Relevant and even prescient commentary on news, politics and the economy.

Apparently there’s a special place in hell for Democratic politicians who criticize Barack Obama as insufficiently progressive. And a special place in heaven for politicians who have accepted $133,246 from the private-prisons industry but tell Black and Hispanic voters at a debate shortly before the Nevada caucuses and South Carolina primary that they want to end the private-prison system.

Nicholas Kristof 

✔@NickKristof

Clinton is accusing Sanders of being anti-Obama. Feels fake and contrived to me, and rather nasty.

10:47 PM – 11 Feb 2016 Twitter

___

What worries me more than anything else about a Clinton general election campaign is her propensity to say obviously silly things. Elsewhere in that speech, in Clinton, IA on Friday, she again repeated her (and her daughter’s) complaint—without any hint of recognition of irony—that Sanders’ single-payer healthcare insurance plan would kill Obamacare.  As if it weren’t the very purpose of a single-payer healthcare insurance system to eliminate private healthcare insurance for the benefits that the single-payer plan provides.  As if the purpose of Obamacare was to create some living monument to Obama, rather than to provide healthcare insurance to people who had no access to it, and provide decent insurance to people who had policies that provided almost no coverage. [Italics added.]

Is it just me, or is the Clinton campaign’s take on how to appeal to African-American voters really demeaning, Me, Feb. 3, quoting myself in a Jan. 24 post.

Okay, good.  It’s not just me.  It’s also New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof.  And David Strauss of Politico, who at 9:57 last night posted a short article titled “Clinton namechecks Obama over and over again.”  There was still an hour left in the debate then, so make that “Clinton namechecks Obamaover and over and over and over and over again.”

But, hey.  All three of us are white.  And Black folk might not get what she’s doing.  And any who think they do would be wrong.  Like all of us women who mistakenly thought Clinton had, throughout her campaign, bludgeon-like, been asking women to vote for her because she’s a woman.

All those incessant Pavlovian references to women?  And last week, her declaration that Sanders must be the only person who thought she was a member of the political and economic establishment, because she’s running to be the first woman president and by dint of that fact clearly has no connection whatsoever to the politically and economically very, very powerful?  Or even to the slightly powerful?  She disabused us last night of the misconception that she was asking women to vote for her because she’s a woman.  Instead she was asking us to vote for her because she has no connection to the politically and economically powerful.

So, too, she surely will assure African-American voters that she obviously is just really fond of Barack Obama, not to mention every last one of his policy initiatives and legislative successes—although she does mention this, mantra-like, in canned statements, like a Chatty Cathy doll.  But only to illustrate the point that she’s really fond of him, not to piggyback on what she presumes is wholesale, categorical deification of him among Black voters.

Including those Black voters who still don’t have healthcare insurance, or who have or fear large healthcare expenses notwithstanding that they do have insurance.  Obamacare must be preserved because it’s, well, Obamacare.  Which is why universal healthcare, while a theoretical goal of hers, is not something that she would pursue.  Because she knows how offensive that would be to African-Americans.

Luckily, too, she knows how offensive it would be to African-Americans if they knew that her campaign accepted $133,246 from the two largest private-prison companies, CCA and GEO, and their lobbyistsThat’s barely less than the $133,450 that that crowd donated for Marco Rubio—longtime puppet of the owner of the second-largest of the two, GEO, dating to his time as speaker of the Florida House, that resulted in what appears to have been actual quid pro quo legislation and contracts he pushed through.  So Clinton didn’t mention her campaign-finance ties to this industry.

Instead, she said she wants to end private prisons.

Good idea!  Especially since it probably played well with African-American and Hispanic viewers last night, given that Sanders—who has campaigned on ending private prisons—(inexplicably) didn’t mention her campaign-finance ties to that industry. But presumably he will, and soon, in ads, at rallies, and in interviews.

Clinton learned the wrong lesson from Pavlov. Even if dogs could vote.  There has to be some actual meat involved.

