Atrios Sells Out!
September 19, 2012 6 Comments
Duncan Black, aka Atrios the Pioneering Progressive Blogger, has hit the big time. From now until the election, he’s writing a weekly online column for USA Today. His very first column addresses one of my favorite economic issues — the importance of Social Security. Black has the radical notion that the supremely successful program should be strengthened by actually strengthening it — that is, by increasing benefits so that more workers can obtain a secure retirement.
BLACK: Instead of considering some exciting new program to try to encourage workers into saving more, another Rube Goldberg incentive contraption designed to nudge individual behavior in the right direction, we should increase the level of retirement benefits in the existing Social Security program.
As Black points out, Social Security is solvent for decades. Unlike, say, the military. And it doesn’t take much to keep Social Security going or buff it up.
I mostly loved the Democratic National Convention, but what drove me crazy was the embrace of deficit cutting as a virtue no matter what is cut.
It would be pretty simple to adopt a centrist approach and say that we should repair the deficit by reversing the tax cuts and military spending that led us to squander the Clinton/Gore surplus. It would be better to adopt a progressive approach and go beyond that to ask the corporations and super-wealthy to contribute at levels they did under radical presidents like Eisenhower. So why are so many Democrats, including President Obama, willing to attack the financial underpinnings of our society — namely, Social Security — to please the Tea Party and the beltway pundits?
My optimistic side would like to see an opportunity in Romney’s recent fumbles. Could progressives now go beyond making sure that Mittens goes down to defeat, and try to actually use this election to promote progressive values?
About Matthew
Historically speaking have both the Congress and Presidency controlled by the same party always leads to runaway spending. There is no checks-and-balances with spending. The Clinton-Gore years led to surpluses because Newt & the Gang took over in 2002.
The main issue today is we are so polarized we are in a state of paralysis and nothing is getting down.
Personally, I think the President is going to be re-elected, and by a larger margin in the popular vote. I also believe the Republicans are going to lose Congressional seats. Which quite frankly is the best thing that could happen to them. It will cause them to listen to what Jeb Bush is saying and revaluate themselves.
I’m not sure that’s the case about divided government leading to deficit control, but maybe you can point me to some sort of study or research on this? I’m looking (very very quickly) at this list of deficits and party control. Didn’t the deficit start going down under Clinton because of the ’94 budget (passed without any Republican votes) combined with the tech boom?
Looking back historically, when Dems controlled everything in the ’30s, the deficit looked under control. Obviously it went up during WWII. It was pretty bad during the ’80s and early ’90s, with a Republican president and Democratic Congress. Went down under Clinton and up again under Bush the Younger and hasn’t recovered under Obama, although I’d blame that on the lingering impact of the Bush wars and tax cuts.
In any case, I agree that Obama is likely to be elected. I wouldn’t have thought by a larger margin, but it’s starting to look like that. The Republicans are so captured by the hard right that it’s difficult to imagine them letting go of that, but I certainly hope that happens!
I went on faith on my commentary from an old government professor, and after researching on-line quickly as well I can’t back it up.
Though I did find this good article about the myth I was propagating:
http://www.democracyjournal.org/25/the-looming-showdown.php?page=all
That Peter Orszag article is pretty interesting! Sometimes I wish we had a Parliamentary system, as that would be better for smaller parties to have their voices heard, but then I think of how a Parliamentary system in the wrong hands can wreak havoc at a faster pace…
I agree about the embrace of the deficit. The President said it again on Letterman. I think, and I believe that Paul Krugman agrees with me, that if we spend to get the economy growing then many more of Romney’s 47% will pay taxes helping automatically to drive down the debt. And if we end those stupid wars and give the Pentagon the cuts they need that will help also. The ironic thing is that the President’s proposals do more than Ryan’s do to cure what the Republican’s say is a major problem.
True! Even though I disagree with him on making it a top priority in a bad economy, I still think Obama is genuine when he talks about his desire to reduce the deficit. People like Ryan are just using the idea of deficit-cutting as a cover for their own desires to privatize Medicare, etc.