Politics holding the US back

Remove all ads!

I live in Wisconsin (the other state mentioned) but I'm under the impression that Ohio's current governor has done well-balanced the budget and so on. Yet his opponent may have wanted to use an issue to run against him on and is thus running on holding up better US infrastructure while China greatly improves theirs.

And I'm under the impression that if the current governor of Ohio was a Republican he may simply build it and move on.

http://www.grist.org/article/can-conservatives-ride-no-train-to-victory/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-speed_rail_in_China


Do you agree or disagree that this is political opportunism at the expense of the national good?

 

Undeniably political opportunism (and sheer partisan hackery lout of spite) at the expense of the national good is a big problem in America today. The Republicans currently are a lot about that ('the party of no'). Certainly Democrats are not beyond that, but since their candidates don't run on a platform of wanting to abolish government I suspect in them a greater willingness to govern. And then there's this - the republicans currently are exceedingly ideological.

America needs a better infrastructure. It has not been investing in it in the last decades. China has. Germany, for that matter, has as well. America is falling behind.

That should be an issue seen by either R's or D's. It's a 'Standortvorteil', the advantage of location, that, with a working legal system and effective governance is one of the factors that effects economic growth and wealth of the state. A lack in either field will lead to a competitive disadvantage. It is in itself reasonable to call for investment in infrastructure.

I cannot see the tea partiers who want to abolish government accept that. They'd much rather cut taxes than to modernise the electric grid or highways or invest in public education.

Balancing the budget is one thing, but a state cannot bee governed effectively without revenue. The only way for Republicans to implement their 'balanced budget plans' with reduced revenue from taxes means severely cutting government services (i.e. abandoning governance (or 'promoting the virtue of self-reliance')) - madness. In doing so they are undermining the legitimacy of the state proper. These jokers are running for office in order to sort of abolish the state? Lunatics.

The idea that tax cuts finance themselves is famously, voodoo economics. They usually don't. The same applies for the Republican pet concept that tax cuts for the wealthy will make benefits trickle down to the average Americans, with the increase in the difference between rich and middle class and the actual demise in middle class income that is hardly a plausible concept any more. Debt is bad, but there are worse things than debt.

 

The US is facing a crisis. I don't buy Ragusa's "party of no" BS, or that the Republicans want to 'abolish government', but he's right that neither the Reps nor the Dems have had the intestinal fortitude to invest in things that most people wouldn't even notice, but we all need. Obama spend some on infrastructure with his stimulus, but that was a drop in the ocean compared to what we needed. The entire stimulus spent on only infrastructure would have been better, but even then I don't know how much good it would be. We need road repairs, electric grid upgrades, water system repairs, sewage system repairs (actually, massive replacements in some places), bridge repairs, phone line upgrades, building repairs and replacements, and that's just the physical. Upgrades to government systems, education, they ways contracts are awarded, and more are something on top of that. And, on top of it all, we're massively in debt. We're in debt because the Dems have insisted for decades on spending more and more on social programs with limited proof of benefit while Reps have insisted for decades on lowering taxes and spending more on the military.

This is one of the things that I hope the Tea Party is going to be about. Cut spending (across the board, on everything but essentials) and raise taxes (actually, I'd like to see taxes stay the same, but more tiers added on top of the current max). Unfortunately, I see at least some of them have already slipped into the old Rep mantra of 'no new taxes and more military spending'.

This is one of the flaws of democracy. No single mind wins out for long, and most people can only see for the short-term (and most politicians only for their own gain).

 

NOG,
actually, I threw in 'the party of no' as a buzzword. But now that you mention it, there is some basis in reality for that, all their talk of willing to cooperate with Obama notwithstanding, the actions of house republicans speak a different language.

The Republican obstructionism in Obama's first two years has been pretty much unprecedented. Gloss that over all you want. One Fed nominee they refused as 'unqualified', just received a Nobel price, in economics). Hard to beat that one.

And maybe that has eventually sunk in with Republicans. Eric Cantor is on record saying:

He has a point, but I don't think he has party support in that noble sentiment.

