In a two week span in which the East Coast of the United States was beset by a monstrous hurricane, states in the same area had their strongest earthquake since World War II and Colorado experienced its most violent quake since 1967, we were reminded once again of the important role played by federal government in our society.

Now, I’m no constitutional scholar - like, say, Michele Bachmann - but I remember something in that document about government’s responsibility for “the general welfare”, which I can only assume means that if the state you live in comes to resemble Waterworld there is probably a useful role for the government in helping you keep your head above water.

This is not only a progressive view of governance. It is also one rooted in reality and based on US history and culture. In the early days of the republic, the Congressional Act of 1803 provided assistance to a New Hampshire town damaged severely by a fire.

This pattern would continue as Congress would help the victims of natural disasters in the two centuries to follow - not including Lady Gaga’s performance at the 2011 MTV Video Music Awards or Tim Pawlenty’s presidential campaign, of course.

The stories like the fire in New Hampshire, however, have not formed the dominant narrative since that actor-who-climbed-into-bed-with-the-monkey transformed government into something that was on your back or just for those “welfare queens”.

Reagan and his ideological soulmates understood quite well that as Josef Stalin infamously said, while “the death of one man is a tragedy. The death of millions is a statistic.”

In other words, if Americans realize that a single-payer healthcare system will help protect their parents and children from disease, then they’ll be for it. But if it can be something abstract that just helps those other people who are mere statistics at best, supplied by an amorphous “big government” with no human face, long tentacles and the ability to force you to drink fluorinated water or strictly require a pulse to purchase a firearm - well, then, it’s easy to hate.

And hate it they do. As long as it is government spending for you, and not them.

Because the truth is, with very few exceptions, conservative elected officials (of both parties) are hypocrites when it comes to spending money.

Continue reading »

So, what would we have expected total government spending — federal, state, and local — to do over the past three years if there had not been a crisis and a change in government control? A first approximation would have been spending growing along with the trend growth in the economy — that is, real GDP growing with the economy’s potential, and government spending growing at real GDP plus inflation.

Now, over the period 2000-2007 — from business cycle peak to business cycle peak — real GDP grew 2.4 percent a year. So a reasonable estimate for trend growth is 2.4 percent, or 7.3 percent since 2007.

We can use actual inflation: the GDP deflator rose 4.1 percent from 2007II to 2010II.

Put these together, and “normal” growth in government spending would have been 11.7 percent over the past three years.

Actual growth has been higher: 19.5 percent. So government spending is about 7 percent, or about $350 billion, higher than a simple trend projection would have suggested. What accounts for the higher spending?

Well, none of it is government consumption; it’s all in transfer payments. BEA data aren’t quite as helpful here as I’d like, but it’s clear that a large chunk, roughly $100 billion, is unemployment benefits, which have surged along with unemployment, and another large chunk is Medicaid spending, which has surged because the slump has impoverished more people. Some more for other safety net programs, like food stamps. Also, Social Security and Medicare outlays have gone up about $85 billion more than my 11.7 percent norm — medical cost growth, aging baby boomers, and maybe some people taking early retirement because they can’t find jobs.

The thing about Krugman is that he's really wedded to the idea that presenting concrete facts will change the discussion. He doesn't understand that the right wing will simply create new "facts" to justify their accusations!

This is one of the main issues we'll be discussing at the America's Future Now conference in D.C. this week. It still astounds me that some progressives are simply ignoring the very real economic and political arguments in favor of increasing economic stimulus, not slashing it:

With voter anger about the federal deficit intensifying in this election year, Democrats in Congress are edging away from one of their long-held articles of faith — government spending on social programs such as education and relief for the jobless.

The painful tradeoff comes to center stage this week, when the Senate tries again to pass an extension of unemployment benefits — this time a $54-billion measure that marks an abrupt retreat from a $200-billion bill that Democratic leaders had proposed before the Memorial Day recess.

The stripped-down bill is just one sign of how budget anxieties are beginning to impinge on Democrats' legislative ambitions and traditional commitments.

A White House-backed proposal to spend $23 billion to save as many as 300,000 teachers' jobs has been stymied by deficit concerns. Similarly, the House, usually a bastion of liberalism, bowed to fiscal conservatives and dropped health insurance subsidies for the unemployed.

"There is a very changed climate," House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco) recently told reporters, referring to anti-deficit pressures she faces within her own party.

Though polls for years have shown high levels of public concern about the deficit, rarely has it outstripped most other issues. A Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll in mid-May found a notable increase in recent months in those who believe cutting the deficit and spending should be the government's highest priority.

Gee. You don't suppose having the media keep up a constant drumbeat of anti-deficit propaganda would have anything to do with that, do you?

