The New Republic

More excellent advice from Galston. The time is right for cementing the recovery with measures that will ensure our long-term growth and stability. The short-to-medium term effect would be to reassure the world (and the bond markets in particular) that we know how to govern ourselves. The ticking debt bomb is the best current argument to the contrary.

- Robert Powell

December 17, 2010 at 5:38am

No mention about our deleveraging crisis, how the economy became so leveraged and the plans of some--most notably several new House committee chairs--to restore the policies that created the leverage?

- sighthnd

December 17, 2010 at 9:56am

Quite the contrary. More dumb policy advice and worse political advice. Galston is a wonk, and it is the dominance of wonks like Galston that has left the Democratic party without any political strategy worth a bucket of warm spit. Let us begin at the beginning: As I have repeatedly noted in response to the yakking here about "entitlement reform" and its urgency, the current deficit for entitlements and the regressive taxes that support them is $100 billion. The current deficit for the operating budget and the income taxes that are supposed to support it is $1.1 trillion. Yet, Galston, after acknowledging that the impact of social security on the deficit is negligible in the next decade, says that fixing this negligible problem, while at the same time ignoring the real entitlement problem which is medical care costs, is going to restore "confidence in our ability to govern ourselves." With whom? The innumerate? Then he touts his tax reform wonkery again. "Tax reform" is generally understood to be revenue neutral. You clean out the accretion of special interest credits, deductions and definitions (not easy to do as each has its constituency) and use the additional revenue to lower rates. Except that the economic impact of this is very much at the margins, in changing the implicit subsidies to certain activities. All to the good, but the idea that changing the tax definitions without changing tax revenues is going to have a big pro-growth effect is, to be polite, STUPID!, Galston. You get that? Dumb. Economically ignorant. Oblivious to reality. While we have lots to complain about in the tax code, particularly as regards the fairness of taxing some in the same real income bracket more to support subsidies for others, this is not the main show. The main show is tax revenues, how much of the nominal income stream the government takes. And right now, the problem is that we collect far too little. Not because we cannot afford to. The government is spending its share of output already, and even the piece we are borrowing from abroad in the form of trade deficits is only in the range of 25% of the budget deficit. We just don't collect enough in taxes because the wacko, flat-earth Republicans have lowered rates to the point where we can't. Willy Sutton said he robbed banks because that's where the money is. We have a current deficit problem because our income tax rates were lowered unconscionably. If we want to fix the problem, there is no way around undoing that which is causing the problem. Tax reform has NOTHING to do with the macro-economic problem. It is but a distraction. Yes, we have a ticking debt bomb. But there is only one way to assure the markets, the world, and ourselves, that we can govern ourselves. That is to charge ourselves enough in taxes to pay for the government that we have. As and when we manage to reduce government spending, we can give ourselves a tax cut. Galston is giving us nothing but warmed over "starve the beast" in a goo-goo wrapper. The rest of this is really just pious baloney, particularly as to trade policy. Declare that we will increase exports? Why? To hear the Chinese laughing at what consummate idiots we are? If we want to eliminate the trade deficit, we have to do it by fiat because the world is going to be willing to take our paper in exchange for goods for a very, very long time, while we foolishly sap our economy of the demand we need for full employment. Once again, Galston thinks that accomplishing nothing is good politics and good policy. It is neither. An economically sound political deal would be to agree to a 10% cut in the Federal operating budget in exchange for two things: a set of tax rates that balance the operating budget at the end of 2012 and a deficit financed capital spending program equal to double the spending cuts with a four-year time horizon in order to repair our tattered infrastructure and make sure that we do not stifle the recovery. What do we get? The sought after curb on the size of government, elimination of the structural deficit, and enough stimulus in the from of spending, not wasteful tax cuts, to keep us moving out of recession. I say, ask the Republicans how they propose to cut 10% out of the operating budget (which does not include social security and medicare) with the proviso that no program can be cut more than double the average. AND THEN AGREE NOISILY TO WHATEVER THEY PROPOSE in exchange for their agreement to a rate structure set by the Democrats. The Republicans think spending is the problem? Let them decide how to fix it so they cannot complain about the outcome or admit that they have no desire to reduce government spending. The Democrats think rates are the problem. Let them decide how to fix it for the same reason. If that gets done, then we can focus on entitlements THAT ARE NOT THE REASON FOR OUR NEAR-TERM DEFICITS. Basically, Galston's advice is to focus on solving long-term problems that do not present any big near-term (say within the next decade) problem while ignoring the enormous current problem of under-funded government. This gives kicking the can down the road a good name and invites all the political pain of addressing entitlements for no good reason. That will not solve our problems because that is not our current problem. Why this should be politically sound is a complete mystery, except that all wonks with dumb ideas will always claim that doing what they want is good politics, in the same way the rich always claim that reducing their taxes is good for the economy.

