Not all public sector employees are parasites, some actually provide value for the taxes that private sector pays. And clearly some services can't easily be provided by private sector -- police, firemen, soldiers fall into that category.

- mr_rationale

January 15, 2010 at 12:24am

mr_rationale, what happens to the $50k the police chief received? If he hires a landscaper to mow his grass and a painter to paint his house isn't that 2 jobs created? Also, Japan's debt to GDP ratio is over 200% and their interest rates are still around 0%, with continuing risk of deflation, not inflation. So what are the bad consequences of a 100% debt to GDP ratio or higher?

- acria multa

January 15, 2010 at 1:28am

I like the "Wehner Fallacy" - mainly because it sounds like a Robert Ludlum novel. Mr. Rationale, what is your rationale for insisting that we must rely on the public sector for police, fire, and soldiers? After all, there are some very cost-effective private armies in Africa that could teach our bloated, bureaucratic, blood-sucking civil servant military a thing or two about killing more people at a lower cost. Frankly, seeing my money go towards such wasted lethality makes me furious! And frankly, the public sector monopolies on fire and police protection mean they can do the most horrible thing ever: provide those services to those who cannot afford them. Hey, if I have a flammable house, I should have to buy a fire protection policy from a reputable extinguishing corporation. If I do not wish to have my person accosted on a foot-path, I should procure some worthy hench-men to provide for my protection at the market rate. Good day to thee, sir!

- bcbaird

January 15, 2010 at 9:32am

One also wonders where mr_rationale thinks his $50k with which he plans to pay his hypothetical police chief ultimately originates from. Unless he is in the business of printing his own money...

- Nari224

January 15, 2010 at 10:02am

bcbaird. damn right it would be a foot path, since without the public sector, there wouldn't be any roads. Let's turn over all land to private hands, and let people barter goods (no public monetary supply in MY libertarian paradise) in order to traverse the land. honest to God, this has got to be one of the stupidest arguments I have seen yet at TNR. Mr. loonytunes: You don't acutally believe the Gov creates jobs do you? I dunno, but here is an example of a state created entity that has done its own country a world of good. From EDF * France derives over 75% of its electricity from nuclear energy. This is due to a long-standing policy based on energy security. * France is the world's largest net exporter of electricity due to its very low cost of generation, and gains over EUR 3 billion per year from this. * France has been very active in developing nuclear technology. Reactors and fuel products and services are a major export. * It is building its first Generation III reactor and planning a second. Until November 19, 2004, it was a government corporation, but it is now a limited-liability corporation under private law (société anonyme). The French government partially floated shares of the company on the Paris Stock Exchange in November 2005, although it retains almost 85% ownership as of the end of 2008. The US gets 19.6% and France does it far more efficiently and cheaply than the US. Good lord, this is just too stupid to debate.

- blackton

January 15, 2010 at 10:59am

As blackton says, public investment in economic infrastructure provides the foundation for economic growth and private investment activity e.g., where the private sector on its own would not provide services to certain groups or regions, or would only provide them at a socially unacceptable cost. He's also quite right in pointing out this is really too stupid to debate.

- malahat

January 15, 2010 at 12:26pm

You said it, blackie! That this leftwing nonsense about roads being open to all should be ended forthwith. It's nothing but a typical liberal "redistribution of income." The market would be much more efficient when it comes to organizing traffic on the interstate, for example, if there were a graded set of tolls based on how valuable your time is and how much you want to pay to get somewhere fast. It might cause some problems, of course, such as low-paid workers not being able to get to their places of employment because the highway tools are too expensive, but at least the principle of market-based solutions will have been maintained.

- ironyroad

January 15, 2010 at 12:30pm

Wow -- I forgot that no one here at TNR has ever created a job (or economic value) Trying one more time: 1. The definition of CREATE = to cause to exist, bring into being 2. You can't CREATE a job if you don't fund/pay the salary. 3. Agains, you can't create a job if you don't fund/pay the salary 4. By definition, public sector doesn't create jobs as they don't fund them Another angle - Analogy -Gov is a condo association that provides common area security, security, garbage removal, et al. -Tenants (citizens) pay for condo assoc via assessments - Condo association doesn't create economic value, merely fulfilling tenant wishes using tenant funds Blackton: We (private sector) pay for all the items you (and others) list. All of those items could be provided by a trusted third party (except defense). Not arguing about value of contracts, defense, etc --- but catch a clue --- public sector was created and funded for the benefit of private sector --- not the other way around. For most of gov services a trusted third party would do better in administering it. ***** Private sector economic value creation provides the basis for funding public sector activities. This is a fact. ******

- mr_rationale

January 15, 2010 at 1:34pm

Where do I find me one of these Condo associations that not only prints the money it accepts for its services but also supports the institutions and infrastructure to resolve legal disputes between its members? Or even better, how does one go about getting incorporated (another clearly non-governmental service) as such an entity?

- Nari224

January 15, 2010 at 5:17pm

:), Nari, you're better at this than me now.

- acria multa

January 15, 2010 at 5:52pm

good lord irrational, Public sector economic value creation also provides the basis for funding public sector activities, see France: Nuclear Power. Bao Steel in China is also the worlds largest steel company and it is Gov't owned. Of freaking course you can have nothing but the Public sector economy, I don't recommend it and believe it to be a disaster but you still can. The whole point is that this is not an either/or. The point is to find the golden mean between public and private sectors, not to just outright dismiss the public sector as parasitical. Be honest, you are just pulling our leg. I simply can't believe anyone could espouse such silly views and still shell out money to a Democratic Mainstream magazine like TNR. I have, on occasion, gone to such nutty websites as Confederateyankee and dropped some bombs there, but I sure as hell would never consider paying them. By the way, I worked in the Printing industry for 11 years in the NY metro area. Spare me the whole "I am the only working man here" crap. The fact that I chose to leave a dying industry to go into education doesn't mean I don't create value, although I must admit your teachers apparently utterly failed with you.

