Elizabeth Moon's Blog, page 43
April 5, 2011
From Twitter 04-04-2011
07:13:31: RT @NYTimeskrugman: Privatizing Medicare http://nyti.ms/gX3ZrY
07:16:42: RT @NYTimeskrugman: The Transmission Mechanism for Quantitative Easing (Wonkish) http://nyti.ms/eqPIcG
09:33:31: Radishes, lettuce, and the pea pods are just forming. Yum (eating radishes while writing...) #gardening #writing
10:03:38: RT @victoriastrauss: If you've ever experienced the pangs of professional jealousy (& haven't we all), read this http://tinyurl.com/4j3sgk2
10:28:03: RT @longshotauthor: The most satisfying words any author ever types are the following: THE END
12:03:02: Completed daily words on K-IV....back on track after break (illness, launch of Kings, big choral performance.) "Vacations" end. #writing.
13:31:14: RT @NYTimeskrugman: On Not Learning From Experience http://nyti.ms/gNpGeo
15:28:18: RT @MaryRobinette: Funny and sadly accurate graph of the writing process at Discover magazine. http://is.gd/2H9WSg
16:11:10: RT @AndrewCrow: Just heard an argument between a passenger and a TSA agent. The agent said the the body scan doesn't use radiation. Inst ...
Tweets copied by twittinesis.com
April 4, 2011
From Twitter 04-03-2011
07:16:56: RT @robinmckinley: Indeed. Dragons? Pegasi? Demons? :) RT @Richard_Kadrey
Good writing advice from Ken Kesey: Don't Write What You Know ...
07:18:19: RT @CherylMorgan: "Science fiction isn't in the business of prediction, it is in the business of story-telling" - @JonathanStrahan
07:20:22: Wal-Mart opened next to old mall that used to have public restrooms. Now it doesn't.
21:40:44: RT @NYTimeskrugman: The Truth About Climate Change, Still Inconvenient http://nyti.ms/eQelQ0
21:42:01: RT @NYTimeskrugman: Diminished Individualism Watch http://nyti.ms/fXM3z9
Tweets copied by twittinesis.com
April 3, 2011
From Twitter 04-02-2011
07:34:28: RT @NYTimeskrugman: More on 1921 http://nyti.ms/ewSSvA
07:37:45: So...last night's rehearsal knocked me to the floor (figuratively speaking) and I just crawled out of bed. Tonight: performance.
07:38:44: It is both sheer h*ll and sheer joy to work with other musicians that much better than I am and a perfectionist visionary director.
07:39:46: Would not want to sing great music w/someone with someone who is satisfied with less than perfection.
23:50:13: We came; we sang; they cheered us; I'm going to bed.
Tweets copied by twittinesis.com
April 2, 2011
A brief hiatus
Yesterday was the dress rehearsal, tonight is the performance: Bach's St. John Passion at St. Michael's Episcopal Church in Austin. If you're in Austin and want to hear this--David Stevens conducting a big choir combined from three church choirs and some others, plus a baroque orchestra with many period instruments and musicians from all over the map, tickets at the door will be $20, or $18 for seniors. Parking is limited; carpooling is advised. St. Michael's is on Capitol of Texas highway, between Bee Caves and Westlake. (It's where we did Britten's St. Nicholas cantata a few years ago.)
Today and likely tomorrow will be very busy indeed, as I prepare for this (and help take down the area tonight after the performance so the space is ready for services Sunday morning, and sing a service on Sunday.) I know there are a lot of comments backed up for recent posts, but I haven't had, and won't have, time to deal with them all today or (probably) tomorrow.
Today and likely tomorrow will be very busy indeed, as I prepare for this (and help take down the area tonight after the performance so the space is ready for services Sunday morning, and sing a service on Sunday.) I know there are a lot of comments backed up for recent posts, but I haven't had, and won't have, time to deal with them all today or (probably) tomorrow.
From Twitter 04-01-2011
07:00:25: RT @NASA: Some beautiful views of Arctic sea ice from one of our #IceBridge flights, flying low at 1500 ft. http://go.usa.gov/270
07:16:41: RT @NatureNews: Fukushima update: more radiation data errors http://goo.gl/fb/rR6Hn
07:16:56: RT @NatureNews: Fukushima update: did nuclear chain reactions continue after shut-down? http://goo.gl/fb/BLsTX
07:20:07: RT @NYTimeskrugman: OP-ED COLUMNIST; The Austerity Delusion http://bit.ly/geHt1U
07:26:02: RT @ceffyl1: Need some mentoring from a great writer? Judith Tarr is having a mentoring sale! Fantastic opportunity! http://bit.ly/gC3gBG
07:37:26: Killer rehearsal last night (3 hrs) and another one tonight and then the performance. Need new throat, feet, and back. All else good.