- roidubouloi

December 17, 2010 at 10:30am

Good point, sighthnd. The excessive leverage is due to: 1) deregulation, 2) too much money in the hands of the investor class (you see, when there is too much money chasing too few assets and prices get bid up, this is an invitation to leverage, both because of the price increases and because the high prices push yields down and you try to counter that with leverage -- an investment arms race), and 3) too little income for wage earners and salary workers who then have to be lent the money to keep up demand. These problems can be solved with effective, comprehensive leverage regulations, which we still do not have, and by fixing the tax rates to reduce the income of the wealthy, the investor class, and increase the income of everyone else, while giving us a structurally balanced budget. What does Galston have to say about any of this? Nothing, as you point out. He ignores every large, real problem we have in favor of picking nits off of his dog.

- roidubouloi

December 17, 2010 at 10:34am

I agree with 'roid' -- having extended the Bush tax-cuts we couldn't afford, talking about Tax-Reform in the next two years is a license for the Republicans to steal. The next election will be based on the state of the economy -- just as the most recent one was. Continuing to kowtow to Republican demands to 'balance the budget', now that they've got their 700 billion in tax-cuts, will simply extend or deepen the recession as services are cut. Obama's best strategy in the next two years is to dig in and let the economy recover -- not cut the very services and stimulus needed for that recovery.

- AllanL5

December 17, 2010 at 1:03pm

Interesting that roi would denounce Galston's wonkery before launching into Wonk-o-Rama on why it's really just all about taxes. How do you suppose one would actually get a deal for those tax increases roi? Probably not by dismissing the folks across the table as lying, scheming aliens with the destruction of our society as their goal. In the real world, there's an excellent chance that if Obama responds to some things that are commonly seen as Big Problems, like our tax code, entitlements (including the unfunded prescription drug fiasco, a Medicare system that Christina Romer says loses about 20% of its budget to waste, Medicaid that may cost $20 billion per year in fraud, non-means tested benefits, etc, etc), he will be able to get the additional tax revenues needed to stabilize the economy. But he won't get them by politburo fiat. Our system doesn't work that way, and in the next two years the best role for the left of the party is as a punching bag. To the extent Obama is willing to throw his "friends" on the left under the bus, he will accomplish things that the American people will reward him for--in 2012 with their votes, and through the final term with their approval.

