Sunday’s Washington Post (10/10/10) featured a story by Jon Cohen and Dan Balz that led with this claim:
If there is an overarching theme of election 2010, it is the question of how big the government should be and how far it should reach into people’s lives.
The piece is actually an explanation of the results of a new poll conducted by the Post along with the Kaiser Family Foundation and Harvard University. As Dean Baker noted (10/10/10), “There is absolutely nothing in this article that supports this assertion.” He is correct. The Post‘s report deals with the supposedly conflicted nature of public opinion, where people complain about the performance of the federal government but then also express strong support for certain government programs. Even this seems a tad oversold;one can very easily think highly of Social Security and believe in additional government spending to spur the economy while also having little confidence “in the government’s ability to solve problems.”
So why is there this “big government” framing of the issue, then? Baker points out that certain politicians benefit from it:
There are no candidates anywhere in the country who are running in support of “big government,” there are candidates who are running in support of programs which have varying degrees of support. There are many candidates (virtually all Republicans) who are running against “big government.” While this position has nothing to do with the world (we all oppose waste, fraud and abuse; the question is always the status of specific programs), it is certainly helpful to the Republicans to have the election framed in this way.
And in his column today (New York Times, 10/11/10) , Paul Krugman helpfully pushes back against this entire theme:
Here’s the narrative you hear everywhere: President Obama has presided over a huge expansion of government, but unemployment has remained high. And this proves that government spending can’t create jobs.
Here’s what you need to know: The whole story is a myth. There never was a big expansion of government spending. In fact, that has been the key problem with economic policy in the Obama years: We never had the kind of fiscal expansion that might have created the millions of jobs we need.
No government program comes even close to the money spent on the military. How come the “big military” is never mentioned by Democrats or Republicans?
because it would make them look weak and unpatriotic. that is why none will say it
The assumption is that Americans cannot see ,feel, touch, taste, and breath the failure that is OBama.It is everywhere.They get it ,and no playing with the facts will change their minds.WE are drowning and you are trying to convince us today is a fine day as we take our last gulp of real air.This is the first time certainly in my life that a party has been so completely successful in achieving their aims(by Obamas own count)and yet nowhere can you see any Dems running on those achievements.In fact most are running from it.And from Obama!
Did you actually write there has been no expansion in government, and government spending?And in fact more would of been the right route to of taken?Revisionism that would claim such blatant falsehoods are seldom witnessed.I feel humbled.NOW…….I need a drink.
Of course two Bush wars have nothing to with deficits! Tax cut by Bush for millionaires and billionaires has nothing to with deficits! Bush dergulations of stock market controls has nothing to with deficits!
Moving from a Clinton budget surplus to a huge Bush budget deficit has nothing to with deficits!
History always bites stupid fools in the ass.
Frank you talk of things as a zero sum gain.But let me indulge you.Two wars.One that had to be fought.One we can debate till doomsday.(Notice the Dems voted for that war going in(now they all sound like they were against it) and did little to change Bushes strategy once they took over).New stats indicate the Us investments into Iraq are beginning to pay huge cash dividends,that will pay off the so called wars cost.Not sure I believe it but…Not counting of course the possible permutations of what would happen if Sadam was still there.All crystal ball stuff.So that aside a wars real cost is the dead.In that every war is a tragedy.I feel the conflict in Iraq was unavoidable as did Bill Clinton even before 911.Saddam flaunted his surrender promises, and bad intel aside he had no interest in any versailles treaty.He was going his own way.Sooner or later……
Bushes tax cuts…They moved the economy forward.That is the only reason Obama is hedging on repealing those tax cuts.He knows that will hurt the economy,and he no longer has that political capital.Tax cuts always move the economy.Tax raises- always slow the economy.And as long as government spending is so out of wack…no amount will quench it’s thirst.
Wall street deregulation……This is a free country with all the faults that entails.No government can regulate the free market past a point and still have a free market.Fanny and Freddy ignited the meltdown and killed us(a liberal socialist program).Wallstreet fed on the bones going in and coming out.That is what they do.They hedge every bet.Bushes government though did not always regulate what was within their constitutional power to do so-and they spent way too much.Obama has done little better with the first and a million times worse with the second.
Clinton……….He had a Republican led counterpoint that forced him into a pragmatic direction that had some…some I say good effects.We balanced the budget and had a surplus.Of course we were still falling into recession with a struggling economy.Tons of downsides.He left Bush in many ways with a bust(though not as bad as Bush left BAM)I worked on Clintons run.And Obama is no Clinton.Clinton was savy experianced and smart.Obama is none of those things.A passable talker on the tela prompter.Nothing more.He is truthfully a community organizing commander en chief.A hopeless failure.Clinton was mile above himas is his wife.Clinton saw when his socialist dreams were turned to dust and he worked with the right to save his skin.Obama is far more left and rock headed.He cant turn back.
All this is a waste of breath though Frank.Bush in the end failed.Obama and his agenda failed.America is going to vote him and his OUT.WE need to move on and see what is next.I think that will mean cutting government spending. Growing the economy by making this country business friendly. Ending and defunding all of Obamas legislation and starting over without the un American socialist agenda crappola thrown in.America is still smart and industrious.Still the place where anything is possible.Obama thought he would decide and manage what was possible.Lets run the next election- not against Bush or Clinton….but against Obama and the alternative.Thats where it is at.
I have been watching politics since 1952. I have never seen a worse exercise of public debate than exists now. Here is the deal: if you do not understand this already you are a fool. Starting with Reagan, hte country has been taught by the rich to think small. As a result, the US is a declining power, no longer the leader in most things. During all of the 8 years Eisenhower was president the marginal rate for top level income was 91%, and Ike thought that was a correct percentage. Now they cry that they need it to be 28% or everyone is going to die. Who could believe this? It is a marginal rate, not on the entire income. It is far too low! Reagan was only doing the bidding of the super-rich, and ruined the country. How? I will tell you. By cutting revenue and refusing to curb military spending he sent us into permanent deficit, and the poor into a position of poverty that is a shame and a disgrace. We have to get back to the time of Nixon, who was an evil man but not a retarded idiiot like Reagan, if we are going to repair the damage the Republicans have caused this nation of ours.