08:07:50: Pair of Bewick's wrens outside my window. Lucky to have both Bewick's & Carolina wrens nesting here.
Tweets copied by twittinesis.com
April 1, 2011
The Right Questions: Part Four
There's a new slogan running around GOPland: "Social conservatism IS fiscal conservatism." In other words, if you're a tidy-whitie upright person who does everything by the rules of the religious right-wing (self-defined as social conservatives)--if you hate feminists, gays, lesbians, transsexuals, and "immorality" (mostly defined as a sexual practice that squicks you or your religious leader, but also including abortion and "substance abuse") then you're a social conservative and by golly, along with that bundle of shining goodness, you are by definition also a fiscal conservative, which means you'll be fine no matter what austerity measures come along. The link between the two is intended to firmly cement the relationship between the religious right and the profit-before-anything political right, a relationship that trembled a bit for a year or two when the religious right actually read some parts of Scripture they'd been ignoring (that bit about feeding the hungry and housing the homeless) and began to question whether profit really was as holy as the political right insisted. Some even began to question right-wing environmental policies on the grounds that if God created it, just maybe humans shouldn't trash it.
So if two men, or two women, get married, that does not affect my marriage at all. Zero. Zip. If I don't want to think about what they do in bed--or elsewhere--then I need to discipline myself not to think about it. It's not my business. (It's not my business what other man/woman couples do in bed. Only if sex involves an unwilling partner is it society's--and thus my--business.)
What's lacking in the claims that gay marriage "attacks" traditional marriage is a mechanism....because the mechanism does not exist. How, exactly, does the existence of male or female couples "ruin" or "soil" or otherwise damage traditional marriage? Does the existence of gay marriage force partners in a traditional marriage to break their vows? No. Does the existence of gay marriage make good traditional marriages turn bad? No, again. The only people who can ruin a marriage are the people in the marriage. Other people can contribute to the stress of a marriage (interfering relatives, the demanding boss that fires you or hits on your spouse, etc.) but even then the people in the marriage are the ones who determine what happens in the marriage. Not outsiders.
Here's another social conservative bugaboo: immigration. Technically, we're all immigrants. Humans did not originate on this continent (in this hemisphere, in fact.) All of us have ancestors somewhere else, some farther back than others. And yet the GOP and social conservatives have their knickers in a knot about immigrants now (well, some immigrants) and there's been a strain of "no more, and not from there" for a long time. The same arguments against immigrants are used now that were used in the 1800s with the first Irish immigrants (one of them very likely the "sickly Irishman" a foremother of mine married.) They're dirty, they speak a different language, they have too many children, they don't look like "us" (whatever "us" that happens to be in that generation.) Some of the people who now rail against immigrants come from an immigrant population that was, in its turn, despised and rejected. I met one on the train awhile back--Italian, born here of Italian immigrants, and convinced that "those" immigrants were everything I know Italians were called. It would've been funny, but...it's not. Some immigrants, of course, are trouble on the half-shell. Some of those probably lurk in the background of lots of us--they were transported to the colonies as criminals, indentured for a term of years. Some of them reformed; some of them didn't. The criminals we have always with us. And if we have a pot of gold (or apparent pot of gold) that's going to draw the interest of criminals. (If the U.S. were not such a lucrative market for illicit drugs, the drug trade would not target it.) It makes no sense to claim (as even the GOP has done) that this country has had the benefit of many good immigrants (in former times) but all the new ones are likely to be nothing but an expense. (It's particularly nonsensical when the GOPer in question has some working on his/her yard and house, or for his/her company.)
What social conservatism wants to do is control people over whom it has no legitimate authority...and to do that, is willing to pass laws that contravene basic human rights, rights that were mentioned in the Declaration of Independence and put into the Constitution. To make this even marginally palatable, social conservatives make up reasons that have no mechansm attached (such as "gay marriage endangers traditional marriage.") For any of the claims of social conservatism, the right questrions include "How does that work, exactly?" with the addition of "So...you're saying that individuals you consider "good" are not responsible for their own behavior--that they can blame others?"