- Robert Powell

December 17, 2010 at 2:55pm

It seems that the extent of Mr. Powell's analysis, whether of policy or politics, is whether something can be said to be "throwing the left under a bus." If so, then it is good policy and good politics. If not, it isn't. But let us look at his claims. As to the notion that we can "stabilize the economy" with spending cuts, this is or course the opposite of reality. Spending cuts would destabilize a weak economy. That is bad policy and would surely be the worst possible politics. If we were "cutting waste" and spending the savings on something worthy, we would surely gain in utility, but the economic effect would be pretty close to neutral. As Keynes said, from the standpoint of fiscal stimulus, paying people to dig holes and fill them in again would work as well as anything else. And, as a practical matter, how easy or difficult would if be to eliminate all this waste? Well, there is no specific constituency for wasting money, so you would think it would be easy. But it isn't, because organizations, including private corporations, are necessarily less than perfectly efficient (just like physical systems such as an internal combustion engine). Making them more efficient requires constant effort over a period of years. No reason not to figure out some system for rooting out waste and get on about it, but is that going to produce tangible rewards for 2012? No. It isn't. What about the "Big Problems" as Mr. Powell calls them? Ending Medicare waste would require ending medical care waste. There is plenty, and the costs we are charged are monopoly prices. Is there a constituency for ending medical waste and controlling costs? No. The Republicans already made that abundantly clear in the course of the HCR debate. We are just going to have to wait a bit before revisiting that again. That's why Galston takes it off his list although that alone constitute the overwhelming portion of the "entitlement problem." What about the tax code? Is this a Big Problem that people want solved? Objectively, no. Solving it would shift some of the tax burden around but has no impact on the tax burden overall. Do people want it solved? They think they do because they think they are getting screwed and everyone else is not. If they are not rich, they are getting screwed, but that problem is solved by making rates considerably more progressive which is not at all what the wonks advocating tax reform have in mind. They intend to make taxes more regressive. Is this then likely to pay political dividends? Only if you are a political masochist. Most people, meaning voters, will see little change in the tax bill but all in the wrong direction. People losing special tax privileges will be infuriated. If there is any time to do tax reform, it is in a boom when people will be less sensitive to what they are losing. So, politically this is a drop-dead loser, whatever people may say when they are asked. What about social security. Objectively, a very modest problem. Do people demand that it be solved? No. Even the perception of losing a social insurance benefit in the midst of high unemployment will be deeply resented. Scratch this one, small problem, political loser. Trade deficits? That is a serious problem. If Obama wants to start bashing the Chinese, talking up the negative impact of trade deficits on the American worker, and start doing something serious to eliminate trade deficits, I am all for it. But what is his plan? I know what I would do, but declaring as Galston would that we are going to increase exports surely isn't it. So what's left? ___________________ Fortunately, I am not negotiating with Galston, now am I? Across the table or anyplace else. Hence, I need not defend my negotiating strategy as it applies to him. I can call him a space alien or whatever else floats my boat. My opinion is he is a wonk wholly detached from political reality and shooting from the hip on his policy prescriptions. He has plainly not thought them through. As explained, my negotiating strategy with the Congress would be to let the Republicans cut spending in whatever way they want within certain limits (nothing can be cut more than twice the average). If they think they can do it by cutting waste, fine. If they want to slash programs, fine. As long as it is made clear to the public over and over again that the spending cuts are the decision of the Republicans, I would let them take 10% off the budget with no quarrel. That's $250 billion they can have. In exchange, I want $500 billion for four years for infrastructure spending. That means a net increase in spending of $250 billion for four years, or $1 trillion in total. Together with a rectification of tax rates to take useless money out of the pockets of the rich and relieve the taxes of those who make up to $100,000, who will spend most of it, that should suffice to bring an end to the recession. Galston's proposal are just gas. Powell's gloss is more gas. This is all for the purpose of making us believe that the nonsense Republican claims about government over the last 30 years have some substance to them. They don't. They were nonsense then, they are nonsense now. The claims appeal to American virtues such as self-reliance and thrift, but only rhetorically, because there is no there there.

- roidubouloi

December 17, 2010 at 4:12pm

I did not mean to say there is no constituency for ending waste and profiteering in medical care. There is. But the Republicans' lies and smears already fought that to worse than a draw during the HCR so-called debate. As a result, there is certainly no strong majority sentiment right now for tackling this problem and it will not be revisited in the next two years. Perhaps in a second term as health care continues to claim more and more of our economic output there will be another opportunity.

