What if Eisenhower’s budget were your (grandparents’) family’s?
What if Eisenhower’s budget were your (grandparents’) family’s? What if Kennedy’s were? How about LBJ’s? Nixon’s? What if Reagan’s were your parents’ or your own family’s? How about G.H.W. Bush’s? Clinton’s? G.W. Bush’s?
One of my pet peeves is the use by political reporters and pundits of sophistic or downright imbecilic supposed analogies. (Like last week’s classic from Politco’s Jim VandeHei, analogizing Obama’s justification for agreeing to team up with a Super PAC, notwithstanding his opposition to the Citizens United decision, to a teenager’s refrain that he wants to what “everyone else” is doing—as if what the teen’s friends are doing would have a profound effect on the teenager and others unless that teenager went along.)
So this morning when I clicked on the Yahoo News page, my opening page for one of the web browsers I use, and saw that one of the featured videos was a clip from last night’s ABC Nightly News broadcast, titled “What if Obama’s Budget Were Your Family’s?”, I shook my head in dismay at the sheer persistence of this ridiculously false analogy.
The clip begins with Diane Sawyer introducing a piece by ABC’s White House correspondent Jake Tapper purporting to explain Obama’s submitted budget by reducing the basic amounts of money—the budget total, the deficit in the budget, and the amount of debt already owed—by lopping off eight zeroes at the end, so that $38 trillion becomes $38,000 (a plausible middle-class annual expenditure), for example. In this analogy, the family’s annual deficit is about $9,000, because this is a so-called working-class family whose annual income is $29,000. The $9,000 deficit will be added to the family’s already-existing “credit card” debt of $153,000. Or something.
The clip then shows Tapper at Jay Carney’s press briefing yesterday asking whether, given the increase in amount of debt after one year, this isn’t irresponsible. Tapper then moves to a Feb. 2009 clip of Obama promising to reduce the deficit his administration inherited, by one-half. Tapper says Obama’s budget breaks this promise.
Which it does, assuming that the promise wasn’t based partly on a proposal to end most of the Bush tax cuts. The clip is, well, clipped, so its context is missing. But since Obama’s attempts to end enough of the Bush tax cuts to substantially lower the deficit have been blocked by the Republicans, any reference to this broken promise should give Obama the opportunity to point this out. All he has to do is actually take that opportunity to do that. Which, with Obama, is problematic.
But as for the tiresome family-budget analogy, Obama himself is partly to blame for its persistence, having (stupefyingly) adopted it, repeatedly, himself rather than explaining the easily explainable: that the analogy is false and destructive. Basic Keynesian economics is really not very hard to explain, so why make false representations of economic fact that undermine your policy positions, rather than bother to explain it?
But even just taking the analogy on its own terms, I’m wondering why all of that working-class family’s current $153,000 debt is described as credit card debt rather than, say, mortgage debt, or student-loan debt, or car-purchase debt owed as monthly car payments (and necessary for the family breadwinners to get to work). Or why the credit card debt might not reflect necessary purchases such as food and gas, or, say, a furnace or roof replacement for the home. Is their income too low for them to own a home? Have a car? Take out college loans?
And this is not even to mention that families cannot raise their annual income by deciding to do so, as governments can by, say, increasing tax receipts.
Which brings me to the point in the title of this post: What if Eisenhower’s budget were your (grandparents’ or parents’) family’s? Really were? What would the country be like now if it had been? What if Kennedy’s were? How about LBJ’s? Nixon’s? How about Reagan’s? G.H.W. Bush’s? Clinton’s? G.W. Bush’s? And what if the current budget, and revenue-raising options, really were like your family’s?
Any takers? Jake Tapper?