So if two men, or two women, get married, that does not affect my marriage at all. Zero. Zip. If I don't want to think about what they do in bed--or elsewhere--then I need to discipline myself not to think about it. It's not my business. (It's not my business what other man/woman couples do in bed. Only if sex involves an unwilling partner is it society's--and thus my--business.)
What's lacking in the claims that gay marriage "attacks" traditional marriage is a mechanism....because the mechanism does not exist. How, exactly, does the existence of male or female couples "ruin" or "soil" or otherwise damage traditional marriage? Does the existence of gay marriage force partners in a traditional marriage to break their vows? No. Does the existence of gay marriage make good traditional marriages turn bad? No, again. The only people who can ruin a marriage are the people in the marriage. Other people can contribute to the stress of a marriage (interfering relatives, the demanding boss that fires you or hits on your spouse, etc.) but even then the people in the marriage are the ones who determine what happens in the marriage. Not outsiders.
Here's another social conservative bugaboo: immigration. Technically, we're all immigrants. Humans did not originate on this continent (in this hemisphere, in fact.) All of us have ancestors somewhere else, some farther back than others. And yet the GOP and social conservatives have their knickers in a knot about immigrants now (well, some immigrants) and there's been a strain of "no more, and not from there" for a long time. The same arguments against immigrants are used now that were used in the 1800s with the first Irish immigrants (one of them very likely the "sickly Irishman" a foremother of mine married.) They're dirty, they speak a different language, they have too many children, they don't look like "us" (whatever "us" that happens to be in that generation.) Some of the people who now rail against immigrants come from an immigrant population that was, in its turn, despised and rejected. I met one on the train awhile back--Italian, born here of Italian immigrants, and convinced that "those" immigrants were everything I know Italians were called. It would've been funny, but...it's not. Some immigrants, of course, are trouble on the half-shell. Some of those probably lurk in the background of lots of us--they were transported to the colonies as criminals, indentured for a term of years. Some of them reformed; some of them didn't. The criminals we have always with us. And if we have a pot of gold (or apparent pot of gold) that's going to draw the interest of criminals. (If the U.S. were not such a lucrative market for illicit drugs, the drug trade would not target it.) It makes no sense to claim (as even the GOP has done) that this country has had the benefit of many good immigrants (in former times) but all the new ones are likely to be nothing but an expense. (It's particularly nonsensical when the GOPer in question has some working on his/her yard and house, or for his/her company.)
What social conservatism wants to do is control people over whom it has no legitimate authority...and to do that, is willing to pass laws that contravene basic human rights, rights that were mentioned in the Declaration of Independence and put into the Constitution. To make this even marginally palatable, social conservatives make up reasons that have no mechansm attached (such as "gay marriage endangers traditional marriage.") For any of the claims of social conservatism, the right questrions include "How does that work, exactly?" with the addition of "So...you're saying that individuals you consider "good" are not responsible for their own behavior--that they can blame others?"
The Right Questions: Part Three
Another segment of the notion that cutting taxes produces jobs (as before: no, it doesn't), there's the notion that eliminating jobs will produce new jobs...that is, if you increase unemployment enough, then jobs will emerge, and the economy will recover. You would think that even the GOP could understand that if you have a lot of unemployment already, adding a million or so more people to the list will not, in fact, create new jobs. But they're walking around with eyes wide shut and don't get it.
How was this supposed to work, anyway? In theory, this requires attention to the undefined term "business confidence." What is "business confidence?" It's whatever the businessmen arguing for particular policies say it is, which usually boils down to "whatever policies enable me to make more quick profit." Understandable, but hardly enough to build an economic plan on, because--as has been known for millenia--what makes someone a quick profit is quite often bad for everyone else. Sand in the sugar, water in the milk, dumping poison into the river, letting vermin run wild in your peanut-processing plant (as in Texas), butchering the sick cow quickly and selling the meat...etc. (No, I'm not saying ALL businesses are crooked...but when the profit motive alone is paramount, the temptation to do it quick and dirty is always there, and some always will.)