- roidubouloi

December 17, 2010 at 5:45pm

Just read David Brooks' column advocating that Obama pursue the exact same set of "reforms" as are advocated here. Since Brooks' recommendations to Democrats are invariably hemlock, and since he is a complete ignoramus as to all matters economic, I can now be drop-dead certain that this is exactly what Obama should not do. I was quite sure before, but any sliver of doubt is now erased.

- roidubouloi

December 17, 2010 at 9:23pm

I am in disbelief at the following comment of Galston's: "Congress no longer needs to worry about passing additional economic stimulus to boost job creation, since in tandem with the Fed’s $600 billion bond-purchase program, Obama's agreement offers a substantial short-term injection of cash that could increase growth by 1 percent or more." ...Who would say or believe that, with unemployment stuck at 9.8 percent (and significantly higher in real terms), a ONE-PERCENT increase in economic growth above the current rate, over two years would be enough that we would no longer need to concern ourselves with job creation!!! In what world is an additional one-percent (or 1.2) GDP increase by 2013 adequate, in view of our current problems, and the current massive slack in the labor market!

- Curran1

December 18, 2010 at 12:41am

Once again roi takes the role of Straw-Man Killer. I do not think, and have never thought or said, that "we can stabilize the economy with spending cuts" alone. Clearly we can't. But I'm not holding out much hope for a strategy that says, "We need to raise your taxes so we can pay people to dig holes and fill them back up." There's been more than enough of that already in the THREE stimulus packages (one by Bush, two by Obama), although of course the digging and filling has been paid for with borrowed money. It's generally recognized that even this required very adroit political negotiation. The idea that more stimulus paid for by new taxes could pass any conceivable Congress, much less the one we're about to get, is fantasy. On the other hand, it is entirely plausible that a negotiation which takes seriously the popular concern about over-large and over-wasteful government and puts real cuts on the table will be able to conclude with a combination of cuts and revenue enhancements that bends the curve, reassuring the voters and the bond markets that we can deal with our problems in an adult manner. Otherwise there will probably be no "second term".

- Robert Powell

December 18, 2010 at 3:31am

Deficits certainly will matter to us in the long-term, and the skewness of wealth toward the wealthiest has immediate, very negative effects on the economy, starving it of demand and producing asset bubbles as too much money seeks too few investment assets. We COULD solve both problems at once with an appropriate rate structure. Quite clearly that is off the table in the next two years. The opportunity just flew out the window. I would even agree that more stimulus spending is off the table because Obama blew his negotiations with the Republicans. He could have gotten a lot more, including contingent authority for more stimulus spending in 2012 if necessary. Just more of the same missed opportunity. However, Mr. Powell seems to think that the deficit and the still lagging economy are the same problem, and that if we cannot solve the problem of Republican obstruction of stimulus spending we need, then we should turn around and solve the deficit problem by cutting spending. This is economic craziness. The last thing we need to do now is cut spending of any kind, even wasteful spending. Keynes was not advocating waste. He was making the perfectly correct point that it is the fact of government spending that replaces lost demand, not the utility of government spending. By any conventional standard, paying 12 million men and women under arms to blow up Europe and the Pacific was not useful. But if put and end to the Depression. It doesn't really matter though, because the Republicans are not serious about wanting to reduce spending. They are crack dealers. They deal crack to their favored constituents in the form of taxes that are far too low, and they deal crack to the rest in the form of government spending. I guarantee you, if you told the Republicans who rail against the size of government that they had a free hand to cut 10% so long as no program were cut by more than 20% (just to prevent them from targeting the things they hate ideologically), they could come up with the necessary $250 million of cuts. Long before that, they would find that, "We have met the enemy and they are us." The cuts would quickly begin to bite the people to whom THEY hand out crack, and that would be the end of spending cuts. Here in the real world, the only way to cut spending is to raise taxes so that we are paying for the government we have. Just the reverse of the Reaganut "starve the beast" idea, the loss of any fiscal discipline on the tax side has taken the lid off of spending. Now it is like free money. Obama and the Republicans just got together and demonstrated that in spades. If we had to pay for it, then there would be pressure to contain it. At least there would be countervailing political pressures. The fantasy on display here is that deficits are a political problem and the public is burning to solve this problem. Didn't the Republicans take all of two seconds to blow off their campaign rhetoric about deficits when there was candy on the table? Did they do it because they had the courage to enact good policy in the face of a hostile electorate? Hardly. They had the courage to enact bad policy handing out crack, as ever. The only reason deficits played in the last election is that, with their usual lies, the Republicans succeeded in persuading some segment of the public that deficits were responsible for the slump -- the exact opposite of current reality, although they had something to do with creating the slump. If we reduced the deficit now by raising high end taxes without cutting spending, we would see benefits. If we raised low-end taxes, we would stifle demand. If we cut spending, we would stifle demand. Then we would have a double-dip recession and Obama would be out. The only other meaning to tax reform that the oxymoronically self-proclaimed reformers want is to make taxes more regressive. This too would be political suicide. They justify this on the grounds that we cannot close the deficit taxing the rich. But, of course, we can. The top quintile of income now has such a large share of national income that we could exempt the first $100,000 of income (basically the first four quintiles) completely, tax at a 50% rate above that, and have no operating deficit. When I point his out, Powell says it would be undemocratic. Let's face it, libertarians have an ideological commitment to regressive taxation. They will keep trying to wrap and re-wrap that in different packaging, the horror of deficits, we can't get enough money from the rich, spending, undemocratic, class warfare, blah, blah, blah, blah, until they get someone stupid enough to bite. Even the Republicans aren't that stupid. When they give big, unnecessary, economy-destroying tax cuts to the wealthiest, they make sure to throw a ten-spot to the middle class. Here junior, go by yourself an ice cream cone. If I were capable of being shocked any longer by cynicism, I would be impressed.

