A very thoughtful liberal friend of mine named Justin Dantonio wrote me an email response a few days ago. As someone who wades in the trenches with liberally-inclined friends virtually every chance I get, I read this email with extreme curiosity. Justin gave me permission to reproduce the email on this blog so that I could comment. Here is the response below--Justin's words are repoduced in bold text:
The spending and potential deficit figures are an issue. A big one.
Justin is correct on this. A recent poll by Peter Hart and Bill McInturff shows that 66 percent of registered voters say the deficit and debt pose a "very big threat to our country and its future," more than twice as many as say global warming does."
A piece in today's Wall Street Journal mentions the same thing:
Public Wary of Deficit, Economic Intervention
The Heritage Foundation stats don't exactly give the full picture, but I realize they are a conservative think tank and thus they see the same numbers as, say, a liberal think tank and each side
interprets them accordingly.I'm not entirely sure what he means here. Justin is trying to make the case that the stats are incorrect or incomplete because they have been collected by a think-tank with an overt conservative mission statement. In Justin's defense, the Heritage Foundation updated its link here:
UPDATE: Many Obama defenders in the comments are claiming that the numbers above do not include spending on Iraq and Afghanistan during the Bush years. They most certainly do. While Bush did fund the wars through emergency supplementals (not the regular budget process), that spending did not simply vanish. It is included in the numbers above. Also, some Obama defenders are claiming the graphic above represents biased Heritage Foundation numbers. While we stand behind the numbers we put out 100%, the numbers, and the graphic itself, above are from the Washington Post. We originally left out the link to WaPo. It has been now been added. (Emphasis mine)
CLARIFICATION: Of course, this Washington Post graphic does not perfectly delineate budget surpluses and deficits by administration. President Bush took office in January 2001, and therefore played a lead role in crafting the FY 2002-2008 budgets. Presidents Bush and Obama share responsibility for the FY 2009 budget deficit that overlaps their administrations, before President Obama assumes full budgetary responsibility beginning in FY 2010. Overall, President Obama’s budget would add twice as much debt as President Bush over the same number of years.
Justin needs to elaborate on his claim that the numbers do not represent the full picture. Justin is a working man who is in the throes of a serious relationship so I will give him plenty of time to do this. However, I am afraid that Justin, whom I generally consider to be "free-thinking" and independent, succumbs to a common disease that afflicts many on the Left: they dismiss numbers, arguments, and ideas simply because they arise from politically opposite sources. Last time I checked, the Heritage Foundation employs economists, political scientists, sociologists, and Phd's of various stripes. Are these scholars not capable of serious thinking? Why is that only ideas from liberal sources are trustworthy? And is it productive--or intellectual---to engage ideas that emanate from the same section of the political spectrum? Thomas Lifson wrote a piece for the American Thinker a few years ago called the Liberal Bubble. I suggest Justin read it.
I think Justin's first statement is incorrect. During the Bush years, the income tax burden on the top income earners GREW SUBSTANTIALLY! The Congressional Budget Office estimates that, during the 1999 fiscal year:
- The Top 1% of taxpayers pay 29% of all taxes.
- The Top 5% of taxpayers pay 50% of all taxes.
I imagine that the data in recent years would show a similar trend.Justin explains the misperception of the top income earners and the tax-burden by claiming, "Also, i do know that the top 2% of income earners in the united state increased their share of wealth during the Bush years." This statement taken by itself is correct. However, Justin trying to make the postmodernist left-wing argument that the top income earners increased their wealth at the expense of lower income earners. That argument can quickly be refuted by the nonpartisan (emphasis mine) Tax Foundation here:
The IRS data also shows increases in individual incomes across all income groups (see Table 3). Just as the highest earners lost the biggest percentage of their incomes during the recession of 2001, so they have prospered the most as the economy continued to rebound through 2006. For example, from 2000 to 2002, the AGI of the top 1 percent of tax returns fell by over 26 percent. In that same period, the AGI of the bottom 50 percent of tax returns actually increased by 4.3 percent. However, since 2002, as the recession has ended, AGI has risen by over 81 percent for the top 1 percent (an average of over 20 percent per year) and 17 percent (an average of around 4 percent per year) for the bottom 50 percent.
In sum, between 2000 and 2006, pre-tax income for the top 1 percent of tax returns grew by 34 percent, while pre-tax income for the bottom 50 percent increased by 22 percent. All figures are nominal (not adjusted for inflation).
This pattern of income loss and growth at the top of the income spectrum is the same during every recession and recovery. The net result has also been a sharp rise in federal government tax revenue from 2003 to 2006 compared to previous years.