Clinton’s not a single-issue candidate, and she does not believe we live in a single-issue country. That’s what she said in her closing statement last night, which the pundits apparently think is her breakthrough line.  Neither, it seems, is she a single-industry benefactor.

And Sanders is not a single-issue candidate.  Nor is he someone who’s so late to this particular party.

Maybe Clinton hasn’t noticed that Sanders has been talking regularly since the outset of his campaign about the private-prison industry.  Or maybe she just thinks that no one else has noticed; well, no one who’s Black or Hispanic, and on that she might be right.

She also reiterated last night in that closing statement that wants to get unaccountable money out of politics. But only unaccountable money.  The donations that the private-prison industry paid to her, and to Rubio in this campaign and his earlier ones, are accountable, although I have no idea to whom.  But I guess that explains why she didn’t mention them along with her assurance that she wants to kill the industry. They’re accountable.

Sanders does not believe we live in a single-issue country, either. He can, and does, connect the dots among issues.

He also can do basic math and assumes that most voters can, too.  Clinton said last night that she isvery proud of the fact that we have more than 750,000 donors, and the vast majority of them are giving small contributions. … We both have a lot of small donors.”  According to a report discussed in The Blaze today, “[l]ast year’s fundraising reports show that Sanders raised fully 72 percent of his campaign money from people who gave $200 or less, while for Clinton those donors accounted for just 16 percent of her funds.”

Sanders, for his part, is very proud of the fact that he can do multiplication and division and knows how to use a calculator to figure out that one donation directly to a campaign of $2,700 is the same amount as 90 donations of $30 each. And that, say, five donations totaling $333,246 total the same amount as 4,441 donations of $30 each. This is a sleight of hand that Clinton repeats often.  In the name of honesty, of course.

An article titled “Top Hillary Clinton Advisers and Fundraisers Lobbied Against Obamacare and Dodd-Frank,” by Lee Fang, published in The Intercept on February 8, downright stunned me (AB reader Beene linked to it a few days ago in a Comments thread to one of my posts here, which is how I know of it it).  It has received surprisingly little attention but surely will receive quite a bit if Clinton wins the nomination and Trump is her general-election opponent.  It describes a revolving-door setup by which several people very close to the Clintons dating back to Bill Clinton’s presidency are now consultants who represent a slew of financial-services, healthcare insurance, and other industry mainstays of intense political lobbying, and who lobbied against Obamacare and Dodd-Frank and proposed legislation to allow Medicare to negotiate drug and medical-device prices, are now major financial benefactors of the Clinton campaign as key consultants to the campaign.

It’s damning not just for the obvious reasons, but also for its highlighting of an especially troubling aspect of Hillary Clinton: her dependence for just about everything upon a large group of people closely affiliated with the Clintons since the early 1990s. People who owe their extensive wealth to this couple. It strikes me as creepy. Like something out of the old Soviet Union Politburo apparatus.

Then again, it’s not like she’s a male, or anything.

It seems to me that in considering which of the two candidates would be the strongest in the general election, Democrats need to consider the breadth of topics that would be extremely helpful to the nominee but that Clinton will be severely hamstrung in pressing.

As for Sanders, it’s past time that he begin informing the public of Clinton’s financial support from the private-prison industry. Democratic voters are entitled to this information.  As well as to the information about the consultant/Clinton-affiliates Politburo apparatus.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , Comments (2) | |

Drum on Drum on Sanders on Welfare Reform

I have the impression that this new post by Kevin Drum is a response to objections to his earlier post made, among other places, here at angrybearblog. I get the impression that I wasn’t one of many who made the same objection.

In any case it is a big improvement. Also I learned stuff I should have known already from it.

I think it is very worth reading and advise you to click the link.