- roidubouloi

December 18, 2010 at 9:31am

Galston and Powell are incapable of hearing or understanding anything that does not fit their preset DINO ideologies.. In Barney Frank's terminology-- you are blogging with a table. BHO's understanding is close to theirs. If as predicted by Keynesian economic analyses, the tax deal adds about 1$T to the debt and the stimulus has such a low multiplier effect that it decreases unemployment by 0.1-0.3% (mostly in 2011), then in 2012 BHO and the Dems are looking at unemployment 0f 9-10% (or worse if the EU manages to fall apart over problems created by the Euro). In fact, todays 9-10% unemployment is really more likec17-18% as measured in decades past (like in 1932). At those rates, Palinistas start looking good domestically. The Prez and Dems policy compromises that produce mostly Repub-desired effects will be seen as the cause of the high unemployment. 2012 is also just about the right time for Afghanistan (and maybe Iraq) to obviously fall apart to even the densist BHO acolyte. Palinistas should look espectially good running against the Dems Frankenstein of Hooverian domestic accomplishments and Johnsonian + Carterian foreign war/terrorist successes. And that's the best that cam be hoped for with BHO as the nominee in 2012. Palinista policies with a Palinista as Prez will produce disaster with Palinistas in office that the voters finally ascribe to Repub policies.. Keep BHO in office in 2012?? By 2016, the Dems Frakenstein carrying out Palinista policies produces the same disasters that Repubs can run against for a generation.

- drofnats1

December 18, 2010 at 9:43am

"they could not come up with $250 million of spending cuts"

- roidubouloi

December 18, 2010 at 9:49am

drofnats, I quite agree that the ratio of stimulus to tax cuts in the just signed plan is very weak, as it was in the first so-called stimulus package. No question too that the state of the economy will likely be the key factor in the 2012 election. But I would hesitate to call at this point just how much improvement is enough or the exact likelihood. What is clear is that Obama has left himself with no opportunity in 2012 if he needs it, possibly the worst aspect of his forlorn negotiation with the Republicans. If he has not bought himself enough with this package, he is cooked, because he will get not another penny out of a Republican House.