According to the poll, 20% of those surveyed wanted the deficit and government spending to be the top priority, an issue second to the 35% concerned about job creation and economic growth. (In a January poll, 13% cited the deficit and government spending.)

"There's no question that people are almost as concerned about the deficit and government spending as about jobs," said Mark Mellman, a pollster who works closely with congressional Democrats. "It is not just about the actual dollars — it is a metaphor for wasted money and lack of discipline and long-term economic decline."

That's because Congress - and the administration - did such a piss-poor job explaining the difference between stimulus spending and the bank bailout.

Even Friday's report that private-sector job growth had slowed to a crawl in May is not expected to offset the Democrats' new reluctance to add to the deficit for unemployment benefits.

And you know what the really stupid thing is? The Democrats will try to act like Republicans by cutting the deficit, and it won't win them any additional votes. It never does. The kind of people who like Republican policies vote for Republicans.

Rand Paul is the new teabagger hero and the man that Mitch McConnell and the establishment Republicans couldn't get rid of, but is he all that different than the rest of the conservative klatch?

After Rand Paul won the Republican nomination for Senate in Kentucky last night, the folks at CNN had a big laugh over the "optics" of an anti-government spending candidate celebrating his victory from a private country club.

--

King was the first to bring up Paul's choice of locale: "I can't resist. This might come across as a bit of a cheap shot, but he's the tea party favorite or is he a country club Republican?"

Amid some laughter, panel member Paul Begala scoffed: "It's a cocktail party, not a tea party. It's the worst optics he could have."

---

But there was something else going on in Bowling Green. When John King first talked to CNN correspondent Jessica Yellin, who was on the ground at the club, the "Bowling Green Country Club" sign was clearly visible behind her. A few minutes later, when CNN switched to Campbell Brown's show, Yellin was back. But the club's name was covered up by a "Rand Paul: U.S. Senate 2010" sign.

Just another Country Clubbing conservative. He also showed no class whatsoever when he refused to take a call from his defeated opponent, Trey Grayson.

Balloon Juice:

This kind of pointless, macho posturing is no doubt part of the reason Rand Paul is a teabag icon:

After winning Kentucky’s Republican primary Tuesday night, Bowling Green ophthalmologist Rand Paul refused to take the call of congratulations from opponent Trey Grayson, according to Grayson’s campaign manager Nate Hodson.

Hodson did not elaborate, except to say “it happened.” “This is truly a classless act in politics,” said Marc Wilson, a Republican lobbyist and friend of Trey Grayson.

Show some dignity at least in victory. This behavior is very disturbing. What a jerk.

Kevin Drum points out that he's not only an arrogant messianic nut, but isn't the beacon of civil liberties everyone has been trying to make him out to be.

Adam Serwer has all the details on his beliefs.

Digby has much more:

It should be said that Paul appears to have a fairly consistent -- if nativist -- constitutional philosophy: The Constitution grants certain inalienable rights to Americans but not to foreigners. That shouldn't be mistaken for Constitutional fidelity, the Constitution distinguishes between "citizens" and "persons" for a reason, and foreigners charged with crimes in the U.S. have always been given the same due process rights as anyone else, precisely because freedom is as much about what government is allowed to do to you as much as it is about what you are allowed to do. So is Paul better than "most Democratic Senators" or Obama? Outside the PATRIOT Act, he seems to be your average Republican.

That means he's also pretty much your average Democrat, unfortunately. More importantly, though, it takes away his one redeeming value. If he's not good on civil liberties, he's got absolutely nothing going for him. On everything else he is so far off the map that he makes, well, Mitch McConnell, look moderate by comparison. He's a teabagger's dream (and proud to wear the label) but Paul is a progressive's nightmare when it comes to taxing millionaires and regulating business. The worst of all possible worlds in fact. And his views on equal rights are downright stomach churning.

If you support a woman's right to choose then you're out of luck with Rand. Do we really need another Ben Nelson on this issue? The only thing he really has going for him is his father's name. I've heard many bloggers complain about nepotism being used to get elected to Congress and to acquire very sweet jobs on TV. As Scott Horton and Digby point out--rightfully so--that Paul's beliefs fall in line with your basic country club conservative republican, except he'll be more extreme. "Baby" Paul is nothing without Poppa Bear.

(Please click on the graphic to donate to C&L's Fellowship Action Campaign fundraiser)

Zandar Versus The Stupid: Questions for anti-government Texas pipe-bomber

Pruning Shears: You can't miss what you've never had

Capital Eye: Massey Energy, owner of that ill-fated West Virginia coal mine, frequently targets politicians

Facing South: Virginia reawakens the South's Confederate ghosts

Alas, a blog: Cutting government spending is tyranny!