I must have missed the period when conservatives agreed to raise enough money in taxes to save up for their wars and recessions.
eisenhower left us with a lot of debt to pay service on when he built the interstate highway system, damn him…what an unnecessary burden for my generation…those old back country roads were just fine…
with interest rates for government borrowing effectively negative, we could borrow now at today’s rates to pay for these programs, and then pay back less than they borrowed at such time in the future as the economy improves and revenues increased…
of course, as steve has showed us, goverment debt doesnt even have to be paid back…
When talking to someone who barely understands their own family budget (or doesn’t have one), there’s a great temptation to simplify by this analogy. I like to turn it around and ask them if they’d repair the roof (which is causing damage to insulation ceiling, floor, etc., in addition to driving them nute) or take night classes (to improve employability and increase income) if they could easily borrow the money at under 2% for 10 years. Or, what if money grew on trees? Would they continue to insist they couldn’t afford it?
It’s still a hard sell because of course they cannot borrow at anywhere near that rate and cannot conceive of being able to do so. It’s an opening to talk about these and other significant differences between their family budget and government.
Unfortunately, they often don’t listen because after all, they’ve heard so many people on TV, and on both sides of the aisle, draw a different analogy.
Beverly,
This line is blantantly false:
“But since Obama’s attempts to end enough of the Bush tax cuts to substantially lower the deficit have been blocked by the Republicans, any reference to this broken promise should give Obama the opportunity to point this out. “
The Republicans could do NOTHING to stop Obama from letting the Bush tax cuts expire. Absolutely nothing. Obama just had to do nothing and they would have been gone. Obama had to actively lobby to keep them and sign them into law.
They are now the Obama tax cuts. His signature is on the act that kept them. Obama made a choice and took actions to make these tax cuts his. So Obama really did break his promise.
I thought this was a reality based blog??
Islam will change
buffpilot:
Oh BS.
The Repubs held hostage Unemployment Benefits and the working credit which benefited most of America’s taxpayers who were earning payroll wages or unemplyed.
“The hundred member Senate was short of votes by 60 voters. Apparently, those 60 votes were necessary to approve the Democratic proposal of renewing low tax rates only for individuals earning up to $200,000. That’s a little high for an average American family.
Republicans complained and blocked the legislation on a procedural vote. They complained that measure failed to extend low tax rates for wealthier Americans. In short, the Reps. Want all of the tax cuts including those that directly or indirectly benefits the top earners. Obama said in a statement, ‘With so much at stake, today’s votes cannot be the end of the discussion,” Obama said in a statement.'” http://www.dailypolitical.com/politics/tax-cuts-blocked-by-republicans-for-middle-class-only.htm
If you want to blame someone, blame the Blue Dogs, who are not Dems, in the Senate.
Eisenhower also had a poverty rate of ~25%. He did a lot of good thinks for many people except those living in poverty which included the elderly.
Bev:
I am not a sovereign monetary entity so I can not create money to pay my debts. The analogy stops there the same as it would for any state (although California came the closest to creating currency) or any member of the European Union.
It is, buffpilot. Here’s the reality: Obama’s promise was that if his policies were adopted—his tax policies as well as his spending policies—the budget deficit would be halved by the end of his first term. I have no idea whether that would have happened, had his policies been adopted. But, no, the Bush tax cuts are not now the Obama tax cuts. The Republicans gave Obama an all-or-nothing choice. Had he opted for nothing during a period of very weak, teetering economic recovery, the recovery (such as it was) would have stalled completely, itself causing a significant reduction in tax revenue. So he opted for all.
Economics is, to understate it, not my bailiwick. But I do understand basic Keynesian economics. And do understand the difference between a family budget and a government budget, and between ordinary expenditures and investment-foundation expenditures, whether by a government or a family. Which is why I dearly hope Obama finally kills the silly, counterproductive, omnipresent false analogy between a family’s budget and a government’s, even though he himself spent his first two years in office rhetorically fueling it so helpfully for the GOP.
And I hope, and think, that if he doesn’t—if he continues to listen to the political advisors who thought (and may still think) it’s just such an irresistibly cute cliché—his affiliated Super PAC or some other Dem Super PAC blitzkreig’s the airwaves with an ad or two simply and concisely deconstructing it.