But back to the topic at hand: "business confidence" is related to a) a stable currency, b) a stable government, c) a favorable regulatory environment (favorable to business) and those are related to a) a favorable tax policy for business and b) a manageable debt load. Thus "business" wants to see GNP rising and national debt stable or falling. Rising national debt concerns "business" for the same reason it concerns everyone else--go to far and the national debt can become a destabilizing influence that affects currency, the tax rate, and--if bad enough--stability at all levels. However, "business" is unwilling to pour its own profits into lowering the debt load (especially when a business sector has benefited from policies that caused the rising debt. You do not see the major tax-avoiding corporations--including the banks who benefited from the bailouts--offering to pay back their windfall rescues, for instance.) So "business confidence" can be more accurately labeled "business self-interest." Particularly when the policies "business" wants won't work.
Currently, the GOP is in love with "austerity" (not for themselves, of course.) Austerity in this instance means cutting government jobs across the board...dumping a million or more employed persons into the pool of unemployed. Republicans have insisted that if you fire a bunch of educated and capable workers, this will improve the quality of the unemployment pool, and this higher quality unemployed worker will be more attractive to potential employers, and thus jobs will be created for them. Uh...why? It's not as if every unemployed person out there now is incompetent, stupid, uneducated...on the contrary, many of the unemployed were employed at good jobs because they were competent...but were laid off anyway. There aren't good jobs waiting for smart, educated people. There aren't good jobs because it was profitable for those companies who laid them off to lay them off...and profit rules.
The GOP also thinks a course of good old-fashioned Depression-era austerity will be good for individuals and families....because the ordinary citizen is just too lazy, too greedy, too materialistic (the rich, by definition of the GOP, are not: they have all earned everything they made by hard, unrelenting work....so when they screw up in a big way and run a corporation into bankruptcy, they deserve a golden parachute. The executives of Borders, for instance, whose lousy decisions and management resulted in the collapse of the other major bookstore chain and the loss of tens of thousands of jobs as their stores close...)
According to the GOP, we ordinary citizens all need to be toughened up by adversity and learn to live frugally, get ourselves out of debt....although it's pretty clear that the two main causes of "consumer debt" (notice the attack in that very label) are a) job loss and b) a medical emergency. Yes, some people spend themselves into a hole when their income was adequate...but most people don't, and most people get into a financial bind because of job loss or medical expense. So here's your hardworking parent, whose kid is hit by a car and spends months in the hospital and rehab being put back together. Now the parent is in debt all right. Should they have "proactively" not had a kid who could be hit and cause them medical expense? Should they, looking at their child's mangled body, said "No, just leave her alone: it would cost too much to treat that" and let her die or remain bedridden? What happens when that parent is laid off? How is the parent supposed to pay for the kid's treatment--pay down the debt--without an income?
Clearly, laying off the employed in order to lower both "consumer debt" and the national debt means that neither will be paid as fast, because (among other things) taxes won't be paid either. And more people will be standing hungry in the streets. And the people who are laid off will quit buying anything that don't have to have to survive today--so businesses which have so far survived will also start failing. And they will lay off their employees, not to make a bigger profit, but because they're going under. That small business sector, that entrepreneurship, which the GOP loves to brag on in this country (but doesn't know or give a damn about) will go under because it depends on individual purchases from individuals who have the money to make purchases.
So again--let's look at this "layoffs actually produce more jobs" thing again. Just how is that supposed to work? How is an unemployed teacher going to find work? How is that unemployed teacher (or anyone else) going to pay the mortgage or the rent, buy food, buy clothes for themselves or their family? How are they going to pay down any debt they already have? How are the they going to patronize the small businesses that serve them--get a plumber to fix that leak, an electrician to fix that short in the wiring, a dentist to fill that cavity....if they're unemployed, that coffee shop nearby will lose its customers, that dry cleaner will lose its customers...and the cascade is a downhill slide of bad news.
"Austerity" has been applied in other countries, where it also doesn't work....except to make the rich richer and the middle-class take a fast trip to poverty along with the poor who are even worse off. Take Ireland, for example. Ireland was a boom economy, the pride of the EU at one point, having come from poverty to riches...until it pioneered bailing out bad banks. It's been on an austerity kick for several years now, imposing "austerity" on ordinary citizens to reduce its national debt. Result? The interest on the national debt has doubled (canceling out savings) and unemployment is over 13% . "Business confidence" is low. The UK has started down the same road with Cameron's government, with the result that--against their confident predictions--the national debt is up and business confidence is down--the economy is sliding downhill. As here, the focus is on removing services that serve the population (libraries, parks, schools, etc.) with the assumption that "privatization" and private funds will make up for government spending.