Apoliticus: What it might look like if politicians & pundits were on Chatroulette

Would that be Moody's, the same rating agency that certified big steaming piles of mortgage manure as Triple AAA-rated securities and collapsed the international economy? I guess this means that Wall Street wants us to cut the deficit, huh. Well, I'd say what's good for Wall Street is bad for America:

The United States and other top world economies need to make potentially painful government spending cuts or risk losing the high-grade credit ratings that have kept borrowing affordable, the Moody's rating agency said Monday.

Moody's warns nations to cut spending or risk AAA ratings

European officials hold off on bailout package for Greece

Outlining the dilemma faced by policymakers in the United States, Great Britain, Germany and France, Moody's said that debt levels in the four large credit-worthy economies had reached the point at which they are at risk of being downgraded -- a step that would drive up interest rates, increase borrowing costs and mark a turn in perceptions about the world economy.

Economic recovery might ease the problem by increasing tax revenue, Moody's reported, but "growth alone will not resolve an increasingly complicated debt equation. Preserving debt affordability at levels consistent with AAA ratings will invariably require fiscal adjustments of a magnitude that, in some cases, will test social cohesion."

The dollar rose against major currencies despite the report, a reminder of its continued role as the world's reserve currency.

The agency said a downgrade did not appear imminent and expressed confidence that the four countries would come to grips with their fiscal problems. Germany, the report said, has included a new debt provision in its laws, and the United States has established a commission on spending reform.

DOWNLOADS: (988)

PLAYS: (6735)

Embed

Megyn Kelly wanted to talk about Fox News' latest Opinion Dynamics poll, which asked people about their attitudes on government spending and the reach and power of the federal government, with a set of questions clearly geared toward Tea Party movement sentiments, as well as a recent CNN poll -- similarly trying to gauge the Tea Partiers' reach -- that found 54 percent believe the federal government poses a threat to their rights.

So she brought on Fox's token liberal, Alan Colmes, to discuss these results, and he pointed out that at least some of those who see the federal government as a threat to their rights are people who object to the Republican-backed Patriot Act. Then he asked an interesting question of the Tea Party folks:

Colmes: I'd like to know exactly what freedom -- what freedoms are being taken away from people?

Kelly: People are worried they're going to lose their health-insurance coverage! They're worried the federal government is going to step in, take over, and they're not going to be able to see their coverage.

Colmes: I didn't see any particulars about exactly what freedoms people think are going to be taken away. I would like to know what they are.

Kelly: There is just as much in this survey about health care as there is the Patriot Act!

Colmes: Yeah, but nothing in this survey says particular health care, particular Patriot Act, it's just a general question, "freedoms". I mean, what particular freedoms. People call my radio show all the time, 'My freedoms are being compromised.'

All right, I ask them. What freedom is being compromised? What freedom have you lost under Barack Obama?

Kelly: You tell me, Alan -- do you think the Democrats on Capitol Hill are going into 2010 election thinking, 'The problem with numbers like this is the Patriot Act! It is the Bush administration policies.'

Colmes: They're also not going, 'The problem is health care. If we get health care, my freedoms are being taken away.' How do your freedoms get compromised?

Kelly tried to argue that the people who fear for their freedoms are monolithically anti-Obama Tea Partiers, and reflected somehow in the high numbers of those opposing the Senate health-care reform bill. But Colmes pointed out, accurately, that a large portion of those opposed to the Senate bill are people who want a public option.

Kelly: If you have a majority of Americans saying that the federal government poses a threat to the right[s] of Americans, those are not people who want the public option!

Colmes: Well, what rights are being -- wait a minute, you're suggesting that the public option is more government. No, it gives you greater options. It gives you greater opportunity.

I'd like to know what freedoms people think are being taken away. What particular freedom -- where in the Bill of Rights are you losing something, based on what? What have Obama or Democrats done to take any right away from you? I'd like to know what that is.

Kelly: OK, and on that note, e-mail me at Kelly@FoxNews.com and you can answer that question.

In other words: No answer from Megyn. Because she didn't have any after Colmes shot down her health-care trial balloon.

Right-wing fearmongering pundits like Beck, Hannity, Limbaugh, and the rest of the long list have made it conventional wisdom among the right-wing Kool-Aid drinkers that Obama somehow mysteriously are "taking away our freeeeeedoms!"

But they never can tell you exactly what freedoms are being taken away without calling out the Oath Keepers and their black helicopters, can they? Which is why the Megyn Kellys out there just say nothing.

