My party, the Republican Party, has been taken over by extremists and has been thusly repudiated by the American voter.
The Abramoff scandal, the Foley scandal, and the leadership’s failure to address them didn’t help. But the real problem, I think, was in the party’s departure from its basic principles — that government should only do what people (or local governments) cannot do for themselves; that the government closest to the people is best, etc.
The GOP wasted time on things like banning federal funding for embryonic stem-cell research, and actually grew federal intervention in areas of local government like education (using up a lot of money at the top end of the problem, not at the classroom level where it might actually produce results). They didn’t get very far in the area of decreasing our dependence on foreign oil, where they could have made a change by using domestic resources and increasing research on alternatives instead. They didn’t fix social security, or medicare, or the other entitlements that make up most of the federal budget.
At the time of my midday post yesterday, the stock markets were decidedly down (foreign as well as domestic), but by the close, the Dow Jones Industrial Average, S&P500, and the Nasdaq were all up. I think the DJIA hit a record high.
The world will not end. Actually, having a divided government for a couple of years might bring significant improvement. I hope that the division is such that we will not see a swing to extremism on the other side, but that they will grow focused on a few priorities and actually work together to forge a centrist compromise on a few things that would made the biggest difference to our future.
As a nation, we have the ability to do amazing things, but we haven’t been performing up to that ability of late.
How’s that, Doc?
Afterthought: George Will said it better.Â
I’m sure it was difficult and heartfeld, netmom, but rather limited as mea culpas go. For example, there is good reason to believe that a major reason the Republican party had its ass handed to it was because of the Iraq debacle. Even W gets this. That’s why he was already arranging Rummy’s succession last week even as he was lying about it to the press. Yet somehow, you managed to get through your little essay without even mentioning how your party continues to defend the invasion and occupation of Iraq.
Other things that are remarkable by your omission: the poor federal response to Katrina; converting a federal budget surplus into an enormous federal budget deficit.
You’re getting warmer, netmom, but your keen ability to see the mote in another’s eye still far outstrips your willingness to acknowledge the beam in your own. Lets work on that, now, shall we?
That’s probably because I’m not certain what the right answer to Iraq is. I don’t think it’s “get out ASAP,” but neither does “stay the course” seem like an acceptable alternative. I do know of one quick fix, but you REALLY don’t want to go there. Trust me.
Katrina? The feds weren’t the only ones who botched it; there are plenty of locals (of the opposite party, BTW) who should bear a healthy dose of the blame.
But I thought I covered the deficit vs. surplus issue in what I identified as the real problem — a departure from the small government philosophy.
I’m encouraged by Nancy Pelosi’s comments that she will unite the liberal and conservative wings of her party to work a centrist course, but not all the items on her “consensus agenda” are really consensus items. Some are. Some are likely to be anti-business and divisive.
“I do know of one quick fix, but you REALLY don’t want to go there. Trust me.”
Nuke ’em back to the stone age, netmom? That would be the Christian thing to do?
“Katrina? The feds weren’t the only ones who botched it . . . ”
The feds assumed responsibility. Where I come from, when you assume responsibility, you accept the blame when things don’t work. But this buck-passing administration doesn’t seem to understand responsibility, except for shifting to others.
“But I thought I covered the deficit vs. surplus issue in what I identified as the real problem — a departure from the small government philosophy.”
This just shows that you don’t understand what “deficit” means. It is possible to have small government without a deficit and it is possible to have big government without deficit.
A deficit means that government, large or small, isn’t paying for what it is purchasing. The republicans love to cut taxes, which is easy and popular. They hate to cut benefits, which is hard and unpopular.
“Some are likely to be anti-business and divisive.”
Any specific examples? Or is just more talking points?
Specific example: raising the minimum wage from $5.15 to 7.something as their first initiative.
States can address this issue, and some have. Businesses can address it, and do (fast food jobs often pay more in this area than summer lifeguarding, because more teens would rather be lifeguards than flip burgers). That large an increase will almost certainly lead to an increase in unemployment.
Now, admittedly, I haven’t been paying a lot of attention, and if I was, I’d think it a rathery phyrric victory, because the Dems are neutered to being just the opposite of what the Reps are since Clinton left office (which I guess is always what the opposition party is).
Theres no real direction, that I see, in their agenda.
I think, very strongly, what would help is a wildcard. The emergence of one or two other parties, with enough to screw up votes, would be what the government needs.
Essentially, we’re run by two entities (Yeah, I know theres a name for that that probably ends with -mony, but I donn’t remember what).
“That large an increase will almost certainly lead to an increase in unemployment.”
More talking points, Netmom? Got data?
Minimum wage opponents often say that higher minimum wages will yield substantial job losses, but empirical evidence does not support this claim. A 1998 Economic Policy Institute study failed to find job loss associated with the 1996-97 minimum wage increase.[3] In fact, following that minimum wage increase, the low-wage labor market performed better than it had in decades (e.g., lower unemployment rates, increased average hourly wages, increased family income, decreased poverty rates).