Er...no. "Austerity measures" that push the population down into the muck do not result in economic growth or stability--and the only reason to think they would, is that someone told you so and you turned off your brain to believe them. The questions to ask here are "Exactly how will laying off people create more jobs? In detail, please. Especially when it hasn't worked before, or elsewhere? And how does high unemployment improve the economy?"
How was this supposed to work, anyway? In theory, this requires attention to the undefined term "business confidence." What is "business confidence?" It's whatever the businessmen arguing for particular policies say it is, which usually boils down to "whatever policies enable me to make more quick profit." Understandable, but hardly enough to build an economic plan on, because--as has been known for millenia--what makes someone a quick profit is quite often bad for everyone else. Sand in the sugar, water in the milk, dumping poison into the river, letting vermin run wild in your peanut-processing plant (as in Texas), butchering the sick cow quickly and selling the meat...etc. (No, I'm not saying ALL businesses are crooked...but when the profit motive alone is paramount, the temptation to do it quick and dirty is always there, and some always will.)
But back to the topic at hand: "business confidence" is related to a) a stable currency, b) a stable government, c) a favorable regulatory environment (favorable to business) and those are related to a) a favorable tax policy for business and b) a manageable debt load. Thus "business" wants to see GNP rising and national debt stable or falling. Rising national debt concerns "business" for the same reason it concerns everyone else--go to far and the national debt can become a destabilizing influence that affects currency, the tax rate, and--if bad enough--stability at all levels. However, "business" is unwilling to pour its own profits into lowering the debt load (especially when a business sector has benefited from policies that caused the rising debt. You do not see the major tax-avoiding corporations--including the banks who benefited from the bailouts--offering to pay back their windfall rescues, for instance.) So "business confidence" can be more accurately labeled "business self-interest." Particularly when the policies "business" wants won't work.
Currently, the GOP is in love with "austerity" (not for themselves, of course.) Austerity in this instance means cutting government jobs across the board...dumping a million or more employed persons into the pool of unemployed. Republicans have insisted that if you fire a bunch of educated and capable workers, this will improve the quality of the unemployment pool, and this higher quality unemployed worker will be more attractive to potential employers, and thus jobs will be created for them. Uh...why? It's not as if every unemployed person out there now is incompetent, stupid, uneducated...on the contrary, many of the unemployed were employed at good jobs because they were competent...but were laid off anyway. There aren't good jobs waiting for smart, educated people. There aren't good jobs because it was profitable for those companies who laid them off to lay them off...and profit rules.
The GOP also thinks a course of good old-fashioned Depression-era austerity will be good for individuals and families....because the ordinary citizen is just too lazy, too greedy, too materialistic (the rich, by definition of the GOP, are not: they have all earned everything they made by hard, unrelenting work....so when they screw up in a big way and run a corporation into bankruptcy, they deserve a golden parachute. The executives of Borders, for instance, whose lousy decisions and management resulted in the collapse of the other major bookstore chain and the loss of tens of thousands of jobs as their stores close...)
According to the GOP, we ordinary citizens all need to be toughened up by adversity and learn to live frugally, get ourselves out of debt....although it's pretty clear that the two main causes of "consumer debt" (notice the attack in that very label) are a) job loss and b) a medical emergency. Yes, some people spend themselves into a hole when their income was adequate...but most people don't, and most people get into a financial bind because of job loss or medical expense. So here's your hardworking parent, whose kid is hit by a car and spends months in the hospital and rehab being put back together. Now the parent is in debt all right. Should they have "proactively" not had a kid who could be hit and cause them medical expense? Should they, looking at their child's mangled body, said "No, just leave her alone: it would cost too much to treat that" and let her die or remain bedridden? What happens when that parent is laid off? How is the parent supposed to pay for the kid's treatment--pay down the debt--without an income?
Clearly, laying off the employed in order to lower both "consumer debt" and the national debt means that neither will be paid as fast, because (among other things) taxes won't be paid either. And more people will be standing hungry in the streets. And the people who are laid off will quit buying anything that don't have to have to survive today--so businesses which have so far survived will also start failing. And they will lay off their employees, not to make a bigger profit, but because they're going under. That small business sector, that entrepreneurship, which the GOP loves to brag on in this country (but doesn't know or give a damn about) will go under because it depends on individual purchases from individuals who have the money to make purchases.
