Newsweek Gets Page Number Wrong

When something can't go on forever . . .

. . . it won't.

Robert Samuelson writes:

We are shifting from "give away politics" to "take away politics." Since World War II, presidents and Congresses have been in the enviable position of distributing more benefits to more people without requiring ever-steeper taxes. Now, this governing formula no longer works, and politicians face the opposite: taking away -- reducing benefits or raising taxes significantly -- to prevent government deficits from destabilizing the economy. It is not clear that either Democrats or Republicans can navigate the change.

[snip]

For years, there has been a "something for nothing" aspect to our politics. More people became dependent on government. From 1960 to 2010, the share of federal spending going for "payments to individuals" (Social Security, food stamps, Medicare and the like) climbed from 26 percent to 66 percent. Meanwhile, the tax burden barely budged. In 1960, federal taxes were 17.8 percent of national income (gross domestic product). In 2007, they were 18.5 percent of GDP.

This good fortune reflected falling military spending -- from 52 percent of federal outlays in 1960 to 20 percent today -- and solid economic growth that produced ample tax revenues. Generally modest budget deficits bridged any gap. But now this favorable arithmetic has collapsed under the weight of slower economic growth (even after a recovery from the recession), an aging population (increasing the number of recipients) and high health costs (already 26 percent of federal spending). Present and prospective deficits are gargantuan.

The trouble is that, while the economics of give away policies have changed, the politics haven't. Liberals still want more spending, conservatives more tax cuts.

Samuelson's theme is that the political class, and the political structure, may not be capable of resolving the crisis. He cites three three historical instances of similar impasse:

Our political system has failed before. Conflicts that could not be resolved through debate, compromise and legislation were settled in more primitive and violent ways. The Civil War was the greatest and most tragic failure; leaders couldn't end slavery peacefully. In our time, the social protests and disorders of the 1960s -- the civil rights and anti-war movements and urban riots -- almost overwhelmed the political process. So did double-digit inflation, peaking at 13 percent in 1979 and 1980, which for years defied efforts to control it.

These examples strike us as uncomfortably inapt. While the national political system was unable to resolve the conflict over slavery, regional political majorities existed to support coherent action. It was these irreconcilably regional majorities that resulted in the Civil War. The upheavals of the 1960s were resolved by the emergence of a political majority broadly in favor of ending the Viet Nam War. And the double-digit inflation of 1979-80 was seen as destructive and intolerable to wage-earners, pensioners, and businesses alike, leading to Ronald Reagan's landslide election in 1980, with a broad mandate to fix it by any means necessary.

The conceptual problem is simple: revenues must be increased, or expenditures cut. But the gap is so great that any increase in revenue sufficient to solve the problem would require tax increases to levels that are unprecedented, punitive, and destructive, imposed on a narrowing base. And substantial political majorities either already depend on Government support, or anticipate relying on both Social Security and other benefits, principally assistance with medical care. Thus no substantial reduction in expenditure is politically feasible.

When investors begin to balk at purchasing ever-increasing volumes of federal debt, the Government's only recourse will be monetization of further debt, by sale of Treasury securities to the Federal Reserve Bank (a process that has already begun), in return for Federal Reserve Notes, that is, cash created by the Fed.  The substantial and accelerating increase in the supply of money will result in uncontrolled inflation.

Outrage!

The New York Times has uncovered an outrage that threatens the very existence of the Republic: "Banks Quietly Ramping Up Costs to Consumers." Which is to say, banks charge their customers to do stuff, like replacing a lost debit card, or wiring money to your account. Underlying this huffing and puffing seems to be the notion that a business should price its goods or services based on what it costs that business to produce or deliver them.

We're pretty sure that the New York Times doesn't set its advertising charges based on what it costs them to hit a few computer keys and roll the presses.

If you don't like your bank nickel-and-diming you to death -- or if you lose your debit card regularly -- your remedy is to find a bank that makes its money some other way, and take your business there. But that's becoming more and more difficult to do. If you don't much like JPMorgan-Chase, Bank of America, Wells Fargo, or Citigroup, you may be out of luck.

Of course, that's a story you're not going to read in the New York Times: "Obama Administration Encourages, Finances, Historic Bank Consolidation, Campaign Receives Big Bucks From Bankers."

The Mask Slips

Back when I was a young attorney, I was taught that it is always a mistake to use adjectives instead of explanations. That is, to say that the other side's arguments are "absurd" or "ridiculous" is counter-productive for two reasons. First, it doesn't add anything. It does nothing to help the judge decide the case. Second, and more important, it suggests that you can't explain why the other side is wrong in a way that the judge can understand. In short, you don't have anything substantive to say, or you're suggesting the decision-maker is too stupid to understand what you have to say.

I've been reminded of this as I read that "Tea Party" (whatever that means) members of Congress were no better than terrorists, or that they held America hostage, or that they constituted the Hezbollah wing of the Republican Party. These aren't arguments, and they suggest that the speaker either has nothing substantive to say, or thinks his audience is too stupid to understand.

I had not considered that there is a rhetorical step beyond the "that's stupid" non-argument. But apparently there is. It's the "that's so stupid the other side shouldn't be allowed to say it in the first place" view. If there is an argument to which you know you have no effective response, what could be better than to rig the system so that that argument can't be made in the first place? That way, you're relieved of responding, and don't run the risk that your unpersuasive non-argument will reveal that you don't actually have anything to say.

Enter the senior senator from Massachusetts, the Honorable John Forbes Kerry, who has clearly just about had it with people making arguments to which he has no coherent, understandable effective response:

Personally, I think persons who don't know the meaning of the word "literally" should be prohibited from using it.

Said to be an Actual Billboard

Dramatic Internet Memes

The original "dramatic chipmunk" has given rise to such a flood of unworthy imitators that we've lost track. Dramatic Kick-ball Girl, however, has forwarded to us the following, noting that "dramatic eagle" lunches on all dramatic rodents.

History of Civilization

Progress is the natural and inevitable state of humanity.  From single-celled life to mammals, from crude neanderthals to modern humans capable of philosophy, art and science; from primitive hunter-gatherers to settled communities of farmers; from towns to cities to nations; from despotic divine-right monarchs to modern liberal democracy.  Prejudice, ignorance and tribalism give way to tolerance, knowledge, and humanity.  Superstition is banished by science, dogma replaced by wisdom.  The arrow of progress toward perfection points ever forward, from the past, and into the future.

These Werewolves Are Looking for You

"True Blood," season 3:

You're In Good Hands

TSA Security Officers instructed not to touch your monkey.

SEC employees sit by watching as citizens get screwed.

Things Once Seen Cannot Be Unseen

If you value your sanity do not -- we repeat DO NOT -- watch Jersey Shore on MTV.

Sol Iustitiae

A new sun of truth and righteousness has risen over the Episcopal Diocese of Massachusetts.

Oremus.

Because it is Not Right for Petman to be Alone

Our correspondent Bike-Boy (be careful how you pronounce that) observes that Petman has no need to be lonely.

We welcome our new Machine Overlords. Which is particularly creepy, inasmuch as I watched The Matrix this weekend.