Reaganomics

Remember Reaganomics and trickle-down? Well, the Republicans not only remember it but they are still advocating it.

The idea that reducing taxes will increase business revenue and therefore improve the economic status of the country has been a long-standing tenet of Republican policy.

Well, it doesn't work. Even David Stockman, Reagan's Old Budget Director, admits it now. Finally we have adequate evidence to establish that reducing government expenditures actually hurts the economy and that downsizing government costs tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of jobs.

The proof is summarized in a marvelous article in the latest Mother Jones magazine, by Kevin Drum, entitled "Rich People Create Jobs!".

I would like to quote the article here but it is copyrighted and I'm a little uncertain about my legal obligations here.

But if you possibly can, get a copy of it and read the article. If you still believe in Reaganomics after this I don't think anyone can convince you of the truth. But many Republican leaders still feel that they would love to, in the words of Grover Norquist, "shrink government until it's small enough to drown in the bathtub". We may actually see this work if the Republicans continue to build their power and that, my friends, is a very, very scary proposition.

Can Democrats and Republicans Agree on anything?

The impasse in Washington is as strong as ever. Democrats stand for helping the poor and unfortunate and curtailing the excesses of commercialism, whereas Republicans stand for encouraging private enterprise and increasing individual wealth. But enough of that – we all know it.

There is one area, in my opinion, that can be a bridge of peace between the two parties. That is the field of government regulation. Republicans hate regulation and Democrats feel it is essential to prevent runaway capitalism, such as the housing fiasco. So where could we meet in the middle?

Here's an idea which I would like to share with you. I agree with the Democrats that regulation is essential as there are too many people who will do anything to make money. I agree with the Republicans that regulations are onerous, time-consuming, and stifle enterprise.

Regulations are written by lawyers for lawyers and they try to plug all the possible loopholes with verbiage and multiple details. This leads to documentation which is extremely voluminous and hard to read and what's more it is full of jargon and acronyms.

No matter how detailed and carefully drafted a regulation becomes, there are teams of lawyers that can find loopholes and exploit them. Large corporations hire such teams and they have been quite successful in finding loopholes. Individuals are saddled with the same regulations but do not have the resources to exploit them. What's more, many regulations are counterintuitive and – dare I say – plain stupid. I refer the reader to a fine book entitled "The Death of Common Sense" by Philip Howard, an Atlanta attorney, for discrete examples of such stupidity.

What's more, the people who design and distribute regulations seem to have forgotten that ordinary humans have to read them and fill out forms. The regulations that I have seen in the health field epitomize this problem. Acres of singlespaced fine print interspersed with blocks to fill in, multiple pages requiring full personal identification on each, and the like. Just the appearance of some of the forms to fill out is daunting.

It seems to me that this is one problem that could be worked on by both sides and the result would be favorable to big business and to small business alike. There is plenty of talent in this country and it is waiting to be tapped. Here is a great spot to begin.

For example, my suggestion would be gradually to do away with regulations and forms and substitute regulation by humans instead. I know, I know. Humans can be arbitrary, selfish and capricious if not downright dishonest and we don't want people like that regulating us. So here's an idea to mull over: yes, have regulators who watch over what we all do and check to be sure that we are not breaking the law or going against the best interests of society. But not regulators who intimidate and are power-hungry and intransigent. How to do that?

Criminologists tell us that the best deterrent to crime is not the severity of punishment but the likelihood of getting caught. What's more, the current climate of regulation seems to be "gotcha" when a law is broken or a regulation flouted. To me, that is counterproductive. I would like to see regulators have the ability and skill to carefully monitor the enterprise to which they are assigned and when they find a deviation or a tendency to act against laws or the good of society issue a simple and nonthreatening warning: "this is not something you should be doing. Please stop it."; then they continue watching and if the activity is not stopped they issue a somewhat more ominous "you are still doing it and you are going to be in trouble if you continue it".

At this point, the regulator notifies a superior body of what is going on rather than taking any individual action himself and the superior body then, being aware, is prepared to take an action. This will eliminate individual insolence and hubris because the regulator does not have the power to punish but only to observe and warn. but of course the regulator's warnings are based on specific laws or the intent of legislation as interpreted by his superiors and by the Congress.