So again--let's look at this "layoffs actually produce more jobs" thing again. Just how is that supposed to work? How is an unemployed teacher going to find work? How is that unemployed teacher (or anyone else) going to pay the mortgage or the rent, buy food, buy clothes for themselves or their family? How are they going to pay down any debt they already have? How are the they going to patronize the small businesses that serve them--get a plumber to fix that leak, an electrician to fix that short in the wiring, a dentist to fill that cavity....if they're unemployed, that coffee shop nearby will lose its customers, that dry cleaner will lose its customers...and the cascade is a downhill slide of bad news.
"Austerity" has been applied in other countries, where it also doesn't work....except to make the rich richer and the middle-class take a fast trip to poverty along with the poor who are even worse off. Take Ireland, for example. Ireland was a boom economy, the pride of the EU at one point, having come from poverty to riches...until it pioneered bailing out bad banks. It's been on an austerity kick for several years now, imposing "austerity" on ordinary citizens to reduce its national debt. Result? The interest on the national debt has doubled (canceling out savings) and unemployment is over 13% . "Business confidence" is low. The UK has started down the same road with Cameron's government, with the result that--against their confident predictions--the national debt is up and business confidence is down--the economy is sliding downhill. As here, the focus is on removing services that serve the population (libraries, parks, schools, etc.) with the assumption that "privatization" and private funds will make up for government spending.
Er...no. "Austerity measures" that push the population down into the muck do not result in economic growth or stability--and the only reason to think they would, is that someone told you so and you turned off your brain to believe them. The questions to ask here are "Exactly how will laying off people create more jobs? In detail, please. Especially when it hasn't worked before, or elsewhere? And how does high unemployment improve the economy?"
From Twitter 03-31-2011
07:34:40: RT @NatureNews: Editorial: Forensic science faces rough justice on both sides of the Atlantic http://ow.ly/4qhkh
07:35:33: RT @USGS: Comment on our draft science strategies and questions and help shape the future of #USGS #science: http://go.usa.gov/2Yy
08:08:19: RT @NYTimeskrugman: More on Unemployment and Investment http://nyti.ms/g0Dm9c
08:11:51: RT @NYTimeskrugman: Between the Devil and the Deep Red Idiocy http://nyti.ms/hNciDw
08:18:28: Facing three hour rehearsal with orchestra tonight for Bach St. John Passion, in city an hour away. Tired already.
22:53:01: RT @FakeAPStylebook: Always remember to close all parentheses. We're not paying to air condition the entire paragraph. #GreatestHits
Tweets copied by twittinesis.com
March 31, 2011
From Twitter 03-30-2011
08:27:47: RT @Papirockpro: Gotta love the articles of @NatureNews. From pics to great articles, it's a great rest from the Normal shenanigans of t ...
08:29:34: RT @NatureNews: The first issue of Nature Climate Change, our new sister journal, is now live! http://ow.ly/4pobk
and they're on Twitte ...
08:32:32: RT @NatureNews: Concerns over nuclear energy are legitimate http://goo.gl/fb/EHjGd
09:58:41: RT @KSmithSF: The fallacy that tax cuts stimulate economies http://t.co/YIrjKGk
10:00:06: RT @NYTimeskrugman: The Exceptional Mr. Greenspan http://nyti.ms/gaa9xa
10:03:18: Gemmell Award Site: lots of categories to vote for your favs for award: http://www.gemmellaward.com/page/2323348:Page:27201#pd_a_4364680
10:08:31: RT @NYTimeskrugman: Austerity Games, Here And There http://nyti.ms/h3b97G
10:36:59: Recorded political calls make me see red. If you don't have the guts to call and talk to me like a real person, stay the !**! off my phone.
10:38:41: This one was Mike Huckabee's voice, in favor of repealing the Health Care Act. Boo hiss.
10:40:10: My Congresscritter (Carter, R-TX) also does the recorded call thing, always sounding hysterical. Blech. Rude, as well as wrong.
11:43:24: New post up on LJ about why lowering corporate taxes doesn't increase jobs. http://e-moon60.livejournal.com/
Tweets copied by twittinesis.com
March 30, 2011
The Right Questions: Part Two
But what about the deficit? It's amazing how upset the GOP is about a deficit they themselves enlarged, without a single whimper of dismay or suggestion that things might be done differently, when GWB was president. So...how did that deficit manage to grow so big, in a time when other services were being cut, and the GOP continued to name itself the part of fiscal accountability, fiscal responsibility, and fiscal conservatism? How come the national debt quit growing and then declined during Clinton's administration, and then took off like a rocket in Bush's?