Following Drum (and snipping from his blog) I will comment on a figure from “$2.00 a Day: Living on Almost Nothing in America,” by Kathryn Edin and Luke Shaefer.

fromdrum

Drum commented

The green line is the one to pay attention to if you want to know the comprehensive effect of all changes to the social welfare system over the past couple of decades. And what it shows is that the percentage of households with children in extreme poverty increased from about 1 percent to 1.5 percent. That represents an increase of fewer than 500,000 households.

In other words, if we simply handed over $10,000 to every household with children in extreme poverty, it would cost only about $15 billion. Given that we spend about $1 trillion annually on social welfare benefits, this is peanuts. It’s not money that prevents us from addressing deep poverty, it’s political preference. Welfare reform was very deliberately crafted to reduce payments to people who don’t work, and one of the effects of that is a small increase in extreme poverty.

Now I don’t consider a 50% increase a small increase.

At his blog I commented again.

I think this post is a mostly satisfactory response to my criticism of your earlier post.

I certainly agree with your current theory of Sanders- that he “doesn’t really want to dive into this because he knows it’s a big hot button.” I’d add your earlier point that a lot of working class whites hate welfare. I am sure that it would be unwise for any egalitarian to discuss welfare reform during a campaign.

On the other hand, I have two criticisms of your current relevant graph (which is a huge improvement over the graph in the earlier post).

First somewhat 500,000 US families with childred living on less than $2 a day *including SNAP* is not a small problem. They include over a million people.

But second, the inclusion of SNAP makes a huge difference. I have argued against looking at the poverty rate and welfare reform because AFDC and TANF benefits don’t get families over the line. But once you include SNAP it is very hard to not get over $2 a day each (as the graph shows).

Finally your point that the money needed to eliminate severe poverty is tiny compared to total social welfare spending is my point (I stressed it). Similarly each of us has repeatedly written things to the effect that “It’s not money that prevents us from addressing deep poverty, it’s political preference.” I did most recently yesterday in my comment here there posted here and also in this different more pointless post here

However, income including SNAP and section 8 housing vouchers under the poverty line implies grim poverty. It is a level which was introduced in the 50s (before SNAP and section 8) as a level below which no one should have to be. I’d be interested in a graph of the fraction of households whose income including SNAP and section 8 is under the poverty line. I don’t have the micro data, but I will google.

The point is a single point in the distribution (poverty line without SNAP or $2 each a day with SNAP) can be highly misleading. The narrowing gap between the red and blue curves shows a huge proportional change due to welfare reform. I think if the line was moved from income including SNAP less than $2 each a day to income including snap less than $2 a day plus maximum SNAP benefits, then a similarly huge proportional change would be observed. I think $2 a day plus maximum SNAP is a reasonable definition of severe poverty.

Comments (1) | |

Monetary Policy in an Open Economy

by Joseph Joyce

Monetary Policy in an Open Economy

The recent research related to the trilemma (see here) confirms that policymakers who are willing to sacrifice control of the exchange rate or capital flows can implement monetary policy. For most central banks, this means using a short-term interest rate, such as the Federal Funds rate in the case of the Federal Reserve in the U.S. or the Bank of England’s Bank Rate. But the record raises doubts about whether this is sufficient to achieve the policymakers’ ultimate economic goals.

The short-term interest rate does not directly affect investment and other expenditures. But it can lead to a rise in long-term rates, which will have an effect on spending by firms and households. The relationship of short-term and long-term rates appears in the yield curve. This usually has a positive slope to reflect expectations of future short-term real rates, future inflation and a term premium. Changes in short-term rates can lead to movements in long-term rates, but in recent years the long-term rates have not always responded as central bankers have wished. Former Federal Reserve Chair Alan Greenspan referred to the decline in U.S. long-term rates in 2005 as a “conundrum.” This problem is exacerbated in other countries’ financial markets, where long-term interest rates are affected by U.S. rates (see, for example, here andhere) and global factors.

