Showing posts with label policy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label policy. Show all posts
Monday, November 24, 2008
Barnes is Domestic Policy
Here’s a January 2007 Melody Barnes op-ed on what a progressive president might say in a Sate of the Union address:
Monday, October 27, 2008
IOKIYAR Wall Street Journal edition
IOKIYAR- Ee- oh-kee-yar.
Its OK If You Are A Republican.
I love that one. My Father in Law sent me this op ed from the Wall Street Journal by one Pete DuPont called the "Europeanization of America." I point out some of the problems with his list of horrible things that will befall us below. But let me make a metapoint. When it comes to questions of curriculum or culture, the Conservatives are usually quick to invoke the idea of a deep and abiding continuum of "Western" thought from the Greeks through to our own superior culture and soceity. I point out that much of that Western traditions happened, in, you know, Europe. Of course, when it suits their purpose, they are quick to use "Europe," historically and currently a place marked for its unity and homogeneity of peoples, languages, culture, and for its ability to get along just hunky dory without wars of words or weapons, as the qunitessential example of degenerate, misguided and dangerous cultural, social,a nd economic precedent.
Contradiction? IOKIYAR.
Argumentation marked by selective cherry picking of ideas to meet pre-conceived notions? IOKIYAR.
Anyway, back to Mr. Du Pont's list of baseless assertions and falsehoods. My responses come after the arrows --> .
I don't know where they get this stuff. Off the top of my head...
* The U.S. military will withdraw from Iraq quickly and substantially, regardless of conditions on the ground or the obvious consequence of emboldening terrorists there and around the globe.
--> The Iraqi government has signed on to this, so it is what they want. If victory is a sovereign Iraq, then that is prima facie evidence of their sovereignty isn’t it?
* Protectionism will become our national trade policy; free trade agreements with other nations will be reduced and limited.
--> he has said that we should strengthen environmental and labor protections. Ricardo himself, the grandpa of free trade theory, wrote that the factors that matter are natural factors like climate and not artificial ones like costs of labor. Why not have a global wage floor pegged to currency differences. Or at least one for companies operating in the global economy? We have other global regulations for the flow of capital or copyright protection. Fair trade is a real policy agenda, even if he wants to put his fingers in his ears.
* Income taxes will rise on middle- and upper-income people and businesses, and individuals will pay much higher Social Security taxes, all to carry out the new president's goals of "spreading the wealth around."
--> Out of context quote. Obama said we all benefit when there is a middle class that ahs money to spend. Also, is he arguing for an end to progressive taxation? Also, the proportion of the federal budget that comes from payroll taxes has been GOING UP. There is wealth transfer-from the working classes UP, compared to what it was in the past.
* Federal government spending will substantially increase. The new Obama proposals come to more than $300 billion annually, for education, health care, energy, environmental and many other programs, in addition to whatever is needed to meet our economic challenges. Mr. Obama proposes more than a 10% annual spending growth increase, considerably higher than under the first President Bush (6.7%), Bill Clinton (3.3%) or George W. Bush (6.4%).
--. Is he arguing for a contraction of spending in the face of a classic Keynesian fall in aggregate demand? Has he factored in any reductions in military spending?
* Federal regulation of the economy will expand, on everything from financial management companies to electricity generation and personal energy use.
--> I guess because he said so and because Democrats and liberals are the boogey man. BOO!
* The power of labor unions will substantially increase, beginning with repeal of secret ballot voting to decide on union representation.
--> I have mixed feelings about labor organizing and secret ballots vs card checks. However, I don't see the unalloyed evil of increased Union power relative to corporate power.
* Free speech will be curtailed through the reimposition of the Fairness Doctrine to limit the conservative talk radio that so irritates the liberal establishment.
--> As a liberally and free speech lover, I would not favor a return to the fairness doctrine, but more openness of broadband for more forms of communication. Also, we need to stop using copyright as a knee jerk reaction to bolster Disney's profits. In the digital era, everything is a copy, so we need to rethink the balance between fair use and private interests. Anyway, again, has Obama said he wants the fairness doctrine to come back?