Bush came into office with the express intent (and support of a "fiscally conservative" Congress) to cut taxes (thus cutting the federal government's income) and also to increase defense spending, which he felt had been under-supported. Now if you want to spend more, most people (including conservatives in government) will tell you, the individual, that you need to increase your income. Take that second or third job. But that's not what GOP (in the persons of Bush's Administration or Congress) did. After 9/11, there was suddenly an excuse to spend a lot more money on "national security"--something that certainly pleased certain corporations whose personnel, services, and products fell in that sector.
First, the creation of an entire new cabinet-level department, "Homeland Security" (rather than horsewhipping the existing agencies into cooperating as they'd been told before to do) that duplicated some functions, and created others, at great expense. Such as the infamous "Border Fence" (a million dollars a mile. And there are a lot of miles on the US/Mexican border.) Such as the "Patriot Act" and all its successors that led to such things as imprisonment without proper judicial procedures, "renditions," etc.
Second, Bush's determination to find an excuse to attack his "axis of evil". The runup to the war in Iraq was expensive (and profitable to those providing the stuff bought) and Bush's Administration was perfectly willing to accept any evidence for (and none against) the "weapons of mass destruction" argument for invading Iraq. Much of the expense was hidden from Congress (though the GOPs in Congress have never squealed about it the way they should have, party loyalty being paramount these days--compare that to the outrage of GOP Congresscritters when they found Nixon had lied to them.) It was kept out of the budget...but not out of the balance books.
Third, the cost of the war once it started. Wars are predictably expensive...known to be expensive...and predictably underfunded without a large increase in taxes. Bush and company did not increase income to meet this massive new expense even when they enlarged it by invading Afghanistan. Eliminating tax custs at the start of the war would have helped cover the cost (only helped--they'd have needed to raise taxes above the previous levels to actually pay for it in an ongoing way.) Instead, they continued to blame the rising national debt on those who weren't responsible.
Fourth, the Bush Administration and the GOP dominated Congress did not even enforce the fees that should have been paid by energy-industry corporations (for drilling permits in the Gulf of Mexico, for instance) that, though too small, might have offset some of the increased expenditures. Deregulation was the order of the day, and considerable money was owed was not collected.
Fifth, the Bush Administration and Congress agreed to bail out the financial sector with nearly five trillion dollars, at the end of Bush's presidency. Trillion. (Among corporations paying no, or minimal, income tax last year are three that were bailed out at the end of 2008: Bank of America, Goldman-Sachs, and Citibank, all of whom now report profits. ) Because some of that money was paid out in early 2009 (having been voted by Congress in 2008) many people blame the Obama Administration and a Democratic Congress for it--but that's not accurate.
In other words, the GOP in control of both the executive and legislative branches of the federal govenment spent money like water on whatever they wanted, while cutting income. If the GOP were a woman spending beyond her money on shoes, jewels, hairdressers, clothes, and if she decided to spend a huge amount treating her friends to a lavish bash just before skipping town, the moralists in that camp would be all over her for her greedy, self-indulgent, ostentatious splurging....but since it was they themselves doing the spending, and their friends who were being spent on (Halliburton's contracts in Iraq and post-Katrina, Blackwater, military contractors, oil & other energy companies) they always had the excuse of "national security." While at the same time, they could use the same excuse to tighten control of individual lives, intruding into what had been--and should be--an individual's right to privacy in (for instance) medical decisions, adult sexual practices, expressions of opinion, religious choices, and spoken and written communication with others. They were happy to treat most of us as potential if not actual criminals. But that's for another chapter.
When anyone in the GOP brings up the national debt, the question to ask is "Why did not the President and Congress increase income to cover the cost of the wars they chose to engage it? Why did not the President and Congress take responsibility for the financial sector bailout that put a huge new load on the national debt?"
Even GOP supporters know and will admit that when individuals shut off one source of income and then spend more, they're going to run out of money and be in debt. The GOP in general is very negative about individual debt (people should have more self discipline, they'll say smugly.) But the GOP is surprisingly tolerant of running up a government debt if it benefits the right parties (not, of course, individuals in need.)