Central banks that sought to increase spending during the global financial crisis by lowering interest rates faced a new obstacle: the zero lower bound on interest rates. Policymakers who could not lower their nominal policy rates any further have sought to increase inflation in order to bring down real rates. To accomplish, they devised a new policy tool, quantitative easing. Under these programs, central bankers purchased large amounts of bonds with longer maturities than they use for open market transactions and from a variety of issuers in order to bring down long-term rates. The U.S. engaged in such purchases between 2008 and 2014, while the European Central Bank and the Bank of Japan are still engaged in similar transactions. As a consequence of these purchases, the balance sheets of central banks swelled enormously.

Tags: Comments (1) | |

‘Both of us share the goal of this and that. But only one of us will try to score the goal.’

This is not about math — this is about people’s lives, and we should level with the American people.  Every progressive economist who has analyzed that say the numbers don’t add up. And we should level with the American people about what we can do to get quality affordable health care.

– Hillary Clinton, at tonight’s debate

Yes.  Leveling would be good.

Repeatedly tonight, Clinton said, as she has in earlier debates, that both she and Sanders share this goal, or that goal.  She shares the goal of universal healthcare coverage, for example.  She just doesn’t want there to actually be universal healthcare coverage, because that would increase the size of government.

She estimated that the government would grow 40 percent under Sanders’ proposed policies. Policy goals which she shares.  Just not the percent.

She’s leveling with the American people, though.  She does think universal healthcare coverage is a nice goal, although not one that she has any plans at all to accomplish.  Because this is about people’s lives.  Just not the people who are uninsured.  And not the people who are among the 90% who she incessantly says have healthcare insurance, but who struggle to pay the premiums and live in fear of actually needing healthcare and having to pay several thousands of dollars in medical bills before the coverage kicks in—a fact she is blind to.

Universal financial access to college is another of Sanders’ goals that she shares.  She absolutely leveled with the American people that she shares that goal.  As a goal.  Just not one she plans to score.

Good thing she’s just running for president.  Rather than, say, playing professional hockey or soccer.  Or football.  Some game in which players have to try to score.  The game she’s playing isn’t one of them.

She’s leveled with the American people about what, in her opinion, we can do to get quality affordable health care: Nothing further.  And that is what tomorrow’s headlines should say.

Tags: , , , , Comments (6) | |

Projecting a Recession from 2013

I woke up today to see oil below $27 a barrel, the US 10-year at 1.6% and the Dow down to 15,600. How quickly the economy is faltering. It is a crazy moment.

Oil below $29 a barrel creates Geo-political tensions that can create attacks of aggression. Other countries have already tried to negotiate with the Saudis to raise oil prices… and now oil is slipping to even new lows. A tense situation for oil producers.

The US 10-year hitting 1.6% so fast over the past month seems to be building downward momentum. The yield curve is trying hard to flatten even with short-term rates near zero.

Recession seems imminent. Will it happen?

I called a recession this year based on my assessment of effective demand. Others like Tim Duy and Janet Yellen do not see a recession this year. But they lack an understanding of effective demand.

I have seen this coming for a couple of years.

Back in September of 2013, using my Aggregate Supply- Effective Demand model, I saw that an effective demand limit was forming at a Real GDP around $16 trillion (2009 $$). The AS-ED model was only developed in April, 2013.

Here is an image from a post back then.

ased3

I saw that the effective demand lines were bunching together setting up a Long-run Aggregate Supply zone around $16.1 trillion, where the aggregate supply and effective demand lines would meet.

