Some Are More Equal Than Others

The LA Times covers Mitt Romney's Hamptons fundraiser:

A New York City donor a few cars back, who also would not give her name, said Romney needed to do a better job connecting. "I don't think the common person is getting it," she said from the passenger seat of a Range Rover stamped with East Hampton beach permits. "Nobody understands why Obama is hurting them.



"We've got the message," she added. "But my college kid, the baby sitters, the nails ladies -- everybody who's got the right to vote -- they don't understand what's going on. I just think if you're lower income -- one, you're not as educated, two, they don't understand how it works, they don't understand how the systems work, they don't understand the impact." (bold mine - JMG)

While quotes like this are not that surprising, it is no less nauseating to see the well-to-do parade around their own high-minded opinion of themselves. Even worse — in my mind — is the heads I win, tails you lose logic to it; if you're poor, you're not educated enough to make the decision I agree with, and if you're educated like me, you'll vote for the candidate that wants to slash Federal investments in education[1], among other things.



[1]From the CBPP:

The cuts that would be required under the Romney budget proposals in programs such as veterans’ disability compensation, Supplemental Security Income (SSI) for poor elderly and disabled individuals, SNAP (formerly food stamps), and child nutrition programs would move millions of households below the poverty line or drive them deeper into poverty. The cuts in Medicare and Medicaid would make health insurance unaffordable (or unavailable) to tens of millions of people. The cuts in non-defense discretionary programs — a spending category that covers a wide variety of public services such as elementary and secondary education, law enforcement, veterans’ health care, environmental protection, and biomedical research — would come on top of the deep cuts in this part of the budget that are already in law due to the discretionary funding caps established in last year’s Budget Control Act (BCA).

An Honest Mistake

At Business Insiders, Michael Brendan Dougherty reads Paul Ryan's new budget plan so you don't have to.

Can you spot what is missing from Rep. Ryan's colorful chart? Hint: In FY 2011, it comprised of 58% of the Federal Discretionary Budget.

Policy and Incentives

The United States' Federal Budget has many problems. They are compounded by Republican party's a priori allergy towards taxes, irrespective of context. On that note, Ezra Klein talks some sense about budget policy, and the radicalism of the current state of the Republican party's fiscal proposals:

You can’t look at that and say revenues have nothing to do with our current deficits.

Which isn’t to say it’s not difficult for elected Republicans to admit that taxes need to rise. The Club for Growth might primary you. Grover Norquist will come after you. But being responsible is difficult. No Democrat who says Medicare and Medicaid and Social Security can’t be cut can be considered fiscally responsible. And no Republican who pledges to oppose all tax increases, regardless of circumstances, can be considered fiscally responsible. There’s no curve here. There’s only math. And politicians who want to be applauded as “responsible” can’t be permitted to ignore it. (emphasis mine - JMG)

The kind of policy "flat-earthism" that Klein is talking about permeates the the Republican party so much right now because the party's constituents are demanding it. I think this is the real tragedy of the Republican party these days. Perhaps even a tragedy of our politics in general.

Ideally, elected representatives and they constituents they represent would work in concert. People have policy preferences and vote accordingly. In turn, paid representatives of the state have a responsibility to the people they represent, to be clear about the realities of the state's finances. To me the problem is coming from both ends; GOP voters want to hear strident re-confirmations of preconceived conclusions about spending and taxes. Republican officials are not responsibly trying to cultivate a discussion of what are budget problems are, and what possible solutions might be.

Intellectual curiosity is a tricky thing. But without it, I think, we are worse off as a nation.

David Brooks is wrong wrong wrong

David Brooks is a terrible columnist. Every time I read one of his pieces, I see errors so glaring that even a junior poli sci undergrad would be able to spot them. His column today is an excellent example of this.

He starts one a premise that, now that Paul Ryan released a budget, the Democrats need to get serious about entitlement reform. Here's a gem of a paragraph:

The Democrats are on defense because they are unwilling to ask voters to confront the implications of their choices. Democrats seem to believe that most Americans want to preserve the 20th-century welfare state programs. But they are unwilling to ask voters to pay for them, and they are unwilling to describe the tax increases that would be required to cover their exploding future costs.

