Wednesday, August 11, 2010

On the unlit, unpaved road to nowhere

Here's a great column by Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman in the New York Times (registration required, though it's free). It starts:

The lights are going out all over America — literally. Colorado Springs has made headlines with its desperate attempt to save money by turning off a third of its streetlights, but similar things are either happening or being contemplated across the nation, from Philadelphia to Fresno.

Meanwhile, a country that once amazed the world with its visionary investments in transportation, from the Erie Canal to the Interstate Highway System, is now in the process of unpaving itself: in a number of states, local governments are breaking up roads they can no longer afford to maintain, and returning them to gravel.

And a nation that once prized education — that was among the first to provide basic schooling to all its children — is now cutting back. Teachers are being laid off; programs are being canceled; in Hawaii, the school year itself is being drastically shortened. And all signs point to even more cuts ahead.

We’re told that we have no choice, that basic government functions — essential services that have been provided for generations — are no longer affordable. And it’s true that state and local governments, hit hard by the recession, are cash-strapped. But they wouldn’t be quite as cash-strapped if their politicians were willing to consider at least some tax increases.

And the federal government, which can sell inflation-protected long-term bonds at an interest rate of only 1.04 percent, isn’t cash-strapped at all. It could and should be offering aid to local governments, to protect the future of our infrastructure and our children.

But Washington is providing only a trickle of help, and even that grudgingly. We must place priority on reducing the deficit, say Republicans and “centrist” Democrats. And then, virtually in the next breath, they declare that we must preserve tax cuts for the very affluent, at a budget cost of $700 billion over the next decade.

In effect, a large part of our political class is showing its priorities: given the choice between asking the richest 2 percent or so of Americans to go back to paying the tax rates they paid during the Clinton-era boom, or allowing the nation’s foundations to crumble — literally in the case of roads, figuratively in the case of education — they’re choosing the latter.

Even before this economic collapse (brought to you by the same people who are still pushing tax cuts for the wealthy and resisting rational government spending), I felt that America was turning into a third-world country. But it's even worse now. Anti-government fanatics have nearly succeeded in their lunatic quest.

And as Krugman points out, federal stimulus spending has barely kept pace with cutbacks by state and local governments. We learned the solution to this kind of problem during the Great Depression, but we are simply refusing to heed it (partly because Republicans see a political advantage in keeping our economy hurting).

And no, tax cuts for the rich don't help. We tried that during the Bush years, and it was a complete failure. You couldn't ask for better evidence that supply-side economics doesn't work. But, of course, evidence means nothing to fanatic right-wing ideologues.

Everything we know about economic growth says that a well-educated population and high-quality infrastructure are crucial. Emerging nations are making huge efforts to upgrade their roads, their ports and their schools. Yet in America we’re going backward.

How did we get to this point? It’s the logical consequence of three decades of antigovernment rhetoric, rhetoric that has convinced many voters that a dollar collected in taxes is always a dollar wasted, that the public sector can’t do anything right.

The antigovernment campaign has always been phrased in terms of opposition to waste and fraud — to checks sent to welfare queens driving Cadillacs, to vast armies of bureaucrats uselessly pushing paper around. But those were myths, of course; there was never remotely as much waste and fraud as the right claimed. And now that the campaign has reached fruition, we’re seeing what was actually in the firing line: services that everyone except the very rich need, services that government must provide or nobody will, like lighted streets, drivable roads and decent schooling for the public as a whole.

So the end result of the long campaign against government is that we’ve taken a disastrously wrong turn. America is now on the unlit, unpaved road to nowhere. 

4 comments:

Chimeradave said...

He is absolutely 100 percent right. The only problem is I am also completely convince that Republican or Democrat Washington is so corrupt that the money never seems to go to the places that need it.

We found plenty of money for the Wall Street bail out, and more money for the wars, but education and roads, "Oh, there's no money left."

And I know, the Republicans have been blocking all the great things the Democrats wanted to do, since Obama took over.

Only if you look at Health Care for an example the Liberal plan with a strong public option was championed by Harry Reid, but Obama was no where to be seen that week. He was like "Sorry, I talked to the drug companies that are giving me piles of money and they don't like the public option."

Bill Garthright said...

It's overly simplistic to blame this on corruption, John. And that kind of cynicism leads to progressives giving up on politics, exactly the wrong thing to do. After all, if everyone is corrupt, what's the point of voting?