- roidubouloi

December 18, 2010 at 9:55am

The deficit and the still-lagging economy are not the same problem. But I think the economy will look better by 2012, and so will Obama's re-election chances especially if he is able to defuse some of the traditional Republican attack lines by making meaningful progress on the deficit. This can be done by a combination of tax and entitlements reform in areas where there are legitimate trade-offs available from both sides. If you think the economy looks bad now, wait until the bond markets decide neither party is capable of working on the structural problems.

- Robert Powell

December 18, 2010 at 10:18am

Some reasonably good policy advice in here, but the author makes no mention of the fact that Obama's chief obstacle is one of politics, not policy. He is faced with an opposition party that is completely dedicated to his failure, regardless of what policies he pursues. (The recent tax cut "deal" is an exception that proves the rule.) Obama will pass none of the nice items on the laundry list above if the GOP continues to act in lockstep against him.

- santoast

December 18, 2010 at 10:31am

But the entitlements are not the cause of the deficit. Tax reform is also irrelevant to the deficit unless someone's taxes go up. Tax reform, meaning making taxes more regressive, is a libertarian hobby-horse. Entitlement reform is a conservative-libertarian hobby horse. There are no trade-offs to be had. We, the libertarian right, get benefit cuts and more regressive taxation. You, the left, get the honor of raising taxes on the middle class. That is not the stuff of a political deal, except by the politically suicidal. A plausible deal is taxation more progressive than under Clinton, reflecting the increased skewness of wealth to the wealthiest, in exchange for entitlement reform (basically a completely empty concept unless you are talking about means testing which is another tax increase on the middle class) and tax reform (not going to happen because the wealthy will never give up their tax subsidies), and spending cuts. But the plausible cannot happen either because the right is implacably opposed to anything other than regressive taxation.

- roidubouloi

December 18, 2010 at 10:40am

Entitlements are not the cause of the deficit--but allowing nonsense like the current cap on SSI, no means testing, and a near-total abdication of responsibility on Medicaid/Medicare is not reassuring to the bond markets, which could pull the plug before anyone expects as they traditionally do. Then we're talking fiscal Doomsday. Tax reform is irrelevant to the deficits unless someone's taxes go up, but politically that's the only way tax increases are going to happen. EVERYBODY recognizes that the current tax code is a millstone around the neck of the economy, and a rational reform would be political gold. It's also about the only plausible route I see to revenue enhancement. Concern about the increasing gap between the top 2% and everybody else is legitimate. I would just point out that Republicans like Kevin Phillips and David Brooks have written books making that point. The question is what to do about it. My first choice is making reforms that stabilize the economy, then invest in education, infrastructure, and other things that enhance equal opportunity. Done right, which is to say developing programs that look more like burden sharing than a shakedown, "The Rich" will step up.

- Robert Powell

December 18, 2010 at 3:09pm

The reform that will stabilize the economy is to charge enough in taxes to pay for our current government. That is what The Rich need to step up to, but won't. In the bargain, we could do something immediate to ameliorate after-tax income inequality. Instead we get blather about human development that will take a generation or two at best, and won't work then as long as we continue to pursue trade and monetary policies that use unemployment deliberately to suppress wages. No, EVERYBODY does not recognize that the tax code is a millstone around the neck of the economy. That is the latest bullshit from the right that continues to believe that taxes are the only macro-economic variable of consequence. They have decisively dis-proven their own claim about lower tax rates being the engine of growth. So now they are claiming, well, it wasn't just rates but the structure of the code and its various exceptions, deductions, etc. It was all bullshit then. It is all bullshit now. This is how they do it on the right. The moment their idiot theories are demonstrated to be just that, we get some new caveat that explains why things didn't go as planned. Eliminating every special benefit in the code while keeping revenue neutral would slosh the tax burden around a little bit. It would have no significant macro-economic effect and there is not the slightest reason other than the same bullshit supply side, ideological nonsense to believe that it would.