The rest of the party, never mind the tea party kooks, is, the impression is overwhelming, apparently primarily interested in winning the mid terms, never mind the necessity of governing in the meanwhile. If things go south it's Obama's fault - Obama's failure can only benefit them. And yes, I think they are that cynical.

 

I think, from what I've seen, the Republicans' 'no'-ness is no more than what any opposition party does. They've objected to major policy issues and appointees. There have just been a lot more major policy issues and quite a few more appointees recently. Remember, though, that a lot has still been done for which there was no opposition. NASA is funded, for example, and that wasn't a party-line vote. Government hasn't shut down.

I also think you're buying the media spin on the Tea Party. I saw a grad student study on Tea Party signs at a recent march. 96% were purely economic issues. Only 2% even made mention of the President. Still, that doesn't make the news much, because people marching for a balanced budget just don't really excite people as much as the nuts do. "Obama is Hitler and Pelosi is a Witch" is so much more attention-grabbing.

 

Infrastructure is important, but only the correct type of infrastructure. Everyone knows that "rail" rhymes with "fail" in the United States. We are an automobile and airplane society. Rail only works in large urban areas for commuters or for long distance freight hauling in which case high speed is not necessary at all. If the Acela which connects Boston, New York, and Washington DC can't make money in the richest and most densely populated area of the country how anybody would think it would make sense to put one in Wisconsin is a fool.

The reason why rail keeps on being forced down the throats of the taxpayer is that the jobs end up being "union" jobs and therefore mean high pay/low work and it keeps the money flowing into the Democrat's coffers. Once the rail is functioning it will never stop running no matter how unprofitable it is as the good old stupid taxpayer will keep bailing it out.

Now if the money was spent to widen highways, repair bridges, build runways that would make sense, and would benefit everyone, but that isn't what the politicians want.

As to the GOP being the party of "no" I would say that they are more the party of "sanity". When the Speaker of the House trys to tell everyone to vote "Yes" on a bill and tells them they will find out what is in it later, we have a serious problem.

As to the "Tea Party", people who really pay attention to what is going on know that it is all about the economy and taxes. However, it is easier to demonize them by calling the racists then it is to listen to their concerns. The Democrats have probably lost the independents who are swinging to the Tea party for a very long time. Normal people find it very offensive to be painted a racist for no reason.

 

Then you're wrong. And don't argue with me, argue with the numbers, say on the use of filibuster:

'Astonishing' numbers, 'record setting pace' - suggesting that the R's are not using it like any other opposition party, but significantly more than opposition parties (R's and D's alike) before them.

And the tea party is only about a balanced budget? Who are you kidding?

Snook,
I understand they have legitimate concerns. Not the point. The misguided policies they support are my concern, and I would be significantly more concerned if I was an American citizen and held a direct stake in your country. America is knee deep in debt, and these jokers propose their magic cure-all - tax cuts (precisely the same thing they would be calling for if things went well)?

To wit: As Germany eventually paying off their Versailles debts this year shows, government debt is immortal. The government debt will have to be paid for one way or the other, and you cannot do that with reduced government tax revenue when you have to run a state as well. Since that one way, tax revenue, is ruled out for ideological and lobby related reasons (think Dick Armey, Chamber of Commerce and the interests they represent), and since the defence budget must not be cut at all cost (pun!), what else is left ... how do you like inflation?

 

This is a debate that this country needs to have; it is important. Do you remember when the Rebulicans started losing power in 2006? Some in the party claimed that the party was not conservative enough, even floating the whopping silly notion that the Bush/Cheney bunch was not really "conservative." Other Republicans thought those comments as funny as most everyone else outside the Repbulican sphere. Well, no one is laughing now. But let's be straight:

Some of us pointed out that there was something different going on, and that there were different types of Republicans; some of us broke this down by claiming that the "social conservatives," and the social conservative agenda, like the GWB crowd, were what was really hurting the Republican party on the national scale. Add to this the neocon agenda of Cheney's notion of global empire building that the establishment Republicans embraced in 2001-4 and you get the picture pretty clearly.

The Tea Party has run away from these ideas of the Bush/Cheney social conservative/neocon, empire building crowd, and embraced those aspects of the conservative agenda that Bush/Cheney completely ignored. How much do you hear about the gay marriage, or the Southern Bible thumping, Right to life movement, at least overtly in the Tea Party mantras? Almost none. The guy in NY state tried this stuff and he has failed terrribly; just as Christine in Delaware with her past social conservative notions in that Tea Party race have failed her almost as badly.