Of course, this is a very crude and inchoate beginning to the discussion but I want to get opinions from those better prepared to deal with the question than I so please contribute!

WImpy Democrats?

Well, the President's popularity is dropping, and I think I know why. He needs a strong dose of Trumanism. I read in the latest issue of Mother Jones a good rationale for his strangely wimpy response to vicious and largely telling attacks on his leadership. His strategy seems to be: appease the Repubs as much as possible to squeeze through whatever reforms and upgrades he can. To an extent, he can show success, such as the earned income tax credit, maintenance of unemployment compensation, avoidance of the catastrophe looming around the debt ceiling, and the like. But the price he is paying could cost him a second term and if the Repubs ever get control of the White House, let alone the Senate, it's back to the 19th century, and the gradual undoing of all the reforms of both Roosevelts. I suppose that our country could survive that, but what a country it would become. Robber barons in complete charge, a wider gulf between rich and poor, cheating and manipulation on every side, and perhaps even a class war.
So I think that his choice, though understandable, is disastrous. It''s time for him to get on national TV and call the country to the fray. If the people who said "I don't vote because........" were to get themselves to the polls, the problem would take care of itself. The lunatic fringe would be drowned in a sea of truly enlightened patriotism and common sense. Our president needs to say that the mess we are in is the direct result of lax government regulation, not too much government. That can be proven.

The current Tea Party would bring catastrophe to the country if their anarchic message were to carry. No more clean water, clean air. Acid rain. Clear cutting our national forests, Coal smoke everywhere. No minimum wage. More jobs sent overseas. Stock manipulation galore, not to mention commodities and energy. I could go on and on.

But will he speak out? I seriously doubt it. And thus the outcome of the next election is also seriously in doubt, and all the folks who sit on their hands in November will get what they deserve and take the rest of us along with them.

Our friends the Republicans

The more I study the current crop of Republicans the more convinced I am that there is one common trait which seems to run in the majority: selfishness. It was well characterized by the British in the comment "I'm all right Jack – the hell with you".

Republicans seem to feel that if they are fortunate, hard-working, and skilled enough to have a good life or what they think is a good life, they should denigrate and scoff at those who were not fortunate or hard-working or skilled or all of the above.

They point out that this attitude is what made this country great and the more I think about it the more I agree with them. During most of the 19th century expansion, development and industrial growth were in the hands of single-minded entrepreneurs whose only goal was success in their endeavor and cared little if at all for the people they brushed aside or stepped on in the process.

But the side effects were disastrous, leading to a severe and deprived underclass, labor strife up to and including attempted murder of factory owners (such as Henry Clay Frick), and a dramatic gulf between the very rich and the working poor. The Republican Theodore Roosevelt recognized this social disaster and began the process of government regulation which has been expanded ever since as the entrepreneurs found more and more devious and clever ways of getting around regulation.

So the Republicans would like to return to those days with no income tax and little regulation so that they could again trample on the less fortunate, aggressive or ambitious of our citizens, without a single thought of what got them to be successful and whether it was indeed morally justifiable.

From the standpoint of creating a great nation, the Republican state of mind was extraordinarily effective but from the standpoint of creating a just and smoothly working society is totally disastrous and that's where we stand today, on the brink of a disintegrating social contract. The Democrats are not very effective in countering this since some of the emphasis of the party is controlled by plaintiff's attorneys whose primary goal is tort litigation against industry and its leaders rather than support of and aid to the working poor, the disabled, the mentally disturbed and deficient, and the chronically ill and dis-functional.

This could all be nicely taken care of by the voters, especially those who do not want to see our country deteriorate into the situation we found in the 19th century. But I keep hearing, from people who would agree with the above, that they have "given up on politics" and are not interested in redressing the problem at the ballot box. Talk about your self fulfilling prophecies! There are so many nonvoters whose hearts are in the right place but who sincerely believe that politics is merely a game and they're not playing. That attitude is so scary it makes my hair stand up and it is a major cause for the mess we are in now. I don't know what can be done about it except to express my opinion, so there it is. What do you think?