July 14, 2004
10 Partisan Myths
In last week’s Newsweek (yep, I’m behind in my reading), there was a very interesting article called 10 Partisan Myths. It’s an excerpt from Peter G. Peterson’s new book, Running On Empty : How The Democratic and Republican Parties Are Bankrupting Our Future and What Americans Can Do About It. I’d love just to copy the whole article, but that’d be immoral and illegal, so I’ll just highlight the five myths he claims each party holds dear. The Democratic myths are about entitlements, and the Republican myths are about taxes.
FIVE DEMOCRATIC MYTHS ABOUT ENTITLEMENTS
- Because federal benefits go to the poor, reform will amount to a shedding of our social safety net.
- Even if they don't go to the poor, federal benefits foster equality by going mostly to lower-income households.
- Federal benefits go to the elderly, who everyone knows are much less well off than younger Americans.
- Social Security and Medicare are earned rights by contract; beneficiaries are only getting back what they paid in.
- The future growth in the cost of senior benefits, whatever they may be, can easily be borne by younger generations.
Basically, he says that entitlements don't directly help the poor as much as Democrats think, and that senior entitlements are an unearned burden that will grow larger than the country can handle.
FIVE REPUBLICAN TAX MYTHS ABOUT TAX CUTS
- Because the American people are overtaxed, they want and deserve our tax cuts.
- OK, forget the long-term tax burden. Our tax cuts are still a sensible near-term means of stimulating a weak economy back to health.
- Even when they don't deliver near-term stimulus, tax cuts make the tax code more efficient. Over the years, many tax reformers have defended their proposals—creating fewer tax brackets, establishing a national value-added or "flat" income tax, or phasing out the taxation of estates or dividends—by citing efficiency advantages.
- The critics just don't get it. What our tax cuts are really about is improving "supply side" incentives to work, save and invest.
- Let's be honest. This is all about politics. In the long run, our tax cuts will force Congress to cut back spending and, with that, cut back government.
Basically, he says that we aren't overtaxed, supply-side doesn't really work as implemented, and that "Starving the Beast" isn't going to work, either.
He gives a paragraph or two refuting each of these in the excerpt, and I'd assume that he goes into more rigorous detail in the book (which I haven't read).
Of course, I agree with him on the Republican myths (after all, I am a liberal), but I found the Democratic myths interesting. I already didn't believe in the myths he cites about senior entitlements, but I found his analysis of the benefits of entitlements for the poor more challenging.
Is he right? Are these commonly held beliefs? Are these beliefs wrong?
Posted by LawnBoy at July 14, 2004 09:49 PMI think we do need to address the inequities in the system if they truly do exist. If, in theory, our aim is to prevent the problems of poverty from overwhelming the poor and creating a underclass disenfranchised from social opportunity by accident of birth of alone, then we must focus those benefits more in that direction. If we merely indulge our illusions at the expense of taking action, we’ll just make things worse.
As for the Republicans, he’s said many of the things I have. I think the Republican’s attitudes towards fiscal responsibility are more wishful thinking and political games than real policy. You can’t change one part of the system at a time, and try and do so without the cooperation of the other party. Fiscal responsibility is a job both parties must take together, if it is to be taken up at all.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at July 15, 2004 12:03 AMI saw this in Newsweek and was a little puzzled by Democratic Myths #1 and #2. He seems to be thinking of rather naive, complacent Democrats. Certainly, anyone who is at all left-leaning realizes that our country has a very limited social safety net. We don’t hold any illusions that the Democrat Party is going to expand it very much (except possibly in healthcare), but at least a vote for the “D” is less likely to make it worse. You can’t blame Democrats for the fact that we are living Ronald Reagan’s dream, not Lyndon Johnson’s.
#3 has a certain validity. I think more sophisticated Democrats realize that needy seniors are better taken care of than younger people, expecially children, because they vote in large numbers.
Posted by: Woody Mena at July 15, 2004 08:26 AMLawnboy!!!
Bingo!!!!
It’s obvious from my first few posts on this site that I lean toward the conservative side of things, but this has been the true center of my belief for many, many years.