It is, buffpilot. Here’s the reality: Obama’s promise was that if his policies were adopted—his tax policies as well as his spending policies—the budget deficit would be halved by the end of his first term. I have no idea whether that would have happened, had his policies been adopted. But, no, the Bush tax cuts are not now the Obama tax cuts. The Republicans gave Obama an all-or-nothing choice. Had he opted for nothing during a period of very weak, teetering economic recovery, the recovery (such as it was) would have stalled completely, itself causing a significant reduction in tax revenue. So he opted for all.
Economics is, to understate it, not my bailiwick. But I do understand basic Keynesian economics. And I do understand the difference between a family budget and a government budget, and between ordinary expenditures and investment-foundation expenditures, whether by a government or a family. Which is why I dearly hope Obama finally kills the silly, counterproductive, omnipresent false analogy between a family’s budget and a government’s, even though he himself spent his first two years in office rhetorically fueling it so helpfully for the GOP.
And I hope, and think, that if he doesn’t—if he continues to listen to the political advisors who thought (and may still think) it’s just such an irresistibly cute cliché—his affiliated Super PAC or some other Dem Super PAC blitzkreig’s the airwaves with an ad or two simply and concisely deconstructing it.
It is, buffpilot. Here’s the reality: Obama’s promise was that if his policies were adopted—his tax policies as well as his spending policies—the budget deficit would be halved by the end of his first term. I have no idea whether that would have happened, had his policies been adopted. But, no, the Bush tax cuts are not now the Obama tax cuts. The Republicans gave Obama an all-or-nothing choice. Had he opted for nothing during a period of very weak, teetering economic recovery, the recovery (such as it was) would have stalled completely, itself causing a significant reduction in tax revenue. So he opted for all.
Economics is, to understate it, not my bailiwick. But I do understand basic Keynesian economics. And I do understand the difference between a family budget and a government budget, and between ordinary expenditures and investment-foundation expenditures, whether by a government or a family. Which is why I dearly hope Obama finally kills the silly, counterproductive, omnipresent, false analogy between a family’s budget and a government’s, even though he himself spent his first two years in office rhetorically fueling it so helpfully for the GOP.
And I hope, and think, that if he doesn’t—if he continues to listen to the political advisors who thought (and may still think) it’s just such an irresistibly cute cliché—his affiliated Super PAC or some other Dem Super PAC blitzkreig’s the airwaves with an ad or two simply and concisely deconstructing it.
I think we can say that most people would run their households exactly like the federal government. After all, total household debt is about $14 trillion dollars, which is rather similar to the federal debt I believe…
see, he didnt borrow enough…the country has never reached its full potential because it’s been constricted by the fallacy of government debt…
Beverly
i was all gonna agree with you, but i think you are going too far with poor Obama
the man is spineless. or he’s on the take. he could have faced down the R’s over the unemployment benefits, instead he kept the tax cuts and raised the ante by destroying Social Security.
nor was there any reason to let the tax cuts for “the rich” expire, while keeping the tax cuts for the poor folk earning less than 200k.
this is the kind of thing that destroys the credibility of the left.
Huh? Progressive tax codes destroy the credibility of the left? Keeping in place a lower tax rate from the non-wealthy during a mean recession or an economy with a persistenty very high unemployment rate destroys the credibility of the left?
The Bush tax cuts should not have been put in place. But refusing to remove the cuts even on lower-income people during a time of high unemployment and very slow growth hardly destroys the credibility of the left, coberly.
“So when I clicked on the Yahoo News page, my opening page for one of the web browsers I use, this morning and saw that one of the featured videos was a clip from last night’s ABC Nightly News broadcast, titled “What if Obama’s Budget Were Your Family’s?”, I shook my head in dismay at the sheer persistence of this ridiculously false analogy.”
The same thing happened to me this morning. I laughed my morning coffee out through my nose (it was unpleasant and extremely messy to clean up).
I’m beginning to think I need to change my opening page. Anyone trying to draw an analogy between a family budget and the government’s must have the mentality of a 3 year old.
Mark,
The problem is that a very significant number of 3 year olds are in charge of shaping policy in Washington DC.