Are the Blue Dogs shamelessly self-interested and venal, or are just plain stupid? Economists are predicting these high unemployment numbers through the end of 2011, and these clowns want to cut government spending even further. As long as they get to keep their jobs, they don't give a crap about putting even more Americans out of work. Lovely!

Blue Dog Democrats want Congress to go further than President Barack Obama’s proposal to freeze spending in next year’s budget.

The group of House centrists will soon introduce a bill capping discretionary spending at specific levels. The move would challenge their leadership and the president, who are balancing concerns with the nearly $1.6 trillion deficit in 2010 with those who say government spending on job creation is the way out of the recession.

The spending levels sought by the Blue Dogs may result in spending cuts, which would go beyond Obama’s proposal to save $250 billion over the next decade by freezing non-security discretionary spending for three years, said Rep. Baron Hill (D-Ind.), a senior Blue Dog.

“Two hundred and fifty billion is a lot of savings with a freeze on discretionary spending, but I think we can do better,” Hill said in a brief interview.

The group has yet to hash out the details on the spending caps bill, but it has near-unanimous support among its members, a Blue Dog aide said.

In a move that's akin to acknowledging the roof has massive leaks, but you won't consider any solutions that involve anything more costly than putting pots and pans under the leaks, President Obama announces he wants to do something about unemployment - but he doesn't want it to cost anything:

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Barack Obama assured Americans on Monday that boosting jobs was a top priority, but gave no specifics about how to meet this goal that some economists say warrants more government spending.

The White House said separately that all "sensible and reasonable measures" would be considered to encourage employment, but also stressed that it must be balanced with the need for the United States to tackle record budget deficits.

"Our economy is growing again for the first time in more than a year," Obama told reporters after a meeting with his Cabinet. "We cannot be sit back and be satisfied given the extraordinarily high unemployment levels that we have seen."

[...] Obama has also said he is interested in solutions that would not cost much public money, warning that adding to the U.S. debt could trigger a double-dip recession.

Reacting in the NY Times, Krugman is, well, appalled:

What? Huh? Most economists I talk to believe that the big risk to recovery comes from the inadequacy of government efforts: the stimulus was too small, and it will fade out next year, while high unemployment is undermining both consumer and business confidence.

Now, it’s politically difficult for the Obama administration to enact a full-scale second stimulus. Still, he should be trying to push through as much aid to the economy as possible. And remember, Mr. Obama has the bully pulpit; it’s his job to persuade America to do what needs to be done.

Instead, however, Mr. Obama is lending his voice to those who say that we can’t create more jobs. And a report on Politico.com suggests that deficit reduction, not job creation, will be the centerpiece of his first State of the Union address. What happened?

It took me a while to puzzle this out. But the concerns Mr. Obama expressed become comprehensible if you suppose that he’s getting his views, directly or indirectly, from Wall Street.

I suspect a lot of this goes back to what Howard Dean said when I interviewed him: That the young people who came out in record numbers to vote for Obama are concerned about the deficit. Well, isn't it time you put on your teaching hat and explained why that can't be the priority right now, Mr. President?

For the life of me, I can't figure out California government. The state appears to be dominated by Democrats, yet the state government seems to take its plays right out of the right-wing Club for Growth playbook. And the proposition program seems like a recipe for disaster! I can't even tell who the good guys are:

Reporting from Sacramento -- Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and lawmakers scrambled Wednesday to avert a financial meltdown, and public officials across California braced for annihilating cuts on the day after voters trounced their leaders' rescue plan for the state.

Within two hours of returning from Washington, D.C., the governor huddled behind closed doors with Democratic and Republican legislative leaders to grapple with a projected $21.3-billion budget shortfall for the coming fiscal year and stop state government from running out of money by July.

But the Republican governor delivered at least a bit of good news: Obama administration officials had backed off their threat to rescind $6.8 billion in federal stimulus money.

The hacking of government began quickly, by the hand of a little-known state panel that sets elected state officials' pay. Citing a need for shared sacrifice, the group decided to reduce those salaries by 18% starting next year.

Otherwise, on a bright, clear morning in the capital, the most certain thing was the dark and angry mood of the voters. They had overwhelmingly rejected a package of ballot measures intended to produce about $6 billion through the middle of next year with taxes, borrowing and other means; limit future government spending; and bolster the state's rainy day fund.

Only a measure to punish elected officials by denying them pay raises in deficit years won approval -- easily.

Schwarzenegger, who alienated himself from fellow Republicans in February by reversing his pledge not to raise taxes, took the results as a mandate for the plan he unveiled last week to slash billions from education, healthcare, law enforcement and social programs, and to borrow $2 billion from local governments.