Both sides deal in intellectual and factual dishonesty and, in reality, both sides are now so similar on key issues as to render most elections mute. I don’t believe that 50% of the voting population doesn’t vote because they feel their vote doesn’t count in the final tally, (Florida should have dispelled that theory once and for all) I feel they don’t vote because, regardless of the candidate on either side, the control and policy flows from a powerful and well monied party machine that forces them to adopt the equivalent of a tired corporate mantra regardless of their true beliefs or their best intentions.
We spend a lot of time on sites like these slinging mud at each other’s candidates when the truth is; the candidates and parties aren’t really all that different.
I was a true believer in the Republican Revolution of the early 90’s. Where is it now? Government spending is at record levels, GW has promoted some of the largest government programs in years and they have only just begun. On the Democratic side of the fence, instead of fighting the ‘Revolution’ Bill Clinton completely adopted Newt Gingrich’s contract with America. If I were true to my beliefs, Bill Clinton should be one of my favorite presidents as there wasn’t a conservative policy he didn’t embrace to stay in office, but ran on the same old predictable Democratic rhetoric to stay in office.
I see so little difference between Bush and Kerry, Democrat and Republican that I can’t get excited about the up coming elections. The only thing that keeps me going to the poles is to vote against the reigning party, regardless of who it is, in the Presidency, House or Senate to ensure that there will be a continual revolving door in an attempt to limit the power of any one individual or party.
That’s an interesting viewpoint, Jeff, but I don’t see it. There is such a fundamental divide between the two parties that I find it hard to understand how anyone can’t see it.
Democrats believe that government can help America realize its full potential (Clinton believed - and proved - that it needn’t be at the expense of business), and Republicans believe government should butt out completely (the massive tax cuts are an effort to starve out of existence government programs like Social Security and funding for public schools).
Even though Democrats believe a social safety net is not incompatible with economic growth, and Republicans don’t see a need for government involvement in such programs but are finding it hard to cut them and remain electable, there are serious fundamental differences that effect the policies each party enacts.
Look a little closer. You’ll see.
AP-
The Republicans are trying to starve out of existence government programs? Which Republicans are you talking about? Not the one’s we have now. Gingrich did try to limit the growth of federal programs, but was portrayed as the grinch who was going to take away poor senior’s social security checks. Now limiting growth is called a cut in Washington……
The GOP is filled with career politicians just as is the Democratic Party; neither really wants to cut government. What’s really funny (or sad) is how each party is running on the other’s platform to stay alive in a country with relatively little swing and an even divide.
So Bush gives us prescription drugs for seniors, steel tariffs, and a massive increase in domestic discretionary spending. And did you support Clinton’s NAFTA, welfare reform, DOMA, Iraq regime change policy, and the WTO while scrapping “managed competition” healthcare? If only the Libertarians could kick the drug thing.
Excellent post lawnboy, I saw Mr. Peterson on C-span recently. I wonder when there is going to be an honest debate in America about this issue. Time is running out.
Unfortunatley, except for Ralph Nader no one on either side has truly broached the subject of unfundability of the entitlements as they exist now.
Posted by: Greg at July 21, 2004 01:31 PMI don’t think political labels even apply to the citizens who are really concerned about issues like those Peterson raises. Our current system needs radical reform to even allow the possibility of a candidate and legislature that could take a truly long-term view of the important policies affecting our nation and the world. Democrats and Republicans alike commit political suicide by touching the third rail. The inevitable fiscal crisis that will be brought on by the insolvency of Medicare and Social Security is only one symptom of our diseased form of government. Our current system is equally incapable of dealing with a myriad of other long term issues such as the environment and dependence on fossil fuels. Campaign finance, the electoral system, gerrymandering, senate voting rules, Presidential veto powers, and on and on, are all designed to preserve the two party system and ensure that we never get real democracy. I have only recently become completely disillusioned. As much as I want to see Bush out office, my vote is going to Nader as a protest vote.
Posted by: Sean at August 2, 2004 03:19 PM