Many of us still suspect that at the bottom of this movement are still the same old social conservative, big government, big spending, coporate Republicans, who see all this as just another path back to power. I still believe the Tea Party movement will be absorbed by the establishment in the end. The big money will win out, like it did in the Democratic party, so will it be in the Republician "populist" movement people label the "Tea Party." So much for "hope and change" on either side.

---------- Added 0 hours, 31 minutes and 6 seconds later... ----------

Great point. But it just proves how these same old establishment Republicans have gone back to the same idea -- attacking Social Securtiy. SS has not contributed one dime to the current deficit - not one dime - but they continue to fly right past that point, to continue their age-old struggle against the old democratic establishment that has been successful for the last 70 years. They count on people not figuring that point out. Yes, someday - someday - in the future it will fail, and someday "the mountians will fall into the sea" as well. Nothing lasts forever on this planet.

 

Rail & Wisconsin.....

In case nobody else here noticed many of the rail lines end in Chicago-which also happens to be a rather large city.

Does a rail that connects the to the 2 largest cities in the state in addition to the twin cities (not exactly rural) at one end and Chicago at the other seem illogical?

About making the rail profitable.... Profits?..?..??!! Where do direct profits come in when we are talking about public transportation? I'm pretty sure not with many city/town roads, bus systems, or highways.

The point of transportation is that it provides a method of getting from one spot to another well enough that whatever activities go on at those spots provide enough of an economic benefit to more than cover the cost of the transportation used to get them there.

Bus systems use public subsidies, but they also provide a more efficient way to get from home to work and back if you can use one instead of a car. They take local subsidies but those subsidies are worth it for what they do.

A train system requires maintenance but does anyone think a highway system doesn't?

Oh, and guess which one is more vulnerable to a price spike in fuel. And it isn't like those haven't happened in the USA before.


And mentioning the Tea Party....

I find remarkable irony in that a Tea Party candidate that is in a tight race with Russ Feingold for the US Senate happens to like Ayn Rand.

She loves conservative, no government intervention, economics. Problem is that it doesn't work well. The US didn't create an EPA because a bunch of people were bored-it was created because the Free Market apparently couldn't address environmental issues terribly well. More about Rand and this recession.... she had a hand in causing it.

Alan Greenspan was a friend of hers and they helped each other develop their ideology. Mr. Greenspan then went on to have some pretty major influence over if the government would regulate the financial sector. And that helped lead us to where?!

So now you have a Republican running for Senate valuing the writings of Rand while the Senator he runs against-pretty well respected by many who pay attention-and potentially having a shot at victory (when usually most people would laugh at the notion of him defeating Feingold.... or even him winning a US Senate seat period considering how he has acted) because of anger relating to a recession one of his favorite authors has a share of responsibility for.

Was Ayn Rand purely responsible for this recession? No. Sometimes massive problems need several people making bad decisions in the worst way to happen. But she did her part as small or large as you argue it is.

 

Nah, she had her ideas, and Greenspan was more of a devoted disciple rather than a co-author. Iirc Greenspan met her only in the 1940s of 50s when she already established a circle of disciples and had formulated her ideas. As an analogy, think of Randism as an orthodox sect. Anyway, you are correct that she had a profound influence on Greenspan and that that informed his thinking.

Thoughtful post by the way, especially the part about indirect benefits of infrastructure that cannot be captured in direct profits. Repped.

* For those who don't know who Ayn Rand was - here's a talk on her: Goddess of the Market: Ayn Rand and the American Right
* A debate on America's infrastructure can be found here (it includes helpful reading material): Infrastructure: Policy Challenges Facing The Nation
* and eventually, this talk: The Concept of Capitalism to which audio is apparently no longer available; but they have been informed so check back occasionally.

 

This is true. I don't think even the Tea Party actually expects us to actually balance the budget, so much as just reduce the deficit.

