Barry Ritholtz, on historical irony:
I am having a hard time keeping up with all of the bailouts and special facilities created for dealing with this crisis. Am I missing any?- Bear Stearns - Economic Stimulus progam - Housing Bailout Program - Fannie & Freddie - AIG - No Short selling rules - Fed liquidity programs (Term Lending facility, Term Auction facility) - Money Market fund insurance program - Special Loans for GM & Ford - New RTC type programIf you are a fan of irony, consider this: The conservative movement has utterly hated FDR, and his New Deal programs like Medicaid, Social Security, FDIC, Fannie Mae (1938), and the SEC for nearly 80 years. And for the past 8 years, a conservative was in the White House, with a very conservative agenda. For something like 16 of the past 18 years, the conservative dominated GOP has controlled Congress. Those are the facts.
So the GOP are hypocrites. They absolutely deserve to be smashed to bits in November. But if you ask investigative reporter David Cay Johnston, author of a book about how the system is gamed to help the rich at the expense of everybody else, the Democrats are scarcely better. From his must-read interview with Bill Moyers:
BILL MOYERS: But some of your critics have said you've gone beyond investigative reporting in this book to become a crusader against the rich. do you object to people getting rich?DAVID CAY JOHNSTON: Oh, no. I-- good grief. I have no objection to that whatsoever. But get rich by working hard, working smarter, coming up with a better mousetrap. Don't get rich by getting the government to pass a law that sticks the government's hand into my pocket, takes money out of it, and gives it to you. That's not right. That's not a fair playing field. And Adam Smith, you know, warned again and again that it is the nature and tendency of business people to want to put their thumb on the scale, and even better, to get the government to put the thumb on the scale for their benefit. And that's what we've seen going on now in our society for some time.
[snip]
BILL MOYERS: You point out, by the way, that Bill Clinton as president gave the super rich a larger tax break than George Bush's tax cuts, right?DAVID CAY JOHNSTON: Yeah, I love to trot this one out when somebody goes, "Oh, you're from the New York Times. You must be, you know, pro-Democrat or liberal or whatever." I'm the guy who broke the story and reported on the fact that Bill Clinton gave the super rich, the 400 highest income people in America a big tax cut. They were paying 30 cents out of each dollar of their income to the federal government when he came into the office. When he left, it was down to 22. Bush has lowered it to 17. Now, first of all, notice you're probably paying more than 17 cents. May well be paying more than 22. But Bush gave them an eight cent tax cut-- I'm sorry. Clinton gave an eight cent tax cut and Bush only gave them five cents.
BILL MOYERS: Let me read you this quote from one of your critics, Larry Kudlow of NATIONAL REVIEW online and CNBC. He wrote this a couple of years ago after in response to something you had reported in the New York Times about how Bush's tax cuts on dividends and capital gains had helped people with the highest incomes. Quote: "These entrepreneurs use their God-given talents within the Reagan-esque free market framework that deregulated, slashed tax rates, and provided the first strong dose of economic incentives since the 1920s. A rising economic tide over the last 20 years has lifted living standards, productivity, and employment throughout America. Everyone got richer with a full $39 trillion in new wealth created during this period. Fair?
DAVID CAY JOHNSTON: No. Not accurate either. First of all a rising tide lifts all boats unless you're in the dinghy tied to the dock. And then you get swamped. The poor America, and it's not like being poor in the third world, but the poor America are worse off. Most Americans have seen their incomes stagnate or decline slightly. People have fewer fringe benefits. They have less in retirement. They have an enormous amount of debt. For every additional dollar since 1980 the people have gotten in equity in their homes, they've taken on $2 of debt. That's not a prescription for getting well off.
Entrepreneurs? Entrepreneurs are people who are going to perform no matter what. And we had our greatest economic growth when we had much higher tax rates. You want entrepreneurs. You need entrepreneurs to have a good society. I don't have any problem with entrepreneurs. But we need to have a system that also fairly distributes-- and government rules affect the distribution of this; it is not in a vacuum-- the burdens of society and the benefits of society. And so when we have people who make billion dollar a year incomes and pay 15 percent taxes and janitors who pay the same tax rate and school teachers who pay a 25 percent tax rate, something's amiss.
BILL MOYERS: But did you notice what happened when the Democrats briefly toyed with the idea of removing that tax break from the hedge fund and private equity managers Congress thought very briefly about removing it. And then the industry held a big party for-- Harry Reid, Senate Democratic majority leader down in Las Vegas, and he came back from that big party and said, "I don't think we'll be taking that up anytime soon."
DAVID CAY JOHNSTON: The problem of the political donor class's outsized influence and its grip on Congress is bipartisan. There's one party in Washington. It's the party of money. It has different wings and factions. But Washington is the party of money. And the wealthiest people in America, the large corporations in America, are busy milking the government for everything they can get. And you are paying the price of their free lunch.

Add to Newsvine
Add to StumbleUpon
Will Harrington @ 9:57 PM writes:
"Seems that Republicans and democrats, when it comes to actually governing, differ only on a few social issues to please their base, but one thing seems clear, we have not had conservative government. "
No kidding. As I've said before, the GOP and the Democrats are, operationally speaking, two wings of the same apparatus; the American National Socialist party. Their support bases are slightly different, but any Venn diagram would reveal a great many similarities. The overlap would be in the elderly and the large corporations, since both wings go out of their way to insure funding for entitlements and corporate welfare and special projects. As far as I can see, the average American commoner has NO "natural home" anywhere in the current unrestricted-welfare/warfare State system.
Btw, this is one paleoconservative who isn't going to "wash his hands" of the GOP, at least on the presidential level. I already did; in 2000, I voted Constitutionalist and in 2004 I voted Libertarian. I have no grounds for guilt, not a bit. As far as this time around----either Barr, Nader or Mickey Mouse. The last one may well be the soundest choice, for several reasons.
Your servant,
Lord Karth
Conservatives have defended Bush (I certainly have) on certain issues (stem cells, war on terror, etc.) but have never claimed Bush is a "conservative". Even libertarian first (and conservative second) Rush Limbaugh has from the beginning explained this.
As a traditional conservative (Kirkean, not "crunchy") I voted for Bush also (1st time, not second), but that still does not make him a "conservative".
With his support for the prescription drug giveaway and the like, it is clear now he is Rockefeller (even if he is not quite as liberal on social issues)...
Karth,
I went for Constitutionalist in 04 also. Your analysis is right on - I have argued for years it will be the GOP, not the Dem's, who complete the socialization of medicine. Reason is they have the $financial$ clout with the public. Everyone knows the Dem's would screw it up, but enough are under the illusion the GOP would do it "right"...
Sorry, that last post to Karth was mine...
Hi,
It is really a nice article. I have gone through with your comments. Thanks for sharing.
Stella
MLS
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.