If Not Now--When?

I'm going to keep this short, but this has been floating in my head for months and I'm tired of thinking about it.

I sympathize with the tea-party people, at least the original ones who were interested in deficit reduction (the social-conservatives who are trying to take it over can get bent). Namely I'm interested in eliminating the deficit and the debt.

I keep reading and hearing how this is the wrong time to do it; we should follow FDR's New Deal and spend spend spend. So the deficit goes up and the debt goes up. We can repay it later when times are flush.

Really? Well, no. We won't. Except for that short term during the 2nd Clinton administration, there's a deficit every year and there's always some reason to keep the taps open regardless of feast or famine, regardless of which party controls Congress (because it was under W. Bush's united government that started deficit spending again).

What will happen is this: the economy will improve and the government will be flush with tax revenue again. But instead of ending the deficit, they'll just ramp up spending. All those lean years leads to pent-up demand. Every department and group that had a budget cut or a freeze or slow-down is coming to come up and say, "we suffered during the lean times, so now it's time to repay us." They have a point. If not now--when?

But the same will happen for projects, improvements, new construction, research and grants, and pork projects of all types. They'll all want to be funded and this will be the time to do it--while the money is flowing.

So Congress and the deficit deniers say, "we'll grow our way out of it," which is fine except that we never seem to grow faster than we spend. There's always a need to spend more money to encourage growth.

Or another favorite--we'll simply devalue the dollar, but that has all kinds of repercussions; plus you can only do it sustainably in small doses; the governments who do it on a large scale end up bankrupt and with disasterous credit ratings, which drives up borrowing costs, aggravates inflation, and ultimately screws over their own people, who they are allegedly trying to help and protect.

This is the time to cut the deficit.

Dude, Where's My Party?

I was going to do this in January and leave December for frivolity, but there's so much going on right now that I'll get this out of the way and leave the rest of December for frivolity.

I'll start with this, a letter which appeared in the November 19th edition of The Economist magazine (p. 19).

Sir—I wonder why I, along with countless other Americans, bother to follow the Republican race at all, as none of the candidates is providing a compelling vision to challenge Mr Obama in next year's election. One reason for remaining interested could be that the dramas which unfold each week are yet another type of sensationalistic reality television. Perhaps politics could learn something from that format, by kicking candidates off the island, making them leave the house, or allowing a sharp-tongued Simon Cowell to berate their performance and decide upon their legitimacy.

A weekly voting system to get the clowns off the stage does not at this point seem such a terrible idea, especially since the prize is the nomination for a run at the chance to be the ruler of the free world.
Jeffrey Gu
Philadelphia

I was all set to write a big post suggesting just that, only taken to the next level: we simply have the presidential election handled AMERICAN IDOL style. You gather everyone who wants to be president, weed them down to a managable number, and then every week they come out and "perform" and the herd is successively thinned. People could vote by phone or on the internet.

Is it really very far from what we're doing now?

Consider this, which made news earlier this week: Donald Trump says yes, he'll moderate Republican debate in Iowa.

How can you take the election seriously if the GOP can't take their own debate seriously? Was Tom Bergeron too busy? Ryan Seacrest wanted too much money? If you want me to watch, get Heidi Klum to take a day away from Project Runway. I'm sure she could manage it.

To listen to NPR, of all places, the Democrats seem disheartened and demoralized. Yet the Republicans are taking no chances at winning the election. Mitt Romney is a Ken doll, and as The Economist (hey, it's a good source) has been putting it, the GOP has an anybody-but-Romney mindset. Donald Trump was a stunt candidate. Michelle Bachman is too much of a loon even by current standards. Rick Perry looks like an idiot in debates. Herman Cain was interesting but couldn't keep his pants on, Ron Paul is C. Montgomery Burns, Newt Gingerich is an asshole no matter how articulate he is, and the rest are a chorus line.

If you want the true American Idol experience, go here and look at the candidates. My guy? I like Vern Wuensche: the candidate who would win if the mainstream media were still radio.

I vote in the elections, and I'll vote in this next one. But it won't be for any of this pack of dogs.

NP a R t 2

There was a recent announcement that NPR's ALL THINGS CONSIDERED co-host, Michele Norris, will be off the broadcast for awhile because her husband is joining the Obama campaign. The same thing happened back in 2008.

I think the policy is ridiculous.

First: as one the host of the show (they rotate three co-hosts among two chairs on a weekly basis), I don't know exactly why they think it's going to matter whether she's there or not. This isn't the BBC during World War II: do you think she's going to sneak code words into the broadcast to help Democratic activists in the field? "Hey! She said 'snipe hunt.' Send out that mass-mailing to the poor neighborhood telling them that Mit Romney has a list of names and mass deportations will begin the day after he takes the oath!

People may charge that she could help bias the newscast in the Democrats' favor.

1. They're doing that already

2. Even though I'm cynical, I do believe most journalists really do try to be fair (even with #1 above)

3. The Republicans are their own worst enemies

Seriously--a newscast is a massive group effort of multiple layers of reporters, producers, technicians and beaurocrats of all sorts. I don't think one person, even an anchor, is really going to make that much difference. That's like having a rogue at Mission Control during a space flight. There are too many things going on for one person to subtly shift things in a way that others won't notice.

And I'm not kidding about #3. It often seems that they'll have a story and someone from the left side of the aisle makes a statement, and then they say, "we asked Congressman Smith (R) to come on, but his office declined." And this not on the gotcha journalism, but on the mundane stuff. OR they'll end up getting some boob who can't speak his own name if it's not on a position paper written by his staff. The result is you end up with a procession of Democrats who often come off, even if they're touching the brim with bullshit, as articulate and thoughtful, and the Republicans as stuffy, dull-witted, or too timid to trust their own ability to connect two coherent thoughts.

Some people will say that #1 is the reason for that, but I don't think so. I've listened to various NPR shows for 20 years. I do think it's mildly biased in its own ways, but I don't think they're Macciavellian in their handling and presentation.

So taking Michele Norris off the broadcast is just pointless. But like Congress, it gives them the opportunity to appear to be doing something.

Politics. You Have Been Warned

[Written last summer but (for reasons I don't understand) never posted. I still feel the same way, though.]

On some webpage or another, I just came across another "Save NPR!" ad. A few months ago this was a big thing during the budget debate: whether NPR (National Public Radio) should be defunded."

I like NPR. I don't agree with their political bent, but their news coverage is still a level better than anything else I've seen or heard. It's like any kind of news coverage. It's not perfect, but it's a very good.

But I don't think it should be funded by the Government.

I'm old-fashioned in this regard. I don't think the Government should be the Charity-in-Chief. The money the government spends is my money, in part, and I have to pay it whether I like it or not. I don't think I should be forced to support The Arts, because the arts are going to go on whether the government funds them or not. And that includes NPR.

And yes, if I thought NPR was the Replublican mouthpiece instead of the Democratic house organ, I'd still feel the same way.