I always knew where the Louisiana governor stood on most social issues but then I understand, not accept (yet understand) that these stem largely from perceptively faith-based dogma. What I don't understand is his opinion recently published in Politico - it has some atrocious statements, some blatant misrepresentation, and calls for solutions that perhaps you may have heard before but are put forth in a way that is befuddling to anyone with common sense and basic economic concepts. Oh, it's clever alright. It's crafty with allusions and dramatized with metaphors but it panders to the base - a base (might I add) that just got hammered by a supposedly weak incumbent.
"Today it’s the fiscal cliff, but that surely will not be the end of it; next year it will be the fiscal mountain, after that the fiscal black hole, and after that fiscal Armageddon. But the truth is Washington already drove us off the fiscal cliff while no one was looking. A nation that has a $16.3 trillion debt, a debt that is larger than our entire economy, has already driven through the guard rail and is in free fall with the cliff somewhere in the rear view mirror."
No B, I'm not aware and don't particularly care to know how the cliff terminology was so popularly accepted and used but I'm convinced that the last thing people need is more of these doomsday terms. The US has NOT been driven over the cliff and if it was hypothetically, it definitely wouldn't be with no one looking. To imply that the national debt has pushed the economy into a perpetual state of existing freefall is beyond absurd. But that's not the end of it because here are some 'solutions':
"A federal balanced budget amendment. States have balanced budget laws, small businesses have to balance their budgets, and families have to do the same. This is an idea that is supported by virtually every American who does not live in the 202 area code. It’s common sense. It is also laughed at in Washington. When you mention the BBA as a solution, they roll their eyes and write you off as a non-serious person. But the American public is dead serious about it, and they should be."
No B, the fact that states have balanced budget laws is exactly why it is almost scary to claim that the Federal government should have a balanced budget amendment. One would expect you, (a highly educated scholar), to at some point in Oxford or Brown or McKinsey to have grasped the ludicrousness of equating household budgets with a government budget. Essentially what you admit to is having never accepted the basic government accounting equation. Either that, or more likely, it just sounds better to the public when you pit them against government - patting them on the back for paying off debt while castigating the government as if it were part of the equation.
"Place a cap on discretionary and mandatory federal spending by fixing a limit on it tied to a percentage of GDP. Eighteen percent is a reasonable number in my book, but almost any number would be a victory at this point. Require a super majority vote to over-ride this limit, which would allow for recourse in a time of war or other national emergency. Again, this solution makes far too much sense to be taken seriously in Washington, a sure sign that it’s a good idea."
No B, have you conveniently forgotten that we're barely a few years removed from a HUGE financial crisis and that the after-effects and consequences play out in a negative way till today? The US economy has been suffering from anemic growth, a severely-tested Fed with an unconventional arsenal, and a major balance sheet imbalance where corporations are flush with cash, interest rates are at their lower bound and the paying of household debt has been on a major spree. And during a time like this, you want an 18% cap on spending? Really?
"A super majority to increase taxes. Make it harder for the politicians in Washington to simply take more from Americans, thereby forcing them to stop growing government. Yes, Washington hates this idea, so it should be pursued with vigor."
No B, I knew the party-old anti-tax sentiment would finally filter through your op-ed. No one advocates tax increases on the average domestic consumer. Trying to reason through this by saying it should be pursued because Washington displays a lack of ability to reason logically. Honestly, one should expect at least that much from you.
"Now that I’ve offended everyone in Washington, a few final thoughts – our debt is strangling us. It seems to be a given that we will once again raise the debt ceiling. So the one thing that all involved agree must happen, may in fact be the single worst thing we can do – unless it is one-time, limited, and accompanied by structural reform to make sure we don’t repeat this nightmare.
"Today it’s the fiscal cliff, but that surely will not be the end of it; next year it will be the fiscal mountain, after that the fiscal black hole, and after that fiscal Armageddon. But the truth is Washington already drove us off the fiscal cliff while no one was looking. A nation that has a $16.3 trillion debt, a debt that is larger than our entire economy, has already driven through the guard rail and is in free fall with the cliff somewhere in the rear view mirror."
No B, I'm not aware and don't particularly care to know how the cliff terminology was so popularly accepted and used but I'm convinced that the last thing people need is more of these doomsday terms. The US has NOT been driven over the cliff and if it was hypothetically, it definitely wouldn't be with no one looking. To imply that the national debt has pushed the economy into a perpetual state of existing freefall is beyond absurd. But that's not the end of it because here are some 'solutions':
"A federal balanced budget amendment. States have balanced budget laws, small businesses have to balance their budgets, and families have to do the same. This is an idea that is supported by virtually every American who does not live in the 202 area code. It’s common sense. It is also laughed at in Washington. When you mention the BBA as a solution, they roll their eyes and write you off as a non-serious person. But the American public is dead serious about it, and they should be."
No B, the fact that states have balanced budget laws is exactly why it is almost scary to claim that the Federal government should have a balanced budget amendment. One would expect you, (a highly educated scholar), to at some point in Oxford or Brown or McKinsey to have grasped the ludicrousness of equating household budgets with a government budget. Essentially what you admit to is having never accepted the basic government accounting equation. Either that, or more likely, it just sounds better to the public when you pit them against government - patting them on the back for paying off debt while castigating the government as if it were part of the equation.
"Place a cap on discretionary and mandatory federal spending by fixing a limit on it tied to a percentage of GDP. Eighteen percent is a reasonable number in my book, but almost any number would be a victory at this point. Require a super majority vote to over-ride this limit, which would allow for recourse in a time of war or other national emergency. Again, this solution makes far too much sense to be taken seriously in Washington, a sure sign that it’s a good idea."
No B, have you conveniently forgotten that we're barely a few years removed from a HUGE financial crisis and that the after-effects and consequences play out in a negative way till today? The US economy has been suffering from anemic growth, a severely-tested Fed with an unconventional arsenal, and a major balance sheet imbalance where corporations are flush with cash, interest rates are at their lower bound and the paying of household debt has been on a major spree. And during a time like this, you want an 18% cap on spending? Really?
"A super majority to increase taxes. Make it harder for the politicians in Washington to simply take more from Americans, thereby forcing them to stop growing government. Yes, Washington hates this idea, so it should be pursued with vigor."
No B, I knew the party-old anti-tax sentiment would finally filter through your op-ed. No one advocates tax increases on the average domestic consumer. Trying to reason through this by saying it should be pursued because Washington displays a lack of ability to reason logically. Honestly, one should expect at least that much from you.
"Now that I’ve offended everyone in Washington, a few final thoughts – our debt is strangling us. It seems to be a given that we will once again raise the debt ceiling. So the one thing that all involved agree must happen, may in fact be the single worst thing we can do – unless it is one-time, limited, and accompanied by structural reform to make sure we don’t repeat this nightmare.
Additionally, amidst all the talk of increasing taxes and cutting entitlements, something more important than either of these has been lost – economic growth. America is forever young because America is forever growing, leading the world and showing the way forward. All actions taken by Washington should be seen through this simple prism – will this help grow our economy? If not, maybe we shouldn’t do it."
No B, now that you've offended everyone in possession of at least an ounce of common sense, the least you can do is to stop providing the public with dramatic and graphic visuals of the debt strangling them like some sort of a python. I'm not even going to dig up data and reason with you unless you quit this fiscal crisis drama that you continue to espouse.
Lastly, as to your two flowery statements:
A. America is forever young
B. America is forever growing, leading the world and showing the way forward
I really don't understand how you connected these two with logical causality but that's just my personal opinion I had to insert. Do forgive me.
No comments:
Post a Comment