No, SS has not contributed to this depression, or the national debt. Yet. Instead, it's guaranteed to do so in the future, and to some degree or another in the very near future (maybe even this year). SS is a massive debt looming over our heads, not actually on our backs yet. For once, I'd like to see our government go about averting disaster, rather than waiting until it falls upon us, blaming the other side for a year or two, and then thinking about getting around to fix things.

 

Like many Republicans, you exaggerate the problerm. It's more like 27 years from now:

http://www.aarp.org/work/social-sec..._rhetoric_muddies_social_security_reform.html

 

I'm not so sure how "guaranteed" it is to do that, particularly in the near future. As far as I can see in the data we have - from 2009 - it ran a 121 billion surplus, with income (including interest) of 807 billion. This is happening at a period where unemployment (which both reduces the amount of contributions from workers and increases SocSec costs) is historically very high and overall budget revenue is low. That "massive debt" seems to be one of the more financially sound systems in the US, from where I am standing. I believe the rush to "reform" it might be for political rather than financial reasons.

@ Snook - Rail might not be a good option everywhere in the US, but it is a big country and there are certainly regions where it could be a viable method, particularly on the coasts. Freight transport routes can be viable inland as well, although that also depends on the price of gasoline. Both, however, would be much more useful (and profitable) if the current infrastructure is modernized. Actually, I looked up ACELA - didn't it make a profit in the last year or two?

 

That's very true. When I lived in NYC it was pretty evident that a car was not needed because of the subway and rail system.

 

Actually, no. It will run out of money 27 years from now, but quite soon (some estimates put it at this year, others a few years from now), it will need to call in debts owed to it by our government to get the money it's running out of. The vast majority of it's 'trust fund' is held up in US bonds, which means the US government owes SS money. When SS needs that money, it's the US government that will have to pay it, so we'll still see it added to the deficit, just from a different group instead of from SS.

Around here, there's talk of building a light rail system from Virginia Beach City Center (lots of housing, a lot of it military) to downtown Norfolk (including the military base). This is a definite 'yes' in my book. There are few examples where public transportation really works in the US, but this would be one of them.

 

What are you talking about? No, it won't or will run out of money in 27 years? What do you mean by "actually, no?"

SS is currently running a surplus, not a deficit at the moment, which was my point. Do get that point? Because that's what you failed to point out in your previous post.

 

Chandos, I'd heard the surplus will be gone in a few years (eight comes to mind, but I'm not certain). I think the dangerous thing is SSA is not fully funded -- meaning the federal government is using the SSA funds as revenue and not putting the money aside. To me this is as dangerous as any of the megacorporation pensions out there which have seen serious hits because the companies cannot pay the absconded funds back.

Once the baby boomers really start to retire we will see a rapid drop in the revenue for SSA and an equally rapid increase in payouts. It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

 

T2 - I completely agree with everything you are saying; 8-10 years are the estimates for the surplus, and then it will more than likely be "pay as you go," until it can be reformed, or it will start running out of funds. But it still has nothing to do with the current deficit.

So more than likely, even after today's election, there will be no current reduction in the current debt. Everyone taslks about wanting to cut programs, but no one wants to see his/her pet program cut - whether it's education, defense, NASA, health care, welfare, corporate welfare, or whatever you care to list.

 

I've heard a lot of numbers on when SS will have to start using the money that isn't there. How old are your estimates? I remember hearing about two years ago the estimate was 2020, but this year it dropped significantly with all the unemployed no longer paying in (those estimates were from spring of this year). Of course, they were all estimates of where we'd end up at the end of the year, so they're still estimates even today. Likewise, the job situation, while it hasn't gotten much better, is more concrete now, so a newer estimate than Spring would be more accurate.

Nonetheless, the SS problem almost certainly won't be fixed in 10 years, or even 27 years, even if we start now, so saying we're acting too early isn't entirely accurate.

THIS!! Yes! I think everyone realizes that even drastic tax increases on those evil, dastardly rich (how dare they earn more money than me!) won't fix our budget. Something needs to be cut, but no one want's to risk angering any of their constituents by cutting their programs, so nothing actually gets cut. Someone (and actually a lot of someones, enough to get it through Congress and the President) needs to "man up" (or woman up as the case may be) and decide what the government needs to do (as opposed to what people would like it to do).