- blackton

January 15, 2010 at 8:05pm

Blackton: I subscribe to TNR so I can better understand liberal perspectives --- you know first seek to understand. My current understanding on why any intelligent person would be a liberal: 1. In their self-interest, as a public sector employee, union member, trial lawyer, part of democratic machine, etc 2. Limited experience running a business, hiring/firing people, making payroll at a small firm 3. View conservatives as evil, though they don't believe in God 4. Social justice -- which is essentially redistribution of value while making sure creating of value via education suffers (Teacher unions are especially insidious) 5. Limited understand of market based economy --- note: there are no 'public sector only' economies in the world of any size -- your examples are publicly owned companies which is quite different. China's non-public sector created 60% of its GDP. Can you recommend any other sources of information about liberalism that I would find compelling? My background -- I currently run/own a mid-sized tech firm and previously was a Computer Engineer and Quant economic analyst --- so it can;t be the normal fluff. Note: I studied Krugman in Grad school (international economics) and his textbook mirrors my perspective on markets --- this before he became a hack

- mr_rationale

January 16, 2010 at 12:15am

Just as a side note, the fact that at some point -- 50 years ago or whenever -- we became scared of the word "social" in the U.S. has led to a complete distortion of the term "liberal" which in turn leads to confusions in all sorts of areas. Mostly, what progressives in the Democratic Party and elsewhere (including, traditionally, moderate Republicans from the NE) were engaged in since the New Deal was an American variant of social democracy. That is, a free market economy, but one regulated and nurtured by government for the benefit of the locality/city/state/nation. What can be done by private enterprise (manufacturing, services, media, agriculture) should be commercial and for profit, what needs to be done by the public sector (defense, law enforcement, transport/mail, education) should be non-commercial and not primarily for profit, although profit is not disallowed. There are of course many areas of overlap -- infrastructural maintenance, for example). The problem with "liberal" as a term for the left-of-center in American politics is that it conflates two things, (1) a liberal social principle according to which the state does not, for example, try to legislate sexual morality, operate censorship on the creative arts, or hold citizens to inappropriate tests (e.g. of religious beliefs) for employment or election, and (2) a social democratic perspective on economic and fiscal policy that involves, primarily, keeping the mix of taxation and provision of public goods such that free enterprise is not hindered unnecessarily while inequalities of income, education, and others can be balanced out for the good of the community. Clearly, the latter is not "liberal" in the classic sense of the term, which is why in Europe liberal parties are generally small parties that advocate for civil freedoms and the minimum of regulation, and regard themselves as neither conservative nor social democratic. FWIW. I'm not an economist of any kind so I apologize for any screwy terms or concepts in the foregoing.

- ironyroad

January 16, 2010 at 3:17pm

seattle, in point of fact, it was the Liberalizing elements in China which brought about economic reforms, it is certainly the liberals in Iran who are fighting for their freedom this very day. Now you might be happy to align yourself with Ayatollah Khameni (he is a Conservative, he believe in God) I have no problem with wishing the rat bastard dead. Again, as Irony pointed out, the issue is to find the Golden mean, wherein taxes, regulations, public services, etc. are most optimally provided with minimal harm to the market. It is the label of parasite to the public sector which is absurd, since both require the other to survive. No one here is a socialist. I lived in China for a long time, I saw the benefit of the market with my own eyes, my father-in-law went from being an impoverished peasant to having a small factory, 3 houses, van, etc. in a fairly short time. The arrogance that you assume to know the life experiences of all of us here is pretty astounding. What is scary is the mindless state that Conservatives have fallen into. It is simply "tax cut (or more specifically, capital gains tax cut, so much for a flat tax)" "gummint bad" without any thought. As to what the Golden mean is I am not sure, but it is the point I am most interested in (I have my own ideas as to what it is, but have no way to prove or disprove them). It is up to the parties to state what they believe it is. The Democrats have, the Republicans have not.

- blackton

January 16, 2010 at 7:11pm

I take Rationale's point (one of them a least) to be that when the government hires someone, or gives money to someone else to hire someone, it is not "creating" a job because it obtained the money to fund the jobs from the private sector. But his syllogism breaks down with the premise that "You can't CREATE a job if you don't fund/pay the salary." Why not? If the government creates an agency and hires employees for that agency, it is creating a jobs irrespective of the fact that it obtained the money to pay the salaries from the private sector. Or if the government gives money to someone who will use it to hire employees -- and who otherwise wouldn't hire employees -- it is creating jobs irrespective of the fact that it obtained the money for the subsidy from the private sector. At least that's what people mean when they talk about the government -- or a stimulus --"creating" jobs. In fact, when the private sector "creates" jobs, it is doing the same thing. It borrows the money to "create" jobs from the bank, which in turn obtains the money to fund the loans from depositors, who in turn obtain the money to fund their bank accounts from employment income, etc., etc. However, if Rationale feels better using a word other than "create" -- fine. Let's say "stimulate" the creation of jobs, or "fund" the creation of jobs. It's a purely superficial argument.

- dhurtado

January 16, 2010 at 7:32pm