So I read this:
Boehner said Americans want government to practice the same financial restraint they have been forced to exercise: “It’s time for government to tighten their belts and show the American people that we ‘get’ it.”and I wonder if this country can handle the crisis we’re in. Remember, John Boehner is, in effect, the second-most influential member of the GDP (after Rush Limbaugh). And while Democrats hold a majority, it’s not enough of a majority to make the minority party irrelevant. So the fact that Boehner’s idea of economics is completely insane matters.What’s insane about Boehner’s remark? He’s talking about the current economic crisis as if it were a harvest failure — as if we faced a shortage of goods, so that the more you consume the less is left for me. In reality — even most conservatives understand this, when they think about it — we’re in a world desperately short of demand. If you consume more, that’s GOOD for me, because it helps create jobs and raise incomes. It’s in my personal disinterest to have you tighten your belt — and that’s just as true if you’re “the government” as if you’re my neighbor.
Plus, who is “the government”? It’s basically us, you know — the government spends money providing services to the public. Demanding that the government tighten its belt means demanding that we, the taxpayers, get less of those services. Why is this a good thing, even aside from the state of the economy? Again, this is what the leaders of a powerful, if minority, party think. Can this country be saved?
While Krugman is being a bit tongue in cheek pointing out the naivity in Boehner’s generic political non sequitur, the point here is huge – the Republican Party really doesn’t understand economics, or perhaps doesn’t care about econimics. They aren’t even adept at the lesser discipline – book-keeping. Since Reagan, they’ve had two things going:
-
Fiscal responsibility: "Those Democrats are ‘big spenders’."
-
Deficit spending: Running up the national debt.
But this financial naivity is a Republican epidemic. Reagan cut taxes, decreasing the Federal Income. Bush Jr. cut taxes. Cutting taxes is good, they say [and say, and say]. It gets people elected apparently. Yet the debt escalates. They do things like leave the Iraq War out of the Federal Budget. It makes it look better. During the runaway Sub-Prime Mortgage/Housing Bubble era, Bush pushed home ownership and took credit for the prosperity. During the Oil Bubble, he talked about foreign oil interests and had nothing to say about the oil futures speculation that was actually responsible. His solution to signs of financial instability – he threw money at people [stimulus checks] and TARP. In the debates about the Stimulus Package, John McCain attacked it as a "spending bill." Obama had an uncharacteristic loss of words – saying in an exasperated way, "But stimulus is spending!"
The part that got to me the most was the immediate chorus from George W. Bush and John McCain when the Stock Market finally dipped in September – "The fundamentals are sound." Well, the fundamentals were anything but "sound." In fact the "fundamentals" were so far past "sound" at that point that the statements, in retrospect, are beyond bizarre. Where was that information coming from? Says who? And none of them ever mentioned the now famous "Derivatives." I never heard the word in the entire Bush Era – including the time when the biggest Derivative Trader of them all, Enron, finally bit the dust. Their attunement to the financial world was typified by Cheney’s characteristic sarcasm. A reporter asked Cheney if he knew the financial crisis was coming. Cheney sneered, "Did you?"
I can’t resolve their message of fiscal responsibility and small government with what they actually do. And I can’t figure out what statements like Boehner’s, and Bush’s, and Cheney’s, etc. say about the Republican Party. It would be easiest to chalk it up to duplicity, or lying. But it feels more fundamental than that – something in the range of "dumb-assed" or "dumb as a post." Whatever it is, the champions of Capitalism and the Free Market Economy seem to understand neither…
I can see one possible logical path. They might have been thinking “If we (BushCo) don’t mention it EVER, then it’ll look like it wasn’t around until THEY got there. We’ll get those silly Commies…”