Has Mr. Brooks been asleep for the past two years? Does he forget the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act? Readers might recall the law. It was the one with taxes on high-cost insurance policies and major cuts to programs like Medicare Advantage to help pay for the bill. President Obama and Congressional Democrats got hammered over these cuts and taxes, specifically from the Republican legislators and candidates.

Shorter Brooks: President Obama and Congressional Democrats write, lobby and pass a healthcare reform bill that according to the CBO, will place our projected revenue to follow the pace of healthcare costs, and they are "unwilling to describe the tax increases that would be required to cover their exploding future costs."

Whereas Paul Ryan "has moved us off Unreality Island," with a plan that caps Medicare and Medicaid spending at inflation rate +1% and gets gets roughly two-thirds of it's cuts from programs for lower-income Americans.

If David Brooks bothered to care about how policy works and the reality of our problems, he could right very interesting and illuminating columns. But pieces like this are just partisan tropes that do nothing but add heat and no light to our policy dilemmas. It's a shame he abuses his platform to push this kind of junk analysis.

The Ab Belt Philosophy of Public Policy

Another example: Today the NYT reports on how GOP Reps are suddenly (surprise!) finding out that balancing the budget requires more than just eliminating foreign aid.

Again, I'm at a loss how these otherwise reasonably smart, competent* decision makers seem to get this idea that we're just one effortless, painless set of program cuts away solving all of our problems. This is not, and probably never will be the case. Charlie Brown, meet football.

*Yes, the intelligence and competency of our legislators is debatable.

Quote of the Day

From the excellent Ta-Nehisi Coates, on Cathleen Black's resignation

It'd be nice if we'd now stop hearing political appointees and MBA candidates crowing about their private sector successes, their nose for accountability and the perils broken government. Whatever. All I hear in that is the sneering of reformers who actually don't much like democracy. I don't want politicians who are "above politics," anymore then I want a plumber who's "above toilets."

Black's appointment strikes me as a decision endemic from the same line of (wishful) thinking that that made ab belts so marketable. Remember those? The basic pitch was that all you had to do was sit down on the couch, let 'er rip and BAM, washboard abs with zero effort.

It baffles me how decision makers keep coming up with solutions to major public policy issues (urban/suburban education inequality, over decline in public school quality, etc.) the rely on quick fixes.

Writer's Block

So I'm trying something new; writer's block questions. There's a page over at livejournal (remember when?) which is basically a writing exersize. Get the ball rolling and all that. Here we go:

If you had to tighten your budget (or already have), what would be the easiest thing to cut?

The budget of a college student is notoriously malleable. While I do have some essential expenses like gas, heat, electricity rent and groceries; pretty much everything else is expendable. And even then, I could get by without my car, or I could steal enough from the DCs to cut down my grocery bill. This flexible arrangement is enabled by my family, who finance a large majority of my comfortable life. But the question here is 'easiest,' which is a little tricky. That's because it gives a sense of effortlessness, that there is simply one thing I could do away with which would be both a) painless and b) immediate in increasing my real wages. And as much as it pains be to say this, I think I know the answer: Alcohol. And more specifically: Beer.

I love beer. It's true. Namely, I love expensive beer. Not the $100/per bottle collectors items, just got old fashioned craft beer. It's delcious, it improves my night, and it gives me something to look forward to at the end of the day. and it's also really really expensive over time. As delcious as it is, I can't justify spending $20-40/week for the luxury. So lately, I've been drinking tea instead of beer at nights. I've been sleeping sooner in the evening, and resting better. I have more cash on hand to look at pro-dealing some gear I want.

But, I don't think I'll ever fully quit drinking beer. There's too much fun to be had and to many friends to enjoy a drink with. For now though, it's not an essential part of my life. That's why beer is the easiest thing I can cut to help my budget.