All that said, IT IS AN ISSUE. I think, as we discussed at Zella's, President Obama has positioned himself to get away with this. There is a general feeling that he "inherited" this (this being the breakdown of wall street, the banks the automotive industry as well as the wars). I realize that these are all 1) independent issues and 2) that it does not justify spending for the sake of spending. Unfortunately, most people in the country don't.
Justin is correct here. President Obama did inherit much of this mess from this previous administration and usually doesn't waste an opportunity to remind Americans of this.
The Obama thing is interesting and i do think 20 years from now whatever happens is going to be studied/debated for years at ...well...liberal universities. It is an ends/means thing? I'm not sure. I don't like how things have gone. I do like our language towards other nations and people of other beliefs (in our own country no less). But I cant decide how much change is going to come....and if it doesn't how much blame to lay at the feet of Obama. I suppose its a bit early to come to these conclusions ---regardless of what the media (on all sides) wants to (needs to?) in order to generate ad revenue.
Justin makes an interesting point. Ultimately the positive and negative verdicts of current events and policies are determined many years later. President Bush has argued that, despite the many controversies surrounding the policy of regime change in Iraq, many years from now people will generally look at the removal of Saddam Hussein as a positive development. He has got a point. People today generally view President Harry Truman as a visionary and prescient man, but he was dogged by approval ratings in the low 20s.
The fact that Justin prefers the language of the president towards other countries and their populations is probably a matter of taste. I think that statement looks very foolish given the current situation in Iran and this administration's feckless and clueless response. Obama waited until the second day of protests to mutter any sympathy for the pluralistic forces in Iran. Within weeks of calling for a nuke-free world, North Korea successfully launched a satellite and has conducted nuclear tests. Peter Wehner, over at Commentary Magazine, noted recently here and here that "in reading more of his comments, I’ve noticed a tendency that now almost qualifies as a reflex: the more strongly the president denies something — and especially, the more he mocks his critics and feigns amusement at what they say — the greater the odds are that he will do what he denies."
Ive almost removed myself from following a lot of it. I try to focus on the legislation I think is important more than the day-to-day stuff. It frustrates/depresses me to be honest. But it's always kind of been that way. More now, I suppose.
It's funny. I also crucified Bush for his comment after the -04 election that he had political capital and he intended to spend it. I thought it was a stupid thing to say and still do. However, I do think it is 1000000% true (just probably something better left unsaid). And I think we're seeing that now. Come 2012 (2011 really) Obama will have to answer to all of this. You and I both know it. Some of that will depend on who his challenger is. I think it would be beneficial for the US as a whole if it was not Sarah Palin b/c I think that will turn into an election about anything but the issues at hand--foreign policy/the future of our economy/deficit, etc. But perhaps ill be proven wrong. I certainly have before.
I have to have a little fun with Justin when he declares that he currently believes to be true the "political capital" statement for which he once heaped scorn on President Bush. But Justin is again correct. Political capital is a poorly defined concept--generally it means the acceptance by everybody that a candidate's election is tantamount to a validation of both the candidate and his or her ideas--that is wielded ad nauseum after a major election by the commentariat and the punditocracy. I agree with Justin that it was a tad uncomfortable to hear a president brag about his own political capital during a press conference.
Obama won "political capital" by winning decisively and helping to increase Democratic Party majorities in the House and Senate. In other words, voters chose Obama to give it a shot. He will have lots of latitude to push his agenda, but he will eventually have to deliver on those promises.
I actually still think Mitt Romney is a decent candidate though his "I'd triple the size of Guantanamo Bay" comment still cracks me up. A Romney/Jindal ticket could focus much more on the pertinent issues at hand.
Anyway, I hope to see an intelligent debate about the issues that face this country as we become the generation in charge for the next 20 years. However, usually when I get my hopes up, i.e. this past year, I am let down.
I agree with Justin that Bobby Jindal will be a strong candidate on either the bottom or the top of the presidential ticket in 2012, provided he proves to be a successful governor of Louisiana, e.g. not getting arrested.
Justin's prejudgement of a Sarah Palin candidacy is interesting. I agree with Justin that Sarah Palin appeared to be, shall we say, not well-versed in many of the major issues confronting the nation. But the Democrats and the media have to take responsibility for dragging the level of dialogue into the weeds. Governor Palin and her family were subjected to some of the most horrendous character attacks within hours of her announcement as running mate.
Since the election, Governor Palin has stayed out of the national spotlight, appearing quietly at fundraisers and charities all over the country. Yet she still is being attacked by virtually every Left-wing organ. I know Justin doesn't empathize with these attacks, but he is suggesting that Governor Palin is the source of the mudslinging. I would respectfully differ.
Thoughts please!
No comments:
Post a Comment