This reality is leading many economists to support minimum wage increases as a useful policy measure, especially in an era of increasing economic inequality. In October 2004, 526 economists signed a statement that said, in part, that “a modest increase in the minimum wage would improve the well-being of low-wage workers and would not have the adverse effect that critics have claimed.” This list of economists included four Nobel Prize winners in economics and three past presidents of the American Economics Association.[4]
Most telling, however, are the experiences of the states that have raised their minimum wages over the last nine years, since they have given researchers a rare opportunity in empirical economics. [5] In essence, researchers have been able to compare states with minimum wage increases to similar states with no increase. These studies typically find that the job losses predicted by opponents have never materialized, and job growth has not been dampened in the 22 states with minimum wages higher than the federal level.
A study by the Fiscal Policy Institute found that “between 1998 and 2004, the job growth for small businesses in states with a minimum wage higher than the federal level was 6.2% compared to a 4.1% growth rate in states where the federal level prevailed.”[6] Similarly, in 2003, a study by the Center for Urban Economic Development examined the economic impact of the Illinois minimum wage and found no significant correlation between minimum wages and employment growth.[7]
Further evidence supports the finding that modest minimum wage increases have had no negative effects because employers are often able to offset the small cost increase through higher productivity, lower recruiting and training costs, decreased absenteeism, and increased worker morale. These findings are supported by earlier research from Princeton economists David Card and Alan Krueger.[8]
3. Bernstein, Jared and John Schmitt. 1998. Making Work Pay: The Impact of the 1996-1997 Minimum Wage Increase. Washington, D.C.: Economic Policy Institute. http://www.epi.org/content.cfm/studies_stmwp
4. Economists’ Statement. October 2004. It’s Time for a Raise. http://www.epi.org/minwage
5. For example: California Budget Project (February 2006) Minimum Wage Increases Boost the Earning of Low-Wage California Workers. Chapman, Jeff (May 2004) Employment and the minimum Wage: Evidence From Recent State Labor Market Trends. Economic Policy Institute. Fiscal Policy Institute. (April 2004) State Minimum Wages and Employment in Small Businesses, Fiscal Policy Institute (January 2004) Raising the Minimum Wage in New York: Helping Working Families and Improving the State’s Economy, Fiscal Policy Project a program of New Mexico Voices for Children (January 2006). An Economic Success Story: Job Growth and Poverty Reduction in States That Have Raised the Minimum Wage, Michigan League for Human Services (November 2005) A State Minimum Wage Helps Working Families Without Hurting Jobs, Oregon Center for Public Policy. (September 2005). Minimum Wage Employers Posting Strong Job Growth, Oregon Center for Public Policy (March 2001). Getting the Raise They Deserved: The Success of Oregon’s Minimum Wage and the Need for Reform, Pollin, Robert, Mark D. Brenner, and Jeannette Wicks-Lim (2004). Economic Analysis of the Florida Minimum Wage Proposal, Political Economy Research Institute. Watkins, Marilyn (January 2004) Still Working Well: Washington’s Minimum Wage and the Beginnings of Economic Recovery, Economic Opportunity Institute.
6. Fiscal Policy Institute. March 2006. “States with Minimum Wages Above the Federal Level Have had Faster Small Business and Retail Job Growth.” http://www.fiscalpolicy.org/FPISmallBusinessMinWage.pdf
7. Ron Baiman, Marc Doussard, Sharon Mastracci, Joe Persky, Nik Theodore. March 2003. “Illinois Minimum Wage Study.” Center for Urban Economic Development, University of Illinois at Chicago. http://www.uic.edu/cuppa/uicued/Publications/RECENT/MinimumWageStudy.pdf
8. Card, David, and Alan Krueger (1994) “Minimum wages and employment: A case study of the fast-food industry in New Jersey and Pennsylvania.” American Economics Review. Vol. 84, No. 4, pp. 487-96; Card, David, and Alan Krueger (1995) Myth and measurement: The new economics of the minimum wage. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press; Card, David, and Alan Krueger (1998) “A reanalysis of the effect of the New Jersey minimum wage increase on the fast-food industry with representative payroll data.” Cambridge, Mass.: NBER.
From: http://www.epi.org/content.cfm/ib228
I agree…If we could simply raise the minimum wage to about $15/hour then maybe we can finally eliminate poverty altogether. 😉
Heh.
A dicto simpliciter ad dictum secundum quid.
Now see Joel you have gone and blown my mind. Babel fish doesn’t have a latin to english translation.
“Simpliciter” I’ll cop too…not sure about the rest.
A dicto simpliciter ad dictum secundum quid (or just secundum quid) refers to the logical fallacy of basing a broad conclusion on a more limited set of observations.
In this case, data exists to show that a modest increase in the minimum wage to around $7/hr does not lead to an increase in unemployment. These empirical data falsify netmom’s assertion upthread. You committed the logical error of extrapolating from these data to the idea that if the minimum wage were raised to a level well outside the range of the data, it would eliminate poverty.
Don’t worry, I know your post was tongue-in-cheek. So was mine.
Or in economic terms, The Law of Deminishing returns. At some point the resource allocation will then be out of equalibrium.
Take doc’s latin/logic and economic theory and it is over dac. I too know it was toungue-in-cheek.