The public option COULD NOT get through a Congress with every single Republican against it - and a number of right-wing Democrats, too. For the most part, this opposition was political, with Republicans seeing a way to slam Democrats as "socialists" and Democrats fearful of being tarred with that label, but it was still a fact.

Where I fault Obama, and most Democrats, is in not fighting HARD for progressive options before, eventually, compromising. They're too eager to "compromise" unilaterally - which means they eventually have to compromise again, giving up almost all of what they originally wanted to get. We ended up with a Republican health care reform bill, and STILL the Democrats are tarred with the "socialist" label.

But Barack Obama campaigned on compromising with Republicans. That was a major theme of his campaign. And he was always a moderate Democrat. I suspect that most of his fans believed his political enemies and thought him more liberal than he is. I don't fault him for that, but I wish he'd FIGHT harder for our side. I have no problem with compromise, but success requires that you fight like a badger, giving up only as much ground as you absolutely must.

But I don't know. Given that the entire Republican Party is working together to ensure that the Democrats fail at everything, no matter what it does to our country, I don't know if fighting harder would have made any difference - not as long as we Americans are stupid enough and gullible enough to let the GOP get away with that kind of thing.

Chimeradave said...

Okay so Obama knew he didn't have the votes for the public option. Why didn't he use the power of the Presidency. He could have made speeches to the American public, write press releases, give fireside chats anything and say "Hey, I don't think we'll have the votes to get this public option through, but I really believe it would have been the best thing for the country for X, Y and Z reasons. We are going to get the strongest bill we can through and what you all need to do as citizens is write your congressmen and senators and tell them that you need a Public Option for X, Y, and Z reasons and tell them that if they don't change their votes on this matter you will not vote for them in November.

Instead he did nothing and as you said we got the same bill a Republican president and Congress would have given us.

I'm sorry, but I'm one of those people that believed I was voting for a progressive president who was going to "Change" Washington. He said the wars were wrong, he said we needed Healthcare reform, he said Guantanamo would be closed, he talked about increasing transparency in the federal government. Nothing he promised had anything to do with what is actually happening, so I'm a little bitter.

Bill Garthright said...

I agree that he should have used the bully pulpit more, John. I've been disappointed in that.

But we probably did get the best health care reform we could, considering that we just barely got anything at all. And although both wars were wrong to start, once we were in them, we were constrained by that.

In Iraq, we invaded an innocent country, so we couldn't just walk away after the destruction we created. And in Afghanistan, there seems to be no good options at all. We could have won the war, if Bush hadn't ignored it. But do we walk away now, and give those young girls back to the Taliban, the ones who didn't let having acid thrown in their faces stop them from going to school? I don't have a solution. I can't see any good options at this point. They're ALL bad.

Obama tried to close Guantanamo, but again, the complete opposition of Republicans, combined with the cowardice of Democrats (and the American people, apparently), stopped that, too. Again, I think Obama should have tried harder, but he did try.

You say that nothing is happening, but we DID get more transparency in government, we DID get health care reform, and we DID get financial reform. Those aren't nothing. They could all be better, no doubt, but don't expect perfect to EVER get through Congress.

And Obama stopped the free-fall of the economy and got a stimulus package through Congress unbelievably fast. It was too small, and too much of it was tax cuts, but it still stopped the collapse almost immediately. We need more than that to climb out of this recession (or to avoid a double-dip recession), but I don't see the slightest chance of that. With Republicans filibustering EVERYTHING, we really can't get change (and that's exactly why they're doing it).

Furthermore, do you see us poised to invade any other countries today? Do you see us torturing prisoners? Do you see us violating the Hatch Act? Do you see more far-right extremists on the Supreme Court? Obama may not be perfect, but what do you think a McCain/Palin administration would be doing right now?

I'm bitter, too, but I'm bitter at the GOP. I'm bitter at my own senators. And I'm bitter that the American people have become so stupid, so gullible, and so cowardly. I'd hoped for more from Obama, but I'm not bitter about that. He had quite possibly the worst starting position of any president in history, at least since Lincoln - plus the handicap of being black in America (which has proven to be a far bigger handicap than I'd hoped).

Progressives seem to be giving up because change isn't as easy as they expected. They're apparently going to stay home and pout in November. I don't have much sympathy for that. I understand being discouraged, but we wouldn't be looking at a resurgent GOP if progressives were still determined to fight for what's right.

Heck, we wouldn't have had eight years of George W. Bush if progressives hadn't given the 2000 election to him by supporting Nader. And we might just get President Palin or Gingrich for the same reason, because progressives get themselves in a hissy fit. I sure hope not!