I wrote in September, 2013…

“The blue dots along the bottom are real GDP on the aggregate supply curves increasing at an inflation rate around 2%. Real GDP will most likely continue this path over the next year, shown by lower dashed black line. The dashed black line above shows the effective demand limit coming steadily downward toward the LRAS zone. (LRAS is long-run aggregate supply). Real GDP and effective demand will meet at the LRAS zone. What will happen when they meet? … If real GDP keeps growing at around $100 billion per quarter as it did in 2nd quarter 2013, real GDP will enter the LRAS zone in mid 2014.
.
The recession of 1980 followed the same pattern. The effective demand lines had been pointing toward an effective demand limit for 3 years since 1975. Then Real GDP hit the ED limit in 3rd quarter, 1978. A recession began to form and was official 2 years later. (link) (Note: The red dots in this graph show Real GDP moving with core inflation.)
ased4

Eventually in a post in August of 2014, I projected…

“The projection now is for real GDP to enter the zone of the effective demand limit between $16.000 trillion and $16.160 trillion. This will happen before 2014 ends assuming the calibration of 0.762 for effective labor share is within a close margin of error.”

So what happened?

aded2

Update Note: The red dots in this graph show the crossing points between aggregate supply and effective demand. These red dots are different from the red dots in the previous graph. These red dots show the equilibrium so to speak between aggregate supply and effective demand. In both graphs, the crossing points expanded upward as Real GDP hit the effective demand zone (LRAS).

The equilibrium points began to rise when Real GDP hit $16.1 trillion. That is a sign of hitting the effective demand limit. This happened before the end of 2014, just as I had predicted. When effective demand rises in the LRAS zone, the dynamics of the economy are on the downside of the business cycle, just starting downward.

Ever since the end of 2014, the economy has been faltering. I predicted that the Dow would orbit 17,300 through 2015. And it did.  I gave a 70% chance of recession this year back in January. (link, see comments.)

If this cycle is like the cycle before the 1980 recession, we would see a recession about 2 years after hitting the effective demand limit… That would put a recession this year, 2016, in the summer or fall.

So I got glimpses of the effective demand limit upon Real GDP as early as September, 2013.  We have seen this coming for years.

Comments (22) | |

Drum on Sanders on Welfare Reform

Kevin Drum wrote “Here’s Why Bernie Sanders Doesn’t Say Much About Welfare Reform”
He presents a graph of total social welfare spending in the USA divided by the number of people in households under 150% of the poverty line.

He concludes

“There are two obvious takeaways from this. First, overall spending on social welfare programs has increased by 3x since 1980. That’s pretty substantial. Second, if the 1996 welfare reform act had any effect on this steady rise in spending, you’d need a chart the size of my house to make it out. Perhaps Bernie Sanders knows this, and understands that in the great scheme of things, welfare reform just isn’t worth fighting over anymore.”

I am trying to control my outrage which is all the more bitter, because I have such a high opinion of Kevin Drum. Briefly, I think his post has no merit whatsoever and is not defensible.

The title discusses the presidential campaign. On this point, I agree with commenter CAinDC that Sanders doesn’t discuss welfare reform, because he knows his position is extremely unpopular. It is a matter of politics (appropriate to a campaign) not policy. Politicians who hate and detest the 1996 welfare reform law don’t (and shouldn’t) mention it, because they know that, if forced to choose, many voters will choose welfare reform over them. I entirely agree with Sanders’s and Clinton’s decision to discuss the issue as little as possible. I think it is best to try to undo the damage of welfare reform by stealth, by proposing a new program and calling it anything but AFDC or welfare *and* by making sure that, even if it is less efficient policy, it doesn’t look at all like AFDC.

In fact, Kevin Drum knows this perfectly well. In 2014 he wrote

why does the WWC [white working class] continue to loathe Democrats so badly? I think the answer is as old as the discussion itself: They hate welfare. There was a hope among some Democrats that Bill Clinton’s 1996 welfare reform would remove this millstone from around Democrats’ necks,

With, at most, a moment of thought, he must understand why Sanders doesn’t talk about welfare reform — he answered the question in 2014.

But the post isn’t just a answer to the question about Sanders’s political strategy. It includes a discussion of welfare reform, and the assertion that welfare reform didn’t have a big impact on average US economic well being (confusingly the technical term used by economists for this is “welfare” which I will reserve for AFDC/TANF). I disagree with this assertion. Oddly I first saw the very very convincing evidence against the assertion in the current Kevin Drum post in an earlier Kevin Drum post which noted the dramatic increase in severe poverty (income below half the poverty line)*.