Its OK If You Are A Republican.
I love that one. My Father in Law sent me this op ed from the Wall Street Journal by one Pete DuPont called the "Europeanization of America." I point out some of the problems with his list of horrible things that will befall us below. But let me make a metapoint. When it comes to questions of curriculum or culture, the Conservatives are usually quick to invoke the idea of a deep and abiding continuum of "Western" thought from the Greeks through to our own superior culture and soceity. I point out that much of that Western traditions happened, in, you know, Europe. Of course, when it suits their purpose, they are quick to use "Europe," historically and currently a place marked for its unity and homogeneity of peoples, languages, culture, and for its ability to get along just hunky dory without wars of words or weapons, as the qunitessential example of degenerate, misguided and dangerous cultural, social,a nd economic precedent.
Contradiction? IOKIYAR.
Argumentation marked by selective cherry picking of ideas to meet pre-conceived notions? IOKIYAR.
Anyway, back to Mr. Du Pont's list of baseless assertions and falsehoods. My responses come after the arrows --> .
I don't know where they get this stuff. Off the top of my head...
* The U.S. military will withdraw from Iraq quickly and substantially, regardless of conditions on the ground or the obvious consequence of emboldening terrorists there and around the globe.
--> The Iraqi government has signed on to this, so it is what they want. If victory is a sovereign Iraq, then that is prima facie evidence of their sovereignty isn’t it?
* Protectionism will become our national trade policy; free trade agreements with other nations will be reduced and limited.
--> he has said that we should strengthen environmental and labor protections. Ricardo himself, the grandpa of free trade theory, wrote that the factors that matter are natural factors like climate and not artificial ones like costs of labor. Why not have a global wage floor pegged to currency differences. Or at least one for companies operating in the global economy? We have other global regulations for the flow of capital or copyright protection. Fair trade is a real policy agenda, even if he wants to put his fingers in his ears.
* Income taxes will rise on middle- and upper-income people and businesses, and individuals will pay much higher Social Security taxes, all to carry out the new president's goals of "spreading the wealth around."
--> Out of context quote. Obama said we all benefit when there is a middle class that ahs money to spend. Also, is he arguing for an end to progressive taxation? Also, the proportion of the federal budget that comes from payroll taxes has been GOING UP. There is wealth transfer-from the working classes UP, compared to what it was in the past.
* Federal government spending will substantially increase. The new Obama proposals come to more than $300 billion annually, for education, health care, energy, environmental and many other programs, in addition to whatever is needed to meet our economic challenges. Mr. Obama proposes more than a 10% annual spending growth increase, considerably higher than under the first President Bush (6.7%), Bill Clinton (3.3%) or George W. Bush (6.4%).
--. Is he arguing for a contraction of spending in the face of a classic Keynesian fall in aggregate demand? Has he factored in any reductions in military spending?
* Federal regulation of the economy will expand, on everything from financial management companies to electricity generation and personal energy use.
--> I guess because he said so and because Democrats and liberals are the boogey man. BOO!
* The power of labor unions will substantially increase, beginning with repeal of secret ballot voting to decide on union representation.
--> I have mixed feelings about labor organizing and secret ballots vs card checks. However, I don't see the unalloyed evil of increased Union power relative to corporate power.
* Free speech will be curtailed through the reimposition of the Fairness Doctrine to limit the conservative talk radio that so irritates the liberal establishment.
--> As a liberally and free speech lover, I would not favor a return to the fairness doctrine, but more openness of broadband for more forms of communication. Also, we need to stop using copyright as a knee jerk reaction to bolster Disney's profits. In the digital era, everything is a copy, so we need to rethink the balance between fair use and private interests. Anyway, again, has Obama said he wants the fairness doctrine to come back?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