Dean Baker with a nice takedown of that same ABC Nightly News broadcast:
http://www.cepr.net/index.php/blogs/beat-the-press/abc-does-unpaid-commerical-announcement-for-the-republicans-on-the-evening-news
Beverly,
BS to you. Obama had to take a positive active roll in keeping the Bush, now Obama, Tax cuts intact. If he had done absolutely nothing the tax cuts would have been gone over a year ago. But Obama pushed to keep them.
These are now the Obama tax cuts. Lock, stock, and barrel.
Come back to reality.
Islam will change
There is so much wrong with this argument, and I am disgusted (but not surprised) that our conservatively biased main-stream media even brought this silly argument up, let alone botched it even more than necessary. Just a few epic failures
1: The US debt and US national income are about the same. So if the family’s income is $29,000, so it its debt…not $153,000
2: The US can borrow for 3% on long-term debt. That’s not a credit card by any stretch of the imagination
3: In this story, the appropriate analogy for tax rates is hours worked. We have the 3rd lowest tax rates in the OECD, which would correspond to mommy being stay-at-home and daddy only working part-time. Also, daddy drives’s a beemer and mommy a new SUV (military spending). These two reasons are the entire reason the family is running a deficit, and then some.
The conclusion right wingers make from this? That daddy needs to cut his hours because he is stressed, and will actually get more done if he works less. And that we should raid junior’s college fund, ignore the leaky roof, and skip regular dental checkups so that we can replace the 5-year old SUV.
Beverly
i am afraid it does. and i am sorry it does, because i agreed with you about the stupidity of the household budget analogy.
But obama could have stood up to the R’s on unemployment and won. He didn’t need to destroy social security with a payroll tax holiday, and ending the tax cuts for all would have hurt no one.
what is wrong with “the left” is that they have no sense of proportion. the tax cut for the poor didn’t amount to much. ending it in order to end the same tax cut for the rich, which did amount to much, would have been sane and just. instead we have the idiot left shooting itself in the foot, and the poor in the gut, because they can’t bring themselves to see around the word “progressive.”
You can have progressive taxes, and be perfectly sane. You can’t have “no taxes for me, but tax the rich” and be sane or taken seriously.
200k is not “poor.” and if you are making much more than 50k and whining about taxes, you have the brains and moral development of a six year old.
moral development of a six year old
is not an “insult” it is based on my memory (over thirty years ago) of Lawrence Kohlberg’s work on moral development.
i have been dismayed to watch “the left” reveal here that in spite of it’s high toned rhetoric about social responsibility and care for the poor, it turns out that their policies are based on primitive self interest.
it’s one thing to call for programs to “help” the poor. it becomes another thing when you have 200k or 100k or 50k and call yourself “poor” and demand “the rich” pay for it.
A case in point that particularly galls me is that Social Security could be (could have been) “saved” by raising the “tax” on average workers by about forty cents per week per year. But no liberal groups have endorsed such a straightforward and honest approach (the beneficiaries paying for their own benefits), in stead they want “the rich” to be taxed at 12% on their income over 250 k (does that let me out) for benefits they won’t get.
and their tender heartedness, not to mention adherence to “progressive” principles will ultimately lead to no SS at all, and the poor house for the really poor. great work libs.
run
not to justify ike… but in the 1950’s we were still coming off the Great Depression… not that those who go by the newspapers would understand this, but the damage that was caused to real people by the depression took a generation or two to heal. there was poverty in appalachia and i would guess most of the rural, especially black, South. pretty hard to address by government policy in a few years. and, i think, “most” of us were a good deal poorer by today’s standards than most of us realize… in spite of the “no wage increases” story we keep hearing. poverty, by today’s standards, used to be the norm.
as it happened Roosevelt set in motion the machinery for fixing this. Ike endorsed the New Deal. LBJ made a good start toward “accomplishing” it, but tripped himself over Vietnam. and, of course, the Old South.
I don’t know what the “official” poverty rate is today, but i bet it isn’t much different from the 25% you cite for Ike. It is not an easy problem to cure. And won’t be cured by slogans.