The post as written just will not do. Drum looks at a ratio of total inflation adjusted dollars to a number of people when discussing social welfare spending. If one thinks that the effect on well being of a dollar is about the same whether it goes to one person or another — that the total not the distribution matters — then one can conclude that welfare reform wasn’t very bad. One must also conclude that optimal social welfare spending is zero. The argument that AFDC disbursed a small number of dollars so it didn’t have a big effect on average economic well being can only be justified by the assumption that a dollar to the extremely poor is just like a dollar to someone at 1.5 times the poverty line. If this assumption, which Drum must make to argue that his graph is relevant, were valid, then there would be no justification for AFDC, TANF, the EITC, SNAP, or Social security. It is not OK to ignore inequality when discussing social welfare policy. This is, in fact, exactly what Drum did. Partly because of my great respect for Drum, I am putting this as politely as I possibly can after prolonged efforts to calm myself.

The point is that there has been an increase in inequality among people who receive means tested benefits. If one cares about the distribution of income at all, one should not ignore this. Consider a family with no cash income. They are not helped at all by the EITC or the minimum wage. They will get food stamps. They have a small chance of getting a rent voucher (one in 10 poor people live in a family which gets one). At least the children will get medicaid (not the parents in some states).

People can’t live on food and medical care alone. The increase in the cost of medical care (which includes both inflation and genuine increase in care provided as new treatments are discovered) can’t substitute for clothing and shelter.

Now one might ask if we can tell, for sure, whether welfare reform had large effects. The answer is yes, because there was a genuine experiment in Florida. It is now known, as well as anything can be known in the social sciences — that welfare reform killed people.

http://angrybearblog.com/2013/06/welfare-reform-kills.html

I stress that it is hard to generalize from the case of Florida, because the Florida reform included an extraordinarily high level of support for former AFDC recipients. It is almost certain that simple extrapolation of the solid experimental results would lead to an underestimate of the number of people who have been killed by welfare reform. It is very important that the deadly effects of welfare reform were reported by supporters of welfare reform who were surprised by the results — this makes the paper much more convincing.

Now one might argue that those deaths are no big deal. I suspect that, nationwide since 1996, they are not many orders of magnitude greater than 3000. If you think 9/11 was a minor matter, then you might consider welfare reform to be a minor matter too.

In any case, even if you decide you don’t believe in experimental results, you should understand that Drum’s post is indefensible. He bases his discussion of social welfare policy on the assumption that the distribution of social welfare spending doesn’t matter. If his graph is relevant, we shouldn’t mind if all social welfare spending were converted to a block grant to Bill Gates. The post is one huge category error and unworthy of Kevin Drum. Hell it would even be unworthy of me.

Comments (2) | |

Yes, she changed her vote

“You will not find that I ever changed a view or a vote because of any donation that I ever received.”

 

If you have not seen it, there is a youtube cut of a Bill Moyers show in which Senator Warren explains just how dramatically Hillary Clinton changed her vote.  It is dramatic, as Mrs. Clinton’s initial position actually resulted in her husband vetoing the bill in 2000.  But, once she became a New York senator….

 

Clinton has to know we live in the digital age?  Did she really think that she was safe with such a statement?  As Samantha Bee noted regarding the repubs failing a presidential test of walking to the podium…Clinton fails too.  And yet again shows that her campaign style is totally out of the repubs play book.

Tags: , , Comments (15) | |

Do Canadians and Scandinavians Really Not Work and Really Have No Children? (This is a rhetorical question for Kathleen Parker. Or maybe not rhetorical; you decide.)