Bush came into office with the express intent (and support of a "fiscally conservative" Congress) to cut taxes (thus cutting the federal government's income) and also to increase defense spending, which he felt had been under-supported. Now if you want to spend more, most people (including conservatives in government) will tell you, the individual, that you need to increase your income. Take that second or third job. But that's not what GOP (in the persons of Bush's Administration or Congress) did. After 9/11, there was suddenly an excuse to spend a lot more money on "national security"--something that certainly pleased certain corporations whose personnel, services, and products fell in that sector.
First, the creation of an entire new cabinet-level department, "Homeland Security" (rather than horsewhipping the existing agencies into cooperating as they'd been told before to do) that duplicated some functions, and created others, at great expense. Such as the infamous "Border Fence" (a million dollars a mile. And there are a lot of miles on the US/Mexican border.) Such as the "Patriot Act" and all its successors that led to such things as imprisonment without proper judicial procedures, "renditions," etc.
Second, Bush's determination to find an excuse to attack his "axis of evil". The runup to the war in Iraq was expensive (and profitable to those providing the stuff bought) and Bush's Administration was perfectly willing to accept any evidence for (and none against) the "weapons of mass destruction" argument for invading Iraq. Much of the expense was hidden from Congress (though the GOPs in Congress have never squealed about it the way they should have, party loyalty being paramount these days--compare that to the outrage of GOP Congresscritters when they found Nixon had lied to them.) It was kept out of the budget...but not out of the balance books.
Third, the cost of the war once it started. Wars are predictably expensive...known to be expensive...and predictably underfunded without a large increase in taxes. Bush and company did not increase income to meet this massive new expense even when they enlarged it by invading Afghanistan. Eliminating tax custs at the start of the war would have helped cover the cost (only helped--they'd have needed to raise taxes above the previous levels to actually pay for it in an ongoing way.) Instead, they continued to blame the rising national debt on those who weren't responsible.
Fourth, the Bush Administration and the GOP dominated Congress did not even enforce the fees that should have been paid by energy-industry corporations (for drilling permits in the Gulf of Mexico, for instance) that, though too small, might have offset some of the increased expenditures. Deregulation was the order of the day, and considerable money was owed was not collected.
Fifth, the Bush Administration and Congress agreed to bail out the financial sector with nearly five trillion dollars, at the end of Bush's presidency. Trillion. (Among corporations paying no, or minimal, income tax last year are three that were bailed out at the end of 2008: Bank of America, Goldman-Sachs, and Citibank, all of whom now report profits. ) Because some of that money was paid out in early 2009 (having been voted by Congress in 2008) many people blame the Obama Administration and a Democratic Congress for it--but that's not accurate.
In other words, the GOP in control of both the executive and legislative branches of the federal govenment spent money like water on whatever they wanted, while cutting income. If the GOP were a woman spending beyond her money on shoes, jewels, hairdressers, clothes, and if she decided to spend a huge amount treating her friends to a lavish bash just before skipping town, the moralists in that camp would be all over her for her greedy, self-indulgent, ostentatious splurging....but since it was they themselves doing the spending, and their friends who were being spent on (Halliburton's contracts in Iraq and post-Katrina, Blackwater, military contractors, oil & other energy companies) they always had the excuse of "national security." While at the same time, they could use the same excuse to tighten control of individual lives, intruding into what had been--and should be--an individual's right to privacy in (for instance) medical decisions, adult sexual practices, expressions of opinion, religious choices, and spoken and written communication with others. They were happy to treat most of us as potential if not actual criminals. But that's for another chapter.
When anyone in the GOP brings up the national debt, the question to ask is "Why did not the President and Congress increase income to cover the cost of the wars they chose to engage it? Why did not the President and Congress take responsibility for the financial sector bailout that put a huge new load on the national debt?"
Even GOP supporters know and will admit that when individuals shut off one source of income and then spend more, they're going to run out of money and be in debt. The GOP in general is very negative about individual debt (people should have more self discipline, they'll say smugly.) But the GOP is surprisingly tolerant of running up a government debt if it benefits the right parties (not, of course, individuals in need.)
Elizabeth Moon's Blog
- Elizabeth Moon's profile
- 2621 followers
Elizabeth Moon isn't a Goodreads Author
(yet),
but they
do have a blog,
so here are some recent posts imported from
their feed.