- roidubouloi

December 18, 2010 at 4:05pm

The bond markets are already voting NO to more of the same trillion dollar annual deficits from Obama-Pelosi-Reid. There has been a bipartisan blindness for more than thirty years about the role of manufacturing, and manufactured exports value to America's economic growth. The bipartisan blindness has been to accept the "conventional wisdom" that American labor costs are not competitive. Galston should repeat as frequently as he can "Germany has the highest unit labor costs in the world and remains an export powerhouse." Not that Obama in his ivory house has ever had the slightest interest in what remains of industrial America unless there are union donors involved.

- K2K

December 18, 2010 at 6:19pm

I guess I'm just not as smart as roi. Like most voters, I can't figure out how constructing structural obligations worth trillions of dollars to, among other things, pay for all seniors' medications whether they need it or not, maintain literally hundreds of redundant overseas bases, waste $40 billion annually on Medicare, pay rich farmers $20-$60 billion per year not to grow things, etc, etc--and as the cherry on top, spend $190 billion every year complying with our Byzantine tax code--is all stuff we should fund by raising taxes. Very smart Democrats have been making this argument for generations, and the result has been some of the largest electoral defeats on record and the reduction of the once-dominant "smart" wing of the party to a barely 20% rump nationally. My guess is that our President is more likely to take the advice of the Galston's out there instead, as did the most successful president the party has had between FDR and the current one.

- Robert Powell

December 19, 2010 at 4:22am

I would like to be rid of that spending as much as you, Powell. And I would be happy to see the tax code reformed and rid of its Byzantine provisions. But I don't kid myself that: 1. Either or both will come close to closing the deficit. 2. We ought to run a deficit, not to mention a deficit vastly bigger than can be accounted for by those items, until we cut that spending and save that money. Because that may never happen and is in any case irrelevant to the cause of the deficit. The cause of the deficit is tax rates that are too low. Basically, you are engaged in a bait and switch game. We will not solve our real problem, so let's stop talking about that. Let's talk about this. Obama is not going to follow Galston's advice except possibly in the matter of appearances. There will be no reform of the tax code before 2012 and no commitment by the president to any major revisions. Political death. The same with the cuts you want to make. Political death. If any of this is to happen, it will only be after 2012 and his re-election. Galston is a political ninny, whether he worked for Clinton or not. And Clinton's legislative achievements don't amount to an anthill compared to what LBJ accomplished.

- roidubouloi

December 19, 2010 at 6:18am

Okay, let's have a bet. I say that over the next two years Obama makes the 2012 tax showdown go away with some kind of tax reform; and that he calms the restive bond markets with cuts to spending wrapped in some kind of entitlements reform, including fixes to healthcare. Having done so he coasts to re-election and the prospect of enhancing his place in history during the second term by investing in the kind of opportunity society we have been when at our best. If this occurs I will expect you to reconsider your hyper-partisan, death to Republicans posture and acknowledge the efficacy of working incrementally to improve things by finding areas of common agreement with political opponents. If none of these things happen and we go into 2012 with a two-year record of Congress and White House at swords point and no significant achievements, I will admit that you were right and throw the support of my massive international organization behind the candidate and policy options of your choice. On the history, LBJ's legislative accomplishments were awesome. But then he also orchestrated an escalation in SE Asia that by the time it ended had killed about 4 million people, including nearly 60,000 GI's, and destroyed both the US economy and our international standing for a decade. He also assured that we would have to suffer under Nixon/Ford for the next eight years. Clinton's legislative accomplishments were less flashy, but significant in stabilizing a troubled economy by turning an unprecedented deficit into a surplus, and changing the destructive welfare paradigm for good. He (and Richard Holbrooke) also deserve credit for saving hundreds of thousands of lives in the Balkans. On balance it's pretty clear who was the best president the Democrats produced since FDR.

- Robert Powell

December 19, 2010 at 11:48am