Socialism has always appealed to the young, the cure for which isn’t age but responsibility. This usually comes in the form of taxes and children, both of which involve working and sacrificing for the benefit of others, the extent of which forms the axis upon which all politics turns. That Sanders never outgrew his own socialist-rebellious tendencies — We’re going to have a revolution! — is vaguely interesting, but not his best recommendation for commander in chief, among other presidential roles.

What Steinem, Albright, and Clinton don’t get about millennial women, Kathleen Parker, Washington Post, today

Okay, well, taxes and children, and healthcare insurance premiums and healthcare bills not covered by insurance, and day care and college costs for those children—all of which involve working and sacrificing for the benefit of others.

The extent of which forms the axis upon which all politics turns.  Well, post-trickle-down, Great-Recession, stagnant-wages, wildly-escalating-healthcare-and-college-costs, Citizens-United, politics anyway.

At least that seems to be the main message of this presidential primary election season. Although the message is encrypted and therefore indecipherable to a good many political opinion writers.

A fun parlor game for me (okay, I don’t have a parlor, so I play this game usually sitting in a rocking chair in my bedroom, laptop on my lap) has been reading the contortions that center-left or center-right political columnists employ by way of pretending that Bernie Sanders is a Communist, and trying to guess whom they think they will convince.  Most fun of all to read are the Washington Post’s cadre, and Kathleen Parker has been especially prolific in the last week.  A few days ago, in a column titled “The fight over Hillary Clinton’s speaking fees is ridiculous,” she wrote:

Unfortunately, the Democratic base has been electrified by the notion that the poor are poor because the rich are rich. To this zero-sum interpretation of income inequality, a friend always responds: How many poor people has Oprah created?

None, I’m sure.  But if Oprah were currently taxed at the rate she would have been during the Reagan administration—not to mention the Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson or Nixon ones—there likely would be far fewer poor people in this country, some of them, for example, having been able to afford to get a college degree at a public university funded primarily through taxes rather than by tuition and legacy donations that dramatically impacted admissions into the freshman class.

Actually, the Democratic base has been electrified by the notion that higher taxes on the wealthy will give them (and many others) a shot at entering or remaining in the middle class. And of having access to health care without fearing bankruptcy or having to forget about paying their kid’s college tuition this year. And of being able to afford good child care and be able to get the roof replaced.

That Parker never outgrew her own Commie-baiting tendencies is vaguely interesting, but not her best recommendation for another Pulitzer Prize.

Then there is Ruth Marcus, a Yale University and Harvard Law School alum, who in a column about Sanders late last month said that the proposition that “helping Americans get ahead with more skills, more jobs and more wealth,” and the proposition that “the deck is stacked against everyday Americans and we need to focus on breaking up Wall Street banks and raising taxes on the wealthy,” are mutually exclusive.  In referencing a recent poll by the self-styled centrist group Dumb Way—er, Third Wayshe wrote:

Given the choice of a candidate who promotes “helping Americans get ahead with more skills, more jobs and more wealth,” or one who emphasizes that “the deck is stacked against everyday Americans and we need to focus on breaking up Wall Street banks and raising taxes on the wealthy,” voters chose the growth message over the deck-stacked argument, 66 percent to 21 percent.

Because of course proposals to break up Wall Street banks and to raise taxes on the wealthy have nothing to do with helping Americans get ahead with more skills, more jobs and more wealth.  Those proposals are just for the sake of breaking up Wall Street banks and raising taxes on the wealthy.  As a hobby.  And if I had gone to Yale and Harvard I’m sure I would see this.  But I didn’t, so I stupidly think proposals to break up Wall Street banks and to raise taxes on the wealthy have everything to do with helping Americans get ahead with more skills, more jobs and more wealth.

Shows you what I know.  Silly me.  I even thought that Scandinavians and Canadians work and have children.  Instead it turns out that Scandinavians and Canadians are children. Who will grow up one day and finally begin working and having children of their own.  At which point they will no longer need healthcare.  Or want to avoid bankruptcy if they do.

Tags: , , , , , Comments (6) | |